Scientific collaborations are precarious territory for women

Reardon, Sara

doi:10.1038/d41586-022-01204-1

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This privilege towards White able-bodied heterosexual males contributes to a toxic feedback loop such that minoritised voices are not being heard due to a lack of representation, thus disincentivising minorities from participating in academia and the workforce. These power relations and inequalities are also clearly observable across academia, with Anthropology (Tallmana & Bird, 2020), Ecology (Tseng et al, 2020), Engineering (Rampler et al, 2022), Ethology (Cooke, 2022;Howard, 2022), and Psychology (Gruber et al, 2021;Ledgerwood et al, 2022) facing issues of representation of minorities and acknowledging their contribution (Reardon, 2022). Furthermore, the hidden curriculum (Parsons et al, 2022) and current academic infrastructure focused on metrics and closed scientific systems perpetuate global inequalities and stereotypes reinforcing hierarchies that silence marginalised voices and reinforce their subordination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education

Elsherif¹,

Middleton²,

Phan³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Not all people conform to what is socially construed as the norm and divergences should be expected. Neurodiversity is fundamental to the understanding of human behaviour and cognition. However, neurodivergent individuals are often stigmatised, devalued, and objectified. This position statement presents the perspectives of neurodivergent authors, the majority of whom have personal lived experiences of neurodivergence(s), and discusses how research and academia can and should be improved in terms of research integrity, inclusivity and diversity. The authors describe future directions that relate to lived experience and systematic barriers, disclosure, directions on prevalence, stigma, intersection of neurodiversity and open scholarship, and provide recommendations that can lead to personal and systematic changes to improve acceptance of neurodivergent individuals’ lived experiences within academia.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education

Elsherif¹,

Middleton²,

Phan³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research

Love

Stephens

Fosdick

et al. 2022

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple studies from the literature suggest that a high proportion of women on scientific teams contributes to successful team collaboration, but how the proportion of women impacts team success and why this is the case, is not well understood. One perspective suggests that having a high proportion of women matters because women tend to have greater social sensitivity and promote even turn-taking in meetings. Other studies have found women are more likely to collaborate and are more democratic. Both explanations suggest that women team members fundamentally change team functioning through the way they interact. Yet, most previous studies of gender on scientific teams have relied heavily on bibliometric data, which focuses on the prevalence of women team members rather than how they act and interact throughout the scientific process. In this study, we explore gender diversity in scientific teams using various types of relational data to investigate how women impact team interactions. This study focuses on 12 interdisciplinary university scientific teams that were part of an institutional team science program from 2015 to 2020 aimed at cultivating, integrating, and translating scientific expertise. The program included multiple forms of evaluation, including participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and surveys at multiple time points. Using social network analysis, this article tested five hypotheses about the role of women on university-based scientific teams. The hypotheses were based on three premises previously established in the literature. Our analyses revealed that only one of the five hypotheses regarding gender roles on teams was supported by our data. These findings suggest that scientific teams may create ingroups, when an underrepresented identity is included instead of excluded in the outgroup, for women in academia. This finding does not align with the current paradigm and the research on the impact of gender diversity on teams. Future research to determine if high-functioning scientific teams disrupt rather than reproduce existing hierarchies and gendered patterns of interactions could create an opportunity to accelerate the advancement of knowledge while promoting a just and equitable culture and profession.

show abstract

Strengthening the gendered health promotion agenda

Tremblay

2022

Health Promotion International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific collaborations are precarious territory for women

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education

Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education

The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research

Strengthening the gendered health promotion agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About