Scientists explain the underrepresentation of women in physics compared to biology in four national contexts

Abstract

Women are consistently underrepresented in biology when compared to physics. Yet how scientists themselves explain the causes of this underrepresentation is understudied outside the US context. In this research, we ask the following question: How do scientists in different national/regional contexts explain why there are fewer women in physics than biology? Using original survey data collected among academic biologists and physicists in the US (N = 1777), Italy (N = 1257), France (N = 648), and Taiwan (N = 780), we examine how scientists' social identities, social locations, and country context shape essentialist, individualist, and structural explanations of gender inequality. Findings indicate that scientists across national contexts attribute the unequal gender distribution in physics and biology to women's individual choices. Explanations for the gender distribution also vary by social identities and social locations (gender, discipline, and seniority) in country‐specific ways. Scientists and advocates ought to engage conversations that explicitly confront scientists' assumptions about individual choices in global science.

Evaluating the cross-disciplinary utility of anonymizing applications for scientific equipment in the Australian research sector

“…The pattern aligns with anonymization's success for gender equity in US and Canadian astronomy (Johnson & Kirk 2020;Strolger & Natarajan 2019). The relevance of disciplinary (Chan et al 2023) and organizational (Hiscox et al 2017) cultures may be pertinent in shaping gender differences and responding to gender equity measures such as anonymization (Barnes 2022).…”

“…Researchers have highlighted the influence of other structural factors which compound gender differences in research outcomes, as well as women's underrepresentation in STEM and the higher incidence and impact of career disruptions for women (Danell and Hjerm, 2013;Kewley 2019). It is possible that our study's specific focus on anonymized peer-reviewing, despite being evidence based (Chan et al 2023;Steinþórsdóttir et al 2020;Strolger & Natarajan 2019), may have overlooked the less recognisable structural antecedents that contribute to women's unequal access to resources.…”