Literature DB >> 24982167

Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women.

Jason M Sheltzer1, Joan C Smith2.   

Abstract

Women make up over one-half of all doctoral recipients in biology-related fields but are vastly underrepresented at the faculty level in the life sciences. To explore the current causes of women's underrepresentation in biology, we collected publicly accessible data from university directories and faculty websites about the composition of biology laboratories at leading academic institutions in the United States. We found that male faculty members tended to employ fewer female graduate students and postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) than female faculty members did. Furthermore, elite male faculty--those whose research was funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, or who had won a major career award--trained significantly fewer women than other male faculty members. In contrast, elite female faculty did not exhibit a gender bias in employment patterns. New assistant professors at the institutions that we surveyed were largely comprised of postdoctoral researchers from these prominent laboratories, and correspondingly, the laboratories that produced assistant professors had an overabundance of male postdocs. Thus, one cause of the leaky pipeline in biomedical research may be the exclusion of women, or their self-selected absence, from certain high-achieving laboratories.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gender diversity; women in STEM

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24982167      PMCID: PMC4104900          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1403334111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  7 in total

1.  Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition.

Authors:  Elisabeth D Martinez; Jeannine Botos; Kathleen M Dohoney; Theresa M Geiman; Sarah S Kolla; Ana Olivera; Yi Qiu; Geetha Vani Rayasam; Diana A Stavreva; Orna Cohen-Fix
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Wendy M Williams
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia.

Authors:  A N Pell
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Sex Differences in Math-Intensive Fields.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Wendy M Williams
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2010-10-01

5.  Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Authors:  Corinne A Moss-Racusin; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood.

Authors:  Kimberley Ferriman; David Lubinski; Camilla P Benbow
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2009-09

7.  Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection.

Authors:  Stephen L Morgan; Dafna Gelbgiser; Kim A Weeden
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2013-04-08
  7 in total
  58 in total

1.  National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

Authors:  Wendy M Williams; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Leading scientists favour women in tenure-track hiring test.

Authors:  Boer Deng
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  BJCP 40th anniversary: moving forward, looking back.

Authors:  Annette Gilchrist; Yoon K Loke; Andrew A Somogyi; Adam F Cohen; James M Ritter
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  Gender disparities among independent fellows in biomedical research.

Authors:  Jason M Sheltzer
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 54.908

5.  Gender differences in question-asking at the 2019 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting.

Authors:  Saira Moazzam; Lynn Onstad; Heather O'Leary; Ariela Marshall; Ifeyinwa Osunkwo; Emily Du; Tamara Dunn; Julianne Dunlap; Bill Reed; Selina Luger; Stephanie J Lee
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-11-10

6.  Seeding crystallography.

Authors:  Michelle Francl
Journal:  Nat Chem       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 24.427

7.  Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder.

Authors:  Ian M Handley; Elizabeth R Brown; Corinne A Moss-Racusin; Jessi L Smith
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Who Has the Advantage? Race and Sex Differences in Returns to Social Capital at Home and at School.

Authors:  Mikaela J Dufur; Toby L Parcel; John P Hoffmann; David B Braudt
Journal:  Res Soc Stratif Mobil       Date:  2016-07-08

9.  STEM Education.

Authors:  Yu Xie; Michael Fang; Kimberlee Shauman
Journal:  Annu Rev Sociol       Date:  2015-05-04

10.  A survey-based analysis of the academic job market.

Authors:  Jason D Fernandes; Sarvenaz Sarabipour; Christopher T Smith; Natalie M Niemi; Nafisa M Jadavji; Ariangela J Kozik; Alex S Holehouse; Vikas Pejaver; Orsolya Symmons; Alexandre W Bisson Filho; Amanda Haage
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 8.140

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.