Barriers of West African women scientists in their research and academic careers: A qualitative research.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify barriers to the professional advancement of women researchers in West Africa.
METHODS: This was a descriptive, observational, cross-sectional qualitative study conducted between June and September 2020 in five West African countries (Ghana, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali). Interviews were conducted with 21 female and 9 male health researchers by video call. After transcription, the data was thematically analysed using an inductive process.
RESULTS: Four themes associated with barriers to women's careers development were identified. First. was family- and environmental-related barriers. Gender norms that assign domestic tasks and responsibilities to women reduced the time they were able to dedicate to research. Second was gender insensitive organisational culture and institutional policies that deepened gender disparities and made it more difficult for women to attain leadership positions. Third was the need for women in research to undergo emancipation programs to strengthen their resilience and ability to make critical decisions as strategic approaches to address the challenges faced by women in the academia were a lot more focused on addressing their relationship with their spouse. Forth, was the individual intermediate perception of professional and personal success which for many women, they perceive themselves as competent as their male counterparts and should not be subject to the gender discrimination they experience.
CONCLUSION: The web created between work-life and home-life for West African women researchers mainly as a result of the gender inequalities in the social structure will require more medium- and long-term strategic planning by institutional authorities to reduce gender disparities in research and academia. This work has highlighted the influence of family and social life on the professional lives of West African women researchers. The study could help contribute to the development of gender equality interventions for the career development of women researchers in West Africa.

Introduction

The participation of women in research is increasing as evidenced by data emerging from the global north. Statistics from Elsevier indicate that the proportion of female scientists in the European Union is 41% while women’s representation among investors is only 12% [1]. Despite the progress made, women and girls continue to be under-represented in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) [2]. Also, women researchers are still increasingly under-represented as they move up the ladder of an academic career [1]. The proportion of women represented in academia also varies depending on the domain, with more women in the life and health sciences while men were more dominant in the physical sciences. Also, women tend to spend more time on teaching and less time on research; in addition, women usually apply for smaller grants than men [3]. Furthermore, fewer women occupy leadership positions such as research coordinators or principal investigators [3].

Identified barriers to women’s participation in research include the absence of gender equity and gender supportive strategies in many research and academic institutions [3, 4]. Other barriers include gender bias in the employment process which implicitly favours men, poor institutional monitoring of women’s representation in research and academia, and the lack of institutional strategies to support work-life balance for women researchers [1]. Furthermore, women reportedly faced greater delays in completing their doctoral studies and producing a strong publication record, which could be attributed to gender and social norms [4].

In Africa, statistics on the percentage of women researchers show alarming disparities. In 2016, the overall percentage was 34%, but this figure hides great disparities that exist on the continent according to the African Development Bank [5]. In Cape Verde, for instance, 52% of researchers are women, 47% in Tunisia, and 40% in both of South Africa and Uganda. Guinea is at the other end of the spectrum with only 6% of researchers being women, followed by Ethiopia, where the rate is 7.6%, then by Mali with 10.6%, and Côte d’Ivoire with 16.5% [5]. The same dynamic is observed in Senegal, where women are poorly represented in the research community and even more so in the decision-making bodies of academic and research institutions [6]. In 2019, women represented only 29.3% of the academic staff, countrywide and all disciplines combined [7]. In Niger, women represented 10% of university teaching staff in 2005 [8], in Ghana, they represented 20% of health researchers in 2010, in Burkina Faso they represented 27.7% of personnel in medical science research in 2010, and in Mali women constituted only 14.9% of health researchers in 2006 [8].

Some efforts had been invested to improve women’s representations in institutions in Africa by the development of gender friendly policies. These include the of the Gender and Affirmative Action Implementation Centre which was mandated to implement gender policies in some institutions such as Kenyatta University [9]; the effort at improving women’s access to research funding through the establishment of the “Projet d’Appui à la Promotion des Enseignantes Chercheures du Sénégal” (PAPES) [10] and the establishment of an International Center for Girls’ and Women’s education in Africa by the African Union and Microsoft located in the French-speaking African countries [11] Despite these efforts, gender mainstreaming in development policies and programs are still insufficient, and Francophone West Africa remains one of the regions with the greatest gender disparities in the education sector [11]. Women still face major obstacles in accessing higher education [12].

The limiting sociocultural expectations placed on women’s role in research and academia can strongly affect their performance, and in turn, their opportunities for professional development [13]. Yet, women’s participation in global research is essential. Women’s participation in research increases the prospect of women’s specific health issues being addressed [7]. In addition, there are important moral, ethical, and justice arguments in favour of diversity in research as diverse teams are reported to generate more innovative solutions to problems and provide a more holistic view in general [13, 14]. There has however been limited discussion about the gendered processes in organisations that have led to the productions of the phenomenon described so far thereby leading to an assumption that research institutions and academia are gender-neutral and asexual in its practices [15]. The poor recognition of the way sexuality had shaped the work processes in academic institutions and the imprint of cultural practices on these processes have also been poorly described, discussed and addressed. This has largely arisen from the grounding of organisational processes in the working worlds and relations of men [16]; the failure for organisational structures and structural reforms to be shaped by feminist perspectives [17]; and the failure to acknowledge that disrespectful gender behaviours emanate from the enshrined gender culture of the institution are not just the result of an individual anomaly but that gender blind institutional policies, procedures and interaction birth these practices [15].

This study not only acknowledges the growing body of literature on women in research but a dearth in the academia especially in Africa. There is a growing recognition of the masculine genderization of the operations of the research institutions [18]; and there may be an assumption of such genderized operations of African research organisations because of the patriarchal societies found in Africa. There has however been some progress towards gender equality howbeit this progress is not uniform across the globe especially in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths (STEM) faculties; and the differences in expressions by context is also less often discussed. These differences in expression need to be understood to be able to develop context specific responses to the inequalities experienced in different contexts and settings.

This study built on Fagenson’s theory that acknowledges that women’s career advancement in any organization is influenced by societal and systematic factors; and that cultural and social attitudes toward gender responsibilities influences perceptions of job roles and responsibilities [19]. We also recognize that women’s representation in science and technology is often systematically minimized, undercut, and undercounted through a genderization process that impacts their employment opportunities; the narrative of their contributions [20]; and impacts access to family-related support or predisposes them to family-related discrimination [21]. Many African communities the family and societal environment promote gender subordination [22] and thus, where socio-cultural norms operates within an institutional framework often place women under male tutelage [23]. Gender bias and stereotype tendencies persist within these African institutions [24].

The question is whether research and academic institutions in West Africa reproduce societal gender relations and representations and whether they influence gender constructs at the organizational and individual levels with an impact on the career advancement of women researchers. In order to fill this gap in knowledge, this study aims to identify barriers to the career advancement of women researchers in some West African countries. The study aims to identify ways to improve on the inequitable representation of women in scientific research, therefore, contributing to higher diversity among researchers, which will, in turn, lead to higher quality research.

Materials and methods

Study design

This was a descriptive, observational, cross-sectional qualitative study. Data collection was done between June and September 2020.

Study population

The study population consisted of female and male scientists working in academic and research institutions that promote, design, conduct and/or disseminate biomedical, clinical and socio-epidemiological research in West Africa. Study participants were included if they reside in West Africa, can read and communicate in French, Portuguese or English (the three main official languages in the West African region), are members of academic or research institutions in West Africa working in health or social sciences discipline, and are over 18 years of age.

Sampling

Participants were recruited by non-probability sampling. The sample size was determined as the data was collected and analysed in an iterative process [25]. The aim was to seek a richness of information. Thus, the size was only known when saturation occurred and no more new information had been generated by interviews.

Data collection and analysis

In-depth individual interviews were conducted by video call using the Zoom platform. Consent forms were sent to the informants 24 hours in advance to obtain their signatures on the consent form. All interviews were recorded. An interview guide with open-ended questions was used during all interviews. Each interview lasted for an average of 60 minutes. The discussion guide explored six main topics as indicated in Table 1: information about the disease, relationship with healthcare professionals, daily life, social support, mood, and the future.

Table 1

Interviews guide.

Please, we would like to listen to your opinions and experiences on:
1	Professional career of researchers	Can you tell me about your professional career as a researcher?
2	Opinion on gender equality in the field of research	What do you think about gender equality in the field of research?
		How do you judge the policies of African academies in terms of gender equality?
		What are the organizations in African academies and research institutes doing in terms of gender equality?
3	Opportunities related to the gender and/or sex of the researcher	What opportunities for development have you had during your career as a researcher.
		(Probe discussions on opportunities received related to the researcher’s gender)
		What is the comparison you can make between the trajectory of a female researcher and that of a male researcher (in terms of opportunities)?
4	Barriers related to the gender and/or sex of the researcher	What barriers have you encountered during your career as a researcher? -
		(Explore any theme on discrimination due to the researcher’s gender in the academic environment)
		What are the environmental barriers that may impede the careers of women researchers? (Explore about the rôle of family and the social environment)
5	Difficulties of women researchers in their professional careers	What are the difficulties encountered by women researchers in attaining positions of responsibility?
		Can you share any personal experiences? (Ask question if discussant identified difficulties with career development)
		How would you compare the trajectory of a female researcher with that of a male researcher (in terms of difficulties)?
6	Recommendations for achieving gender equality in universities and research institutes	Can you give us recommendations for improving gender equality in universities and research institutes?
		What are the coping strategies employed by women researchers in the face of the difficulties and obstacles they encounter in advancing their careers?
		Are there other coping strategies that women researchers can adopt to build their careers in research?

The data analysis was analysed by creating a theoretical corpus from the full transcripts of the interviews. The interviews were transcribed as the data was collected from the digital recording. The authors used thematic analysis through an objective and systematic analysis of the manifested content within the oral discourse [26]. An inductive analysis was done to explore the research objects [27]. After the transcription, the data was organised into evocative themes in relation to the interview.

The analysis of the coded data followed the following steps: 1) extraction of the different units of analysis from the participants’ discourse using the Nvivo software, 2) horizontal analysis of the theoretical corpus in relation to the research objectives, 3) creation of the theory from the analysis of the coded data, and 4) validation of the meaning of the statements by triangulation of sources and methods. The data analysis was carried out using the NVivo 12 software.

Ethics

Participation in this study was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The consent form was prepared and shared prior to any interview in the language chosen by the participant. The data collected was kept confidential. The identity of individuals who consented to participate was not included in the transcripts. The audio recordings were anonymised. In all uses of the results, anonymity was respected, with no identifying information on the notes and analysis materials. No remuneration was provided to the informants. The approval of the Senegalese National Health Research Ethics Committee was obtained for this study (0000050/MSAS/DPRS/CNERS).

Results

Interviews were conducted with 21 female researchers and 9 male researchers from Ghana, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali (Table 2). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 56-years-old, their years of experience as researchers ranged from 5 years to over 30 years, and they all had a PhD or its equivalent.

Table 2

Sex-disaggregated and sociodemographic characteristics of participants.

Participants	Female N = 21	Male N = 9
Marital status
Single	1	0
Married	19	9
divorced	1	0
Study level
PhD	19	9
PhD Student	2	0
Master	0	0
Religion
Muslim	18	8
Christian	3	0
Atheist	0	1
Age
25–35 years	2	2
35–45 years	14	3
>45 years old	5	4
Years of professional experience
0–5 years	3	2
5–10 years	11	5
Over than 10 years	7	2
Country Representation
Senegal	18	7
Ghana	1	0
Bénin	1	2
Burkina Faso	1	0

Though participants had diverse professional and personal life experiences, the four themes that resonated throughout the interviews reflected their perception of gender inequality in academia and research institutions irrespective of their country of origin as highlighted in Table 3.

Table 3

Summary of the thematic analysis of the main theme definitions and sub-theme categories.

Themes	Sub-topics
Organisational culture and institutional policies	Barriers: gender unequal environment, office politics, organisational barriers, workload, institutional policies, faculty track, promotion limitations, attrition
	Facilitators: leadership development, progress on diversity and inclusion, progressive change, opportunities for advancement, continuous training, opportunities for women
Family and environmental barriers	Barriers: position of women in the family, the position of women in society, unequal work-life balance, subordination in marital relationships
	Facilitators: prioritisation of work and private life, relationship, equitable roles and responsibilities in the marital relationship
Individual characteristic—intermediate perception of professional and personal success	Barriers: lack of confidence, personal limitations, behaviours based on perceived expectations, challenging gender biases, gender as a barrier
	Facilitators: self-efficacy, self-advocacy, hard work, career satisfaction, professional growth, positive reputation, gender as an opportunity
Resilience strategies of women researchers in the face of obstacles to career advancement	Perception of difficulties, career stagnation, slow career progress, personal strategies for dealing with obstacles, systemic strategies for dealing with obstacles

Organisational culture and institutional policies and practices

Organisational culture and institutional policies and practices affect opportunities for women to advance their career. Organisational culture is defined as the underlying values, beliefs and principles that serve as the foundation of an organisation’s management system, as well as the set of management practices and behaviours that both exemplify and reinforce these core principles [28]. Most of the interviewees identified that few women are working in most research institutions and organizations in West Africa. This discrepancy in gender representation in research institutions reflects the under-representation of women in schools in general and less so a situation that arises from discriminatory recruitment. Indeed, few women reached this level of university education where they could compete with men.

"At the University of Ziguinchor, at least for the example of 162 people, we are only 10 women professor-researchers".

(Female, 40 years old, Professor-researcher)

Institutional discriminatory practices were discreet and implicit. A number of the interviewees were not consciously aware of discriminatory practices in the organizational systems and so discounted these practices as norms, and therefore were less able to report them during the interviews. Identified institutional gender discriminatory practices include the relegation of some subordinate roles to women such as taking meeting minutes while visible leadership roles were reserved for men.

Also, interviewees reported that the marital status of the female researcher plays a determining role in her being given leadership roles. For example, many leadership roles cannot be held by unmarried–single, divorcee–women; as being unmarried reportedly implied the woman has not acquired enough managerial skills to run an office. Also, unmarried women who hold leadership positions were touted as having gotten the job through sexual favouritism.

"I was a general secretary in a university union. So, I coordinated a trade union section and I got a number of negative things from that. For example, people said, ’Because she doesn’t have a husband, she has time to fight for everything and anything. I also had to fight to safeguard my reputation which at one point was tainted by nasty rumours about how I got into that job…",

(Female, 49 years old, Professor-researcher)

Some discrimination was also reported concerning the right to maternity while men are not denied the right to paternity in any situation or circumstances.

"I was in a project in London, the project lasted two years and the motto was: no baby for two years. You’re not allowed to have a child, you’re not allowed to…"

(Female, 50 years old, Professor-researcher)

Many interviewees also reported difficulties in finding opportunities to advance their careers. They report that there are few gender-focused grants. In addition, they, like men, are confronted with the lack of funding opportunities for research in Africa.

Family and environmental barriers

This theme deals with the social environment that affects the freedom of creative expression of individuals in society. A society shares a set of morals and traditions and is characterized by collective activities, interests and behaviour [29]. When a member deviates from the established norms and patterns of the group, his or her behaviour is considered subversive and threatens the stability and security that others derive from group membership. This theme describes how the family and social environment interferes with the career development of women researchers.

Interviewees identified the gender roles ascribed to women in the family and society as a barrier to research career advancement. Women are nurtured to be home carers and thus, they play a central role in the life of their families as a wife and/or mother. The responsibility to care and cater for the needs of the immediate and extended family–the children, husband, and elderly–is time-consuming and leaves little time to address research career advancement needs including missing multiple opportunities for travels, collaborations, networking, and capacity building.

Husbands played a decisive role in the future of the wife’s professional career. Many interviewees identified with the need to have an understanding husband to be able to have a successful research career. A researcher narrated how she was forced to give up a travel grant (a traineeship in a research department in Europe) after a year in order to ’look after her husband’ when she was not yet a mother. Her husband had demanded she return. Another researcher noted:

"I had two maternities. It was very, very difficult. Then we have mobility grants that we sometimes can’t use because we don’t want to leave the country. We have children,…it was really an obstacle for me.”

(Female, 37 years old, Professor-researcher)

The majority of the interviewees emphasised the difficulty of achieving a work-life balance as their life balance was skewed towards prioritizing raising and caring for the family due to the socio-cultural values placed on women as homemakers in West African. Some female researchers, therefore, chose to put their research careers on hold while supporting the growth and development of the family.

Male researchers corroborated this narrative of women prioritizing family responsibilities. This family support enabled men to devote quality time to their professional work. They recognized that the prioritization of family responsibilities–a responsibility not equitably shared with men—by women was at the expense of their research career.

"If the little family is happy, God is happy”

(Female, 42 years old, Professor-researcher)

"…to women researchers, we say, "Find enough time. It’s not your husband’s job to look after the children or the kitchen. So they feel guilty. In fact, we need to change our mentality as African women because I don’t think that’s how it is in Europe…".

(Female, 42 years old, Professor-researcher)

The in-laws were also reported to influence the researcher’s career. The in-laws were there to remind the woman researcher of her social duty towards her family and in-laws.

"Sometimes when my husband agrees that I can travel for scientific conferences, it is the in-laws who say that it is not possible, you can’t be away all the time, etc.”

(Female, 45 years old, Professor-researcher)

Interviewees also identified that women also have to handle societal roles assigned to women, from which female researchers were not exempt. Women were expected to attend family ceremonies and socialize with the extended family. These social rules resulting from the gender roles ascribed to women in the African society further depletes the time women can devote to research.

“We have social obligations although being a female academic, you have to go to christenings, to that kind of stuff…”

(Female, 48 years old, Professor-researcher)

Intermediate perception of professional and personal success

This theme deals with individual characteristics, which describe the dispositional, habitual and motivational traits discernible in an individual and which can help explain and predict certain behaviours [30]. Individuals vary in how they perceive and respond to obstacles. The women interviewed felt as competent as the men and felt that competency should be the main measure for assessment in the research enterprise.

"But sometimes it turns out that the woman has as many skills as the men, um, but nevertheless she is rejected because she is a woman. So if she has the same skills as the men, that’s it and everything, and she has the knowledge, she must be given the place she deserves.

(Female, 36 years old, Professor-researcher)

Sadly, this is not the case. Many participants indicated that women have to cross multiple hurdles during their research career that have to do with perceptions of womanhood. This made what is an already inherently difficult field more challenging to manage as a woman. Women had to do a lot more to prove themselves and are consistently required to show commitment and professionalism because their work patterns do not conform to the academic research culture prescribed by men. This forced many women to conform to certain practices at the cost of personal values and interests. Women also needed to negotiate the gender stereotypical labelling of their moods and characters been modulated by female hormones as the quote below indicates:

"I know that anyway, the female touch can be really good… But, whenever there are a lot of women in a place sometimes… They are often a bit ’knife-edged, I don’t know if it’s hormones or what [laughs].

(Male, 40 years old, researcher)

"A woman should not speak loudly, should not challenge…It is expected that this is exactly the same in the professional spheres and this is problematic.

(Female, 36, Professor-researcher)

Resilience strategies of women researchers

The notion of ’sacrifice’ came up several times in the discourse of women researchers. For most women, sacrifices had to be made in order to succeed in an academic career.

"The academic career requires a lot of sacrifices because what you have to do at university you have to do. You have to do it because you chose it. So nobody else is going to do it for you.”

(Female, 40 years old, Professor-researcher)

In the bid to fulfil both workplace and home-related responsibilities, some women researchers indicated that they preferred to work at night after finishing their household chores. Others, however, acknowledged that they had to work at their own pace leading often to a delay in the progression with their research career when compared to their male peers. Marriage was therefore considered a major obstacle to research career development by the interviewees.

Interviewees identified strategies to address the limitations that the social institution of marriage placed on their research career pathways. Some women researchers were happy to be divorced in order to pursue their careers with little stress.

"Marriage, in fact, is an institution that blocks women’s matrimonial careers, uh because I have found that the women who are the most successful are often women who have been married and who are finally relieved of the burdens of marriage, relieved of the problems of the husband or the in-laws…"

(Female, 36 years old, Professor-researcher)

Other women researchers expressed they have chosen to be in polygamous households, as being the second wife would allow them the time to address their research career needs when their husbands are with the other wife or wives. For some, it was a question of entering a form of social homogamy with their spouse wherein they identified spouses with whom they shared the same professional ideologies. This would guarantee them spousal support for their career development as they would understand the time investment needed. For a smaller number of women informants, the solution was to marry later in life, after they had achieved a certain status (advancement/position of responsibility) in their research career.

Discussion

In Africa, research on gender relations is deeply rooted in the mechanisms underlying the exclusion, domination or marginalization of women in society and/or in the workplace [31, 32]. This research is part of this framework and explores the barriers in the academic and research environment that impede women’s full participation and development. Though we observed that women in West Africa also had slower research career development like their counterparts in the Global North, the reasons for the slowness may differ to an extent.

Family and environmental barriers remain the greatest barriers to women’s participation and progression in research. This result confirms those of Milewski et al. who consider that women often struggle to find a balance between work and family life, which is a factor of precariousness for these women [33]. Our study has shown that women researchers find it difficult to find time to devote to research and to progress in the field. They are often subject to family responsibilities that require them to confine themselves to domestic activities and devote less time to research-related activities. This corroborates with Sayer who consider that women spend far more time on unpaid domestic work than men [34]. In addition, the subordination of women in African households [35] implies that women have to seek their husbands’ approval and support to make a success of their research career. These constraints may have led several potential female researchers, who are less able to adopt the enumerated coping strategies identified by interviewees, to stay away from the research enterprise. This reaction may be a reason for the persistent gender disparities in research as a career in West Africa, especially in the field of biomedical research [31]. This merits further research and explorations.

Women also struggle to navigate their careers [36]. The study also illustrated the effect of organizational influences such as male-dominated networks, bullying and harassment [36] as research institutions in West Africa reproduce and mirror the acts of gender inequalities in society [37]. These institutions have organisational and institutional cultures that meet the needs of male professors and students [38]. Leadership patterns, beliefs, symbols, structures, ceremonies, power and information flows are modelled on male expectations and experiences [38]. Women, therefore, had the additional task of negotiating the male-dominated practices in the research enterprise as much as they had to negotiate for home-front support from spouse and family. For many women, these negotiations are too hard a price to pay and, therefore, are forced to relegate the career tussle to conform to gender norms and values. A few academic institutions, however, have programs supporting gender equity. Existing programs primarily target the individual or interpersonal level of the social ecological interaction [39].

The discourse on strategies to address challenges women face with their career trajectory development centred on spousal related actions that indicate the need for the empowerment of women to be able to emancipate themselves. Female emancipation refers to distancing oneself from certain family, matrimonial, or statutory constraints reserved for women, while empowerment refers to the multidimensional socio-political process of women themselves, who are individually and collectively aware of the relations of domination that they are seeking to transform [40]. Some women entrepreneurs in Togo, who, in order to devote themselves to their careers, have expressed the wish that their husbands take a second wife [41] as a polygamous union enabled them to relegate domestic tasks to a younger woman, thereby allowing them the needed time to devote to their careers [41]. Divorce was less often mentioned as a solution or a way of reclaiming their personal trajectory [42]. This may be due also to the concerns about societal stigma associated with not being married. In addition, not being married may compromise the career development they require, as unmarriedness deters from them being entrusted with leadership roles. This circle of events indicates the complexity of the decisions a female researcher in West Africa may have to make for the purpose of career advancement. While empowerment programs may help strengthen women’s resolve to overcome the barriers to their research progress in the short term, more medium and long-term strategies are needed to overcome the limitations placed by the gender inequalities rooted within the research and academic structures.

One of the strengths of the study was the conduct of the research exploration across West Africa, a region with the same cultural values and perspectives. The findings, therefore, become applicable to the region and can facilitate support by regional bodies. The study, however, has a few limitations. The data collected was limited to self-reported information on research and academic advancement and gender-related experiences. The coding and analysis of this data were conducted in this context. Additional themes and perspectives derived from the content-rich narratives of the participants merit further exploration. The experiences of empowerment of women researchers in their homes would also benefit from further exploration in future studies. The data also covers only 5 of the 15 countries in West Africa. Despite these limitations, the results provide findings of a regional context that informs on the gender disparity observed in the career trajectory of women in research, thereby, adding context to the global discussion on promoting gender equity in global research career development.

Conclusion

A complex set of factors has contributed to the gender inequality experienced by women in universities and research institutions in West Africa. The same complexity is reflected in the decision-making process by women researchers in an effort to extricate themselves out of the limiting web and make a success of their career. The gender insensitive organizational culture and institutional policies of these universities and research institutions make the extricating process laborious for women thereby causing many to succumb to the pressure to conform to gender expectations which jeopardizes their career development. A gender-sensitive change in organizational culture and institutional policies and practices may likely result in a significant increase in career research progression for women in research in West Africa. It is the authors’ hope that this research will contribute to the development of a theory on the barriers and facilitators to the academic and professional advancement of researchers as well as to the development of evidence-based interventions to close the gender-related gaps in West African academic and research institutions.

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-20760

Barriers of West African women scientists in their research and academic careers: A qualitative research

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sougou,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Teresa Carvalho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information.

3. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is a very timely and relevant topic. The paper is relevant and of interest to the journal readers. However, it still needs some minor revisions in order to be accepted for publication. Authors should take into detail consideration the recommendations made by the two reviewers. It is particularly relevant that the authors redesign the theoretical framework.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses a very interesting, under researched topic and specially targeting this geographical context. I believe the authors have very relevant data which can enhance knowledge on the topic addressed but it deserves further (theoretical) discussion in order to better contribute to this domain of knowledge and be published. Therefore, I suggest to improve the theoretical review at the beginning – introduction. The topic on the mechanisms underlying the exclusion, domination or marginalization of women in society and/or in the workplace, preventing them to fully progress in their career is very important and this work contributes a relevant step in advancing knowledge in this field. Therefore, the manuscript would benefit by including more reflections and literature about the fact that academia suffers from the myth of being a gendered organization (Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations; Hearn, J., Husu, L. 2011.

Understanding gender: Some implications for science and technology; Husu, Liisa (2013). Interrogating gender paradoxes in changing academic and scientific organizations.

And other literature targeting these issues in academia (Leathwood, C., Read, B.

2008. Gender and the Changing Face of higher Education. A Feminized Future?; Husu, L. 2005Women's Work-Related and Family-Related Discrimination and Support in Academia; Carvalho & Diogo (2018). Women rectors and leadership narratives: The same male norm?

And there is also more literature that problematizes the argument that women tend to spend more time on teaching and less on research, cf. e.g., Carvalho & Diogo (2021) Time and Academic Multitasking–Unbounded Relation Between Professional and Personal Time. these are just some references that can help to ground the theoretical contributions of this work.

The english can be improved, although it is perfectly understandable.

Other minor things: Page 8 abstract

Lines 27 and 28: “After transcription, the data was thematically analysed using an inductive process. The Nvivo 12 software was used”. This might be left outside the abstract and be included only in the methodology section

Page 9, line 47 – include the acronym (STEM) at the end of that statement (before reference [2]).

These are just small details

Reviewer #2: The study addresses a very timely topic, that of gender inequalities in Higher Education (HE) and Research and Innovation (R&I) institutions which has been on top of discussion in recent years both in academic research and in public debate. The paper tackles two key areas - gender equality in careers and in decision-making bodies - in five West African countries (Ghana, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali). Specifically, it has two main goals: to identify obstacles to the career advancement of women in HE and R&I institutions and to identify strategies to achieve a more equitable representation of women in those institutions. To address these research goals, thirty in depth interviews have been conducted in research institutions of these five West African countries.

Overall, the language is clear, the paper is well organized and makes an important contribution to the literature on gender equality in the African context which is considerably less developed than that focusing on European or North-American cases.

Nonetheless, while the study appears to be sound, it fails to relate to previous research in this area both regarding gender equality in the specific institutional context of the academia, and also concerning gender equality in the context of West African societies. Therefore, I suggest that both the Introduction and the Discussion are reviewed and possibly rewritten to take previous research into account.

Next, I make some detailed suggestions regarding each of the main aspects of the study:

1 - Research question and theoretical framework:

The study would benefit from a narrower research question focusing primarily on the barriers or obstacles to a more equitable representation of women and men in HE and R&I institutions. This should then be analyzed considering the vast literature on multidimensional explanations for gender inequalities, namely the role of factors at the institutional, cultural and individual levels. More specifically, relevant research on gender equality in HE and R&I institutions is currently under development (see, for example, international projects: “ACT”, “UNiGUAL”, “CHANGE”, among others) and have already produced important outputs that can be incorporated in the study's theoretical and analytical framework. In fact, in the Results sub-sections (pages 8 to 15) different types of obstacles are rightly identified: at the organizational, family and individual levels. These are indeed part of multidimensional analyses of gender inequalities and should be connected to the literature reviewed in the Introduction so that there is a dialogue between previous research and the results of this particular study.

2 - Case selection and justification:

As most research on the topic is based on cases from the global north, it is crucial that the study provides an adequate background for the cases it addresses, namely the five selected West African countries. It would be useful to point out not only the gender patterns in academia (which is briefly done only in the cases of Mali and Senegal) but also more general gender equality indicators as provided by different international organizations. This contextualization of the selected cases would ideally include information on policy measures and actions adopted by HE and R&I institutions regarding gender equality in these countries. In this sense, I suggest the inclusion of some references to secondary literature on these topics in the selected country cases. This initial framework would then allow for the definition of the study’s main expectations regarding the barriers to gender equality in research careers and in decision making bodies which are considerably underdeveloped.

3 - Methods:

The methodological section is clear, organized and technically sound, although I do not consider absolutelly necessary the subdivion in "study design", "study population", "sampling" and "data collection and analysis", as in pages 4 to 6. Additionally, some minor issues can be improved as in the case of the first paragraph of the Results section (page 6) which should be part of the sample description, on page 5.

4 - Results and Conclusions:

The results of the content analysis of the interviews are clearly presented and support the study’s conclusions. However, as previously mentioned, it would benefit from a clearer and more rigorous dialogue with the Introduction. As an example, on page 15, the three initial sentences of the Discussion report to three key aspects underpinning the investigation: the research problem, the theoretical framework and the selected cases. However, neither of these aspects had been sufficiently covered beforehand and the reader feels the need to go back to the introductory section seeking for more information on these points which are only mentioned on a very superficial manner.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

18 Oct 2021

Responses to Reviewers

Reviewers 1 :

The discussion was reinforced from a theoretical perspective. Fagenson's theory was used as a theory framework. The literature suggested by reviewer 1 has been exploited and integrated as being relevant to the work done in our introduction.

Lines 27 and 28: the sentence referring to a part of the methodology in the abstract has been removed. It is found in the methodology

Page 9, line 47: the acronym STEM has been introduced before reference 2

Reviewer 2

1- The context was enhanced with data on African academies and their gender policies. Previous research has been integrated into the study.

2- Previous studies concerning the themes have been included in the study's theorical and analitycal framework. The introduction has been improved by the latter allowing a better understanding of the research results.

3- A better contextualization of African research institutes was done. Policies regarding gender equality in African research spaces, African institutes and the countries concerned by the study were made.

4- The methodology section has been improved in terms of form. The subdivisions (study design, study population, sampling and data collection and analysis) and have been removed

5- The introduction has been improved to better support the results and conclusions of the study

Editor’s comments

1. We have respected PLOS ONE’s style requirements

2. The participation of researchers from different West African countries in this research is governed by the provisions of the West African Network of National Ethics Committees of Research for Health (WANEC), of which the National Ethics Committee of Research for Health of Senegal is a member

3. We include more information on the number of interviewers and their characteristics

4. Reference list are reviewed

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Mar 2022

Barriers of West African women scientists in their research and academic careers: A qualitative research

PONE-D-21-20760R1

Dear Dr. ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juliet Kiguli, MA, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Waiting for further decision from the Editorial office. Thank you for the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

4 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-20760R1

Barriers of West African women scientists in their research and academic careers: A qualitative research

Dear Dr. Sougou:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juliet Kiguli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE