4 juli 2018
Agnes Wold Artikel i DN 26 april 2002
4 juni 2018
Jörg Müller, Ulf Sandström The GEDII project carried out a survey across 16 European countries,
capturing 1357 individual responses distributed over 159 R&D teams. The
overall design of this research project is unique in that survey responses at
the team level are combined with established performance measures, i.e.
bibliometric publication counts retrieved from Web of Science. This online
discussion will address the main results of the survey as well as discussing
alternatives to existing performance measures from a gender perspective.
23 april 2018
Ulf Sandström, Peter van den Besselaar Understanding the quality of science systems requires international comparative studies, which are difficult because of the lack of comparable data especially about inputs in research. In this study, we deploy an approach based on change instead of on levels of inputs and outputs: an approach that to a large extent eliminates the problem of measurement differences between countries. We firstly show that there are large differences inefficiency between national science systems, defined as the increase in output (highly cited papers) per percentage increase in input (funding). We then discuss our findings using popular explanations of performance differences: differences in funding systems (performance related or not), differences in the level of competition, differences in the level of university autonomy, and differences in the level of academic freedom. Interestingly, the available data do not support these common explanations. What the data suggest is that efficient systems are characterized by a well-developed ex post evaluation system combined with considerably high institutional funding and relatively low university autonomy (meaning a high autonomy of professionals). On the other hand, the less efficient systems have a strong ex ante control, either through a high level of so-called competitive project funding,or through strong power of the university management. Another conclusion is that more and better data are needed.
15 oktober 2017
Maria Gunther Två år i rad har Nobelprisen bara gått till män. Finansieringssystem hindrar forskande
kvinnor att nå ledande positioner och få publicera betydande artiklar, och skillnaderna ser likadana ut som på 1960-talet, enligt en ny rapport. (innehåller bl a intervju med Ulf Sandström)
10 oktober 2017
Allan Eriksson Sex procent av de mest aktiva forskarna producerar lika
mycket som de övriga 94 procenten. Av de mest produktiva
är nära en tredjedel kvinnor. Men excellenssatsningarna som
ska stödja Sveriges toppforskning går nästan uteslutande till
– Kvinnor tenderar att hamna i en ond cirkel som förstärker
föreställningar om att kvinnor är sämre forskare, säger Ulf
Sandström, som tillsammans med Agnes Wold har slutfört en
stor studie om jämställdhet inom akademin.
8 september 2017
Ulf Sandstrom, Peter van den Besselaar Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance:
Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact
The first contribution of the paper is a more detailed picture and precise description of what is called the productivity puzzle.
In general, female researchers have at least similar impact as equally productive male researchers. Actually, in some research fields the ratio between top cited papers and productivity is considerably higher for women. Therefore, we can conclude that the relation between productivity and the number of high impact papers is about the same for men and women within specific productivity classes.
However, overall, the propensity to have highly cited papers is higher the more papers you publish. And we found that women are strongly underrepresented within classes of high productivity, i.e. those who publish more than eight papers over the period (=2 papers per year). This leads to a lower overall productivity for female researchers, which is also in our sample about 2/3 of male productivity – a ratio that was established already at the end of the 1960s and seems to be stable over time.
The second contribution of this article is that it tries to find explanations what are the underlying factors for these productivity differences between men and women?
Using a dataset covering 47 000 Swedish individual researchers and a subset of 6,000 researchers at ten Swedish universities with their publications over the period 2008 2011, we identity several factors that have an effect on performance. When controlling for those the effect of gender on performance is considerably reduced: age and academic position, position in the research team and related to this, the speed of the career. (i) Gender productivity differences are explained by that men are older and in higher positions, and that those in higher positions are more productive. (ii) Female researchers occupy less last author positions than men do, and this factor also has a negative effect on female productivity, which reflects that women have on average lower positions within research teams, and that they are less often (conceived as) leader of a team or a collaboration network. (iii) This reflects that male researchers show a faster career than their female counterparts. So, lower positions and slower career result from gender bias in the science system, and these factors have a negative effect on the performance of female researchers
In other words, we observe a vicious circle, which may explain the persistence of a glass ceiling in science: Gender stereotyping influences the academic rank and position in research collaboration and in teams, and these in turn have an effect on productivity, which may reciprocally influence academic rank and the role female researchers have in their team, and reinforce gender stereotyping. This suggests that several factors may disadvantage female researchers, giving fewer opportunities to develop into really productive researchers. These differences will simply not diminish over time. Instead, gender equality policies remain important to reverse the coupled vicious circles that produce the glass ceiling for women in science.
Find the article here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183301%23pone-0183301-g006