Why we shouldn’t blame women for gender disparity

Full text

Turn on search term navigation

We are part of a patriarchal society, although scientists and academics often fail to recognize it. This patriarchal structure and its misconceptions are reflected in our scientific environment. The recently published study of ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) (now retracted by the authors) is one example of how scientific conclusions can have negative impacts to the academic environment when social data are analyzed apart from their underlying social context.

^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) investigated the role of mentorship in scientific collaborations on the successful outcome of protégés considering the gender of their mentors. Their conclusion was that female mentors hinder the success of their female protégés and the quality of their impact (measured by the number of citations and impact of protégés’ articles), suggesting that female protégés reap more benefits when mentored by males instead of their equally-impactful female counterparts. ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) recognize that the specific social mechanisms underlying their findings were not addressed in their study. Despite that, they proposed that their results indicate that diversity policies need to be reviewed, favoring an association between female protégés and male mentors. This suggestion goes against all current policies that aim for more diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), contributing to reinforce the patriarchal structure of the academic environment, which has historically constrained the career of many female researchers. Within the context of STEM, we point out some relevant issues that went unnoticed by the reviewers and editor of Nature Communications (or were dismissed during the reviewing process) and discuss why we believe that the findings of ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) should not be used for reviewing diversity policies in STEM. Other criticisms and comments on the same work are available in ^{Deanna et al. (2020}) and ^{Diele-Viegas et al. (2020a}, ^2020b). Lastly, we bring a perspective of Women in Zoology and how current diversity policies are bringing more gender equality to the field.

Below, we point out a few notable methodological flaws in the work of ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}). The first one pertains to how they established the mentor-protégé association: they only took into account the mentor-protégé pairs in the same discipline, and by doing so, they missed interdisciplinary hubs, which are more prevalent in gender and ethnically diverse groups (^{Adams 2013}, ^{Uzzi et al. 2013}, ^{Campbell et al. 2013}, ^{Franzoni et al. 2014}, ^{Freeman and Huang 2015}); furthermore, even though they endeavored to embrace a broader sense of mentorship when examining the publication networks by including other senior co-authors as mentors besides the thesis’ advisor, their criterion was not as broad as it could have been: by excluding the potential mentors that do not share the same affiliation as the protégé, ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) most likely ended up missing many diverse and multidisciplinary research groups in their analysis.

The second methodological flaw we identified is that ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) do not take into account that mentorship also happens outside of the context of co-authorship, and that co-authorship does not necessarily imply an established mentorship. Despite the existence of guidelines with criteria on what configures authorship (e.g. ^{Brand et al. 2015}, ^{International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2019}), defining authorship is a complex process that frequently relies on informal agreements (Brand et al. 2015, ^{Albarracín et al. 2020}). According to these authors, although activities such as procuring funding or institutional infrastructure do not justify authorship, senior researchers are often included as authors because of those activities. Furthermore, it is possible that behind the success of a protégé there are also mentors who never effectively co-authored with the student (but are mentioned at the Acknowledgements section instead).

According to ^{Estrada et al. (2018}), there are three main components in mentorship: instrumental support (including the provision of resources and opportunities for the protégé to attain their research goals), psychosocial support (increasing the protégé’s self-confidence and professional effectiveness), and quality of the relationship established between mentor and protégé. ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) analyzed only part of the instrumental support as a proxy of mentorship quality. The authors focused only on the publication impact and the collaboration network of the protégés when following their solo career, ignoring the remaining factors, despite their importance to the protégés’ performance, motivation, career outcomes, and health.

Based on the methodological flaws discussed above, the conclusions provided by ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) fail to properly recognize the social component into which epistemic science research fields are constructed and, therefore, end up suggesting that policy makers should not promote female-female mentorships.

All scientists are part of a sexist society and ruled by social conduct (^{Arruza et al. 2018}). Being as such, women scientists attempt to thrive despite all setbacks provided by structural sexism (both explicit and implicit). Such a systemic paradigm results in numerous obstacles during their careers, which lead to a leaky pipeline in academia (^{Pell 1996}, ^{Knobloch-Westerwick et al. 2013}, ^{Reuben et al. 2014}), hindering their long-term retention, especially in STEM (^{Hughes 2018}). The Matilda effect (^{Rossiter 1993}), defined by a systematic underrecognition of female scientists throughout history, is well-perceived as a major force impairing the progress of women in science (^{Knobloch-Westerwick et al. 2013}). Women are usually disproportionately burdened with household chores including bearing babies and taking care of both children and elderly relations (^{Goulden et al. 2011}), particularly during the current COVID-19 pandemic (^{Hipólito et al. 2020}, ^{Staniscuaski et al. 2020}). They are much more frequently affected by harassment (^{National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018}), both because of their gender or sexual orientation (^{Hughes 2018}). Women are also systematically less cited (^{Larivière et al. 2013}, ^{Bendels et al. 2018}) or less credited for their work (^{Handley et al. 2015}), and the division of labor in scientific work (and subsequent publications) usually undermine the contribution of women and other minorities (^{Larivière et al. 2020}). All the beforementioned result in a lower inclusion of women in collaboration networks, especially those led by men (^{Araújo et al. 2017}). All these biases should be addressed when discussing the results presented by ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}).

What defines success in the academic field?

A list of the 100,000 most prominent scientists was recently published (^{Ioannidis et al. 2020}), based exclusively on citations. It prompted us to question: what defines “success” in academia? Despite publications being a major factor driving the influence a scientist has on the scientific community, there are other ways to measure it and which may be more appropriate for different fields of knowledge (see ^{Bradshaw et al. 2020}, ^{Oliveira et al. 2020}). The training of future scientists is also an important metric and such training is given by scientists that occupy positions of power as members of university faculties (^{Catalyst 2005}, ^{Clauset et al. 2015}).

Still, women are under-represented as professors and researchers, and are more concentrated in universities that are not research-intensive (^{Chubb and Derrick 2020}). Moreover, while teaching quality is reportedly female-dominated, the research realm is more male-dominated (^{Morley 2003}). This results in a larger proportion of women being responsible for student-focused services (in “institutional housekeeping” roles, ^{Bird et al. 2004}), which are undervalued, while men are the ones being praised because they have greater publication numbers and their publications have more impact (^{Chubb and Derrick 2020}). That being the case, the most commonly used academic performance metrics benefits men over women. Additionally, when the behavior of a professional contrasts with the established gender roles, it influences how the competence of the professional is judged (^{Chubb and Derrick 2020}). For example, when a woman has strong research success, she is usually undervalued by her peers regarding a particular factor (e.g., time lag of publications, agency, competitiveness, and even private life matters, such as marital status) whereas a man will be overvalued for the same thing (^{Juraqulova et al. 2015}, ^{Eaton et al. 2020}, ^{Severin et al. 2020}).

Women in STEM: examples coming from the Brazilian Zoological networks and professional advancement

As extensively discussed in the literature, the disadvantage faced by women in STEM fields is usually related to gender stereotypes (^{Schiebinger 2001}, ^{Reuben et al. 2014}, ^{Bendels et al. 2018}, ^{Eaton et al. 2020}). The so-called Matilda Effect affects women since they are young girls and negatively influences their desire to pursue a career in science (^{Hill et al. 2010}, ^{Leite and Diele-Viegas 2020}). In Brazil, despite the fact that women author roughly 70% of all the articles published (^{Crotti et al. 2020}), there is a global trend in which the articles that have women as first or last co-author (usually recognized as the ‘main authors’) are less cited than articles that have men as main authors (^{Larivière et al. 2013}). Furthermore, despite the larger proportion of women enrolled in both secondary (83% women vs. 80% men) and tertiary (59% women vs. 43% men) education in Brazil compared to men, women are more present in fields associated with culture and “care” and less represented in STEM (^{Crotti et al. 2020}).

Only recently, have more women been taking part in positions of power in Zoological Societies in Brazil. For example, the Brazilian Society of Zoology (SBZ) never had female presidents until 2012, when its first female president was elected after 34 years. The 2018-2020 SBZ directorship (with a female president) supported for the first time a symposium “For more women in Zoology” held in the XXXIII Brazilian Congress of Zoology promoting networks among Women in STEM and zoological subjects. Furthermore, in 2019, an all-female directorship was elected for the Brazilian Society of Ichthyology (SBI) being the third all-female directorship among the 19 elected in the history of that society. This all-female board, together with a deliberative council composed mostly by men, has started to discuss gender inequality in ichthyology and best practices to decrease it. Another example is the board of the Brazilian Society of Herpetology (SBH), also mostly composed of women (three women in five positions), while the deliberative council is mainly composed of men (six men in nine positions), reflecting the sharp gender disparity still seen in the field. After the discussion table “Women in Herpetology yesterday, today... and now? Discussing gender for effective inclusion” at the Brazilian Congress of Herpetology in 2019, a list of actions was proposed to reduce gender inequalities in herpetology (see ^{Werneck et al. 2019}).

However, gender inequality is still prominent in other Brazilian scientific societies, such as the Brazilian Society of Palaeontology (SBP), which in the last 62 years, of the 29 elected boards, only two had female presidents, and four had the participation of women in the vice-presidency (^{Kotzian and Ribeiro 2009}). It is important to highlight that 45% of the 713 members of this society are women. However, despite having significant participation within the society, the representation of women in Brazilian Palaeontology appears to be significantly less expressive than that of men along its entire existence (^{Kotzian and Ribeiro 2009}).

Similar to what is seen in the SBP, the Brazilian Ornithological Society (SBO) has a relatively balanced proportion, with 44% female members. However, these proportions have not been reflected in the number of publications in the society’s main journal. Of the articles published in the last five years in the Brazilian Journal of Ornithology, only 22% had females as first authors (S.A. Sousa, unpublished data). The relatively equal proportion of society members compared to the lack of articles published by women indicates that female ornithologists might face opportunity bottlenecks in academic careers. Usually, being the leading author in a scientific publication requires long term commitment to academia and leadership in laboratory and field experiments.

Although individual efforts have their merits, we believe that research and educational centers need to provide the necessary means to recognize and undermine biases in the availability of opportunities for women scientists. Networks of women in science are gaining strength in Brazil, discussing issues related to gender inequality and giving voice to women in several fields. The initiative “Mulheres na Ciência BR” (Women in Science Brazil), founded by a group of zoologists, started as a social network community of women scientists in 2016 and has since grown to establish an actively-curated digital magazine (http://www.mulheresnaciencia.com.br), where women of all fields and backgrounds showcase their voices and discuss science and gender perspectives in academia. The “Kunhã Asé” network of women in science was founded in 2019 by four women biologists aiming to provide academic and emotional support to female Brazilian scientists at different career stages and encourage young women and girls in science (^{Leite and Diele-Viegas 2020}). The “Parent in Science” group (https://www.parentinscience.com) is an initiative of researchers who are parents, demanding equal access of men and women to funding for academic research in Brazil. The project aims to understand the impact of motherhood and recognize that female scientists often have a double journey, combining academic careers with childcare (^{Lunetas 2018}). Currently, the group proposes symposia to discuss solutions to problems of motherhood and fatherhood in the academy, in addition to increasing awareness of proper authorities to the demands that parenthood adds to academic careers.

Specific disciplines in zoology are also creating their own networks. The “Ictiomulheres” (Ichthywomen) was created in 2017 and researches the gender issues in Brazilian Ichthyology, including promoting women in ichthyological studies and their participation in the field. The network also recently organized the event “Elasmulheres”, with prominent women in elasmobranchs research fields. The group “Herpetologia segundo as Herpetólogas” (Herpetology according to women herpetologists) was created in 2018 aiming to disseminate the science made by women in the field of herpetology, including contributions to the conservation of reptiles and amphibians through environmental education, and promoting greater participation of women in Brazilian herpetology. The group “Mulheres na Entomologia” (Women in Entomology) appeared in 2019 with the aim of publishing and disseminating biographies of past and present women entomologists while encouraging young scientists to follow the examples of female researchers in the development of their own careers. Regarding questions of inequality in Brazilian Paleontology, a group of female paleontologists, “Mulheres na Paleontologia” (Women in Paleontology), aims to identify the main gender biases through the project “The gender profile in Brazilian Palaeontology”, which has already been approved in the Plataforma Brasil, a national database of research records involving humans. All the above-mentioned initiatives demonstrate some of the projects that begun in recent years to bring awareness to gender inequality and discuss solutions in order to achieve a more diverse and inclusive zoology. These initiatives are possible because of the increase in the number of women participating in some Brazilian Zoological societies and because these women are becoming more conscious of the role of gender bias in their careers. It reinforces the importance of women actively working as part of the scientific community.

Concluding remarks

The academic system is oriented by a particular cultural frame (^{Geertz 1983}), including gendered associations implicit in the academic reward system, which must be addressed and overcome. So, if (and it is a big if) female mentors cannot provide the same outcomes as male mentors to their female protégés, it is not due to some inherent female problem, but to the existing gender-biased system that still confers privilege on male researchers, with or without children. Thus, partnering with male mentors will not solve gender inequality in science and should not be the option given to women to raise their academic status. We expect that discussions and replies like this are no longer necessary someday. But it will only be possible when we have a truly diverse and inclusive science.

The takeaway message we highlight here is an invitation to the scientific community for a broader discussion about the criteria defining success in academia, considering that women play fundamental role in constructing a more inclusive environment for early-career researchers. It is not enough to make science attractive for diverse junior researchers. It is fundamental to create a scientific environment that maximizes the carrots and minimizes the sticks over these people’s careers (^{Galinsky et al. 2015}). The only way to do that is by stimulating the construction of diverse research environments and networks (^{Bendels et al. 2018}), the opposite of what was proposed by ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}). Finally, we refuse to accept a superficial analysis that does not consider the oppression faced by women. The solutions proposed by ^{AlShebli et al. (2020}) do not solve women’s problems in STEM, but only reinforce stereotypes and emphasize the sexual division of work and intellectual merit.

References

Adams J (2013) The fourth age of research. Nature 497(7451): 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1038/497557a

Albarracín MLG, Castro CM, Chaparro PE (2020) Importance, definition and conflicts of authorship in scientific publications. Revista Bioética 28(1): 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422020281361

AlShebli B, Makovi K, Rahwan T (2020) The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance. Nature Communications 11(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19723-8

Araújo EB, Araújo NAM, Moreira AA, Hermann HJ, Andrade JS Jr (2017) Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0176791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176791

Arruza C, Bhattacharya T, Fraser N (2018) Notes for a feminist manifesto. New Left Review, 114 (november-december). Available at: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii114/articles/nancy-fraser-tithi-bhattacharya-cinzia-arruzza-notes-for-a-feminist-manifesto

Bendels MH, Müller R, Brueggmann D, Groneberg DA (2018) Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals. PloS ONE 13(1): e0189136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136

Bird S, Litt J, Wang Y (2004) Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as” Women’s Work”. NWSA Journal: 194-206. doi: 10.1353/nwsa.2004.0027

Bradshaw CJA, Chalker JM, Crabtree SA, Eijkelkamp BA, Long JA, Smith JR, Trinajstic K, Weisbecker V (2020) A fairer way to compare researchers at any career stage and in any discipline using open-access citation data (Preprint). Authorea Preprints. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160373218.83526843/v1

Brand A, Allen L, Altman M, Hlava M, Scott J (2015) Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing 28(2): 151-155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211

Campbell LG, Mehtani S, Dozier ME, Rinehart J (2013) Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PloS ONE 8(10): e79147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079147

Catalyst Inc, General Motors Corporation (2005) Women “Take Care,” Men “Take Charge:” stereotyping of us business leaders exposed. Catalyst. Available online at: https://www.catalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Women_Take_Care_Men_Take_Charge_Stereotyping_of_U.S._Business_Leaders_Exposed.pdf

Chubb J, Derrick GE (2020) The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation. Palgrave Communications 6(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0438-z

Clauset A, Arbesman S, Larremore DB (2015) Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances 1(1): e1400005. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400005

Crotti R, Geiger T, Ratcheva V, Zahidi S (2020) Global Gender Gap Report 2020. In: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf

Deanna R, Baxter I, Chun KP, Merkle BG, Zuo R, Diele-Viegas LM, et al. (2020) It takes a village - overcoming gender-biased mentorship in academia. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/25h7p

Diele-Viegas LM, Araújo OGS, Berneck BVM, Brasileiro CA, et al. (2020a) When misinterpretation leads to sexism: perspectives on gender disparity in Brazilian Herpetology. Herpetologia Brasileira 9(3): 86-99.

Diele-Viegas LM, Almeida TS, Amati-Martins I, Bacon CD, et al. (2020b) Gender inequality and not female mentors hinder female scientists career outcomes. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s83zk

Eaton AA, Saunders JF, Jacobson RK, West K (2020) How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles 82(3-4): 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w

Estrada M, Hernandez PR, Schultz PW (2018) A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE - Life Sciences Education 17(1): ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066

Franzoni C, Scellato G, Stephan P (2014) The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists. Economics Letters 122(1): 89-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.040

Freeman RB, Huang W (2015) Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. Journal of Labor Economics 33(S1): S289-S318. https://doi.org/10.1086/678973

Galinsky AD, Todd AR, Homan AC, Phillips KW, Apfelbaum EP, Sasaki SJ, et al. (2015) Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(6): 742-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598513

Geertz C (1983) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, Basic Books, New York, USA.

Goulden M, Mason MA, Frasch K (2011) Keeping women in the science pipeline. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 638(1): 141-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211416925

Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL (2015) Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(43): 13201-13206. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112

Hill C, Corbett C, St Rose A (2010) Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. Washington, DC.

Hipólito J, Diele-Viegas LM, Cordeiro TE, Sales LP, Medeiros A, Deegan KR, Leite L (2020) Unwrapping the long-term impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on Brazilian academic mothers: the urgency of short, medium, and long-term measures. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(4): e20201292. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020201292

Hughes BE (2018) Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Science Advances 4(3): eaao6373. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao6373

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2019) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (December, 2019). Available at: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

Ioannidis JP, Boyack KW, Baas J (2020) Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. Plos Biology 18(10): e3000918. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918

Juraqulova Z, Byington T, Kmec JA (2015) The impacts of marriage on perceived academic career success: Differences by gender and discipline. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 7(3): 369-392. http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/389

Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M (2013) The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication 35(5): 603-625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684

Kotzian CB, Ribeiro AM (2009) Sociedade Brasileira de Paleontologia 50 anos - uma homenagem aos seus fundadores. Paleontologia em Destaque - Boletim Informativo da Sociedade Brasileira de Paleontologia, Edição Especial, 112 pp.

Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature News 504(7479): 211. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a

Larivière V, Pontille D, Sugimoto CR (2020) Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxo nomy (CRediT). Quantitative Science Studies. Advance publication. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00097

Leite L, Diele-Viegas LM (2020) Too intelligent for the life sciences in Brazil: how two female researchers fought back. Nature 587: 163-164. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02978-y

Lunetas (2018) Maternidade no currículo: conheça a mulher que começou essa luta. https://lunetas.com.br/maternidade-no-curriculo [Accessed: 24/11/2020]

Morley L (2003) Quality and power in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education, UK.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994

Oliveira L, Reichert F, Zandona E, Soletti RC, Staniscuaski F (2020) The 100,000 most influential scientists rank: the underrepresentation of Brazilian women in academia. bioRxiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.22.423872

Pell AN (1996) Fixing the Leaky Pipeline: Women Scientists in Academia. Journal of Animal Sciences 74: 2843-2848. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112843x

Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2014) How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(12): 4403-4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111

Rossiter M (1993) The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science 23(2): 325-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004

Schiebinger L (2001) O feminismo mudou a ciência? EDUSC, Bauru, 382 pp.

Severin A, Martins J, Heyard R, Delavy F, Jorstad A, Egger M (2020) Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports. BMJ open 10(8): e035058. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035058

Staniscuaski F, Reichert F, Werneck FP, de Oliveira L, Mello-Carpes PB, Soletti RC, et al. (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on academic mothers. Science 368(6492): 724-724. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc2740

Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157): 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474

Werneck FDP, Pereira JA, Pinto RR, Costa-Rodrigues APV, Pereira EG, Mangia S, et al. (2019) Diagnóstico e propostas para ampliar a representatividade de pesquisadoras em Herpetologia no Brasil. Herpetologia Brasileira 8: 36-43.

AuthorAffiliation

Veronica Slobodian¹

Karla D.A. Soares²

Rafaela L. Falaschi³

Laura R. Prado⁴

Priscila Camelier⁵

Thaís B. Guedes⁶

Laura C. Leal⁷

Annie S. Hsiou⁸

Glaucia Del-Rio⁹

Eliza R. Costa¹⁰

Karla R.C. Pereira¹¹

Annelise B. D’Angiolella¹²

Shirliane de A. Sousa¹³

Luisa M. Diele-Viegas¹⁴

¹Laboratório de Ictiologia Sistemática, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade de Brasília. Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Bloco A, Sala ASS 13/11, 70910-900 Brasília, DF, Brazil. Ictiomulheres: Brazilian network of female ichthyologists ([email protected])

²Laboratório de Ictiologia, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo. Rua do Matão, Travessa 14, 101, 05508-090 São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Ictiomulheres: Brazilian network of female ichthyologists ([email protected])

³Laboratório de Genética e Evolução, Departamento de Biologia Estrutural, Molecular e Genética, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa. Avenida Carlos Cavalcanti 4748, Bloco M, sala 40, 84030-900 Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil. Mulheres na Ciência BR (Women in Science Brazil) ([email protected])

⁴Biodiversity Knowledge Integration Center, ASU Natural History Collections, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University. 734 W Alameda Dr, Tempe, AZ 85282, USA. Mulheres na Ciência BR (Women in Science Brazil) ([email protected])

⁵Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade e Evolução, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia. Rua Barão de Jeremoabo 668, 40170-115 Salvador, BA, Brazil. Ictiomulheres: Brazilian network of female ichthyologists. Kunhã Asé Network of Women in Science ([email protected])

⁶Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade, Ambiente e Saúde, Centro de Estudos Superiores de Caxias, Universidade Estadual do Maranhão. Praça Duque de Caxias, 65604-380 Caxias, MA, Brazil. ([email protected])

⁷Laboratório de Ecologia, Zoologia e Fisiologia Comparada, Departamento de Ecologia e Biologia Evolutiva, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Rua Professor Artur Riedel 275, 09972-270 Diadema, SP, Brazil. ([email protected])

⁸Laboratório de Paleontologia, Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Avenida Bandeirantes 3900, 14051-110 Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. ([email protected])

⁹Bird Section, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University. 119 Foster Hall, 70803, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. ([email protected])

¹⁰Departamento de Ciência e Saúde, Centro Universitário Estácio da Amazônia. Rua Jornalista Humberto Silva 308, 69313-792 Boa Vista, RR, Brazil. ([email protected])

¹¹Grupo de Pesquisa Ontologia do Ser Social, História, Educação e Emancipação Humana, Centro de Educação, Universidade Estadual do Ceará. Avenida Dr Silas Munguba 1700, Campus do Itaperi, 60714-242 Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. ([email protected])

¹²Núcleo de Pesquisa e Extensão A Casa da Ciência, Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia. Campus Capitão Poço, Travessa Pau Amarelo, 68650-000 Capitão Poço, PA, Brazil. ([email protected])

¹³Projeto Crateús Com Ciência, Campus Faculdade de Educação, Universidade Estadual do Ceará. Rua Doutor José Sabóia Livreiro 1480, 63704-155 Crateús, CE, Brazil. ([email protected])

¹⁴Biology Department, University of Maryland. 1210 Biology-Psychology Building, College Park, MD, USA. Kunhã Asé Network of Women in Science. ([email protected])

Word count: 4322

Show less

© 2021. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Translate

S1984-46702021000100101http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext%26pid=S1984-46702021000100101%26lng=en%26nrm=iso%26tlng=enS1984-46702021000100101http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext%26pid=S1984-46702021000100101%26lng=en%26nrm=iso%26tlng=enS1984-46702021000100101http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext%26pid=S1984-46702021000100101%26lng=en%26nrm=iso%26tlng=en

Services on Demand

Journal

SciELO Analytics
Google Scholar H5M5 ()

Article

text new page (beta)
English (pdf)
Article in xml format
How to cite this article
SciELO Analytics
Curriculum ScienTI
Automatic translation

Indicators

Have no cited articlesCited by SciELO
Access statistics

Details

Title

Why we shouldn’t blame women for gender disparity in academia: perspectives of women in zoology

Author

Slobodian, Veronica; Soares, Karla D A; Falaschi, Rafaela L; Prado, Laura R; Camelier, Priscila; Guedes, Thaís B; Leal, Laura C; Hsiou, Annie S; Del-Rio, Glaucia; Costa, Eliza R; Pereira, Karla R C; Annelise B D’Angiolella; Shirliane de A Sousa; Diele-Viegas, Luisa M

Section

Opinion

Publication year

2021

Publication date

2021

Publisher

Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia

ISSN

19844670

e-ISSN

19844689

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.3897/zoologia.38.e61968

ProQuest document ID

2507564018

Why we shouldn’t blame women for gender disparity in academia: perspectives of women in zoology

Jump to:

Full text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources