IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i8p140-d163786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Inequity during the Ph.D.: Females in the Life Sciences Benefit Less from Their Integration into the Scientific Community

Author

Listed:
  • Nurith Epstein

    (Institut für Didaktik und Ausbildungsforschung in der Medizin, Klinikum der Universität München, Ziemssenstr. 1, 80336 München, Germany)

  • Daniel Lachmann

    (Prorektorat für Studium und Lehre, Universität zu Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Köln, Germany)

Abstract

Female researchers remain underrepresented in higher academic ranks, even within female-dominated fields, such as the life sciences. The phenomenon is often attributed to women’s lower publication productivity. The current article explores gender differences with respect to integration into the scientific community, pursued tasks during the Ph.D. (e.g., teaching and research), and publication productivity in the life sciences. Moreover, it explores how these variables relate to the intention of pursuing an academic research career. Survey data with recent Ph.D. graduates from the life sciences in Germany (N = 736) were analyzed through descriptive and multivariate analysis. Females had fewer publications as lead author (1.4 vs. 1.9, p = 0.05). There were no differences in pursued tasks, perceived integration into the scientific community, and co-authorship. However, Ph.D. characteristics affected females and males differently. Only male Ph.D. graduates benefited from being integrated into their scientific community by an increase in lead author publications. In contrast to male Ph.D. graduates, women’s academic career intentions were significantly affected by their integration into the scientific community and co-authorship. Results suggest that women may benefit less from their integration into the scientific community and may ascribe more importance to networks for their career progress.

Suggested Citation

  • Nurith Epstein & Daniel Lachmann, 2018. "Gender Inequity during the Ph.D.: Females in the Life Sciences Benefit Less from Their Integration into the Scientific Community," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:8:p:140-:d:163786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/8/140/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/8/140/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fitzenberger Bernd & Schulze Ute, 2014. "Up or Out: Research Incentives and Career Prospects of Postdocs in Germany," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 287-328, May.
    2. Bernd Fitzenberger & Ute Schulze, 2014. "Up or Out: Research Incentives and Career Prospects of Postdocs in Germany," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 15(2), pages 287-328, May.
    3. Mary K. Feeney & Margarita Bernal, 2010. "Women in STEM networks: who seeks advice and support from women scientists?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 767-790, December.
    4. Nurith Epstein & Martin R Fischer, 2017. "Academic career intentions in the life sciences: Can research self-efficacy beliefs explain low numbers of aspiring physician and female scientists?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Rosati, Francesco, 2013. "The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 198-208.
    6. Karla M Neugebauer, 2006. "Keeping Tabs on the Women: Life Scientists in Europe," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(4), pages 1-1, April.
    7. Matthew RE Symonds & Neil J Gemmell & Tamsin L Braisher & Kylie L Gorringe & Mark A Elgar, 2006. "Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, December.
    8. Teja Tscharntke & Michael E Hochberg & Tatyana A Rand & Vincent H Resh & Jochen Krauss, 2007. "Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-2, January.
    9. Sara Casacci & Adriano Pareto, 2015. "Methods for quantifying ordinal variables: a comparative study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1859-1872, September.
    10. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    11. Link, Albert N. & Swann, Christopher A. & Bozeman, Barry, 2008. "A time allocation study of university faculty," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 363-374, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lindahl, Jonas, 2023. "Conscientiousness predicts doctoral students’ research productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nurith Epstein & Martin R Fischer, 2017. "Academic career intentions in the life sciences: Can research self-efficacy beliefs explain low numbers of aspiring physician and female scientists?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Doris Fischer, 2014. "The Impact of Changing Incentives in China on International Cooperation in Social Science Research on China," Journal of Current Chinese Affairs - China aktuell, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 43(2), pages 33-46.
    3. Xuefeng Wang & Rongrong Li & Shiming Ren & Donghua Zhu & Meng Huang & Pengjun Qiu, 2014. "Collaboration network and pattern analysis: case study of dye-sensitized solar cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1745-1762, March.
    4. Lutter, Mark & Schröder, Martin, 2016. "Who becomes a tenured professor, and why? Panel data evidence from German sociology, 1980–2013," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 999-1013.
    5. Nadine V. Kegen, 2015. "Cohesive subgroups in academic networks: unveiling clique integration of top-level female and male researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 897-922, June.
    6. Erina Ytsma, 2022. "Effort and Selection Effects of Performance Pay in Knowledge Creation," CESifo Working Paper Series 10153, CESifo.
    7. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    8. Wullum Nielsen, Mathias & Börjeson, Love, 2019. "Gender diversity in the management field: Does it matter for research outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1617-1632.
    9. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    11. Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2011. "How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1393-1402.
    12. Gita Ghiasi & Catherine Beaudry & Vincent Larivière & Carl St-Pierre & Andrea Schiffauerova & Matthew Harsh, 2021. "Who profits from the Canadian nanotechnology reward system? Implications for gender-responsible innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7937-7991, September.
    13. António Osório, 2018. "On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2161-2173, September.
    14. Simoes, Nadia & Crespo, Nuno, 2020. "Self-Citations and scientific evaluation: Leadership, influence, and performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    15. M. Teresa Antonio-García & Irene López-Navarro & Jesús Rey-Rocha, 2014. "Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1747-1779, December.
    16. Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    18. Guo, Qian & Song, Yang & Sun, Wenkai & Wang, Yijie, 2016. "Gender differences in performance-based pay: Evidence from a Chinese University," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 104-113.
    19. Ash Mohammad Abbas, 2011. "Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 107-131, July.
    20. Jan Resenga Maluleka & Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha & Isola Ajiferuke, 2016. "Factors influencing research collaboration in LIS schools in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 337-355, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:8:p:140-:d:163786. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.