IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in a UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model

Author

Listed:
  • Lorna R Henderson
  • Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah
  • Pavel V Ovseiko
  • Rinita Dam
  • Alastair M Buchan
  • Helen McShane
  • Vasiliki Kiparoglou

Abstract

Background: The underrepresentation of women in academic medicine at senior level and in leadership positions is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRC), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organisations and universities, conduct world class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the UK. Since 2011 BRCs are required to demonstrate significant progress in gender equity (GE) to be eligible to apply for funding. However, the evidence base for monitoring GE specifically in BRC settings is underdeveloped. This is the first survey tool designed to rank and identify new GE markers specific to the NIHR BRCs. Methods: An online survey distributed to senior leadership, clinical and non-clinical researchers, trainees, administrative and other professionals affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC (N = 683). Participants ranked 13 markers of GE on a five point Likert scale by importance. Data were summarised using frequencies and descriptive statistics. Interrelationships between markers and underlying latent dimensions (factors) were determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Results: The response rate was 36% (243 respondents). Respondents were more frequently female (55%, n = 133), aged 41–50 years (33%, n = 81), investigators (33%, n = 81) affiliated to the BRC for 2–7 years (39.5%, n = 96). Overall participants ranked ‘BRC senior leadership roles’ and ‘organisational policies on gender equity’, to be the most important markers of GE. 58% (n = 141) and 57% (n = 139) respectively. Female participants ranked ‘organisational policies’ (64.7%, n = 86/133) and ‘recruitment and retention’ (60.9%, n = 81/133) most highly, whereas male participants ranked ‘leadership development’ (52.1%, n = 50/96) and ‘BRC senior leadership roles’ (50%, n = 48/96) as most important. Factor analyses identified two distinct latent dimensions: “organisational markers” and “individual markers” of GE in BRCs. Conclusions: A two-factor model of markers of achievement for GE with “organisational” and “individual” dimensions was identified. Implementation and sustainability of gender equity requires commitment at senior leadership and organisational policy level.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorna R Henderson & Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah & Pavel V Ovseiko & Rinita Dam & Alastair M Buchan & Helen McShane & Vasiliki Kiparoglou, 2020. "Markers of achievement for assessing and monitoring gender equity in a UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: A two-factor model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239589
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239589
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239589&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239589?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tartari, Valentina & Salter, Ammon, 2015. "The engagement gap:," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1176-1191.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2021. "The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    2. Giovanni Abramo & Francesca Apponi & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, 2021. "Public–private research collaborations: Longitudinal field‐level analysis of determinants, frequency, and impact," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1405-1427, December.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2022. "Drivers of academic engagement in public–private research collaboration: an empirical study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1861-1884, December.
    4. Paulo Lopes Henriques & Carla Curado & Mírian Oliveira & Antônio Carlos Gastaud Maçada, 2019. "Publishing? You can count on knowledge, experience, and expectations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1301-1324, May.
    5. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    7. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Carlos Benito-Amat & Ester Planells-Aleixandre, 2022. "Academic artists’ engagement and commercialisation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1273-1296, August.
    8. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Indira Yarullina, 2024. "Outcomes of science-industry collaboration: factors and interdependencies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 542-580, April.
    9. Paola Giuri & Rosa Grimaldi & Anna Kochenkova & Federico Munari & Laura Toschi, 2020. "The effects of university-level policies on women’s participation in academic patenting in Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 122-150, February.
    10. Bradford Barham & Jeremy Foltz & Ana Paula Melo, 2020. "Academic Engagement, Commercialization, and Scholarship: Empirical Evidence from Agricultural and Life Scientists at US Land Grant Universities," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 179-208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Tanya Araújo & Elsa Fontainha, 2018. "Are scientific memes inherited differently from gendered authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 953-972, November.
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Francesca Apponi & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, 2021. "Do the propensity and drivers of academics' engagement in research collaboration with industry vary over time?," Papers 2102.05364, arXiv.org.
    13. Iorio, Roberto & Labory, Sandrine & Rentocchini, Francesco, 2017. "The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 497-509.
    14. Soohyung Lee & Benjamin A. Malin, 2019. "Collaboration and Female Representation in Academic Fields," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue September, pages 2-21.
    15. Alessandro Muscio & Giovanna Vallanti, 2022. "The gender gap in Ph.D. entrepreneurship: How do students perceive the academic environment?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    17. Pilar Beneito & Maria E. Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2023. "Female R&D teams and patents as quality signals in innovative firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 891-922, October.
    18. Tove Faber Frandsen & Rasmus Højbjerg Jacobsen & Jakob Ousager, 2020. "Gender gaps in scientific performance: a longitudinal matching study of health sciences researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1511-1527, August.
    19. Domingo Sifontes & Rosa Morales, 2020. "Gender differences and patenting in Latin America: understanding female participation in commercial science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2009-2036, September.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0239589. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.