The gender divide in science is well documented. Not only do fewer females study science subjects at school and University, the percentage gets smaller the further on you look in a scientist’s career.
According to research from Catalyst, just over a third of PhD graduates in the sciences were women in 2010, but women made up 23 per cent of mid-level academics and 11 per cent of those at a senior level.
There are undoubtedly many factors playing into why women are not reaching these high-achieving academic positions. But one of the reasons comes down to the direct behaviour of their colleagues. And, in at least one case, it can impact the researcher for the rest of their career.
It might sound trivial, but the simple question of where a researcher is placed when it comes to academic papers can have a huge impact on how their career progresses. One of the subtle ways women can be held back in science is through being excluded from academic papers.
One such scientist, who prefers to remain anonymous, had an experience like this with her PhD supervisor. She explains that her supervisor used her data with no credit and sabotaged her attempts at being the first author on papers.
“I was offered first-authorship by a large science consortium as a reward for my work,” she tells me. “I felt very pleased, validated and recognised - until I came back to my institute. There I was told by my PhD advisor that it would be better for the institute if he would be the first author.”
After years of incidences like this, she decided to approach her supervisor, but was met with a cycle of abuse. He started with denying the truth, saying it’s better for the whole research group, and finally trying to convince her that it happens to everyone.
“When my advisor found out that I finally, after eight years, wanted to actually obtain my PhD, he and his group went into full harassment mode,” she says. “In the course of this, I was downgraded on the author list of the offending paper to rank seven. I found myself even behind a male student I had supervised and mentored and who took the opportunity to basically usurp my position.”
The solution might be to quit, and go somewhere else for work. But it is not that simple if you haven’t got your PhD yet.
For those further ahead, there is a lack of funding as it is, and secure positions are notoriously difficult to come by. When the environment is this harsh, it seems, people will put up with a lot for that secure position.
In the above case, the female scientist claims her supervisor preferred to hire women over men, because he could exploit them. “My advisor even said that he hired women preferably,” she says. “He thought that would give him an edge in funding. “
You might think this situation cannot possibly be commonplace. People are better than that, right? Wrong. While it undoubtedly happens to men too, it seems women take the brunt.
“I hear it a lot from women in postdoc level and above,” she says. “I think abusive advisors get away easier when they exploit women. We are taken less serious on all accounts, we are raised not to rock the boat and when we do, we are punished more severely for it.”
Data on this is hard to come by. If there are more men in academic positions than women, it follows that there should be more male co-authors. But even when this is taken into account, there seems to be something missing.
A recent Nature study looking into the problems with peer review took a sample of 83,000 papers submitted into Nature and sister journals. Out of these 83,000, 17 per cent had female corresponding authors and the rest were male.
The American Geophysical Union, the world’s biggest publisher of Earth and space science journals, conducted a similar study looking at 24,000 journals, and found 27 per cent of first authors were female.
While the AGU has committed to tackling the disparity, by diversifying the number of women who are asked to peer review their papers; another career-progressing box academics have to tick.
“A better understanding and awareness of the issue of implicit bias across career-building activities will lead to better advancement and retention of women in the sciences,” said AGU president Eric Davidson. “AGU is committed to fostering inclusivity and greater diversity in the talent pool.”
Meanwhile, those in academia should do all they can to ensure this kind of behaviour is not going on in their labs, while those it has affected are feeling the lasting effects.
“I am more or less being punished to this date for having been exploited,” says the female academic I spoke to. “I don't have ‘enough’ first-author papers and have problems securing grants because I'm ‘too old’ for my current career stage.”
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
