Back to Blog

IWB Book Club: Equity for Women in Science (Tips for Being a Good Ally at Your Institution)

2/19/2025 2:01 pm

Earlier this year, the IWB Book Club read Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systematic Barriers to Advancement by Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière (1). The focus of the book was to acknowledge the progress towards gender parity (i.e., approximately equal numbers of men and women participating) in science but challenge the existence of equity (i.e., actually fair treatment and outcomes). Throughout the book, Sugimoto and Larivière rely on a huge pool of 5.5 million scientific articles from Web of Science to which they assign gender, race, and ethnicity characteristics to the authors. They use this data to examine and describe intersectional identities and topics of research through the lens of production, collaboration, contributorship, funding, mobility, impact and institutional factors.

 

At the end of the book, the authors provide a list of suggestions for how allies and supporters of gender equity can take concrete steps to move towards this goal. We encourage everyone to read the full book, but we’ve taken a deep dive into a few of these items to provide more resources and organization-specific suggestions. This is the first of a 3-part blog series. This entry focuses on 3 ways in which allies can take steps at the institutional level to move towards gender equity, including (1) supporting graduate students on multiple career trajectories, (2) intentionally citing women authors, and (3) contextualizing achievements during external evaluations.

 

 

Support graduate students in multiple career trajectories; do not see replication as the goal of mentoring

This recommendation may take on a few meanings. First, encourage and support students who choose to diverge from academia after their degrees are completed, whether this be into industry or a more applied field such as physical therapy. In 2012, 43% of PhD holders in biological sciences were employed full time in non-academic settings, so this is not truly an uncommon path (2). Furthermore, the experience of attending graduate school influences individuals’ decisions on which career paths they find most appealing, and students tend to become more interested in non-research careers over the course of their PhD (3). There are a variety of reasons for this shift, including workload expectations, difficulty in obtaining funding, competition, job availability, loss of interest, and an increased understanding of the broader range of career options. Particularly for those who have parenting/caregiving responsibilities, a career in academia may seem unappealing due to the inherent biases and time demands that can be incompatible with other obligations. In their survey paper, Mathur et al. recommend the following 3 steps for enhancing preparation for “non-traditional” careers for graduate students:

  1. Shift academic culture to embrace the “branching” science career pipeline
  2. Integrate career development into the graduate curriculum
  3. Transform graduate education policy at the national level (i.e., remove “success” criteria that is largely based on how many students obtain tenure-track positions) (4)

Secondly, this suggestion can serve as an encouragement to recruit students that have had nonlinear career trajectories, which can enhance the diversity of individuals and ideas. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to enter academia – in one recent study, academics reported a household income during childhood that was 23.6% higher than the median (5). Those who are unable to receive family support will be more likely to enter the workforce prior to or directly after completing advanced degrees, particularly if they are parents or caregivers. Unfortunately, many funding applications and hiring practices revolve around the amount of time since completing a terminal degree or age, resulting in hurdles and discriminatory practice against those who do not fit into the traditional graduate student model. But valuable knowledge can be gained in these non-traditional paths, including resilience, demonstrated self-motivation, creativity, resourcefulness, and job skills that might not be traditionally emphasized within academia (6).

           

 

Cite Women

In the chapter on Scientific Impact, Sugimoto and Larivière discuss gender disparities in citation rates. There is overwhelming evidence that women's work has been cited less than that of men (1). This trend holds across countries and fields and includes high impact journals (1, 7). In fact, the authors observed the largest citation disparities in articles published in top-tier journals. Citations are often used as a metric to evaluate the impact of a scientist's work, influencing career progression, funding, and awards. It is important to note, however, that there are many factors unrelated to the quality and importance of the work (e.g., visibility, rates of self-citation, biases) that may affect the number of citations an article receives. As a result, many institutions, including Canada's Tri-Council Funding programs, discourage the use of citation metrics in candidate evaluations (8). This practice is in line with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment’s recommendations (9).

 

On an individual level, there are actions we can take to diversify our reading practices and reference lists. The authors note that, "researchers tend to cite the articles that are most visible to them rather than the most relevant" (1). They argue that making an intentional, reflexive effort to read and cite a broader array of literature will lead to more equitable and scientifically robust work. Think about the tools you use to keep up with your field - is there a way to leverage those to bring greater visibility for women’s (and other under-cited groups') work? Some examples of strategies and resources:

 

  • Follow and amplify women scientists in your field on social media. This increases their visibility and will call attention to their newly published work.
  • Google Scholar alerts can be set up for specific scientists.
  • When using databases or AI tools to find papers, ensure the settings sort results by relevance and avoid filtering by citations.
  • New papers by IWB members are highlighted in our monthly newsletter for members and on our social media accounts.
  • IWB has also run a Read Women Challenge, where each workday in March, participants read an article with a woman first and/or last author.

 

Do not include research indicators without contextualization in external evaluations of scholars for promotion, tenure, or awards

The authors state:

 

Scientists have a responsibility to use indicators responsibly and to acknowledge the inherent biases that perpetuate and reproduce inequities. They should avoid single indicators or those lacking contextualization and focus on indicators that promote social good and that lead to responsible research practices. Scientists are called to remember that indicators should only be used to the extent that they reflect the values and goals of the institution.

 

Even when accounting for differences in productivity, women are less likely than men to receive tenure (Figure 1) (10). They are also less likely to receive tenure at the institution they began their assistant professor careers at and are, on the whole, hired in less prestigious departments. This cannot be fully explained by the time dedicated to research or productivity numbers (10). A good ally on a promotion or hiring committee must work to ensure that unconscious bias does not drive decisions to exclude women from obtaining positions or advancements (including how women are typically under-cited).

Figure 1.

Figure 1. (11)

 

However, there are various factors that make a straightforward analysis inequitable. For example, the authors found that the more engaged a researcher was in caregiving for children, the lower their productivity, and that “parental engagement is a more powerful variable to explain gender differences in academic productivity than the mere existence of children” (11). Further study results showed that in dual-academic heterosexual couples, women still perform most caregiving duties. The authors state that “simply put, women still bear the burden of domestic care while navigating the same expectations as men in their workplaces” (11). Some workplaces, including the NIH, have begun implementing programs that provide “extra hands” funding for childcare or additional postdoctoral fellows/technicians to offset the disproportionate burden placed on mothers that may reduce productivity. Advocating for programs like this at your institution and/or understanding how lack of these provisions may have affected a female candidate’s productivity prior to hiring/promotion is key to creating an equitable environment.

 

One commonly proposed way to adjust for family leave (and other personal emergencies that may impact productivity) is to implement a “stop the clock” (STC) policy, where tenure review can be delayed for a period of time, typically in year-long increments. In one study, STC policies were not shown to cause a disadvantage in promotion, although faculty members who use STC policies incur salary penalties not seen by those who do not use them (12). In other studies, STC policies appear to reduce female tenure rates while increasing male tenure rates (13). Therefore, simple STC policies may not be sufficient to promote gender equity. Instead, or in addition to STC policies, reducing service requirements for faculty that are primary caretakers of children <5 years old can help reduce the burden on many faculty members, allowing these individuals to dedicate more of their limited time directly to research and teaching. Another suggestion is to create a “part-time” tenure-track position (with concomitant salary reduction), where the tenure clock is related to the number of full-time total years worked, and can act as a modified STC policy that allows for greater flexibility for parents or caretakers to attend to family responsibilities while also continuing their research program. However, this is also likely to incur salary penalties that would likely disproportionately affect women. Ultimately, the best policies will be tailored and clear. Administrators can provide outlets for female faculty to give suggestions about what would work best in the context of their university and department. The policies that are eventually developed and implemented should be formalized to ensure legal compliance and accountability (14).

 

 

Authors

Olivia Bruce, PhD (Stanford University)

Hannah Dimmick, PhD (University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus)

IWB Book Club Participants

 

 

References

  1.     Sugimoto CR, Larivière V. Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement. Harvard University Press; 2023. 273 p.
  2.     Stephan P. How Economics Shapes Science [Internet]. Harvard University Press; 2012 [cited 2025 Feb 6]. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/harvard.9780674062757/html
  3.     Fuhrmann CN, Halme DG, O’Sullivan PS, Lindstaedt B. Improving Graduate Education to Support a Branching Career Pipeline: Recommendations Based on a Survey of Doctoral Students in the Basic Biomedical Sciences. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2011 Sep;10(3):239–49.
  4.     Mathur A, Hwalek M, Straub V, Chow CS. Increasing faculty support, respect, and ability to help doctoral students explore non-academic research career opportunities. Heliyon. 2023 Jan 1;9(1):e13052.
  5.     Morgan AC, LaBerge N, Larremore DB, Galesic M, Brand JE, Clauset A. Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty. Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Dec;6(12):1625–33.
  6.     Vlasits AL, Smith ML, Maldonado M, Brixius-Anderko S. Supporting nonlinear careers to diversify science. PLOS Biol. 2023 Sep 14;21(9):e3002291.
  7. Chatterjee, P., & Werner, R. M. (2021). Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Network Open, 4(7), e2114509-e2114509.
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2024). CIHR Reviewers’ Guide for Doctoral Research Awards. Retrieved from: https://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/33043.html. Accessed February 17, 2025.
  9. DORA: San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (May 2013). Retrieved from: https://sfdora.org/read/. Accessed February 17, 2025.
  10.     Weisshaar K. Publish and Perish? An Assessment of Gender Gaps in Promotion to Tenure in Academia. Soc Forces. 2017 Dec 1;96(2):529–60.
  11.     Derrick GE, Chen PY, van Leeuwen T, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. The relationship between parenting engagement and academic performance. Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 24;12(1):22300.
  12.     Manchester CF, Leslie LM, Kramer A. Is the Clock Still Ticking? An Evaluation of the Consequences of Stopping the Tenure Clock. ILR Rev. 2013;66(1):3–31.
  13.   Antecol H, Bedard K, Stearns J. Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies? Am Econ Rev. 2018 Sep;108(9):2420–41.
  14.   Schoening AM. Women and Tenure: Closing the Gap. J Women Educ Leadersh. 2009 Apr;7(2):77–92.