Not "pulling up the ladder": Women who organize conference symposia provide greater opportunities for women to speak at conservation conferences

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  Sardelis, Stephanie ^a   Drew, Joshua A ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; ORGANIZATION; SPEECH; TRAVEL; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; SEX DIFFERENCE;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEX FACTORS; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC;

EID: 84982734943     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160015     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. West MS, Curtis JW. AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Technical report, American Association of University Professors. 2006. Available: https://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/63396944-44BE-4ABA-9815-5792D93856F1/0/AAUPGenderEquityIndicators2006.pdf.
2. Redden E. Female faculty and the sciences. Inside Higher Ed. 2007. Available: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/18/womensci.
3. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams WM. Do women earn less than men in STEM fields? Scientific American. 2015. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-women-earn-less-than-men-in-stem-fields/.
4. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. PNAS. 2011; 108 (8): 3157-3162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108 PMID: 21300892
5. Beede D, Julian T, Langdon D, McKittrick G, Khan B, Doms M. Women in STEM: a gender gap to innovation. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2011;Issue Brief #04-11. Available: http://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation
6. Conley D, Stadmark J. Gender matters: A call to commission more women writers. Nature. 2012; 488: 590.
7. Rosser SV. The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. Psychology Press; 2004.
8. Lariviere V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504: 211-213. PMID: 24350369
9. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE. 2013.
10. Yentsch CM, Sindermann CJ. The woman scientist: Meeting the challenges for a successful career. Basic Books; 2003.
11. Chachra D. Countering the self-fulfilling prophecy of gender schemas. Bitch Planet, volume 1, issue 6. Image Comics; 2016.
12. Ecklund EH, Lincoln AE, Tansey C. Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society. 2012; 26(5): 693-717.
13. Jones TM, Fanson KV, Lanfear R, Symonds MRE, Higgie M. Gender differences in conference presentations: A consequence of self-selection? PeerJ. 2014; 2(627
14. Stout JG, Dasgupta N, Hunsinger M, McManus MA. STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J of Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 100(2): 255-270.
15. Dasgupta N, Stout JG. Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 2014; 1(1): 21-29.
16. Blickenstaff JC. Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education. 2005; 17(4): 369-389.
17. Goulden M, Mason MA, Frasch K. Keeping women in the science pipeline. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2011; 638: 141-162.
18. Schroeder J, Dugdale HL, Radersma R, Hinsch M, Buehler DM, Saul J, et al. Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. J. Evol. Biol. 2013; 26(9): 2063-2069.
19. Wyer M. Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies. Psychology Press; 2001.
20. Tanenbaum C, Upton R. Early academic career pathways in STEM: Do gender and family status matter? American Institutes for Research. 2014. Available: http://www.air.org/resource/early-academic-career-pathways-stem-do-gender-and-family-status-matter.
21. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favour male students. PNAS. 2012; 109(41): 16474-16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 PMID: 22988126
22. Holleran E, Whitehead J, Schmade T, Mehl MR. Talking shop and shooting the breeze: A study of workplace conversation and job disengagement among STEM faculty. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2011; 2: 65-71.
23. Karpowitz CF, Mendelberg T, Shaker L. Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review. 2012; 106(3): 533-547.
24. Bardolph DN. A critical evaluations of recent gendered publishing trends in American archaeology. American Antiquity. 2014; 79(3): 522-540.
25. Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the United States, 1990s and 2000s. Soc Stud Sci. 2012; 42(2): 307-20. PMID: 22849001
26. Charyton C, Elliott JO, Rahman MA, Woodard JL, DeDois S. Gender and science: Women Nobel Laureates. The Journal of Creative Behaviour. 2011; 45(3): 203-214.
27. Hedin M. A prize for grumpy old men? Reflections on the lack of female Nobel Laureates. Gender and History. 2014; 26(1): 52-63.
28. Casadevall A, Handelsman J. The presence of female conveners correlates with higher proportion of female speakers at scientific symposia. mBio. 2014; 5(1): e00846-13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00846-13 PMID: 24399856
29. Martin JL. Ten simple rules to achieve conference speaker gender balance. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014; 10(11): e1003903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003903 PMID: 25411977
30. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M. The Matilda Effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication. 2013; 35(5): 603-625.
31. Butler J. Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal. 1988; 40(4): 519-531.
32. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria; R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012. Available: http://www.R-project.org/.
33. Diekman AB, Weisgram ES, Belanger AL. New routes to recruiting and retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review. 2015; 9(1): 52-88.
34. Isbell LA, Young TP, Harcourt AH. Stag parties linger: Continued gender bias in a female-rich scientific discipline. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(11): e49682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049682 PMID: 23185407
35. Henley MM. Women's success in academic science: Challenges to breaking through the ivory ceiling. Sociology Compass. 2015; 9(8): 668-680.
36. Addessi E, Borgi M, Palagi E. Is primatology an equal-opportunity discipline? PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(1): e30458. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030458 PMID: 22272353
37. Fox MF. Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science. 2005; 35(1): 131-150.
38. Correll SJ, Benard S, Paik I. Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology. 2007; 112(5): 1297-1338.
39. Appel M, Kronberger N, Aronson J. Stereotype threat impairs ability building: Effects on test preparation among women in science and technology. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2011; 41: 904-913.
40. Kelly K, Grant L. Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields. Social Studies of Science. 2012; 42(6): 869-896.
41. Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S. Sex differences in institutional support for junior biomedical researchers. JAMA 2015; 314(11): 1175-1177. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.8517 PMID: 26372589
42. SICB Awards & Scholarships. Awards and Scholarships for Students. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; 2016. Available: http://www.sicb.org/students/awards.php3#skinner.
43. Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Uzzi B. Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge University Press; 2000.
44. Favaro B, Oester S, Cigliano JA, Cornick LA, Hind JE, Parsons ECM, et al. Your science conference should have a code of conduct. Front Mar Sci. 2016; 3(103).