Effect of Athena SWAN funding incentives on women's research leadership

The BMJ

Volumn 371, Issue , 2020, Pages

  Ovseiko, Pavel V ^a   Taylor, Mark ^b   Gilligan, Ruth E ^c   Birks, Jacqueline ^a   Elhussein, Leena ^a   Rogers, Mike ^b   Tesanovic, Sonja ^b   Hernandez, Jazmin ^b   Wells, Glenn ^d   Greenhalgh, Trisha ^a   Buchan, Alastair M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b NIHR Central Commissioning Facility   (United Kingdom)

^c HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY   (United Kingdom)

^d Oxford Academic Health Sciences Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST; EMPOWERMENT; FEMALE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LEADERSHIP; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SCHOOL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; REIMBURSEMENT; SEX; STRATEGIC PLANNING; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; UNITED KINGDOM; WOMEN'S RIGHTS; CAREER MOBILITY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PEER REVIEW; PERSONNEL; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; SEX FACTOR; SEX RATIO; SEXISM;

CAREER MOBILITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEADERSHIP; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SEX FACTORS; SEXISM; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85094867633     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3975     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Spokes Symonds A. Also-rans: the injustice of history. Robert Boyd Publications, 2014.
2. Dorothy Hodgkin: The only British woman to win a Nobel science prize gets a doodle. Guardian 2014 May 12. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/12/google-doodle-honours-biochemist-dorothy-hodgkin.
3. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Women in scientific careers. Sixth report of session 2013-14. 2014. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cm-sctech/701/701.pdf.
4. Equality Challenge Unit. Athena SWAN charter awards handbook. 2015. https://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ECU-Handbook-26.05.15-FINAL.pdf.
5. Soderquest K, Lord GM. Strategies for translational research in the United Kingdom. Sci Transl Med2010;2:53cm28. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001129 pmid: 20944087
6. Gunashekar S, Wooding S, Guthrie S. How do NIHR peer review panels use bibliometric information to support their decisions?Scientometrics2017;112:1813-35. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2417-8 pmid: 28804180
7. National Institute for Health Research. NIHR responds to the Government's call for further reduction in bureaucracy with new measures. 2020. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-responds-to-the-governments-call-for-further-reduction-in-bureaucracy-with-new-measures/25633.
8. Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, etal. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet2016;388:2948-58. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01091-0 pmid: 27105721
9. Wennerås C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature1997;387:341-3. doi: 10.1038/387341a0 pmid: 9163412
10. Mutz R, Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Does gender matter in grant peer review?: an empirical investigation using the example of the Austrian Science Fund. Z Psychol2012;220:121-9. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000103 pmid: 23480982
11. Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet 2019;393:531-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4 pmid: 30739688
12. Helitzer DL, Newbill SL, Cardinali G, Morahan PS, Chang S, Magrane D. Changing the culture of academic medicine: critical mass or critical actors?J Women's Health (Larchmt)2017;26:540-8. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6019 pmid: 28092473
13. Kalpazidou Schmidt E, Ovseiko PV, Henderson LR, Kiparoglou V. Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective. Health Res Policy Syst2020;18:19. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0527-x pmid: 32059678
14. Ovseiko PV, Chapple A, Edmunds LD, Ziebland S. Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN charter for women in science: an exploratory study of women's and men's perceptions. Health Res Policy Syst2017;15:12. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9 pmid: 28222735
15. Ovseiko PV, Pololi LH, Edmunds LD, etal. Creating a more supportive and inclusive university culture: a mixed-methods interdisciplinary comparative analysis of medical and social sciences at the University of Oxford. Interdiscip Sci Rev 2019;44:166-91doi: 10.1080/03080188.2019.1603880.
16. Graves A, Rowell A, Hunsicker E. An Impact Evaluation of the Athena SWAN Charter. 2019. https://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Athena-SWAN-Impact-Evaluation-2019.pdf.
17. Xiao Y, Pinkney E, Au TKF, Yip PSF. Athena SWAN and gender diversity: a UK-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open2020;10:e032915. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032915 pmid: 32051310
18. Gregory-Smith I. Positive action towards gender equality: evidence from the Athena SWAN charter in UK medical schools. BrJInd Relat2018;56:463-83doi: 10.1111/bjir.12252
19. Rosser SV, Barnard S, Carnes M, Munir F. Athena SWAN and ADVANCE: effectiveness and lessons learned. Lancet2019;393:604-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33213-6 pmid: 30739697
20. Tzanakou C. Unintended consequences of gender-equality plans. Nature2019;570:277. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01904-1 pmid: 31213693
21. Caffrey L, Wyatt D, Fudge N, Mattingley H, Williamson C, McKevitt C. Gender equity programmes in academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012090. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012090 pmid: 27609850
22. Bhopal K, Henderson H. Competing inequalities: gender versus race in higher education institutions in the UK. Educ Rev2019:1-17.doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1642305
23. Fine C, Sojo V. Women's value: beyond the business case for diversity and inclusion. Lancet 2019;393:515-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30165-5 pmid: 30739677
24. Hong L, Page SE. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA2004;101:16385-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403723101 pmid: 15534225
25. Campbell LG, Mehtani S, Dozier ME, Rinehart J. Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One2013;8:e79147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079147 pmid: 24205372
26. Smith-Doerr L. Women's work: gender equality vs. hierarchy in the life sciences.Lynne Rienner, 2004.
27. van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK. Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy2011;40:463-72doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001
28. Nielsen MW, Andersen JP, Schiebinger L, Schneider JW. One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nat Hum Behav 2017;1:791-6. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x pmid: 31024130
29. Sugimoto CR, Ahn Y-Y, Smith E, Macaluso B, Larivière V. Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis. Lancet2019;393:550-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32995-7 pmid: 30739690
30. Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev2016;1:2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 pmid: 29451543
31. Kalpazidou Schmidt E,Ovseiko PV. Link Horizon Europe funding to real steps to gender equality. Nature2020;584:525. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02430-1 pmid: 32814915
32. Austin JP. Is academic medicine ready for term limits?Acad Med2020;95:180-3. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003020 pmid: 31577584