IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v4y2018i1d10.1057_s41599-018-0154-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Steps to improve gender diversity in coastal geoscience and engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Vila-Concejo

    (The University of Sydney, F09)

  • Shari L. Gallop

    (12 Wally’s Walk, Macquarie University)

  • Sarah M. Hamylton

    (University of Wollongong)

  • Luciana S. Esteves

    (Bournemouth University)

  • Karin R. Bryan

    (University of Waikato, PB3105)

  • Irene Delgado-Fernandez

    (Edge Hill University)

  • Emilia Guisado-Pintado

    (University of Seville)

  • Siddhi Joshi

    (National University of Ireland Galway)

  • Graziela Miot Silva

    (Flinders University)

  • Amaia Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu

    (University of Baja California)

  • Hannah E. Power

    (University of Newcastle)

  • Nadia Senechal

    (University of Bordeaux, UMR EPOC CNRS)

  • Kristen Splinter

    (UNSW Sydney)

Abstract

Robust data are the base of effective gender diversity policy. Evidence shows that gender inequality is still pervasive in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Coastal geoscience and engineering (CGE) encompasses professionals working on coastal processes, integrating expertise across physics, geomorphology, engineering, planning and management. The article presents novel results of gender inequality and experiences of gender bias in CGE, and proposes practical steps to address it. It analyses the gender representation in 9 societies, 25 journals, and 10 conferences in CGE and establishes that women represent 30% of the international CGE community, yet there is under-representation in prestige roles such as journal editorial board members (15% women) and conference organisers (18% women). The data show that female underrepresentation is less prominent when the path to prestige roles is clearly outlined and candidates can self-nominate or volunteer instead of the traditional invitation-only pathway. By analysing the views of 314 survey respondents (34% male, 65% female, and 1% ‘‘other’’), we show that 81% perceive the lack of female role models as a key hurdle for gender equity, and a significantly larger proportion of females (47%) felt held back in their careers due to their gender in comparison with males (9%). The lack of women in prestige roles and senior positions contributes to 81% of survey respondents perceiving the lack of female role models in CGE as a key hurdle for gender equality. While it is clear that having more women as role models is important, this is not enough to effect change. Here seven practical steps towards achieving gender equity in CGE are presented: (1) Advocate for more women in prestige roles; (2) Promote high-achieving females; (3) Create awareness of gender bias; (4) Speak up; (5) Get better support for return to work; (6) Redefine success; and, (7) Encourage more women to enter the discipline at a young age. Some of these steps can be successfully implemented immediately (steps 1–4), while others need institutional engagement and represent major societal overhauls. In any case, these seven practical steps require actions that can start immediately.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Vila-Concejo & Shari L. Gallop & Sarah M. Hamylton & Luciana S. Esteves & Karin R. Bryan & Irene Delgado-Fernandez & Emilia Guisado-Pintado & Siddhi Joshi & Graziela Miot Silva & Amaia Ruiz de Ale, 2018. "Steps to improve gender diversity in coastal geoscience and engineering," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0154-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0154-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-018-0154-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-018-0154-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tricia Serio, 2016. "Speak up about subtle sexism in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 532(7600), pages 415-415, April.
    2. Tang, Joyce, 1997. "The glass ceiling in science and engineering," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 383-406.
    3. Jory Lerback & Brooks Hanson, 2017. "Journals invite too few women to referee," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 455-457, January.
    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. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    2. MacLachlan, Anne J., 2017. "PRESERVATION OF EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION: Tacit Knowledge, Implicit Bias and University Faculty by Anne J. MacLachlan, UC Berkeley CSHE 1.17 (January 2017)," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt5zv6c3nj, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    5. Torsten Skov, 2020. "Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Jenine K Harris & Merriah A Croston & Ellen T Hutti & Amy A Eyler, 2020. "Diversify the syllabi: Underrepresentation of female authors in college course readings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Gabriella Åhmansson & Lennart S. Öhlund, 2008. "Male Hierarchies and Gender-balanced Boards," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 485-505, December.
    8. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Antonio De Nicola & Gregorio D’Agostino, 2021. "Assessment of gender divide in scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3807-3840, May.
    10. Sarvenaz Sarabipour & Humberto J Debat & Edward Emmott & Steven J Burgess & Benjamin Schwessinger & Zach Hensel, 2019. "On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12, February.
    11. Sabharwal, Meghna, 2011. "Job satisfaction patterns of scientists and engineers by status of birth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 853-863, July.
    12. MacLachlan, Anne J, 2017. "PRESERVATION OF EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION: Tacit Knowledge, Implicit Bias and University Faculty by Anne J. MacLachlan, UC Berkeley CSHE 1.17 (January 2017)," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt8kh0c74r, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    13. Luke Holman & Devi Stuart-Fox & Cindy E Hauser, 2018. "The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Paul Siu Fai Yip & Yunyu Xiao & Clifford Long Hin Wong & Terry Kit Fong Au, 2020. "Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    16. Sandro Mendonça & João Pereira & Manuel Ennes Ferreira, 2018. "Gatekeeping African studies: what does “editormetrics” indicate about journal governance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1513-1534, December.
    17. Michael Färber & Melissa Coutinho & Shuzhou Yuan, 2023. "Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2703-2736, May.
    18. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    19. Eunju Jung & Ja Young Eunice Kim, 2020. "Women in Engineering: Almost No Gap at University but a Long Way to Go for Sustaining Careers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Walters, Cyrill & Mehl, Graeme G. & Piraino, Patrizio & Jansen, Jonathan D. & Kriger, Samantha, 2022. "The impact of the pandemic-enforced lockdown on the scholarly productivity of women academics in South Africa," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    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:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0154-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.