Scientific sexism: the gender bias in the scientific production of the Universidade de São Paulo

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055002939

Keywords:

Sexism, Scientific Publication Indicators, Gender Inequality

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To investigate gender inequity in the scientific production of the University of Sao Paulo. METHODS Members of the University of Sao Paulo faculty are the study population. The Web of Science repository was the source of the publication metrics. We selected the measures: total publications and citations, average of citations per year and item, H-index, and history of citations between 1950 and 2019. We used the name of the faculty member as a proxy to the gender identity. We use descriptive statistics to characterize the metrics. We evaluated the scissors effect by selecting faculty members with a high H-index. The historical series of citations was projected until 2100. We carry out analyses for the general population and working time subgroups: less than 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and 20 years or more. RESULTS Of the 8,325 faculty members, we included 3,067 (36.8%). Among those included, 1,893 (61.7%) were male and 1,174 (38.28%) female. The male gender presented higher values in the publication metrics (average of articles: M = 67.0 versus F = 49.7; average of citations/year: M = 53.9 versus F = 35.9), and H-index (M = 14.5 versus F = 12.4). Among the 100 individuals with the highest H-index (≥ 37), 83% are male. The male curve grows faster in the historical series of citations, opening a difference between the groups whose separation is confirmed by the projection. DISCUSSION Scientific production at the Universidade de São Paulo is subject to a gender bias. Two-thirds of the faculty are male, and hiring over the past few decades perpetuates this pattern. The large majority of high impact faculty members are male. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that the Universidade de São Paulo will not overcome gender inequality in scientific production without substantive affirmative action. Development does not happen by chance but through choices that are affirmative, decisive, and long-term oriented.

References

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [Internet]. New York, NY, USA; 2015 [cited 2020 Apr 10]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 [ Links ]

Wodon QT, de la Brière B. The cost of gender inequality: unrealized potential: the high cost of gender inequality in earnings. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1596/29865 [ Links ]

Treas J, Tai T. Gender Inequality in Housework Across 20 European Nations: Lessons from Gender Stratification Theories. Sex Roles. 2016;74(11–12):495–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0575-9 [ Links ]

Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc Stud Sci. 2012;42(2):307–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830 [ Links ]

Phillips KW. How Diversity Makes Us Smarter. Sci Am. 2014;311(4):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1014-42 [ Links ]

Audy J. A inovação, o desenvolvimento e o papel da Universidade. Estud Avancados. 2017;31(90):75–87. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-40142017.3190005 [ Links ]

Yamamoto PE. USP é a 115a melhor universidade do mundo, segundo ranking QS [Internet]. Jornal da USP. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 14]. p. 1–6. Available from: https://jornal.usp.br/institucional/usp-e-a-115a-melhor-universidade-do-mundo-segundo-ranking-da-qs/ [ Links ]

UN Women. 2019 IMPACT REPORT [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 20]. Available from: https://www.heforshe.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/HFS_IMPACT_2019_Onscreen_revised.pdf [ Links ]

Universidade de São Paulo. DataUSP [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://uspdigital.usp.br/datausp/publico/apresentacao.jsp?codmnu=6489 [ Links ]

Martín-Martín A, Orduna-Malea E, Thelwall M, Delgado López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J Informetr. 2018;12(4):1160–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 [ Links ]

Universidade de São Paulo. USP Digital - Portal Transparência [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://uspdigital.usp.br/portaltransparencia/portaltransparenciaListar [ Links ]

Brasil.io [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://brasil.io/dataset/genero-nomes/nomes/ [ Links ]

Universidade de São Paulo. USP Digital - Departamentos [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://uspdigital.usp.br/datausp/publico/citacoes/citacoesdepartamento.jsp [ Links ]

GitHub - Livia Ciabati - Publicação e Gênero [Internet]. Available from: https://github.com/liviaciabati/publicacao_e_genero [ Links ]

Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução no 510/2016. Brasil; 2016 p. 1–8. [ Links ]

Silva ER da. A (IN)VISIBILIDADE DAS MULHERES NO CAMPO CIENTÍFICO. Rev HISTEDBR On-l ine. 2008;(30):133–48. [ Links ]

Sáez SE. La ciencia oculta. Fundación Dr. Antonio Esteve; 2017. [ Links ]

Shannon G, Jansen M, Williams K, Cáceres C, Motta A, Odhiambo A, et al. Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: where are we at and why does it matter? Lancet. 2019;393(10171):560–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33135-0 [ Links ]

Beltrão KI, Alves JED. A reversão do hiato de gênero na educação brasileira no século XX. Cad Pesqui. 2009;39(136):125–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-15742009000100007 [ Links ]

ANDIFES (Associação Nacional dos Dirigentes das Instituições Federais de Ensino Superior). V Pesquisa Nacional de Perfil Socioeconômico e Cultural dos (as) Graduandos (as) das IFES - 2018. 2019. [ Links ]

Bahmani S, Sotos FE, García IP. Women, Research, and Entrepreneurship. In: Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economics. 2012. p. 1–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1293-9 [ Links ]

Ferrari NC, Martell R, Okido DH, Romanzini G, Magnan V, Barbosa MC, et al. Geographic and gender diversity in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2018;90(2):2543–52. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201820170107 [ Links ]

Kuhlmann E, Ovseiko P V., Kurmeyer C, Gutiérrez-Lobos K, Steinböck S, von Knorring M, et al. Closing the gender leadership gap: A multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union. Hum Resour Health. 2017;15(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-016-0175-y [ Links ]

Adams S, Miller SR. The scissor effect: Challenges and response strategies for encouraging Moroccan women to pursue engineering and science careers. J Women Minor Sci Eng. 2016;22(3):245–57. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWOMENMINORSCIENENG.2016011170 [ Links ]

Burns KEA, Straus SE, Liu K, Rizvi L, Guyatt G. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16(10):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002935 [ Links ]

Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(41):16474–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109 [ Links ]

Fried LP, Francomano CA, MacDonald SM, Wagner EM, Stokes EJ, Carbone KM, et al. Career development for women in academic medicine: Multiple interventions in a Department of Medicine. J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276(11):898–905. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.276.11.898 [ Links ]

Van Der Lee R, Ellemers N, Fiske ST. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(40):12349–53. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510159112 [ Links ]

Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(1):4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 [ Links ]

Floyd L. Helping midwives in Ghana to reduce maternal mortality. Afr J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;7(1):34–8. https://doi.org/10.12968/ajmw.2013.7.1.34 [ Links ]

Jadidi M, Karimi F, Lietz H, Wagner C. Gender disparities in science? Dropout, productivity, collaborations and success of male and female computer scientists. Adv Complex Syst. 2018;21(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525917500114 [ Links ]

Débarre F, Rode NO, Ugelvig L V. Gender equity at scientific events. Evol Lett. 2018;2(3):148–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.49 [ Links ]

Thomas EG, Jayabalasingham B, Collins T, Geertzen J, Bui C, Dominici F. Gender Disparities in Invited Commentary Authorship in 2459 Medical Journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13682 [ Links ]

Jornal da USP. Igualdade de gênero ganha relevância na Faculdade de Direito da USP [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 10]. Available from: https://jornal.usp.br/universidade/igualdade-de-genero-ganha-relevancia-na-faculdade-de-direito-da-usp/ [ Links ]

Crettaz von Roten F. Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Sci Commun. 2011;33(1):52–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658 [ Links ]

Files JA, Mayer AP, Ko MG, Friedrich P, Jenkins M, Bryan MJ, et al. Speaker Introductions at Internal Medicine Grand Rounds: Forms of Address Reveal Gender Bias. J Women’s Heal. 2017;26(5):413–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6044 [ Links ]

Kaiser CR, Major B, Jurcevic I, Dover TL, Brady LM, Shapiro JR. Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013;104(3):504–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030838 [ Links ]

Web of Science. Web of Science Confident research begins here. 2019;1–4. [ Links ]

Marcondes MM, Pinheiro L, Queiroz C, Querino AC, Valverde D, organizadoras. Dossiê Mulheres Negras: retrato das condições de vida das mulheres negras no Brasil. Brasília, DF: IPEA; 2013. [ Links ]

Published

2021-10-29

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

Scientific sexism: the gender bias in the scientific production of the Universidade de São Paulo. (2021). Revista De Saúde Pública, 55, 46. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055002939