Gendering and Diversifying the Research Pipeline: A Quantitative Feminist Geographical Approach to Gender in Higher Education

References

• Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A Theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society 4 (2):139–58. doi: 10.1177/089124390004002002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, R. 2020. Fewer than 1 percent of UK university professors are black, figures show. The Guardian, February 27. Accessed July 5, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/feb/27/fewer-than-1-of-uk-university-professors-are-black-figures-show.
   Google Scholar
• Advance HE. 2021a. Staff statistical report 2021. Advance HE, York, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Advance HE. 2021b. Students statistical report 2021. Advance HE, York, UK.
   Google Scholar
• American Association of University Women (AAUW). 2022. Fast facts: Women working in academia. Accessed August 2, 2022. https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/.
   Google Scholar
• American Council on Education and Center for International Higher Education (ACE and CIHE). 2021. Women’s representation in higher education leadership around the world. Accessed September 3, 2021. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Womens-Rep-in-Higher-Ed-Leadership-Around-the-World.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Arribas-Bel, D. 2014. Accidental, open, and everywhere: Emerging data sources for the understanding of cities. Applied Geography 49:45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, C. 2011. Beyond the leaky pipeline: Consolidating understanding and incorporating new research about women’s science careers in the UK. Brussels Economic Review 54:149–76.
   Google Scholar
• Berhe, A. A., R. T. Barnes, M. G. Hastings, A. Mattheis, B. Schneider, B. M. Williams, and E. Marín-Spiotta. 2022. Scientists from historically excluded groups face a hostile obstacle course. Nature Geoscience 15 (1):2–4. doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00868-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berryman, S. E. 1983. Who will do science? Trends, and their causes in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics: A special report. The Rockefeller Foundation, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Blickenstaff, J. C. 2005. Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education 17 (4):369–86. doi: 10.1080/09540250500145072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blithe, S. J., and M. Elliott. 2020. Gender inequality in the academy: Microaggressions, work–life conflict, and academic rank. Journal of Gender Studies 29 (7):751–64. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2019.1657004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourabain, D. 2020. Everyday sexism and racism in the ivory tower: The experiences of early career researchers on the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the academic workplace. Gender, Work and Organization 28 (1):248–67. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The British Library. 2021. Ethos: E-thesis online service. Accessed January 10, 2021. https://ethos.bl.uk/.
   Google Scholar
• Britton, D. M. 2017. Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender and Society 31 (1):5–27. doi: 10.1177/0891243216681494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockman, A. J. 2021. “La crème de la crème”: How racial, gendered, and intersectional social comparisons reveal inequities that affect sense of belonging in STEM. PLoS ONE 91 (4):1–8. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2020.1828944.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S., J. Davidovic, and A. Hasan. 2021. The algorithm audit: Scoring the algorithms that score us. Big Data and Society 8 (1):1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buolamwini, J., and T. Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81:1–15. Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cannady, M. A., E. Greenwald, and K. N. Harris. 2014. Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Science Education 98 (3):443–60. doi: 10.1002/sce.21108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro, A. R., and C. S. Collins. 2021. Asian American women in STEM in the lab with White men named John. Science Education 105 (1):33–61. doi: 10.1002/sce.21598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., D. K. Ginther, S. Kahn, and W. M. Williams. 2014. Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15 (3):75–141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cidlinská, K. 2019. How not to scare off women: Different needs of female early-stage researchers in STEM and SSH fields and the implications for support measures. Higher Education 78 (2):365–88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0347-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6):1241–99. doi: 10.2307/1229039.
   Google Scholar
• Criado Perez, C. 2019. Invisible women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. 1st ed. London: Chatto and Windus.
   Google Scholar
• de Beauvoir, S. 1949. The second sex, trans. and ed. H. M. Parshley. New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• D’Ignazio, C., and L. Klein. 2020. Data feminism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Etzkowitz, H., and M. Ranga. 2011. Gender dynamics in science and technology: From the “leaky pipeline” to the “vanish box.” Cahiers Économiques de Bruxelles 54:131–47.
   Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, C. R., D. R. Williams, J. Onnela, and S. V. Subramanian. 2018. A multilevel approach to modelling health inequities at the intersection of multiple social identities. Social Science & Medicine 203:64–73. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, R. 2022. Quantitative methods I: Reckoning with uncertainty. Progress in Human Geography 46 (2):689–97. doi: 10.1177/03091325211063635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, R. S., E. C. Delmelle, C. Andris, T. Cheng, S. Dodge, J. Franklin, A. Heppenstal, M. P. Kwan, W. Li, S. McLafferty, et al. 2022. Making space in geographical analysis. Geographical Analysis:1–17. doi: 10.1111/gean.12325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, R. S., V. Houlden, C. Robinson, D. Arribas-Bel, E. C. Delmelle, U. Demšar, H. J. Miller, and D. O’Sullivan. 2021. Who counts? Gender, gatekeeping, and quantitative human geography. The Professional Geographer 73 (1):48–61. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2020.1828944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasser, C. E., and K. S. Shaffer. 2014. Career development of women in academia: Traversing the leaky pipeline. The Professional Counselor 4 (4):332–52. doi: 10.15241/ceg.4:332.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. A. 2008. Defeating bigenderism: Changing gender assumptions in the twenty-first century. Hypatia 24 (3):93–112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20618166. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01047.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H. 2003. Multilevel modelling of educational data. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H. 2011. Multilevel statistical models. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Goulden, M., M. A. Mason, and K. Frasch. 2011. Keeping women in the science pipeline. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 638 (1):141–62. [Database] doi: 10.1177/0002716925.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R. M., and B. Sandler. 1982. The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? In The classroom climate: A chilly one for women?, 1–24. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women.
   Google Scholar
• HESA. 2021a. All staff (excluding atypical) by equality characteristics 2014/15 to 2019/20. Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/staff/table-27.
   Google Scholar
• HESA. 2021b. Who’s studying in HE? Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/whos-in-he.
   Google Scholar
• HESA. 2022. Higher education student statistics: UK, 2020/21—Student numbers and characteristics. Accessed February 2, 2022. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/25-01-2022/sb262-higher-education-student-statistics/numbers.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, K. M. 2021. Academia and motherhood: A narrative inquiry of Ontario academic mothers’ experiences in university graduate programs. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0192513X211064864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstra, B., V. V. Kulkarni, S. Munoz-Najar Galvez, B. He, D. Jurafsky, and D. A. McFarland. 2020. The diversity–innovation paradox in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (17):9284–91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman, L., D. Stuart-Fox, and C. E. Hauser. 2018. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology 16 (4):e2004956. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee. 2016. The link to productivity. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/584/58406.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Howe-Walsh, L., and S. Turnbull. 2016. Barriers to women leaders in academia: Tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education 41 (3):415–28. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.929102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadidi, M., F. Karimi, H. Lietz, and C. Wagner. 2017. Gender disparities in science? dropout, productivity, collaborations and success of male and female computer scientists. Advances in Complex Systems 21 (3&4):1750011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, D. H., and J. E. Mapes. 2016. Where are the women? Accounting for discrepancies in female doctorates in U.S. geography. The Professional Geographer 68 (3):427–35. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2015.1102030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi, F., C. Wagner, F. Lemmerich, M. Jadidi, and M. Strohmaier. 2016. Inferring gender from names on the Web: A comparative evaluation of gender detection methods. In WWW’16 Companion Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, 53–54. doi: 10.1145/2872518.2889385.
   Google Scholar
• Khalil, A., S. G. Ahmed, A. M. Khattak, and N. Al-Qirim. 2020. Investigating bias in facial analysis systems: A systematic review. IEEE Access.8:130751–61. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3006051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingma, B., and W. Van Marken Lichtenbelt. 2015. Energy consumption in buildings and female thermal demand. Nature Climate Change 5 (12):1054–56. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King’s College London. 2021. Equality, diversity & inclusion annual report 2020–21. Accessed November 15, 2022. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/hr/diversity/di-at-kings/edi-annual-report-2020-21.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kloxin, A. M. 2019. Addressing the leaky pipeline through mentoring and support: A personal perspective. Nature Review Materials 4:287–89. doi: 10.1038/s41578-019-0109-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, D., V. Larivière, C. R. Sugimoto, and T. Monroe-White. 2022. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 119 (2):1–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113067119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuzhabekova, A., and A. Almukhambetova. 2021. Women’s progression through the leadership pipeline in the universities of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 51 (1):99–117. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2019.1599820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwan, M.-P. 2002. Quantitative methods and feminist geographic research. In Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods, ed. P. J. Moss, K. F. Al-Hindi, and H. Kawabata, 1–17. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Larivière, V., C. Ni, Y. Gingras, B. Cronin, and C. R. Sugimoto. 2013. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504 (7479):211–13. doi: 10.1038/504211a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leckie, G. 2009. The complexity of school and neighbourhood effects and movements of pupils on school differences in models of educational achievement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 172 (3):537–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00577.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindqvist, A., M. Gustafsson Sendén, and E. Renström. 2020. What is gender, anyway: A review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychology and Sexuality 12 (4):332–44. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell, L. 1992. Doing gender: Feminism, feminists, and research methods in human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17 (4):399–416. doi: 10.2307/622707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLafferty, S. 1995. Counting for women. The Professional Geographer 47 (4):436–42. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1995.00436.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, M., A. Cimpian, and S. J. Leslie. 2015. Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology 6:235. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihaljević, H., M. Tullney, L. Santamaría, and C. Steinfeldt. 2019. Reflections on gender analyses of bibliographic c1orpora. Frontiers in Big Data 2:29. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00029.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mihaljević-Brandt, H., L. Santamaría, and M. Tullney. 2016. The effect of gender in the publication patterns in mathematics. PLoS ONE 11 (10):e0165367–23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, A. C., S. F. Way, M. J. D. Hoefer, D. B. Larremore, M. Galesic, and A. Clauset. 2021. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Science Advances 7 (9):1–8. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd1996.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble, S. U. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, P., and G. Irvine. 2020. Multi-level state interventions and gender equality in higher education institutions: The Irish case. Administrative Sciences 10 (4):98. doi: 10.3390/admsci10040098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, G., R. Harris, and K. Jones. 2016. Under examination: Multilevel models, geography and health research. Progress in Human Geography 40 (3):394–412. doi: 10.1177/0309132515580814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paswan, J., and V. K. Singh. 2020. Gender and research publishing analysed through the lenses of discipline, institution types, impact and international collaboration: a case study from India. Scientometrics 123:497–515. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03398-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posselt, J., K. B. Porter, and A. Kamimura. 2018. Organizational pathways toward gender equity in doctoral education: Chemistry and civil engineering compared. American Journal of Education 124 (4):383–410. doi: 10.1086/698457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raji, I. D., T. Gebru, M. Mitchell, J. Buolamwini, J. Lee, and E. Denton. 2020. Saving face: Investigating the ethical concerns of facial recognition auditing. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.00964. doi: 10.1145/3375627.3375820.
   Google Scholar
• Rasbash, J., G. Leckie, R. Pillinger, and J. Jenkins. 2010. Children’s educational progress: Partitioning family, school, and area effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 173 (3):657–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00642.x.
   Google Scholar
• Rollock, N. 2019. Staying power: The career experiences and strategies of UK Black female professors. Technical report, University and College Union. Accessed August 2, 2022. https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/10075/Staying-Power/pdf/UCU_Rollock_February_2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ropers-Huilman, R., and K. T. Winters. 2011. Feminist research in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 82 (6):667–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41337166. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2011.0035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santamaría, L., and H. Mihaljević. 2018. Comparison and benchmark of name-to- gender inference services. PeerJ Computer Science 4:e156. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savigny, H. 2014. Women, know your limits: Cultural sexism in academia. Gender and Education 26 (7):794–809. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2014.970977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurr, C., M. Müller, and N. Imhof. 2020. Who makes geographical knowledge? The gender of geography’s gatekeepers. The Professional Geographer 72 (3):317–31. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2020.1744169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. 2010. Quantitative methods and gender inequalities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13 (3):223–36. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2010.482258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebo, P. 2021. Performance of gender detection tools: A comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. Journal of the Medical Library Association 109 (3):414–21. https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1185. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seierstad, C., and G. Healy. 2012. Women’s equality in the Scandinavian academy: A distant dream? Work, Employment and Society 26 (2):296–313. doi: 10.1177/0950017011432918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spierings, N. 2012. The inclusion of quantitative techniques and diversity in the mainstream of feminist research. European Journal of Women’s Studies 19 (3):331–47. doi: 10.1177/13505068124436215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2021. Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5.
   Google Scholar
• Viglione, G. 2020. Are women publishing less during the pandemic? Here’s what the data say. Nature 581 (7809):365–66. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01294-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wais, K. 2016. Gender prediction methods based on first names with genderizeR. R Journal 8 (1):17–37. doi: 10.32614/rj-2016-002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, L., I. Sin, C. Macinnis-Ng, K. Hannah, and T. McAllister. 2020. Where to from here? Women remain absent from senior academic positions at Aotearoa New Zealand’s universities. Education Sciences 10 (6):152. doi: 10.3390/educsci10060152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, S. 2008. Of heads and hearts: Women in doctoral education at a Canadian university. Women’s Studies International Forum 31 (3):219–28. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2008.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, C., and D. H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society 1 (2):125–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/189945. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westbrook, L., and A. Saperstein. 2015. New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and Gender & Society 29 (4):534–60. doi: 10.1177/0891243215584758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerholt, R., F. B. Mocnik, and A. Comber. 2020. A place for place: Modelling and analysing platial representations. Transactions in GIS 24 (4):811–18. doi: 10.1111/tgis.12647.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, L., L. Anselin, D. Arribas-Bel, and L. Mobley. 2021. On spatial and platial dependence: Examining shrinkage in spatially dependent multilevel models. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111:1–13. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1841602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2021. Gender and health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1.
   Google Scholar