Gender gaps in science. An analysis of the research projects of the Universities located in the Province of Buenos Aires

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re58.362

Keywords:

brecha de género, ciencia y tecnología, universidades

Abstract

This paper analyses the gender gaps in science and technology (S&T) activity in public universities (UUPP) located in the Province of Buenos Aires (PBA). Occupational segregation is analysed through the composition and roles of research teams and the distribution of men and women among disciplinary areas. A database was constructed with information at the level of members and disciplinary area of the research projects based in the UUP of the PBA. The sample includes information on 2401 research projects and 12310 people (20 out of 24 UUPP). The results show the existence of vertical and horizontal segregation in S&T in the UUPPs of the PBA. Women are less likely to lead projects in the Exact and Natural sciences and in the Agricultural and Engineering sciences than in the Social sciences. The proportional number of women in the sample is 3 percentage points lower than the number of women leading projects at the national level. This difference increases when the teams are led by men. We stress the need to continue incorporating the gender perspective in a transversal manner in S&T in order to reduce and even eradicate gender gaps.

References

Bukstein, D. y Gandelman, N. (2019). Glass ceilings in research: Evidence from a national program in Uruguay. Research Policy, 48(6), 1550–1563.

Carrillo, P., Gandelman, N. y Robano, V. (2014). Sticky floors and glass ceilings in Latin America. Journal of Economic Inequality, Vol. 12(3), pp. 339-361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-013-9258-3

Cole, J. R. y Zuckerman, H. (1984). The Productivity Puzzle: persistence and change in patterns of publication among men and women scientists. In M. W. Steinkamp y M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Volume 2, pp. 217–258). JAI Press inc.

D’Onofrio, M. G. y Tignino, M. V. (2018). Indicadores diagnósticos sobre la situación de las mujeres en ciencia y tecnología en Argentina y Banco de acciones en género y ciencia. Taller Mujeres En Ciencia y Tecnología: Hacia Una Participación Con Equidad.

Espino, A. (2010). Economía feminista: enfoques y propuestas. Serie Documentos de Trabajo/FCEA-IE; DT05/10.

Fiorentin, F. y Suarez, D. (2021). Género, economía y producción de conocimiento: Reflexiones en torno a la transversalización en el mundo post-COVID19.

Fiorentin, F., Pereira, M. y Suarez, D. (2022). The Gender Gap in Public S&T Funding (IDB-WP-1 26 7; IDB WORKING PAPER).

Goren, N. (2021). Mercado de Trabajo. In S. Gamba & T. Diz (Eds.), Nuevo diccionario de estudios de género y feminismos (pp. 412–416). Argentina, Biblos.

Goren, N. (2022). Trabajo femenino, una historia de desigualdades persistentes. Voces En El Fénix, 87, pp. 44–51.

Goren, N., Maldovan Bonelli, J., Dzembrowski, N., Mingo, E., Ferrón, G., Alvarez Newman, D., Gorban, D., Corradi, F. y Figueroa, Y. (2020). La situación de los/as trabajadores/os ocupados/as de la provincia de Buenos Aires ante las medidas de ASPO.

Guarino, C. M. y Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family? Research in Higher Education, 58(6), pp. 672–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2

Haraway, D. (1995). Conocimientos situados: la cuestión científica en el feminismo y el privilegio de la perspectiva parcial. Ciencia, Cyborgs y Mujeres. La Reinvención de La Naturaleza, 14, pp. 313–346.

Harding, S. (1995). Can feminist thought make economics more objective? Feminist Economics, 1(1), pp. 7–32.

Keller, E. F. (2001). Reflexiones sobre género y ciencia (fragmento). Asparkía. Investigació Feminista, 12, pp. 149–153.

Lawson, C., Geuna, A. y Finardi, U. (2021). The funding-productivity-gender nexus in science, a multistage analysis. Research Policy, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104182

León, L. R., Mairesse, J. y Cowan, R. (2017). Gender Gaps and Scientific Productivity in Middle-Income Countries. Evidence from Mexico. IDB Working Paper Series ; 800.

Magua, W., Zhu, X., Bhattacharya, A., Filut, A., Potvien, A., Leatherberry, R., Lee, Y.-G., Jens, M., Malikireddy, D. y Carnes, M. (2017). Are female applicants disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers’ critiques. Journal of Women’s Health, 26(5), pp. 560–570.

Mauleón, E. y Bordons, M. (2006). Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of materials science. Scientometrics, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0014-3

Millett, K. (2017). Política sexual. España, Ediciones Cátedra.

Park, S. (2020). Seeking changes in ivory towers: The impact of gender quotas on female academics in higher education. Women’s Studies International Forum, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2020.102346

Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), pp. 325–341.

SICYTAR. (2022). Portal de información de ciencia y tecnología argentino. https://datasets.datos.mincyt.gob.ar/dataset?groups=genero

Steinþórsdóttir, F. S., Einarsdóttir, Þ., Pétursdóttir, G. M. y Himmelweit, S. (2020). Gendered inequalities in competitive grant funding: an overlooked dimension of gendered power relations in academia. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(2), pp. 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1666257

Suarez, D. y Pereira, M. (2023). Los PICT: una experiencia de promoción de la investigación en ciencia y tecnología en la Argentina. CIECTI.

Wenneras, C. y Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), pp. 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0

Published

2024-07-05

How to Cite

Suarez, D., Fiorentin, F. ., & Goren, N. (2024). Gender gaps in science. An analysis of the research projects of the Universities located in the Province of Buenos Aires. Redes. Journal of Social Studies of Science and Technology, 30(58). https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re58.362