The increasing consideration of gender balance in conservation science and practice has been reflected in the setting of global commitments. Yet, women remain under-represented in science and conservation decisionmaking. We compiled and analyzed data on the representation of women in hiring, publishing, funding, and leadership positions in European Union marine sciences and conservation. To explore scientists' perceptions of gender imbalance in marine sciences and conservation more broadly, we conducted a global survey and analyzed 764 questionnaires from 42 countries. Participants were also asked to identify measures that promote gender equity. We found a consistent pattern of women being under-representated across institutions and nations characterized by a relatively balanced representation of men and women in early career stages and a growing gap in later stages, with women occupying only 13% to 24% of senior positions. The same pattern was found in publishing, funding, and leadership of research institutes. Survey results demonstrate that most marine scientists are aware of the general and persistent gender bias, and perceive that it may compromise our ability to effectively solve conservation problems. Measures that increase fairness in evaluations (e.g. for hiring) and that support work-life balance ranked high, whereas gender-oriented measures, such as gender-specific scholarships, received less support. Our findings suggest that mechanisms promoting a fairer share of family responsibilities and transparent processes in hiring and evaluation are the most promising path to a more balanced participation of women in scientific leadership and conservation decision-making. Such measures may benefit not only women but diversity more generally.

Persistent gender bias in marine science and conservation calls for action to achieve equity

Gissi Elena;
2021

Abstract

The increasing consideration of gender balance in conservation science and practice has been reflected in the setting of global commitments. Yet, women remain under-represented in science and conservation decisionmaking. We compiled and analyzed data on the representation of women in hiring, publishing, funding, and leadership positions in European Union marine sciences and conservation. To explore scientists' perceptions of gender imbalance in marine sciences and conservation more broadly, we conducted a global survey and analyzed 764 questionnaires from 42 countries. Participants were also asked to identify measures that promote gender equity. We found a consistent pattern of women being under-representated across institutions and nations characterized by a relatively balanced representation of men and women in early career stages and a growing gap in later stages, with women occupying only 13% to 24% of senior positions. The same pattern was found in publishing, funding, and leadership of research institutes. Survey results demonstrate that most marine scientists are aware of the general and persistent gender bias, and perceive that it may compromise our ability to effectively solve conservation problems. Measures that increase fairness in evaluations (e.g. for hiring) and that support work-life balance ranked high, whereas gender-oriented measures, such as gender-specific scholarships, received less support. Our findings suggest that mechanisms promoting a fairer share of family responsibilities and transparent processes in hiring and evaluation are the most promising path to a more balanced participation of women in scientific leadership and conservation decision-making. Such measures may benefit not only women but diversity more generally.
2021
Gender equity
Empowerment
European Union
STEM career
Leadership
Leaky pipeline
Women representation
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/461455
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 36
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 34
social impact