Abstract
Gender equality is one of the primary dimensions of responsible research and innovation. Based on bibliometric and survey data of nanotechnology researchers in Canada, this paper analyzes the reward system of science in terms of gender and gender-related institutional cultures. This study reveals that the scientific culture of nanotechnology was perceived as more masculine by women than by men. The findings show that gender productivity gaps remain a challenge in the field and that these gaps are reinforced by the fact that the most productive researchers are less likely to collaborate with women. The results also show the amount of extra effort that women must devote to their research to retain their top status in academia, and the extent that their recognition when in top positions is fragile compared to men. This study confirms the cumulative advantage of creating a gender-inclusive culture that enables women to improve their scientific productivity and impact: such cultures tend to privilege first-author publications over patenting and thus prioritize a type of output where women have had more success. Finally, this paper concludes with policy recommendations for improving the number of women in research and the institutions where they work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is important to note that the analyses presented in this study are at the author level rather than the article level (participants identified themselves as active researchers in the field of nanotechnology before entering the survey). Therefore, models are built to reflect the nano-divide from a gender perspective and is not on disciplinary gender differences. Despite this, even when controlling for disciplines, the results do not reveal any significant gender differences in productivity and citation impact of nanotechnology researchers of the same discipline (Appendix 4).
This difference is weakly significant for female full professors.
This difference is weakly significant.
This difference is weakly significant for male assistant and associate professors.
This difference is weakly significant for male professors.
These results are weakly significant for male full professors and female assistant/associate professors.
The difference is weakly significant for women with high level of funding.
The difference is weakly significant for male assistant/associate professors and men who are not in tenured or tenure track positions.
References
Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 599–623
Bagilhole, B., Powell, A., Barnard, S., & Dainty, A. (2008). Researching cultures in science, engineering and technology: an analysis of current and past literature. UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC).
Barirani, A., Agard, B., & Beaudry, C. (2013). Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1111–1136
Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who Will Do Science?: Minority and Female Attainment of Science and Mathematics Degrees: Trends and Causes. Rockefeller Foundation.
Bhattacharyya, D., Singh, S., Satnalika, N., Khandelwal, A., & Jeon, S.-H. (2009). Nanotechnology, big things from a tiny world: a review. Nanotechnology, 2(3), 29–38
Biscaro, C., & Giupponi, C. (2014). Co-Authorship and bibliographic coupling network effects on citations. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e99502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099502
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616
Brainard, S. G., Allen, E., Savath, V., & Cruz, S. (2014). Factors and perspectives influencing nanotechnology career development: Comparison of male and female academic nanoscientists. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014006377
Bronstein, P., & Farnsworth, L. (1998). Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climate and processes for advancement. Research in Higher Education, 39(5), 557–585
Buré, C. (2007). Gender in/and science, technology and innovation policy : an overview of current literature and findings; strategic commissioned paper (IDRC-Related Report No. 105359). International Development Research Centre (IDRC). http://hdl.handle.net/10625/49021.
Chaudhuri, D. (2011). Career path barriers of women doctoral students in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) disciplines (Master’s dissertation). Arizona State University. Retrieved from https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56872/content/Chaudhuri_asu_0010N_10838.pdf.
Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010). Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics, 82(3), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7
Council of the European Union. (2015). Advancing gender equality in the European Research Area - Council conclusions. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14846-2015-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 30 May 2021.
Cozzens, S. E. (2010). Building equity and equality into nanotechnology. In S. E. Cozzens & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development (pp. 433–446). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_26
Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1994). Citation-based auditing of academic performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(2), 61–72
Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., et al. (2018). Authorship, citations, acknowledgments and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science. Social Science Information, 57(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417752089
Díaz-Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2017). Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0008
Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). How to receive more funding for your research? Get connected to the right people! PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0133061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133061
Elsevier, B. V. (2016). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Elsevier BV.
Etzkowitz, H., & Gupta, N. (2006). Women in science: a fair shake? Minerva, 44(2), 185–199
European Commission. (2018). Responsible Research and Innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation. Accessed 23 May 2018
Fanelli, D., & Larivière, V. (2016). Researchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149504
Faulkner, W. (2006). Genders in/of engineering. A reserach report. ESRC Economic & Social Research Council. http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/4862/FaulknerGendersinEngineeringreport.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2021
Gaston, J. (1970). The reward system in British science. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 718–732. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093947
Ghiasi, G., Harsh, M., & Schiffauerova, A. (2018). Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy. Scientometrics, 115(2), 785–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2701-2.
Ghiasi, G., Harsh, M., & Schiffauerova, A. (2020). A cross-dimensional analysis of nanotechnology and equality: examining gender fairness and pro-poor potential in Canada’s R&D landscape. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 528–552
Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0145931
Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Gender differences in synchronous and diachronous self-citations. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Valencia, Spain. http://crc.ebsi.umontreal.ca/files/sites/60/2016/09/Ghiasi-et-al._STI2016.pdf
Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67(2), 263–277
Gordon, M. (1980). A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics, 2(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016697
Gunter, R., & Stambach, A. (2005). Differences in men and women scientists’ perceptions of workplace climate. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v11.i1.60
Hankin, S. M., & Read, S. A. K. (2016). Governance of nanotechnology: context, principles and challenges. In F. Murphy, E. M. McAlea, & M. Mullins (Eds.), Managing risk in nanotechnology (pp. 29–49). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32392-3_3.
Holden, G., Rosenberg, G., & Barker, K. (2005). Bibliometrics: A potential decision making aid in hiring, reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions. Social Work in Health Care, 41(3–4), 67–92
Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology, 16(4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956
Hu, G., Carley, S., & Tang, L. (2012). Visualizing nanotechnology research in Canada: Evidence from publication activities, 1990–2009. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9238-3
Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. D. (1986). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The Wall Street Journal, 57(D1), D4–D5
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (2016). An inclusive innovation agenda: the state of play. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/vwapj/Inclusive_Innovation_Agenda-eng.pdf/$file/Inclusive_Innovation_Agenda-eng.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2021
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
King, M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time. Socius, 3, 2378023117738903. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Glynn, C. J. (2013). The matilda effect-role congruity effects on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of communication research and journal of communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418339
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610
Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a
Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C., Gélinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: An analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498
Meng, Y., & Shapira, P. (2011). Women and patenting in nanotechnology: Scale, scope and equity. In S. E. Cozzens & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development (pp. 23–46). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_2
Merton, R. K. (1968). The matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. London: University of Chicago press.
Mihalcea, R., Moghe, P., & Burzo, M. (2015). Women in mechanical engineering: The Gender (Im) balance by the Numbers. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109
Moazami, A., Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). A network perspective of academiaindustry nanotechnology collaboration: A comparison of Canada and the United States. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 9(2), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2015.1069966
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Moore, F. N. (2002). Implications of nanotechnology applications: Using genetics as a lesson. Health Law Rev, 10(3), 9–15
Müller, R. (2012). Collaborating in life science research groups: The question of authorship. Higher Education Policy, 25(3), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.11
Nielsen, M. W., Andersen, J. P., Schiebinger, L., & Schneider, J. W. (2017). One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 791–796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0235-x
Ogden, L. E. (2012). Leaky pipelines for Canadian women in research. Nature News Blog. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/leaky-pipelines-for-canadian-women-in-research.html.
Ozel, B., Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2014). Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics, 98(1), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y
Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., de Rijcke, S., & Rushforth, A. D. (2017). The reward system of science. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-07-2017-0168
Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature Nanotechnology, 4(9), 534–536
Rifà-Valls, M., Ponferrada, M., & Duarte, L. (2013). Effective gender equality in research and the academia (No. Project n°612413). EGERA. http://www.egera.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/Report_on_Mapping___Critical_assessment_of_existing_tools_for_including_gender_in_research_8302.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2021
Roco, M. C. (2011). The long view of nanotechnology development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(2), 427–445
Roco, M. C. (2017). Overview: Affirmation of nanotechnology between 2000 and 2030. In T. O. Mensah, B. Wang, G. Bothun, J. Winter, & V. Davis (Eds.), Nanotechnology commercialization: Manufacturing processes and products (pp. 1–23). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119371762.ch1
Rosenbaum, K. (2017). Different from discipline to discipline: diversity in the scholarly publication system. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1003219
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341
Sarsons, H. (2017). Recognition for group work: Gender differences in Academia. American Economic Review, 107(5), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171126
Schiebinger, L. (Ed.). (2008). Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford University Press.
Schiebinger, L. (2017). Gender-Responsible Research and Innovation for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Nanotechnology, ICT, and Healthcare. Responsible Innovation Compass. https://innovation-compass.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Londa-Schiebinger_Gender-Responsible-Research-and-Innovation.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2021
Schiebinger, L., & Klinge, I. (2013). Gendered innovations: How gender analysis contributes to research. European Commission, 6, 14
Schroeder, D., Dalton-Brown, S., Schrempf, B., & Kaplan, D. (2016). Responsible, inclusive innovation and the nano-divide. NanoEthics, 10(2), 177–188
Schulenburg, M. (2004). Nanotechnology: Innovation for tomorrow’s world. European Commission, Research DG. https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report1.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2021
Smith-Doerr, L. (2011). Contexts of equity: Thinking about organizational and technoscience contexts for gender equity in biotechnology and nanotechnology. In S. E. Cozzens & J. Wetmore (Eds.), Nanotechnology and the challenges of equity, equality and development (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_1
Sparrow, R. (2007). Negotiating the nanodivides. In G. A. Hodge, D. Bowman, & K. Ludlow (Eds.), New global frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology (pp. 87–107). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stix, G. (2001). Little big science. Scientific American, 285(3), 26–31
Sugimoto, C. R., Ahn, Y. Y., Smith, E., Macaluso, B., & Lariviére, V. (2019). Factors affecting sex-related reporting: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis of medical research. The Lancet, 393(PUBART).
Tahmooresnejad, L., & Beaudry, C. (2015). Does government funding have the same impact on academic publications and patents? the case of nanotechnology In Canada. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(03), 1540001
Tahmooresnejad, L., Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2015). The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States. Scientometrics, 102(1), 753–787
The Royal Society. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering London. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2004/9693.pdf
Thiriet, P. D., Franco, A. D., Cheminée, A., Guidetti, P., Bianchimani, O., Basthard-Bogain, S., et al. (2016). Abundance and diversity of crypto- and necto-benthic coastal fish are higher in marine forests than in structurally less complex macroalgal assemblages. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0164121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164121
Toren, N. (1988). Women at the top: Female full professors in higher education in Israel. Higher Education, 17(5), 525–544
Toutkoushian, R. K. (1994). Using citations to measure sex discrimination in faculty salaries. The Review of Higher Education, 18(1), 61–82
Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), e18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018
Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057546
UNESCO (2007). Science, technology and gender: an international report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000154045. Accessed 28 May 2021
UNESCO (2014). Report of the international bioethics committee on the principle of non-discrimination and non-stigmatization (pp. 23–27). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000221196. Accessed 28 May 2021
van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2017). Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0183301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183301
Zamzami, N., & Schiffauerova, A. (2017). The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1385–1413
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [grants # 430-2012-0849 and # 435-2013-1220] (Catherine Beaudry) and the Canada Research Chairs program (Catherine Beaudry and Vincent Larivière).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ghiasi, G., Beaudry, C., Larivière, V. et al. Who profits from the Canadian nanotechnology reward system? Implications for gender-responsible innovation. Scientometrics 126, 7937–7991 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04022-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04022-w