Top Banner
Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations GENDER & TEAM SCIENCE: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy Gender Summit 4 - Europe 2014 Plenary Session – Maximising Capacity of Science Human Capital and Knowledge Communities June 30, 2014
24

Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

Aug 23, 2014

Download

Science

* Gender Differences in Research Collaboration
* Gender Diversity and Team Productivity/Performance
* Gender Differences in Expertise Recognition and Evaluation of Performance
* Collaboration Strategies and Networks
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations

GENDER & TEAM SCIENCE: Evidence-based Guidance for

Practice and Policy

Gender Summit 4 - Europe 2014 Plenary Session – Maximising Capacity of Science Human Capital and Knowledge Communities June 30, 2014

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Plenary Session 3 Maximising Capacity of Science Human Capital and Knowledge Communities � This session will focus on developing and utilising scientific human capital found in formal and informal systems, and in society at large.  This is motivated by the impact that societal changes and challenges have on participation in science, on the role of science institutions, and on the careers of women and men scientists. Chair: Curt Rice PhD, Professor, University of Tromsø, Norway, Fellow, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS), Netherlands, Head, Norway’s Committee on Gender Balance in Research (KIF), Norway Reconceptualising Human Capital�Nancy Cantor PhD, Chancellor, Rutgers University-Newark, USA Institutional Accountability and Practices Surrounding Gender�Dagmar Simon PhD, Head of  Research Group, Science Policy Studies, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Germany Capturing Gendered Career Paths of ERC Grantees and Applicants�Claartje J. Vinkenburg PhD,Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, Amsterdam Center for Career Research Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands Interdisciplinary and Team Science: Improving Collaborative Effectiveness of Research Teams�Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski PhD, Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations, Elsevier, USA
Page 2: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

2

INTRODUCTION "Team research, especially interdisciplinary research,

is characterized by synergies among experts that can transform both scholars and scholarship“

– John Cacioppo, PhD, the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor in Psychology, The University of Chicago, from the Arete Initiative website http://arete.uchicago.edu/ (2010)

Page 3: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

3

Collaboration, Networking and Teams Connecting researchers and resources in pursuit of large

collaborative projects Compiled a 1K+ reference Team Science resource library (and

have read most of the abstracts in it!) Published primary research findings that inform effective

collaboration, especially for science teams Developed and taught one of the very first-ever Team Science

graduate courses, co-developed an online Team Science course Chaired the Science of Team Science Conference for 3 years Paid team science consultant for almost two dozen US

universities

3

Page 4: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

4

The Challenge Both interdisciplinary research and collaboration in

science are on the rise Team Science produces more highly impactful

research Despite decades of efforts, disparity persists between

participation of men and women in science H2020 includes an explicit objective: “Gender balance

in research teams.” Small body of research literature on gender and team

science Paucity of the application of the research to policy

and practice

Page 5: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

5

The Opportunity

Presenter
Presentation Notes
H2020 Gender Equality in Research & Innovation (H202-GERI-2014/15): Impact of Gender Diversity on Research & Innovation Development of concepts and methodologies for evaluation of the impacts of gender diversity in research teams and organizations on research quality and productivity. NSF Research on Gender in Science & Engineering (GSE) track through the Research on Education and Learning (REAL) Research on Gender in Science and Engineering. The Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE) track supports efforts to understand and address gender-based differences in STEM education and workforce participation through education and implementation research that will lead to a larger and more diverse domestic STEM workforce. Typical projects will contribute to the knowledge base addressing gender-related differences in learning and in the educational experiences that affect student interest, performance, and choice of careers; how pedagogical approaches and teaching styles, curriculum, student services, and institutional culture contribute to causing or closing gender gaps that persist in certain fields. ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers  (ADVANCE) The goals of the ADVANCE program are (1) to develop systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic STEM careers; (2) to develop innovative and sustainable ways to promote gender equity in the STEM academic workforce; and (3) to contribute to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce. ADVANCE also has as its goal to contribute to and inform the general knowledge base on gender equity in the academic STEM disciplines. There are three tracks with distinct purposes. The Institutional Transformation (IT) track is meant to produce large-scale comprehensive change and serve as a locus for research on gender equity and institutional transformation for academic STEM. The Institutional Transformation Catalyst (IT Catalyst) track is meant either to conduct self-assessment or to implement unique strategies – either adapted from those found effective in the IT track or ones designed to be responsive to the unique environments of eligible institutions – and evaluate their effectiveness. The Partnerships for Learning and Adaptation Networks (PLAN) track is meant to provide a larger scale environment for adapting, implementing and creating knowledge about the effectiveness of a particular strategy for change within a context of networked adaptation and learning. PLAN is focused on adaptation/implementation and learning either in particular STEM disciplines (PLAN D) or across institutions of higher education (PLAN IHE).
Page 6: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

6

The Foundation

Gender Differences in Research Collaboration

Gender Diversity and Team Productivity/Performance

Gender Differences in Expertise Recognition and Evaluation of Performance

Collaboration Strategies and Networks

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., and Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. J. Informetr. 7, 811–822.Baugh, S.G., and Graen, G.B. (1997). Effects of Team Gender and Racial Composition on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams. Gr. Organ. Manag. 22, 366–383. Bear, J.B., and Woolley, A.W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 36, 146–153. Campbell, L.G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M.E., and Rinehart, J. (2013). Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One 8, e79147. Haynes, M.C., and Heilman, M.E. (2013). It Had to Be You (Not Me)!: Women’s Attributional Rationalization of Their Contribution to Successful Joint Work Outcomes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. Joshi, A. (2011). Role Models, Black Sheep, or Queen Bees?: The Effects of Women’s Incongruent Status on Expertise Recognition in Groups (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Joshi, A., and Boppart, S. (2010). Report of the “Success in Research Labs” Study (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Kegen, N. V. (2013). Science Networks in Cutting-edge Research Institutions: Gender Homophily and Embeddedness in Formal and Informal Networks. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 79, 62–81. Kyvik, S., and Teigen, M. (1996). Child Care, Research Collaboration, and Gender Differences in Scientific Productivity. Sci. Technol. Human Values 21, 54–71. Rhoten, D., and Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Res. Policy 36, 56–75. Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., and Malone, T.W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science (80-. ). 330, 686–688.
Page 7: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

7

Mendeley SciTS Group

http://www.mendeley.com/groups/3556001/science-of-team-science-scits/

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Screen shot from Mendeley Web
Page 8: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

8

Groups of Documents

http://www.mendeley.com/groups/3556001/science-of-team-science-scits/

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Screen shot from Desktop version
Page 9: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

9

The References • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., and Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. J.

Informetr. 7, 811–822. • Baugh, S.G., and Graen, G.B. (1997). Effects of Team Gender and Racial Composition on Perceptions of

Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams. Gr. Organ. Manag. 22, 366–383. • Bear, J.B., and Woolley, A.W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance.

Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 36, 146–153. • Campbell, L.G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M.E., and Rinehart, J. (2013). Gender-heterogeneous working groups

produce higher quality science. PLoS One 8, e79147. • Haynes, M.C., and Heilman, M.E. (2013). It Had to Be You (Not Me)!: Women’s Attributional

Rationalization of Their Contribution to Successful Joint Work Outcomes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. • Joshi, A. (2011). Role Models, Black Sheep, or Queen Bees?: The Effects of Women’s Incongruent

Status on Expertise Recognition in Groups (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). • Joshi, A., and Boppart, S. (2010). Report of the “Success in Research Labs” Study (Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). • Kegen, N. V. (2013). Science Networks in Cutting-edge Research Institutions: Gender Homophily and

Embeddedness in Formal and Informal Networks. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 79, 62–81. • Kyvik, S., and Teigen, M. (1996). Child Care, Research Collaboration, and Gender Differences in

Scientific Productivity. Sci. Technol. Human Values 21, 54–71. • Rey, C.M. (2008). Team Science and the Diversity Advantage. Sci. Careers. • Rhoten, D., and Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and

consequences. Res. Policy 36, 56–75. • Woolley, A.W., Chabris, C.F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., and Malone, T.W. (2010). Evidence for a collective

intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science (80-. ). 330, 686–688.

Page 10: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

10

Gender differences in research collaboration

Real or Perceived Gender Differences in IDR Participation

Bibliometric approach to examine gender differences in the propensity to collaborate by fields, disciplines, and forms of collaboration

Experiences that stretch a person may foster the ability to work in teams

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rhoten, D., and Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Res. Policy 36, 56–75. More provocative than conclusive, focus on 4 central Qs, specifically, Team Collaboration Higher rates of female collaboration in ID research centers than might be anticipated due to rates of female membership in the ctrs Woman have more formal “knowledge producing” collaborations yet fewer informal “info sharing” collaborations; Lacking an old-boys network Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., and Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. J. Informetr. 7, 811–822. Baugh, S.G., and Graen, G.B. (1997). Effects of Team Gender and Racial Composition on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams. Gr. Organ. Manag. 22, 366–383. Bibliometric approach to examine gender differences in the propensity to collaborate by fields, disciplines, and forms of collaboration Women researchers register a greater propensity to collaborate in all of the forms analyzed (General, Intramural, Extramural domestic), except International Collaboration Collaboration is relative to discipline, which may have something to do with differences in network structures between the genders (more on that later) Rey, C.M. (2008). Team Science and the Diversity Advantage. Sci. Careers. Experiences that ask a person to stretch personally or professionally may foster the ability to work in teams Women and other minorities ability to adapt and overcome social obstacles seem to make them better team players May be that women who have had to struggle are likely to be risk-takers, who tend to do well in less conservative team environments
Page 11: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

11

Gender diversity and team productivity/performance

Gender differences in scientific productivity (scientific publishing) and lack of research collaboration

Gender heterogeneity on teams and relationship to higher quality output

Gender diversity has a positive effect on team processes and performance

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Kyvik, S., and Teigen, M. (1996). Child Care, Research Collaboration, and Gender Differences in Scientific Productivity. Sci. Technol. Human Values 21, 54–71. Using data from questionnaires, examined gender differences in scientific productivity (sci publishing) as a result of the lack of research collaboration Earlier work demonstrated that teamwork in itself stimulates productivity, and women may be excluded from important networks so that their opportunities for collaboration in research are thus restricted, thus publishing activity is adversely affected Women were less likely to have collaborated on research projects w/ colleagues over a 10-yr period. Women who did not collaborate were less productive (less pubs), this wasn't so for men (Young children were another productivity factor for women, and not men) Campbell, L.G., Mehtani, S., Dozier, M.E., and Rinehart, J. (2013). Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. PLoS One 8, e79147. Using citation rate as a proxy for scientific impact and quality of research, the paper demonstrated that gender heterogeneous teams produce articles perceived to be of higher quality by peers Pubs w/ at least one female co-author tended to be cited 87% more But if team becomes too homogenous w/ females, citation rate dropped—diversity is important Bear, J.B., and Woolley, A.W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 36, 146–153. Reviewed existing lit regarding the effects of gender diversity on team processes and performance Team collaboration is greatly improved by the presence of women in a group Improvement attributed to group process of Collective Intelligence (quality of social interaction process w/i the group) Higher levels of social sensitivity exhibited by women, like ability to read non-verbal cues and make accurate inferences about what others are thinking/feeling Grps w/ more women exhibit greater equality in conversational turn-taking, enabling members to be responsive of one another Women more interpersonally oriented than men, men more autocratic/women more democratic Women in the minority on a team are less talkative than men, the opposite is true for men In male-dominated professions where women are more likely to be a minority, initially gender diversity may have negative affects b/c of gender stereotypes, benefits of diversity accrue as women’s representation approaches parity with men Can’t have only token woman on scientific teams and hope for performance improvement!!
Page 12: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

12

Expertise recognition and evaluation of performance

Differential expertise recognition of individuals in groups by gender

Role of gender in recognizing expertise and contribution to a team

Gender composition of teams impacts performance evaluation (team effectiveness)

Recognition of women’s contribution to collaborative work

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Joshi, A. (2011). Role Models, Black Sheep, or Queen Bees?: The Effects of Women’s Incongruent Status on Expertise Recognition in Groups (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Evaluated expertise recognition and utilization in science and engineering research grps where women occupy high-status positions in male-dominated work settings (Incongruent Status) High status (high education level, higher degree) females not perceived as more expert relative to low-status males by their peers High-status males were perceived as significantly more expert relative to low status males Low-status females perceived ass less expert to low-status males Examined context for this effect The more strongly women ID with their gender, the less likely they are to devalue the expertise of high status women on the team (other studies show that gender diversity of associate with higher gender ID) Joshi, A., and Boppart, S. (2010). Report of the “Success in Research Labs” Study (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Evaluated groups of lab teams to examine the role of gender in recognizing expertise and contribution to a team Gender emerged as a significant predictor of the ratings lab members received for research contributions add value to the lab team Women were rated lower by BOTH men and women Even a slight negative effect for being a female expert—women w/ higher degrees get lower ratings than male experts and non-experts Baugh, S.G., and Graen, G.B. (1997). Effects of Team Gender and Racial Composition on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams. Gr. Organ. Manag. 22, 366–383. Investigated gender composition of teams as it relates to team performance evaluation (team effectiveness) Members of team that were gender (or racial minority) heterogeneous perceived their teams less effective than did members of homogenous teams Other studies indicate the female team members are less well evaluated by others outside of the team when they constitute a minority of the team Haynes, M.C., and Heilman, M.E. (2013). It Had to Be You (Not Me)!: Women’s Attributional Rationalization of Their Contribution to Successful Joint Work Outcomes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. Group outcomes are often evaluated as a whole, thus obscuring individual contribution, which is essential especially in academia Investigated whether women de-value their OWN contributions in collaborative contexts, esp in traditionally male domains (aka male sex-typed jobs) Despite a successful group outcome, women working w/ men are more likely than men to devalue their relative contribution and to choose their male teammates as the better performers This is overcome only when women are given direct individual feedback or participated in a specific task that made individual contribution to success apparent Women tend not to self-derogate when working with other women though Denial of responsibility for success in collaboration can be highly detrimental to women’s long-term careers
Page 13: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

13

Collaboration strategies and networks

Gender as a predictor of network centrality

Gender differences in network reach Gender, network, connectedness, and

success Research networking tools help uncover

connections

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Joshi, A., and Boppart, S. (2010). Report of the “Success in Research Labs” Study (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Gender was an important predictor of centrality in lab teams, women occupied less central positions in lab networks than men Men were 6x’s more likely than women to be highly central in lab networks Being an expert female allowed women to narrow the gap somewhat Network centrality predicts important outcomes, such as ratings individuals receive from fellow team members on the research contributions and value to the lab team Griffin Weber, Harvard University, unpublished data Conducted social network analysis of internal co-author Network Reach of faculty from a US Ivy League medical school faculty over time (age) by gender While reach started the same for both genders at age 30, by 35yrs men already had networks with greater reach The disparity in network reach b/t the genders grew over time, plateauing earlier for women (~54 yrs) than men (>60 yrs) Charisse Madlock-Brown, U of IA, unpublished results Women need to be more well-connected in their networks than men to be successful
Page 14: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

15

Visualize Your Own Network

Presenter
Presentation Notes
LinkedIn Maps
Page 15: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

16

Women in STEM Experts Portal

This is a public portal; no subscription or login is required to access the site and browse the profiled researchers at the four institutions. The site’s semantic service of its data is available through the Semantic Web Portal.

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The new Chicago Collaboration for Women in STEM expert portal, built on Elsevier's SciVal Experts system, has a broader scope while focusing on a population that is underrepresented.  It's a multi-institutional RNS designed to stimulate networking and collaboration across disciplinary and institutional boundaries while promoting women in STEM disciplines. This public SciVal Experts portal is a key component of the program's mission to stimulate networking and collaboration among participants. Funded by Northwestern University and Elsevier's Global Academic Relations department, the portal represents the first instance of an RNS focused on making members of an underrepresented minority group more discoverable. 158 women profiled to date, another 300 profiles to be added in next 6 months Profiled Researchers158 Number of Scopus Publications11,175 Number of publications added by users0 Last Update9/27/2013
Page 16: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

17

Collaboration Analysis

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Fall 2013 Because SciVal Experts broadcasts researcher profile data as semantic web-compliant data, researchers and developers can access the researchers' public profile information in a machine-readable format. They can then use this gender-disambiguated data to conduct sophisticated collaboration and networking studies on this special population. Moreover, SciVal Experts connects profiled researchers with researchers in other RNS via federated search engines such as CTSAsearch and DIRECT2Experts, which aggregate the results of multiple search engines. Visualization of the internal co-author network from the Chicago Collaboration of Women in STEM expert portal. This visualization, based on data from the portal, displays the extent to which women participating in the professional development program are collaborating with one another. 72 of 158 profiled researchers have co-authored publications. The colored nodes represent individual researchers from the four participating institutions, and the thickness of the lines between the nodes represents the volume of co-authored publications among researchers.
Page 17: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

18

IN THE END “Whatever women do they must do twice as

well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”

– Charlotte Whitton, Canadian feminist and mayor of Ottawa

Page 18: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

19

BUT IT IS MORE DIFFICULT…

Page 19: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

20

The Charge

Translate Empirical Evidence Into Policy and Practice Commitment for change because research

indicates that it leads to better science More research to identify problems and potential

causes Research for intervention development and

testing Forums for sharing information and effective

practices

Page 20: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

21

SciTS Listserv The Science of Team Science (SciTS) listserv facilitates conversation

among individuals who are engaged in, studying, or managing team science, in the US and internationally. The listserv is maintained collaboratively by the SciTS Team at the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Behavioral Research Program (http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/scienceteam) at the NIH. TO SUBSCRIBE: Send an email with a blank subject line to: [email protected]. The message body

should read: subscribe SciTSlist [your full name]. Please do not include the brackets. For example, for Robin Smith to subscribe, the message would read: subscribe SciTSlist Robin Smith. You will receive a confirmation email.

TO POST TO THE LISTSERV: Send an email to [email protected]. Any subscriber may post to the list.

TO VIEW THE ARCHIVES: To view the archives of all previous postings, go to: http://list.nih.gov/archives/SciTSlist.html

TO RECEIVE MESSAGES IN A DAILY DIGEST: The default setting sends you each message as it is posted to the listserv. To receive one daily digest, instead, go to: http://list.nih.gov/cgi-bin/wa.exe?SUBED1=SciTSlist&A=1 and select “digest” as your subscription type.

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? Contact the list administrator, Judy Kuan, at: [email protected]. Please be sure to state that your email is in reference to the SciTS listserv.

Page 21: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

22

http://www.scienceofteamscience.org

Science of Team Science Conference

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Science of Team Science. (2010). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc). Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., et al. (2010). Advancing the Science of Team Science. Clinical and Translational Sciences 3, 263-266. Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., et al. (2010). A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science. Science Translational Medicine 2, cm24. Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., et al. (2011). Mapping a Research Agenda for the Science of Team Science. Research Evaluation, In Press.
Page 22: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

23

Team Science Toolkit

www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Team Science Toolkit is an interactive website that provides resources to help users support, engage in, and study team-based research.
Page 24: Gender & Team Science: Evidence-based Guidance for Practice and Policy

25

Copyright Information

You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute the work to me, the author (but not in any way that suggests that I endorse you or your use of the work).

Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived with my permission as the copyright holder.

Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

This work by Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD is licensed to the Gender Summit 4 - Europe 2014 under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Not for commercial use. Approved for redistribution. Attribution required.