Career Challenges For Women In Epidemiology Discussed At SER
Symposium
A recent paper and
commentary published in Epidemiology by Enrique Schisterman and
colleagues and Reshma Jagsi, respectively, on the careers of
women in science and epidemiology were catalysts for a special
symposium at the recent SER meeting entitled “Gender Disparities in
Citations in Epidemiology: Data Reflections, and Looking to the
Future”.
According to the organizers, Schisterman and Sunni
Mumford, “although more women are entering science-based fields,
women biomedical scientists are on average still paid less, promoted
less, are less likely to receive grant funding, and are more likely to
leave their careers than men.” The questions tackled by these
investigators are whether or not these patterns are true for women in
epidemiology. Data on the role and status of women were presented at
the symposium and reflections made by departmental leaders and journal
editors on the implications of current patterns discovered in the
epidemiology profession.
Current Evidence
According to Schisterman, survey investigations they
designed to assess the representation of women in epidemiology
societies, in editorial positions, in departmental positions, and by
academic rank and other positions show there is a greater number of
female than male epidemiologists and also more female epidemiology
students. Female epidemiologists are younger and early career.
Schisterman also provided information about whether or
not there are gender disparities in publication metrics in the top
epidemiology journals. He reported first authors were more likely to
be female during the 2008-2012 period studied while last authors were
more likely to be male, and articles with male first and last authors
were more likely to have their papers cited especially for highly
cited articles. The organizers asked “If epidemiology continues to be
practiced by a majority of women, it remains to be seen if these
patterns will change over time, and the question arises as to whether
or not this gender difference will balance differently over time.”
Some of the insights gained at the symposium and
recapped by Schisterman are described below.
Insights from the
deans:
Michelle Williams
opened with a simple saying: “What’s important gets measured”. While
the data, demonstrating a bias in citations for women in epidemiology,
are an important first step in addressing gender disparities, they
create more questions than answers, and present an opportunity to
further explore alternative explanations using mixed methods research.
Dr. Williams also highlighted the “pipeline” issue, with an influx of
junior female epidemiologists not met by a similar departure for
senior faculty. Along with Dr. Williams, Germaine Buck Louis
highlighted the importance of good
citation
practices, and a need for investigators to both improve their own
citation practices and to focus on transmitting those practices to the
next generation of epidemiologists through mentoring. Dr. Buck Louis
also suggested that journals report their metrics on the gender
distribution of authors of submitted as well as published manuscripts.
Insights from the
chairs:
The department chairs drew their commentary from a
pervasive gender bias in academics, and highlighted the importance of
senior faculty in perpetuating or challenging gender biases in
authorship practices. Andrew Olshan emphasized the power of
senior faculty in decision-making across the board, and the need for
departments to meet the challenge of discussing gender inequities.
Diane Lauderdale challenged the audience to flip the question to
how male scholars’ higher status in academia could lead to disparities
in authorship and citation practices, and suggested that some of the
disparity may be due to men consolidating power through self-promotion
and preference for male mentors and male-dominated research groups.
Insights from editors:
Timothy Lash
noted that while only one of five editors at Epidemiology is female,
women are better represented among associate editors, echoing the
pipeline issue for women faculty. Citing the commentary in
Epidemiology by Reshma Jagsi, Lash noted that a similar trend can be
found among K awards, with men who receive K awards receiving further
funding more
often than women. Lash
echoed the concern that the pipeline bringing the next generation of
women into epidemiologic research may not only be slow, but may
actually be leaking. All this gave more than enough reason to follow
Jagsi’s recommendations for prompt actions institutions should take to
promote equity in our field, including mentoring, bridge funding, and
bias literacy programs. ■
|