SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEFING NOTES 1

SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEFING NOTES 1

This document provides additional information on research studies and evidence relevant to the discussions of the Science Leaders Consensus Panel, which has not been included in the Briefing Notes 1 but the need for which emerged after the first meeting of the Panel at the Royal Academy of Engineering in London, on 25-26 March 2010.

gen

SET

Project Patrons

How can European science benefit from integrated action on gender?

genSET Consensus Seminars

The Gender Dimension in Science

Introduction: Scope of the Supplement


This Briefing Notes Supplement provides additional evidence in support of the themes and questions emerging from the 1st Consensus Seminar. Like the original Briefing Notes, it is meant to foster discussion and reflection, rather than give a comprehensive critical review of the field of research into gender questions within the science knowledge production.

Some of the questions emerging from the 1st Consensus Seminar have supporting evidence in the original Briefing Notes document. See, for instance, the overview of European gender quality measures (p23) and the discussion of how sustainable growth, disaster management, and environmental concerns are connected with action on gender in science knowledge-making (p13).

Importantly, while here we present several case studies, data from She Figures 2009 largely provides the best currently available general assessment of the situation of women in science in Europe.

Providing supplementary evidence for other themes, for example about gender in the workplace – in science and elsewhere, is complicated by the fact that studies in this area cover a more-than 30-year period and are highly contextualized. Given that the social, political and legal background has changed dramatically during this period in various ways throughout Europe, extracting useful comparisons is difficult. Especially complicated is examining more effective applications of science knowledge in the focus on how women and men in a team can compete and complement each other.

Still, there is a very large body of research on gender and gender relations in the workplace and organisations, which has emerged over the last 40 years. This research has analysed extensively how gender constructs and influences hierarchies, division of labour, resource allocation, decision-making, workplace and organisational culture, interaction patterns, identities and careers in organisations and workplaces, which may appear as gender neutral.¹

Just as “gender” itself continues to inspire much academic discussion, so too does its particular place in European science. There is an abundance of relevant research, but often providing conflicting results and sparking academic controversies. Maybe some issues will never be fully understood.

Certainly the briefing notes are far from offering final answers. The resources highlighted in this Supplement have been selected for their capacity to help inform the emerging consensus priority themes, whilst retaining relevance to the genSET objectives for institutional impact.

1 A classic study is Kanter 's Men and Women in the Corporation (1977); for an early review see Hearn and Parkin (1983); a key publishing venue for this research for the last 16 years is the journal Gender, Work, and Organization.

Work Environments: Teams, Competition, and Gender

The importance of creating the best possible team has been stressed repeatedly in EU publications (EC, 2009b). Statistically, mixed-gender teams have emerged as more efficient: if well managed, they are also more creative, contain more diverse points of view and show an improved quality of decision-making (Palich & Livingstone, 2003). This follows data that at least moderate diversity of all kinds – national, cultural, and gender-based – improves the quality of team-produced research (Barjak

& Robinson, 2008). There is some recent evidence that better performing business companies are those with gender-diverse senior management. According to these studies, mixed teams perform better in terms of innovation and creativity than homogeneous teams (van den Brink, 2009, citing:

Bredero, de Bruin, van Doveren, ten Hove, and van der Vegt, 2003; Kochan et al., 2003, Catalyst, 2004 ).

Additionally, when asked directly, both men and women generally seem to prefer working in well-managed mixed teams (e.g. Cisco systems, 2009).

Performance and competition vary between men and women, however, and may affect mixed-gender participation. Some studies find men perform worst when the benefits are shared only with other men in a cooperative environment. That is, the presence of women and/or competition leads to a significant increase in male performance. The case is quite different for women. They tend to reduce their effort when paired with men in case of team play, instead performing best when competing in pure female teams against male teams. (Ivanova-Stenzel &

Kubler, 2005; Gneezy et al., 2003). With the very same chances to win, men seem to embrace competition, while women shy away from it. In one experiment 73% of males but only 35% women chose tournaments (Niederle, Vesterlund, 2009).

Results of Cisco Systems survey of 615 “demographically representative UK Employees,” 2009

Gender Differences, Gender Norms

Whether differences between men and women are due to socialization, culture or hormone levels is here irrelevant. No stable gender dichotomies have been found: only tendencies. Thus, they should not distract from the main question: How can scientists, as both men and women, increase the excellence of science knowledge-making?

Cognitive measures rarely find differences between men and women, but some establish reliable sex differences in aggression (Spelke, 2005) or social behaviour (Moskowitz et al., 1994). In average men show more behaviours to gain status and tend to create steeper hierarchies than women (Van Vugt, 2009; Schwarz 2005).

Although both sexes tend to overestimate their own abilities, males show considerably more overconfidence (Burks et al., 2010). Women tend to communicate in average more interactively and maybe more efficiently, while men more often to use language for establishing their rank in a social hierarchy (Henley & Kramarae, 1991).

Significantly, when talking of the gender dimension in science, as in many other fields, the notion of “gender” is often interpreted to mean

“female” or “women”. However, in order to understand the gender dimension it is necessary to understand gender relations, including gender relations between women and men (Kimmel et al., 2005). This means developing an understanding of men and masculinities, as well as women and femininities. For instance, studies in male homosociality have examined male preference to male company and male networking and mutual validation (Lipman-Blumen, 1976). Recent studies on “cultural cloning” develop the idea of homosociality further in terms of how gender links to other issues such as ethnicity or nationality (Essed and Goldberg, 2002). This relational perspective applies to many fields and in many arenas, but may take particular forms in science institutions.

Due to the differences in competition styles between genders, women may more often become informal administrators and assistants in mixed research teams; in fact, experiments show that women have a higher chance of brining ideas forward in same-sex teams (Heilman & Haynes, 2005;

Pearshall et al., 2008; Furumo & Pearson, 2007). Additionally, in mixed contexts members of discriminated social groups can under-perform, because stress affects their working memory (Inzlicht

& Ben-Zeev, 2000; Schmader, 2010). Strict hierarchical structures, not reflecting the complexity of performance or work, frequently lead to the academic recognition of a few while exploiting the work of individuals with lower status, often women (e.g. scientific research Nobel Prizes are shared by a maximum of three). In the worst, but unfortunately noted, case, inadequate organisation of mixed teams can lead to sexual harassment that is inadequately handled by administrators (Sekreta, 2006).

As for the lens of research excellence: a recent survey on article citation found that articles of mixed-gender teams were more often cited when female-led. However, same-gender teams were generally more frequently cited in general (Palich & Livingstone, 2003).

Thus, the data concerning optimal gender composition is not fully consistent and its implications are complicated. Statistics can give a rough picture only, but often fail to unveil underlying mechanisms, as highly-contextualized qualitative studies can. Age, status and situational factors, which are likely to interfere in group cooperation, can be controlled in psychological experiments. But even these come to different results when even mildly varying the settings in which individuals cooperate. Research shows that team rules are most crucial for team performance (Furumo & Pearson, 2007).

Averages of performance results by team gender composition based on surveys taken after experimental groups completed week-long task in Furumo & Pearson study (2007)

Theory of Performance of Mixed and Homogenous Research Teams, as presented by Martha Maznevski in Women in Science & Technology (EC, 2006)

Negotiations, Appointments, Evaluations

Research into the role of gender in academic appointments and evaluation is still relatively rare (Evans, 1995; Husu, 2001; van den Brink, 2009). The broad question of transparency in science and research funding which, of course, affects appointments and promotions, is examined at some length in the report The Gender Challenge in Research Funding (EC, 2009a). Additionally, there is some specific evidence from Finland, based on nationwide professorial appointment research, which shows that appointments by open competition tend to lead to a greater proportion of appointments of women than appointments made by an invitation procedure (Husu, 2001: 79-80). However, similar studies in the Netherlands have not duplicated the pattern, with women being more successful in

“closed”, i.e. invited, procedures (van der Brink, 2009). In the Dutch study, identifying such specific appointment patterns, however, was complicated by the existence of “semi-open”

and “semi-closed” procedures.

Interestingly, a recent survey of faculty assessments of norm violations by deans, found that women faculty members think that “inept evaluation and representation” and “unconveyed expectations” are much graver and inappropriate violations than their male peers indicate (Bray, 2003). The women academics' opinions seem to reveal a tension regarding evaluation styles between men and women, even if the difference is not made explicit on the institutional level.

Elsewhere, studies in both the Netherlands and Italy found that while women students in the sciences matched men in stated commitment to their work, women faculty members perceived female students as less committed than male students. A potential explanation may be the need of already successful female academics to distance themselves from “the group stereotype” of younger female counterparts (Ellemers, et al., 2004). In another experiment, in the United States women who were acknowledged to be successful were subject to more negative reactions and personal antipathy by men and women. Such attitudes also affected appointments and evaluations (Heilman, et al., 2004).

Measuring Performance in RTD There are no robust tools to objectively measure scientific productivity and the extent to which research output enhances citizen well-being. Due to, what has been called, the “economic turn” in science policy, scientific productivity is often measured against the number of scientific publications, citation rates, successful grant applications, awards, filed patents, etc. of individual scientists and researchers, irrespective of their fields of research and scientific disciplines. This, amongst other flaws, can reward a publication strategy of preferring quantity to quality (Abraham, 2000; Butler, 2003).

Similarly, citation indices and editorial boards are not well-balanced in terms of gender, nationality, and many other factors. (Addis & Villa, 2006; Fröhlich, 2006; Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). Costs for preparing, filing and receiving patents have paid off only for seven US-American universities (Mowery et al., 2001).

Research over several decades finds that individuals and institutions with pre- existant higher academic status have more access to resources and publication opportunities than those entering or less known in the field. Today’s regimes of quantitative evaluation reinforce such status differences, especially in evaluating productivity without reference to research funds (Merton, 1968; Rossiter et al., 2003). Additionally, peer reviews decide which papers are published, but rarely meet standards of validity or reliability, with double or triple-bound standards neglected (Marsh et al., 2007;

Armstrong, 1997). Psychological experiments have shown that identical texts presumably authored by males receive better reviews (Paludi & Bauer, 1983).

Mean perceived levels of career-oriented commitment of male and female doctoral students as functions of faculty gender and intergenerational

differences in Italy (Ellemers, et al, 2004).

Much like in teams, gender differences emerge in negotiating styles, including in job/pay negotiations.

According to one study, women seem to be treated differently than men during individual wage negotiations and they experience less financial gain from these negotiations. Men with backgrounds in the private service sector especially did not mind negotiating their own salaries and were more comfortable with such bargaining and negotiations. Even these men, however, expressed concern over having to link wage demands directly with specific achievements and compared this to standing

‘cap in hand’ during a wage setting process that is reminiscent of a bygone era (Säve-Söderbergh, 2003).

In their critical review of gender-in-negotiations literature, Bowles and McGinn write “in most studies, men outperform women in terms of the economic payoffs from negotiation, but a number of studies revealed conditions under which women’s negotiation payoffs matched or exceeded men’s”

(2008). Women, for instance, seem to be better at acting as negotiators in situations in which they are advocating for others (Bowles et al., 2005). When self-reporting, most women thought that they would have difficulty negotiating their salaries directly with their immediate superiors. Women stated that they disliked such encounters and would feel uncomfortable negotiating in order to enhance their own interests (Gonas, et al., 2009).

While the individual case studies mentioned above may give only partial glimpses into the dynamics of negotiation, a more comprehensive literature review of the subject suggests the following conclusions:

• The issue of gender and negotiation over the years has placed the burden on women - she has to ask, she has to work around double binds, she has to deal with backlash. Once we locate gender and negotiation issues in a broader institutional frame, we can identify other approaches to changing the contexts - we can work to undo gender - in which negotiations occur

• The research [on gender and negotiations] has moved away from essentializing gender differences to understanding something about variation in how negotiators take up gender roles and the ways that gender schemas and stereotypes might be operating particularly in negotiation over compensation and roles

• Organizational catalysts can play a major role in shaping the contexts in which individuals negotiate by providing them with information and helping them make key connections and uncover the root causes of inequalities. What characterizes these forms of interventions is that they have a dual agenda to enhance gender equality, creating a more level playing field for different groups of men and women, at the same time as they enhance organizational

effectiveness (Kolb, 2009).

Gender differences in bargaining success conditional on overbidding,

(Säve-Söderbergh, 2003) Conditional Distribution of Overbidding for

Men (dashed line) and Women (solid line), (Säve-Söderbergh, 2003)

Systemic Problems, Individual Cases, and Benefits

The differences in social behavior, as for instance in the discussion of negotiation differences among men and women, have sparked debate between disciplines and research traditions. Both biological arguments and social constructivist approaches have formed opinions on findings of empirical social research. Kolb’s review of the last quarter century of literature on negotiation styles comes to one such interpretation: “social construction of gender has generally changed the discourse from essentialist concepts of differences between men and women to seeing gender as a more complex and shifting dimension of individual identity that is shaped by the contexts in which negotiation occurs” (Kolb, 2009).

According to different paradigms there are different approaches to establish gender equity. One move has been toward institutional analysis, rather than individual qualities, when assessing gender parity in scientific fields. For instance, a recent survey of universities in the United States found that the institutions most likely to retain and recruit women display common characteristics:

• top administrators strongly, publicly support efforts to promote women in science

• inclusiveness and support of women is widely promoted and publicized

• the commitment to a diverse campus, both on the faculty and student level, is incorporated into the mission of the institution

• reports and studies are undertaken to document and identify gender-parity programs and their effectiveness (NRC, 2006)

Exactly demonstration of the benefits of a more equitable gender-balance in the sciences is not available at present. However, studies related to quality of research have repeatedly shown the importance of mixed-gender perspectives in scientific knowledge-making. A large comprehensive study of United States' models of health-care indicates that both men and women “would benefit from a move toward a gender-based system” of care and research in the United States (Brittle, 2007).

Similarly, increased recruitment and retention of women and minorities in clinical research trials has, according to analysis in both Germany and the United States, improved the general quality of knowledge-making (Baldaszi, et al. 2001; Pinn, et al. 2003).

“Because modern science is a product of hundreds of years active shunning of

women, the process of bringing women into science has required, and

will continue to require, deep structural changes in

the culture, methods and content of science.”

(Schiebinger, 1999)

Mentoring & Role Models

In the research done on role modeling and mentoring, women's choices of careers in science seem heavily influenced by such relationships. In fact, having strong successful examples of women in STEM-related careers is one of the main factors that contribute to women's decisions to remain within the field (Bonetta, 2010). A statistical analysis of students in the United States Air Forces Academy, for instance, suggests that professorial gender affects specifically female students' performance and retention in math and science programs (Carrell et al., 2009). Similarly, according to national surveys taken of faculty in American institutions, women with a mentor were more likely to gain funding and tenure than those without (NRC, 2010). Such guidance positively affects both genders: in a longitudinal study of scientifically talented youth, both men and women benefited from and enjoyed mentorship (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006).

Notably, a survey of studies on attitudes toward career development reveals that both men and women display a wide range positions toward their professional evolution; that is, there is no tendency for men to identify vocational achievements as more “meaning making” than women or women to see career development as more of a “life process,” and so forth (Chen, 1998). This implies that same-gender pairings are not always necessarily the best option for mentorship, seeing as a mentor of a different gender may have better matched attitudes to professional paths. In this vein, theory on work-family balance has moved away from a gender-specific focus, to reflect the array of attitudes to work/non-work time rationing present among both men and women (Desrochers & Sargent, 2004).

Bibliography

Abraham, P. (2000). Duplicate and salami publications. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 46(2), 67 – 69.

Addis, E., Villa, P. (2003). The Editorial Boards of Italian Economics Journals: Women, Gender, and Social Networking. Feminist Economics 9(1), 75 – 91.

Armstrong, J.S. (1997). Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1), 63 – 84.

Baldaszi, E., et al. (2001). Gender Based Analysis (GBA) in Public Health Research, Policy and Practice. Documentation of the International Workshop in Berlin. 7-8 June 2001. <

http://www.gesundheit-nds.de/ewhnet/Documentations/GBA_Dokumentation.PDF >

Barjak, F. & Robinson, S. (2008). International collaboration, mobility and team diversity in the life sciences: impact on research performance. Social Geography, 3(1), 23-36.

Bonetta, L. (2010, February 12). Reaching Gender Equity in Science: The Importance of Role Models and Mentors. Science, 889-895

Bowles, H. R. & McGinn, K. L. (2008). Untapped potential in the study of negotiation and gender inequality in organizations. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The Academy of Management Annals Volume 2 (99-132). New York: Routledge.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L. C., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and Triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 951- 965.

Braun, T., Dióspatonyi, I. (2005, March 14). US Scientists dominate as Journal Gatekeepers. The Scientist 19(5), 10.

Bray, N.J. (2003). Differences Among Faculty Members' Perceptions of Norms for Academic Deans.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

November 15, 2003. Portland, OR.

Brittle, C. & Bird, C.A. (2007). Literature Review on Effective Sex- and Gender-Based

Systems/Models of Care. Produced for the Office on Women’s Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Arlington, VA: Uncommon Insights, LLC. <

http://www.womenshealth.gov/owh/pub/genderbased.cfm >

Burks, S.V., et al. (2010). Overconfidence is a Social Signalling Bias. IZA Discussion Paper No.

4840 < http://ftp.iza.org/dp4840.pdf >

Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications: the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143 – 155.

Carrell, S.E., Page, M.E., & West, J.E. (2009). Sex and Science: How Professor Gender Perpetuates the Gender Gap. NBER Working Paper Series, w14959. <

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/scarrell/gender.pdf >

Catalyst. (2004). The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Equality. New York: Catalyst. < http://www.catalyst.org/publication/82/the-bottom-line-connecting- corporate-performance-and-gender-diversity >

Chen, C. (1998). Understanding Career Development: a convergence of perspectives. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50(3), 437-461.

Cisco Systems. (2009). Style of the Sexes: Examining the Working Styles of Men and Women. White Paper. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems. < http://www.cisco.com/web/

about/ac49/ac55/ExaminingTheWorkingStylesOfTheSexes.pdf >

Desrochers, S. & Sargent, L.D. (2004). Boundary/Border Theory and Work-Family Integration.

Organization Management Journal, 1(1), 40-48.

Ellemers, N., et al. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1-24.

Essed, P. & Golberg, T. (2002). Cloning cultures: the social injustices of sameness. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6), 1066-1082.

European Commission. (2006). Women in Science & Technology: The Business Perspective.

Brussels: Director-General for Research. < http://ec.europa.eu/research/science- society/pdf/wist_report_final_en.pdf >

European Commission. (2009a). The Gender Challenge in Research Funding: Assessing the European National Scenes. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. < http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-

society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1900 >

European Commission. (2009b). Toolkit: Gender in EU-funded research. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities. < http://www.yellowwindow.be/

genderinresearch/downloads/YW2009_GenderToolKit_Module1.pdf >

Evans, C. (1995). Choosing People: Recruitment and Selection as Leverage on Subjects and Disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), 253-267.

Fröhlich, G.. (2002). Anonymous criticism: Peer Review in assessment of empirical and theoretical research (Anonyme Kritik. Peer Review auf dem Prüfstand der empirisch-theoretischen Wissenschaftsforschung). In Pipp, E. (Ed), E-Hub Central: Information producers, intermediaries, users. The common future, (129-146). [Drehscheibe E-Mitteleuropa : Information: Produzenten, Vermittler, Nutzer. Die gemeinsame Zukunft] Vienna: Phoebos, Biblos-Schriften 173 < http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00008499/ >

Furumo, K. & Pearson, J. M. (2007). Gender-Based Communication Styles, Trust, and Satisfaction in Virtual Teams. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 2. 47-60.

Gneezy, U. et al. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049-1074.

Gonäs, L., Bergman, A. & Karlsson, J. C. (2009). Equal Opportunities, Segregation and Gender Based Wage Differences at a Swedish University. Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(5), 669- 686.

Hawkes, D. (2003). Revisiting the Gender Composition of Editorial Boards in Economics. Royal Economic Society. < http://www.res.org.uk/society/pdfs/editoria.pdf >

Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. (1987). ‘Sex’ at ‘Work.’ The Power and Paradox of Organisational Sexuality.

New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Heilman, M.E. & Haynes, M.C. (2005). No Credit Where Credit is Due: Attributional

Rationalization of Women's Success in Male-Female Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905-916.

Heilman, M.E., et al. (2004). Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416-427.

Henley, N. M. & Kramarae, Ch. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wiemann, J.M. (Eds). Miscommunication and problematic talk (18-43). New York: Sage Publishing, Inc.

Husu, L. (2001). Sexism, Support and Survival. Academic Women and Hidden Discrimination in Finland. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Social Psychological Studies 6.

Inzlicht, M. & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A Threatening Intellectual Environment: Why Females Are Susceptible to Experiencing Problem-Solving Deficits in the Presence of Males.

Psychological Science, 11(5), 365-371.

Ivanova-Stenzel, R. & Kubler, D. (2005). Courtesy and Idleness: Gender Differences in Team Work and Team Competition. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1768. < http://ssrn.com/abstract=825686 >

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women in the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kimmel, M., Hearn, J. & Connell, R.W. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kolb, D.M. (2009). Too Bad for the Women or Does it Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 515-531.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976). Toward a Homosocial Theory of Sex Roles: An Explanation of the Sex Segregation of Social Institutions. Signs, 1(3), 15-31.

Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C.P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth After 35 Years:

Uncovering Antecedents for the Development of Math-Science Expertise. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 1(4), 316-345.

Marsh, H.W., et al. (2007). Gender Effects in Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches. Review of Educational Research 79(3), 1290-1326.

Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 159(3810), 56-63 <

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthew1.pdf >

Metz, I. & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). Gender Diversity in Editorial Boards of Management Journals.

The Academy of Management Learning and Education 8(4), 540 – 557.

Moskowitz, D.S., Suh, E.J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 753-761.

Mowery, D.C., et al. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment

of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99 – 119.

National Research Council. (2006). To Recruit and Advance Women Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering. Committee on the Guide to Recruiting and Advancing Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2010). Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty. Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of SEM Faculty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Niederle, M. & Vesterlund, L. (2009). Does Performance Mirror Ability? Gender Differences in Attitudes towards Competition. Working Paper. Stanford University. <

http://www.stanford.edu/~niederle/Niederle.Vesterlund.Ability.pdf >

Palich, L.E. & Livingstone, L.A. (2003). Improving Research Performance: Teamwork trumps solo endeavors. Graziadio Business Report, 6(2). <http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/032/teamwork.html >

Paludi, A.M. & Bauer, W.D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What's in an author's name. Sex Roles 9 (3), 387-390.

Pearsall, M. J. Ellis, A. P. J. & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1), 225-234.

Pinn, V.W., et al. (2003). Science Meets Reality: Recruitment and Retention of Women in Clinical Studies,and the Critical Role of Relevance. A Report of the Task Force sponsored by the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. January 6-9 2003. <

http://orwh.od.nih.gov/pubs/SMR_Final.pdf >

Rossiter, M., Paranjape, B. & Pantano, V. (2006). Performance measurement systems: successes, failures and future – a review. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3), 4-14.

Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325- 341.

Säve-Söderbergh, J. (2003). Essays on Gender Differences in Economic Decision-Making (Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University, 2003). Dissertation Series, 59.

Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schmader, T. (2010). Stereotype Threat Deconstructed. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 14-18.

Schwarz, G. (2005). The “Holy Order” of men. Hierarchy, group dynamics and the changing role of women [Die „Heilige Ordnung“ der Männer. Hierarchie, Gruppendynamik und die neue Rolle der Frauen] 4^th Expanded Ed. . Weisbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Sekreta, E. (2006) Sexual Harassment, Misconduct, and the Atmosphere of the Laboratory: The Legal and Professional Challenges Faced by Women Physical Science Researchers at Education Institutions. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 13(115), 115-137

Spelke, E.S. (2006). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for Mathematics and Science? A Critical Review. American Psychologist, 60(9), 950-8.

Van den Brink, M. (2009) Behind the Scenes of Science. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.

Van Vugt, M. (2009). The Male Warrior Hypothesis. Presentation at the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology: The Psychology of Attitude and Attitude Change. March 17-19. <

http://www.sydneysymposium.unsw.edu.au/2010/chapters/VanVugtSSSP2010.pdf >