Digital Document (pdf, doc, ppt, txt, etc.)

We investigate the extent to which citation and publication patterns differ between men and women in the international relations literature. Using data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy project on peer-reviewed publications between 1980 and 2006, we show that women are systematically cited less than men after controlling for a large number of variables including year of publication, quality of publication, substantive focus, theoretical perspective, methodology, tenure status, and institutional affiliation. These results are robust to a variety of modeling choices. We then turn to network analysis to investigate the extent to which the gender of a given article’s author affects that article’s relative centrality in the network of citations between papers in our sample. We show that articles authored by women are systematically less central than articles authored by men, all else equal. We argue and then show that this is likely due to two factors: (1) women tend to cite themselves less than men, and (2) men (who make up a disproportionate share of IR scholars) tend to cite men more than women. This is the first study in political science to reveal significant gender differences in citation patterns. This finding is especially significant since citation counts have historically been viewed as a relatively objective and important measure of the quality and impact of research. 

Drawing on studies from Africa, Asia and South America, this book provides empirical evidence and conceptual explorations of the gendered dimensions of food security. It investigates how food security and gender inequity are conceptualized within interventions, assesses the impacts and outcomes of gender-responsive programs on food security and gender equity and addresses diverse approaches to gender research and practice that range from descriptive and analytical to strategic and transformative. The chapters draw on diverse theoretical perspectives, including transformative learning, feminist theory, deliberative democracy and technology adoption. As a result, they add important conceptual and empirical material to a growing literature on the challenges of gender equity in agricultural production. 

A unique feature of this book is the integration of both analytic and transformative approaches to understanding gender and food security. The analytic material shows how food security interventions enable women and men to meet the long-term nutritional needs of their households, and to enhance their economic position. The transformative chapters also document efforts to build durable and equitable relationships between men and women, addressing underlying social, cultural and economic causes of gender inequality. Taken together, these combined approaches enable women and men to reflect on gendered divisions of labor and resources related to food, and to reshape these divisions in ways which benefit families and communities.

This guide provides the backbone for the implementation of gender equality in different research funding and performing organisations across Europe. it starts by listing recommendations for the implementation of appropriate indicators, as well as for measures to avoid bias. It follows by providing further recommendations on how to implement an efficient system to monitor gender equality. Finally, it provides an overview of relevant grant management systems.

The background material for this guide was collected in the autumn of 2015. Thirty out of 47 SE Member organisations  responded to a survey concerning practises on indicators and measures to avoid unconscious bias against researchers of any discipline, gender, age, and so on. the results of this survey are described and analysed in the report ‘Summary of implemented indicators and Measures’ that can be found, along with the full data set, on the SE website: http://scieur.org/gd-data

Additional information concerning grant management practises was collected from the SE Members represented in the SE Working Group on Gender and Diversity. The responses to these questions are presented in the section ‘Data on Grant Management Practises in Science Europe Member Organisations’ of this guide (p. 48).

The SE Working Group on Gender and diversity hopes that this guide will be helpful for all relevant organisations aiming to address diversity and equality, and that the inclusion of good practice examples from many SE Members will better support organisations in their implementation of gender equality measures. 

We have little understanding of the influence that sex and gender may have on exposure to and measurement of occupational chemicals. If men and women are in the same physical environment, whether that be an occupational or an environmental setting, researchers need to question whether their acute exposure, as measured by administered and/or biologically effective dose, is the same. Not doing so may result in incorrect inferences being made about the risks associated with that exposure. Three critical questions arise specifically, do men and women differ in (1) their personal environments (immediate physical environments and personal attributes), (2) their absorption of the substance across the various biological barriers, and (3) the amount of active substance that reaches the target sites? Both contextual (e.g., smoking habits, diet, use of personal care products and jewellery, hobbies, stress, and use of medications) and biological (e.g., endocrine status) factors should be considered in answering these questions. Examples from the literature are provided to show that, depending on the chemical compound, there may be sex and gender differences in exposure to chemicals which can be manifested in sex differences in absorption, distribution, metabolism, storage, and excretion. An argument is developed to support the need to make information available, such as pharmacokinetic modeling studies in both men and women including appropriate age groups representing the spectrum of life stages and reproductive status.