Show simple item record

Who are we now? A demographic assessment of three evolution societies

dc.contributor.authorRushworth, Catherine A.
dc.contributor.authorBaucom, Regina S.
dc.contributor.authorBlackman, Benjamin K.
dc.contributor.authorNeiman, Maurine
dc.contributor.authorOrive, Maria E.
dc.contributor.authorSethuraman, Arun
dc.contributor.authorWare, Jessica
dc.contributor.authorMatute, Daniel R.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-06T02:11:11Z
dc.date.available2022-03-05 22:11:10en
dc.date.available2021-04-06T02:11:11Z
dc.date.issued2021-02
dc.identifier.citationRushworth, Catherine A.; Baucom, Regina S.; Blackman, Benjamin K.; Neiman, Maurine; Orive, Maria E.; Sethuraman, Arun; Ware, Jessica; Matute, Daniel R. (2021). "Who are we now? A demographic assessment of three evolution societies." Evolution 75(2): 208-218.
dc.identifier.issn0014-3820
dc.identifier.issn1558-5646
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/167054
dc.description.abstractScientific societies have the potential to catalyze support for communities that have been historically excluded from science. Many of these societies have formed committees to propose and administer initiatives to promote the career and well‐being of their members, with a special emphasis on racial and ethnic minorities. Yet, these societies are rarely armed with data to inform their proposals. Three of the evolution societies (American Society of Naturalists, “ASN”; Society of Systematic Biologists, “SSB”; Society for the Study of Evolution, “SSE”) have also formed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committees in the last few years. As a first step in determining the needs of the societies, these committees collected data on the demographic characteristics of the societies’ constituents by surveying the attendants of the Evolution 2019 meeting. Here, we report the proportions for different demographic groups in attendance at the meeting and compare these proportions to the demographics of recipients of Ph.D. degrees either in evolutionary biology or in the broader life sciences, as well as population demographics of the USA. Our results indicate that historically excluded groups are still underrepresented across US‐based evolutionary biology professional societies. We explore whether demographic composition differs at different professional stages and find that representation for women and LGBTQ+ members decreases as the career stage progresses. We also find some evidence for heterogeneity across societies in terms of racial composition. Finally, we discuss the caveats and limitations of our procedures. Our results will serve to inform future efforts to collect demographic data at the society levels, which should in turn be used to design and implement evidence‐based initiatives for inclusion and equity. This report should be a starting point for systematic efforts to characterize the ever‐changing representation in evolutionary biology and to work toward the inclusion of all groups.
dc.publisherUniversity of Chicago Press
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherinclusion
dc.subject.otherprofessional societies
dc.subject.otherDiversity
dc.subject.otherequity
dc.subject.otherevolutionary biology
dc.titleWho are we now? A demographic assessment of three evolution societies
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScience
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167054/1/evo14168_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167054/2/evo14168.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/evo.14168
dc.identifier.sourceEvolution
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJacobs, J. A., and S. E. Winslow. 2004. The academic life course, time pressures and gender inequality. Community, Work & Family 7: 143 – 161.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNathan, M., and N. Lee. 2013. Cultural Diversity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Firm‐level Evidence from London. Economic Geography 89: 367 – 394.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOkoro, C. A. 2018. Prevalence of Disabilities and Health Care Access by Disability Status and Type Among Adults — United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 67.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePhillips, K. W., K. A. Liljenquist, and M. A. Neale. 2009. Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing With Socially Distinct Newcomers. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 35: 336 – 350.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., and C. E. T. Paine. 2019. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9: 3599 – 3619.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman, J. 2018. LGBTQ scientists are still left out. Nature 559: 27 – 28.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman, J. B. 2020. Measuring and Resolving LGBTQ Disparities in STEM. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 141 – 148.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGale, W. G., H. Gelfond, J. J. Fichtner, and B. H. Harris. 2020. The Wealth of Generations, With Special Attention to the Millennials. National Bureau of Economic Research.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGill, F., and Parigen Limited. 2018. Diversity Study. The Palaeontological Association.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGinther, D., and S. Kahn. 2009. Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973–2001. P. in R. B. Freeman and D. L. Goroff, eds. Science and engineering careers in the United States: an analysis of markets and employment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHagan, A. K., B. D. Topçuoğlu, M. E. Gregory, H. A. Barton, and P. D. Schloss, 2020. women are underrepresented and receive differential outcomes at ASM journals: A six‐year retrospective analysis. Mbio 11: e01680 ‐ 2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamrick, K., 2019. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Technical Report. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES ). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest/field-of-degree-minorities accesed on 10/11/2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHelmer, M., M. Schottdorf, A. Neef, and D. Battaglia. 2017. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife 6: e21718.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHofstra, B., V. V. Kulkarni, S. M. N. Galvez, B. He, D. Jurafsky, and D. A. McFarland, 2020. The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117: 9284 – 9291.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHuang, J., A. J. Gates, R. Sinatra, and A. L. Barabási, 2020. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117: 4609 – 4616.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHughes, B. E. 2018. Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Sci. Adv 4: eaao6373.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2019. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. Special Report NSF 19 – 304.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJang, M., and A. Vorderstrasse. 2019. Socioeconomic Status and Racial or Ethnic Differences in Participation: Web‐Based Survey. JMIR Res Protoc 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKang, K. 2018. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities 2019. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21308/data-tables accessed on 09/14/2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiévano‐Latorre, L. F., R. A. da Silva, R. R. S. Vieira, F. M. Resende, B. R. Ribeiro, F. J. A. Borges, L. Sales, and R. Loyola. 2020. Pervasive gender bias in editorial boards of biodiversity conservation journals. Biological Conservation 251: 108767.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRiegle‐Crumb, C., B. King, and Y. Irizarry. 2019. Does STEM Stand Out? Examining Racial/Ethnic Gaps in Persistence Across Postsecondary Fields. Educational Researcher 48: 133 – 144.American Educational Research Association.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRissler, L. J., K. L. Hale, N. R. Joffe, and N. M. Caruso. 2020. Gender Differences in Grant Submissions across Science and Engineering Fields at the NSF. Bioscience 70: 814 – 820.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSansone, D., and C. S. Carpenter. 2020. Turing’s Children: Representation of Sexual Minorities in STEM. arXiv:2005.06664 [econ, q‐fin].
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaw, A. K., and D. E. Stanton. 2012. Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279: 3736 – 3741.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShen, Y. A., J. M. Webster, Y. Shoda, and I. Fine. 2018. Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high profile journals. BioRxiv 275362.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShishkova, E., N. W. Kwiecien, A. S. Hebert, M. S. Westphall, J. E. Prenni, and J. J. Coon. 2017. Gender Diversity in a STEM Subfield ‐ Analysis of a Large Scientific Society and Its Annual Conferences. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 28: 2523 – 2531.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSilbiger, N. J., and A. D. Stubler. 2019. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7: e8247.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith, T. W., D. Michael, F. Jeremy, and S. L. Morgan. 2019. General Social Surveys, 1972–2018. Chicago: NORC.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceU.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 Accessed on 10/01/2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarnes, G. R., B. Bolker, L. Bonebakker, R. Gentleman, W. Huber, A. Liaw, T. Lumley, M. Maechler, A. Magnusson, S. Moeller, et al. 2020. gplots: Various R Programming Tools for Plotting Data.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliams, D. A. 2013. Strategic Diversity Leadership: Activating Change and Transformation in Higher Education. Page 90. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinslow, S., and S. N. Davis. 2016. Gender Inequality Across the Academic Life Course. Sociology Compass 10: 404 – 416.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlickenstaff, J. C. 2005. Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education 17: 369 – 386.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMauleón, E., L. Hillán, L. Moreno, I. Gómez, and M. Bordons. 2013. Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics 95: 87 – 114.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCullough, L. 2020. Proportions of Women in STEM Leadership in the Academy in the USA. Education Sciences 10: 1. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbernethy, E. F., I. Arismendi, A. G. Boegehold, C. Colón‐Gaud, M. R. Cover, E. I. Larson, E. K. Moody, B. E. Penaluna, A. J. Shogren, A. J. Webster, et al. 2020. Diverse, equitable, and inclusive scientific societies: Progress and opportunities in the Society for Freshwater Science. Freshwater Science 39: 363 – 376.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaucom, R. S., A. M. Geraldes, and L. H. Rieseberg. 2019. Some perspective on Molecular Ecology perspectives: Are women being left out?. Mol Ecol 28: 2451 – 2455.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBonham, K. S., and M. I. Stefan. 2017. Women are underrepresented in computational biology: An analysis of the scholarly literature in biology, computer science and computational biology. PLoS Computational Biology 13: e1005134.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBranco, S., and E. C. Vellinga. 2015. Gender Balance in Mycology. Inoculum 66: 1 – 4.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCeci, S. J., and W. M. Williams. 2011. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 3157 – 3162.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017. Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbs. Accessed on 10/01/2020.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChampely, S., C. Ekstrom, P. Dalgaard, J. Gill, S. Weibelzahl, A. Anandkumar, C. Ford, R. Volcic, H. De Rosario, and M. H. De Rosario, 2018. Package ‘pwr’. R package version, 1(2).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCheeke, T., S. Branco, D. Haelewaters, D. Natvig, M. Maltz, S. Cantrell‐Rodriguez, M. Cafaro, and G. May. 2018. Diversity in the Mycological Society of America. Inoculum.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCho, A. H., S. A. Johnson, C. E. Schuman, J. M. Adler, O. Gonzalez, S. J. Graves, J. R. Huebner, D. B. Marchant, S. W. Rifai, I. Skinner, et al. 2014. Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ 2: e542.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDébarre, F., N. O. Rode, and L. V. Ugelvig. 2018. Gender equity at scientific events. Evolution Letters 2: 148 – 158.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDíaz‐García, C., A. González‐Moreno, and F. J. Sáez‐Martínez. 2013. Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation 15: 149 – 160.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDorai‐Raj, S. 2015. Package “binom”. Binomial Confidence Intervals For Several Parameterizations. CRAN R Project.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEvangelista, D. A., A. Goodman, M. K. Kohli, S. S. T. Bondocgawa Maflamills, M. Samuel‐Foo, M. S. Herrera, J. L. Ware, and M. Wilson. 2020. Why Diversity Matters Among Those Who Study Diversity. Am Entomol 66: 42 – 49.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox, C. W., M. A. Duffy, D. J. Fairbairn, and J. A. Meyer. 2019. Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9: 13636 – 13649.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.