TY - JOUR
KW - Athena SWAN
KW - Call for action
KW - Gender
KW - Health research
KW - Path dependency
KW - Research impact assessment
KW - science policy
AU - Pavel V. Ovseiko
AU - Trisha Greenhalgh
AU - Paula Adam
AU - Jonathan Grant
AU - Saba Hinrichs-Krapels
AU - Kathryn E. Graham
AU - Pamela A. Valentine
AU - Omar Sued
AU - Omar F. Boukhris
AU - Nada M. Al Olaqi
AU - Idrees S. Al Rahbi
AU - Anne-Maree Dowd
AU - Sara Bice
AU - Tamika L. Heiden
AU - Michael D. Fischer
AU - Sue Dopson
AU - Robyn Norton
AU - Alexandra Pollitt
AU - Steven Wooding
AU - Gert V. Balling
AU - Ulla Jakobsen
AU - Ellen Kuhlmann
AU - Ineke Klinge
AU - Linda H. Pololi
AU - Reshma Jagsi
AU - Helen Lawton Smith
AU - Henry Etzkowitz
AU - Mathias W. Nielsen
AU - Carme Carrion
AU - Maite Solans‐Domènech
AU - Esther Vizcaino
AU - Lin Naing
AU - Quentin H. N. Cheok
AU - Baerbel Eckelmann
AU - Moses C. Simuyemba
AU - Temwa Msiska
AU - Giovanna Declich
AU - Laurel D. Edmunds
AU - Vasiliki Kiparoglou
AU - Alison M. J. Buchan
AU - Catherine Williamson
AU - Graham M. Lord
AU - Keith M. Channon
AU - Rebecca Surender
AU - Alastair M. Buchan
AB - Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.
BT - Health Research Policy and Systems
DA - 2016-07-19
DO - 10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z
IS - 1
N2 - Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.
PY - 2016
EP - 50
T2 - Health Research Policy and Systems
TI - A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z
VL - 14
Y2 - 2024-12-12
SN - 1478-4505
ER -