Abstract
AbstractMultiple studies from the literature suggest that a high proportion of women on scientific teams contributes to successful team collaboration, but how the proportion of women impacts team success and why this is the case, is not well understood. One perspective suggests that having a high proportion of women matters because women tend to have greater social sensitivity and promote even turn-taking in meetings. Other studies have found women are more likely to collaborate and are more democratic. Both explanations suggest that women team members fundamentally change team functioning through the way they interact. Yet, most previous studies of gender on scientific teams have relied heavily on bibliometric data, which focuses on the prevalence of women team members rather than how they act and interact throughout the scientific process. In this study, we explore gender diversity in scientific teams using various types of relational data to investigate how women impact team interactions. This study focuses on 12 interdisciplinary university scientific teams that were part of an institutional team science program from 2015 to 2020 aimed at cultivating, integrating, and translating scientific expertise. The program included multiple forms of evaluation, including participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and surveys at multiple time points. Using social network analysis, this article tested five hypotheses about the role of women on university-based scientific teams. The hypotheses were based on three premises previously established in the literature. Our analyses revealed that only one of the five hypotheses regarding gender roles on teams was supported by our data. These findings suggest that scientific teams may create ingroups, when an underrepresented identity is included instead of excluded in the outgroup, for women in academia. This finding does not align with the current paradigm and the research on the impact of gender diversity on teams. Future research to determine if high-functioning scientific teams disrupt rather than reproduce existing hierarchies and gendered patterns of interactions could create an opportunity to accelerate the advancement of knowledge while promoting a just and equitable culture and profession.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Psychology,General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference79 articles.
1. Acker J (1992) Gendering organizational theory. Gendering Organ Anal 6(2):248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002
2. Allport G, Clark K, Pettigrew T (1954) The nature of prejudice. http://althaschool.org/_cache/files/7/1/71f96bdb-d4c3-4514-bae2-9bf809ba9edc/97F5FE75CF9A120E7DC108EB1B0FF5EC.holocaust-the-nature-of-prejudice.doc
3. Badar K, Hite JM, Badir YF (2013) Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics 94(2):755–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0764-z
4. Bammer G, O’Rourke M, O’Connell D, Neuhauser L, Midgley G, Klein JT, Grigg NJ, Gadlin H, Elsum IR, Bursztyn M, Fulton EA, Pohl C, Smithson M, Vilsmaier U, Bergmann M, Jaeger J, Merkx F, Vienni Baptista B, Burgman MA, … Richardson GP (2020) Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Commun 6(1) https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0
5. Baugh SG, Graen GB (1997) Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group Organ Manag 22(3):366–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601197223004
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献