Meritocracy in Academia

Here at Women in Neuroscience (WiN) UK, we host a large team of diverse and enthusiastic females aiming to shed light on the obstacles, experiences, and successes faced by women across the field of neuroscience. This article will centre on an open dissemination of whether inherent sex-based biases continue to prevent women from gaining rightful merit for their work in academia.

A particular book, namely ‘Invisible Women’ by British feminist author Caroline Criado Perez, encapsulates damning evidence for the urgency of recognising, addressing, and tackling the disparities between genders in the academic realm, including within STEM subjects. In her book, Perez raises the issue of ‘meritocracy', a system in which success, power, and influence are earned through demonstrated ability and merit. She questions whether this is the reality of the modern workplace or whether inherent biases continue to thwart the contribution of hard work and expertise as predominant contributors to career development and opportunities.

Notably, an abundance of peer-reviewed studies have shown that female academics in STEM are less likely than their male counterparts to receive research funding, be granted meetings with professors, and succeed in job applications. Furthermore, academic papers with female authors are more likely to be approved or rated more highly when reviewed in a double-blind manner, suggesting a sexist bias continues to hold a tight grasp over the scientific publishing domain, preventing female scientists from gaining access to deserved merit. Despite this, many journals and publishers have failed to implement double-blind review protocols as a standard procedure to address potential prejudices, diminishing a pressing issue.

Caroline Criado Perez, author of Invisible Women. Image credit: Paul Clarke, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0

When it comes to citations, which are considered a universal measure of success within academia, Perez documents a similar trend whereby females are cited less overall, yet female academics cite other female papers more often than male academics do. One study found that using initials, rather than full names, led to female author-led papers being cited 10-fold more; this may be due to the author being assumed to be male, as society generally assumes the default human to be ‘male’, suggesting academia fails to overcome this sexist and outdated norm.

In addition to grants, publishing, and citations, Perez discusses the overlooked contributions of female academics. There is an imbalance in commitments to secondary academic responsibilities between the sexes, from additional teaching hours to provision of pastoral services to students. Despite these extra contributions, there are distinct differences in the perception of female scientists, including in personal feedback given by students to academics, and biases and prejudices that university attendees have towards female professors as intellectuals. It is fascinating, and heart-breaking, to read such a detailed account of how many inherent, conditioned, and damaging misconceptions exist, in people of all ages and backgrounds, which continue to prevent women across academia and STEM subjects from being objectively recognised as hard-working, intelligent, skilful, or successful.

This article only features a small number of the shocking statistics and detailed evaluations of apparent biases in academia, found in ‘The Myth of Meritocracy’ chapter in this eloquently articulated book. As stated in the closing paragraph by Perez, “the research produced by the academy has a significant impact on government policy, on medical practice, on occupational health legislation. The research has a direct impact on all our lives. It matters that women are not forgotten here.”

---

This article was written by Lauren Wallis and edited by Ailie McWhinnie. Interested in writing for WiN UK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch!