科学领域的不平等机会:拓展我们的视野

IF 0.2 Q4 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Ideas in Ecology and Evolution Pub Date : 2013-11-18 DOI:10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F
M. David
{"title":"科学领域的不平等机会:拓展我们的视野","authors":"M. David","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific merit is commonly assessed through a researcher’s number of publications, or other citation metrics. However this procedure has been criticized as being biased, unfair and not representative of the true contribution of academic researchers to the advancement of science. Notably, citation metrics have been found to be detrimental to the assessment of female researchers’ achievement and maybe to women’s representation in academia. Yet very little is known about the real causes of differential gender representation in science. In this paper, I discuss these causes, and argue that recently proposed improvements in favour of more equal opportunities may instead generate other inequalities. I also anticipate that discriminative guidelines, if employed, should take other potentially disadvantaged communities into account and eventually promote communitarianism in science. I conclude that science as a whole has a lot more to gain by adopting a multi-dimensional, universal, and qualitative perspective when assessing scientific merit.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unequal opportunities in science: expanding our perspectives\",\"authors\":\"M. David\",\"doi\":\"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientific merit is commonly assessed through a researcher’s number of publications, or other citation metrics. However this procedure has been criticized as being biased, unfair and not representative of the true contribution of academic researchers to the advancement of science. Notably, citation metrics have been found to be detrimental to the assessment of female researchers’ achievement and maybe to women’s representation in academia. Yet very little is known about the real causes of differential gender representation in science. In this paper, I discuss these causes, and argue that recently proposed improvements in favour of more equal opportunities may instead generate other inequalities. I also anticipate that discriminative guidelines, if employed, should take other potentially disadvantaged communities into account and eventually promote communitarianism in science. I conclude that science as a whole has a lot more to gain by adopting a multi-dimensional, universal, and qualitative perspective when assessing scientific merit.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学价值通常通过研究人员的出版物数量或其他引用指标来评估。然而,这一程序被批评为有偏见、不公平,不能代表学术研究人员对科学进步的真正贡献。值得注意的是,研究发现,引文指标不利于评估女性研究人员的成就,甚至可能不利于女性在学术界的代表性。然而,人们对科学界性别差异的真正原因知之甚少。在本文中,我讨论了这些原因,并认为最近提出的有利于更平等机会的改进可能反而会产生其他不平等。我还预计,如果采用歧视性指导方针,应该考虑到其他潜在的弱势群体,并最终促进科学中的社区主义。我的结论是,科学作为一个整体,在评估科学价值时采用多维、普遍和定性的观点会有更多的收获。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unequal opportunities in science: expanding our perspectives
Scientific merit is commonly assessed through a researcher’s number of publications, or other citation metrics. However this procedure has been criticized as being biased, unfair and not representative of the true contribution of academic researchers to the advancement of science. Notably, citation metrics have been found to be detrimental to the assessment of female researchers’ achievement and maybe to women’s representation in academia. Yet very little is known about the real causes of differential gender representation in science. In this paper, I discuss these causes, and argue that recently proposed improvements in favour of more equal opportunities may instead generate other inequalities. I also anticipate that discriminative guidelines, if employed, should take other potentially disadvantaged communities into account and eventually promote communitarianism in science. I conclude that science as a whole has a lot more to gain by adopting a multi-dimensional, universal, and qualitative perspective when assessing scientific merit.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ideas in Ecology and Evolution
Ideas in Ecology and Evolution EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beyond individual, population, and community: Considering information, cell number, and energy flux as fundamental dimensions of life across scales Eccrine Hydration Screen adaptation theory for humans Investing in publication: Researchers as "savage capitalists" Transformative choices towards a sustainable academic publishing system
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1