Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wissenschaftlerinnen auf Informatikkonferenzen:

ihr Engagement und ihre Sichtbarkeit

  • HAUPTBEITRAG
  • WISSENSCHAFTLERINNEN AUF INFORMATIKKONFERENZEN
  • Published:
Informatik-Spektrum Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Frauen sind in der Informatik mit einem Anteil von circa 15 % unterrepräsentiert. In der Forschung verteilten sie sich auf die Themen unterschiedlich, nämlich überproportional auf die ,,weichen“ Themen wie das Requirements Engineering und deutlich weniger auf andere (,,harte“?) Themen wie Programmierung, Managementthemen und Bioinformatik. In einer Gender-Studie im Rahmen meiner Klara-Marie-Faßbender-Gastprofessur an der Fachhochschule Bingen haben wir quantitativ untersucht, wie aktiv Informatikerinnen sich in verschiedenen Funktionen an Konferenzen beteiligen. Anhand dieser Daten wurden Fragen untersucht wie: Engagieren sich Frauen aktiv an der Konferenzorganisation und auf Gate-keeper-Positionen? Werden sie genügend als Expertinnen in Programmkomitees (PK) eingeladen? Fördern Frauen Frauen, tragen also beispielsweise mehr Frauen bei einer Veranstaltung vor, wo mehr Frauen im PK sind? Aus den Antworten auf diese rein statistischen Fragen kann man Schlussfolgerungen darüber ziehen, wo und warum auf der wissenschaftlichen Karriereleiter Frauen ,,verloren“ gehen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Addis E (2004) Gender in the publication process: evidence, explanations, and excellence. In: Europäische Kommission: Gender and excellence in the Making. EUR 21222, Directorate-General for Research, Information and Communication Unit. Brussels, pp 93–100. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/bias_brochure_final_en.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  2. Addis E, Villa P (2003) The editorial boards of Italian economic journals: women, gender, social networking. Fem Econ 9:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adler NJ (1993) Competitive frontiers: women managers in the triad. Int Stud Manag Organ 23:3–23

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bagilhole B, Goode J (2001) The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers; a feminist investigation. Eur J Women’s Stud 8(2):161–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bates R (2002) Liking and similarity as predictors of multi-source ratings. Pers Rev 31(5):540–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benschop Y, Brouns M (2003) Crumbling ivory towers: academic organizing and its gender effects. Gend Work Organ 10(2):194–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernard J (1964) Academic women. Pennsylvania State University Press, College Park

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blackburn RT, Fulton O (1975) Sex discrimination among university teachers: a British–American comparison. Br J Sociol 26(3):261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bordons M, Morillo F, Fernandez MT, Gomez I (2003) One step further in the production of bibliometrics indicator at the micro level: differences by gender and professional category of scientists. Scientometr 57:159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2005) Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer-review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions’. Scientometr 63(2):297–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD (2007) Gender differences in grant peer-review: a meta-analysis. J Infometrics 1(3):226–238. http://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0701/0701537.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  12. van den Brink M, Brouns M, Waslander S (2009) Does excellence have a gender? A national research study on recruitment and selection procedures for professorial appointments in The Netherlands. In: Anke Lipinsky (eds) Encouragement to advance – supporting women in European science careers. Beiträge Frauen in Wissenschaft und Forschung, No. 5. Kleine, Bielefeld, pp 25–46. http://www.academia.edu/757417/Does_Excellence_Have_a_Gender, last access: 17.9.2014

  13. Broder IE (1993) Review of NSF economics proposals: gender and institutional patterns. Am Econ Rev 83:964–970

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2011) Arbeitsmarktberichterstattung. Kurzinformation Frauen und MINT-Berufe. Nürnberg

  15. Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2012) Arbeitsmarktberichterstattung. Der Arbeitsmarkt für Akademikerinnen und Akademiker in Deutschland – Naturwissenschaften/Informatik. Nürnberg

  16. Canibano C, Otamendi J (2009) An assessment of selection processes among candidates for public research grants: the case of the Ramon y Cajal Programme in Spain. Res Eval 18(2):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cole M, Field H, Giles W (2004) Interaction of recruiter and applicant gender in resume evaluation: a field study. Sex Roles 51(9/10):597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cole J R, Zuckerman H (1984) The productivity puzzle: persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Adv Motiv Achiev 2:217–258

    Google Scholar 

  19. Didion C (2009) Women in engineering – gender differences report: an overview. The National Academies, Women in Science and Engineering Workshop, Jefferson Lab, Newport News, VA, USA, 16.11.2009

  20. Etzkowitz H (1971) The male sister: sexual separation of labour in society. J Marriage Fam 33(3):431–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. European Commission (2006) She figures 2006. Women & science: latest statistics and indicators. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Information and Communication Unit, Brüssel, Belgien

    Google Scholar 

  22. European Commission (2009) Gender challenge in research funding. Assessing the European national scenes. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/gender-challenge-in-research-funding_en.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  23. European Commission (2012) She figures 2012. Gender in research and innovation, statistics and indicators. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Information and Communication Unit, Brüssel, Belgien

    Google Scholar 

  24. European Technology Assessment Network (2000) Science policies in the European Union. Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality. A report from the ETAN Network on women and science. European Commission, Research Directorate-General, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  25. Faulkner W (2000) Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Soc Stud Sci 30(5):759–792. http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/∼ucessjb/Faulkner%202000.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  26. Fogelberg P, Hearn J, Husu L, Mankkinen T (eds) (1999) Hard work in the academy. Research and interventions on gender inequalities in higher education. Helsinki University Press, Helsinki

  27. Fox MF (1983) Publication productivity among scientists: a critical review. Soc Stud Sci 13:285–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gordon MB, Osganian SK, Emans SJ, Lovejoy FH Jr (2009) Gender differences in research grant applications for paediatric residents. Paediatr 124(2):e355–e361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gupta N, Kemelgor C, Fuchs S, Etzkowitz H (2004) The “Triple Burden”: a cross-cultural analysis of the consequences of discrimination for women in science. In: European Commission (eds) Gender and excellence in the making. Brussels, pp 41–51

  30. Harris H (2002) Think international manager, think male: why are women not selected for international assignments? Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 44(2):175–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heckenberg A, Druml D (2010) Gender aspects in medical publication – the Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. Wien Klin Wochenschr 122(5–6):141–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hornig LS (1987) Women graduate students: a literature review and synthesis. In: Dix LS (eds) Women: their underrepresentation and career differentials in science and engineering. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  33. Horwath I, Kronberger N, Wörtl I (2007) Das Technikstudium aus der Sicht von Frauen und Männern. TEquality – Technik. Gender. Equality. Trauner Druck, Linz

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holl F-L (Hrsg) (2006) Studie Entwicklungen in den Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien, Bd. 2. Studie zum Innovationsverhalten deutscher Software-Entwicklungsunternehmen. Eigenverlag, Berlin

  35. Husu L (2000) Gender discrimination in the promised land of gender equality. High Educ Europe 25(2):221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. ITU (2012) A bright future in ICTs opportunities for a new generation of women. ITU Report, February 2012. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/sis/Gender/Documents/ITUBrightFutureforWomeninICT-English.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  37. Jones D (2004) Does excellence have a gender? In: Europäische Kommission (eds) Gender and excellence in the making. EUR 21222, Directorate-General for Research, Information and Communication Unit. Report about workshop “Minimising gender bias in the definition and measurement of scientific excellence”. Brussels. http://victoria.academia.edu/DeborahJones/Papers/778437/Does_Excellence_Have_a_Gender, last access: 17.9.2014

  38. Kemelgor C, Etzkowitz H (2001) Overcoming isolation; women’s dilemmas in american academic science. Minerva 39:239–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kohaut S, Möller I, Pfahl S, Hobler D (2008) IAB-Betriebspanel 2004, 2008. Zitiert nach: http://www.boeckler.de/39045.htm, letzter Zugriff: 17.9.2014

  40. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504:211–213. In deutscher Übersetzung Wissenschaftlerinnen: Weniger Artikel, seltener zitiert. Spektrum Wiss 11.12.2013. http://www.spektrum.de/alias/wissenschaftlerinnen/weniger-artikel-seltener-zitiert/1217698, last access: 17.9.2014

  41. Latham G, Wexley K (1981) Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lin T, Dobbins G, Farth J (1992) A field study of race and age effects on interview ratings in conventional and situational interviews. J Appl Psychol 77:363–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Long JS (1987) Problems and prospects for research on sex differences in the scientific career. In: Dix LS (eds) Women: their underrepresentation and career differentials in science and engineering. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. Marsh HW, Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD, O’Mara A (2009) Gender effects in the peer-reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Rev Educ Res 79(3):1290–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Massachusetts Institute for Technology (1999) A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Women Faculty of Science, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  46. Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago London

  47. Mitroff I, Chubin D (1979) Peer-review at the NSF: a dialectical policy analysis. Soc Stud Sci 9(2):199–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Palomba R (eds) Figlie di Minerva. Franco Angeli, Milano. Zitiert nach: Palomba R: Does gender matter in scientific leadership? Europäische Kommission (eds) Gender and excellence in the making. EUR 21222, Directorate-General for Research, Information and Communication Unit, Brussels, pp 121–125. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/bias_brochure_final_en.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  49. Preush PC (2004) Analysis of NIH grants to women. ASCB Newsl 27:28–29

    Google Scholar 

  50. Primack RB, Ellwood E, Miller-Rushing AJ, Marrs R, Mulligan A (2009) Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biol Conserv 142(11):2415–2418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Reinhart M (2009) Peer-review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometr 813:789–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ranga M, Gupta N, Etzkowitz H (2012) Gender effects in research funding – a review of the scientific discussion on the gender-specific aspects of the evaluation of funding proposals and the awarding of funding. DFG. http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/evaluation_statistik/programm_evaluation/studie_gender_effects.pdf, last access: 17.9.2014

  53. Ripke M, Siegeris J (2012) Informatik – ein Männerfach? – Monoedukative Lehre als Alternative. Informatik-Spektrum 35(5):331–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rossiter M (1982) Women scientists in America: sand strategies to 1940. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rossiter M (1995) Women scientists in America: before affirmative action 1940–1972. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rubin J (1997) Gender, equality and the culture of organizational assessment. Gender Work Organ Special Issue 4(1):24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sandström U, Hällsten M (2008) Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometr 74(2):175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sools A, Van Engen M, Baerveldt C (2002) De paradox van ambitie. Een cultuurpsychologische analyse van het vertoog over hogerop komen als manager in een multinational in Nederland vanuit een genderperspectief (The paradox of ambition. A cultural psychological analysis of the discourse on climbing to a top position as manager in the multinational Netherlands from a gender perspective). Tijdschr Genderstud 4:42–55

    Google Scholar 

  59. Steinpreis R, Anders K, Ritzke D (1999) The impact of gender on the re-view of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure applicants: a national empirical study. Sex Roles 41(7/8):509–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Symonds MR, Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar MA (2006) Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE 1(1):e127, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Van Balen B (2001) Vrouwen in de Wetenschappelijke Arena. Sociale sluiting in de universiteit (Women in the academic arena. Social closure inside the university). Het Spinhuis, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  62. Van den Besselaar P, Leydesdorff L (2009) Past performance, peer-review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioural sciences. Res Eval 18(4):273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Waisbren SE, Bowles H, Hasan T, Zou KH, Emans SJ, Goldberg C, Gould S, Levine D, Lieberman E, Loeken M, Longtine J, Nadelson C, Patenaude AF, Quinn D, Randolph AG, Solet JM, Ullrich N, Walensky R, Weitzman P, Christou H (2008) Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. J Women’s Health 17(2):207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wenneras C, Wold A (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature 387:341–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wessely S (1998) Peer-review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352:301–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wood FQ, Wessely S (1999) Peer-review of grant applications: a systematic review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T (eds) Peer-review in health sciences. BMJ Publishing Group, London, pp 14–44

    Google Scholar 

  67. Xie Y, Shauman KA (1998) Sex differences in research productivity: new evidence about an old puzzle. Am Sociol Rev 63(6):847–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zuckerman H (1987) The careers of men and women scientists: a review of current research. In: Dix LS (eds) Women: their underrepresentation and career differentials in science and engineering. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zuckerman H (1991) The careers of men and women scientists: a review of current research. In: Zuckerman H, Cole JR Breuer JT (eds) The outer circle: women in the scientific community. W.W. Norton, New York, pp 27–56

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Freie Software Engineering Trainerin und Forscherin, Daimlerstr. 121, 70372, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Andrea Herrmann

Authors
  1. Andrea Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Herrmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herrmann, A. Wissenschaftlerinnen auf Informatikkonferenzen:. Informatik Spektrum 39, 38–56 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-014-0839-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-014-0839-8

Search

Navigation