By Fran Amery (University of Bath), Stephen Holden Bates (University of Birmingham), Stephen McKay (University of Lincoln), Cherry Miller (University of Tampere), Zoe Pflaeger Young (De Montfort University), Taylor Billings (University of Birmingham), Rebecca Hayton (University of Birmingham), Marianne Holt (University of Birmingham), Jasmine Khatri (University of Birmingham), Molly Marvin (Independent Scholar), Lola Ogunsanya (University of Birmingham), Alice Ramdehal (University of Birmingham) and Rosa-Louise Sullivan (University of Birmingham)[i].
Blogpost originally published on PSA Parliaments’ site.
By Mark Goodwin, Stephen Bates and Steve McKay In the past two months, two of Britain’s richest men have been forced by Parliament to admit to, and apologise for, serious failings in their business…
Men in psychology, economics and biology are so good at research that 29-30% achieved 4* outputs in the last Research Exercise Framework (REF). Women in theology; anthropology & development studies; sociology; aeronautical, mechanical, chemical and manufacturing engineering; civil and construction engineering; agriculture, veterinary and food science (and men in art & design) are perhaps not so impressive: only 13-14% achieved 4* outputs in these units of assessment (UoA). Overall, 22% of men and 19% of women submitted to the REF produced 4* outputs. These apparent differences in purported research quality were highlighted in one of the supplementary reports accompanying the recent metrics review by HEFCE, The Metric Tide*.
A blog post that Mark Goodwin and I wrote for the PSA Specialist Group on Parliaments and Legislatures.
It contains articles on the status of female political scientists in Finland, Germany, Spain and the UK, as well as an article on gender and journal authorship co-authored by Helen Williams, Laura Jenkins, Darcy Luke, Kelly Rogers and me.
This is the second of two posts on gender and the Research Excellence Framework (you may also be interested in this post on what titles of outputs submitted to the Politics & International Studies Unit of Assessment tell us about (sub-)disciplinary trends).
In our first post, we used the REF submissions data in order to offer a new ‘survey’ of political scientists. We looked at the ratio of men to women across different universities, and with different levels of seniority. In this post, we focus more on the outcomes of the REF and, in particular, the association between the outcomes and the proportion of men and women in each submission.