Fostering gender equality in research: Prof Tom Welton on Elsevier’s report

To delve deeper into the report’s findings and their implications for women in research and the global research community, we asked distinguished experts to share their insights.

Recently we spoke with Dr Tom Welton 新しいタブ／ウィンドウで開く, Emeritus Professor of Sustainable Chemistry at Imperial College London 新しいタブ／ウィンドウで開く and a member of Elsevier’s Inclusion and Diversity Advisory Board 新しいタブ／ウィンドウで開く. With a long-standing commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion in science, Prof Welton shared critical insights on the latest Elsevier report and proposed potential approaches to achieving a more equitable research workforce.

On the need for new evaluation metrics

Prof Welton was struck by the persistence of the productivity gender gap in the report, particularly given the breadth of the global effort being made towards gender parity:

Despite 20 years of actions worldwide, the publication gap remains the same, which is disappointing. It’s a very tough nut to crack, and it raises the question of whether we will ever be able to fully close this gap, or if we need to find new ways to value and measure women’s contributions in research.

Prof Welton explained that although many alternative metrics have been proposed, the scientific community tends to fall back on traditional metrics that are relatively simple and readily available. The larger societal impact of research is a more equitable metric, but it is more complex and nuanced. “But by developing more inclusive and diverse measures of research impact, we can create an environment where all researchers are valued and supported, ultimately driving greater progress and innovation across the scientific community,” he argued.

He highlighted the report’s use of research related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) 新しいタブ／ウィンドウで開く as a potential measure of societal impact and noted the higher representation of women among SGD researchers:

On the difference between diversity and inclusion

In discussing the report’s findings on various disparities that widen across women researchers’ careers, Prof Welton pointed out that while institutions might focus on ensuring their faculty is gender diverse, they may not engage in the institutional change needed to ensure that women faculty members are welcomed and included:

It is crucial to consider the difference between representation and inclusion when analyzing gender data in academia. While representation can be measured through numbers and percentages, inclusion is about being heard, valued and feeling that one belongs in their academic environment. To promote true inclusion, institutions need to develop evaluation frameworks and reward systems that recognize and value the diverse contributions of all researchers.

On driving change at the individual and institutional level

Prof Welton emphasized that the work needed to achieve gender diversity and build cultures of inclusion requires change in both individual researcher behavior and institutional policies. He viewed the Gender Dashboard as an invaluable resource that can help guide evidence-based decision making around gender equity policies and priorities:

The ability that the dashboard gives to go into the data in detail is amazing. It allows you to dive into local analysis and understand the impact of local activities and actions on global trends. This will be powerful for people who want to develop actions and strategies that can drive change.

On more equitable distribution of resources

At the structural level, Prof Welton described, “a select number of ‘super elite,’ highly successful and well-funded researchers, primarily men, who significantly distort the overall picture of research performance and gender disparity in academia.” Their very large research groups may have high apparent productivity — in terms of competing for funding, publishing papers or even holding patents — but the research itself may not necessarily have a large impact. Indeed, by reinforcing traditional approaches to research, these groups may undercut diversity and limit innovative thinking. Prof Welton suggested: “Breaking down these structures and promoting more equitable distribution of resources could help level the playing field and allow for a more diverse range of researchers to succeed.”

On taking a global perspective

Prof Welton also highlights the importance of learning from different academic systems worldwide. While he applauded the inclusion of data from additional countries in the latest report, he cautioned that “the Global South is not a unified body — it is more diverse than the Global North, with distinct scientific systems.” For future reports, he said he looked forward to evaluating how collaborations between and within the Global North and Global South affect gender equity and the various metrics of productivity, societal impact of research, and innovation.

In conclusion, Prof Welton’s insights underscore the importance of challenging traditional structures in academia, by not only recognizing the achievements of women researchers but also adapting evaluation frameworks and research cultures to promote a more inclusive and equitable research environment. Broadening our understanding of global research structures and trends will provide valuable guidance for policymakers, universities and research institutions seeking to advance gender equity in research and innovation.