The media and science turn a blind eye to women › Higgs

Only 23 percent of expert voices quoted in media reports come from women. Where their share depends heavily on the subject. In sports and business news, this is only 13 and 17 percent, respectively. He was mediocre in politics. Most women can be found in cultural topics (27 percent) and in human interests (31 percent). From scientific reports in a study Not even talking.

The responses to this finding were straightforward. The media does not choose an actor. This is certainly true in political reports. Because 42 per cent of the seats in the Swiss National Assembly are now held by women. So the media is not giving enough presence here. So far, too bad.



But – and unfortunately I have to upset the general consensus a little – how should the media show more business leaders when there are no more? If the media allow as many managers to have their opinions, they will distort reality. in the direction of the desired state, but it will be a distortion.

I got this from Lisa Schweiger Center for Public and Society Research Requested. “I wouldn’t describe it blatantly,” says the social researcher. “It’s not about making things fake, it’s about making women and underrepresented groups in general, and the disadvantaged, more visible.”

Not enough attention is paid to the medical community either

Another international study was published last week on the underrepresentation of women. She studied how women are well represented in the medical sciences. And here there is a blatant distortion not caused by the media, but by the scientific community itself.

See also  Inhalation therapy against SARS-CoV-2 virus with nanotechnology

although More women are attending medical school than ever before, it is unlikely that they will be recognized as experts. There are several studies on this from the USA: Women are less likely to participate the prices Excellent, you rarely get one full professorshipclothe Fewer management positions المناصب or less common Authors in important journals.

Universities have recognized this and have also started appropriate programmes. For example the University of Zurich with the Career Advancement Program «Fill the void».
However, now comes the second however.

It has been found that women – even when they publish in high-profile medical journals – are simply ignored by the professional community. Her articles are cited much less frequently than those written by men. This indicates the current a study University of Pennsylvania.

Average number of citations from specialized articles by female or male authors.

It examined 5,554 articles published in five leading academic medical journals between 2015 and 2018. The third is lead author and the fourth is lead author.

Articles written by women as the lead author are mentioned an average of 36 times in other articles. Articles with lead authors received 54 citations.

It was more balanced with a woman in the position of senior author. The difference was most pronounced when the lead author and lead author were female: 33 versus 59 on average.

Of great importance is the number of times a scholarly article is cited by other researchers. This is because the number of citations is a measure of academic recognition and impact, and is used in professional assessments and promotions.

See also  How much entertainment is there in the car?

The study’s lead author, Paula Chatterjee, is an assistant professor of internal medicine, a field where there are more women, for example, in surgery. She points out that even here, the scientific community’s ignorance of women’s publications is no less evident than in the usually male disciplines.

The low number of citations, according to the study author, explains why it is so difficult for women to spend academic work. Meanwhile, it makes moving forward even more difficult.

Why women pay less attention to posts and how this can be changed remains unclear at the moment.
One thing is clear: the women’s articles were checked in exactly the same way as the men’s before publication. So it is not quality.


Look at the facts very carefully. He keeps an overview in the woods of the results of the scientific study. Shows what is related. And what does not work. The realist is Beat Glogger, founder and editor-in-chief of higgs. Every Tuesday as a broadcast on Radio 1 and as a video on higgs.

Show all posts

support us

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.