This article reviews the results of a quantitative study that provides evidence of gender biases in relation to women in the field of Spanish mathematics education. For this purpose, doctoral dissertations produced in Spain and defended in Spanish universities between 1970 and 2014 were subjected to exhaustive analysis. Focusing on gender, the authorship, supervision, and evaluation of doctoral dissertations were used as explanatory variables. A prospective analysis of the variables was also carried out. The results reveal different situations depending on the above-mentioned dimensions. Specifically, a marked bias against women was detected in terms of the supervision and evaluation of doctoral dissertations, but not in terms of their authorship. This seems to suggest the existence of a glass ceiling that prevents women from gaining access to certain scientific fields and/or engaging in particular roles in the higher education setting, such as the supervision or evaluation of doctoral dissertations.
AbramoG.D’AngeloC. A.CapraseccaA. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79, 517-539.
2.
BenbowC. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects and possible causes. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232.
BirenbaumM.NasserF. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in Mathematics achievement and in disposition towards the study of Mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 16, 26-40.
5.
BoxG. E. P.JenkinsG. M.ReinselG. C. (2013). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley.
6.
ChanT. F. (2003). The mathematics doctorate: A time for change?Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 50, 896-902.
7.
Fernández-CanoA.TorralboM.VallejoM. (2012). Time series of scientific growth in Spanish doctoral dissertations (1848-2009). Scientometrics, 91, 15-36.
8.
GrayM. W. (1987). Sophie Germain. In GrinsteinL. S.CampbellJ. (Eds.), Women of mathematics: A biobibliographic sourcebook (pp. 47-56). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
9.
HerzigA. H. (2004). Becoming mathematicians: Women and students of color choosing and leaving doctoral mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 74, 171-214.
10.
HillC.CorbettC.RoseS. T. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
11.
HydeJ. S.FennemaE.LamonS. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
12.
LOU. (2001). Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades [Organic Law 6/2001 of 21 December, of Universities]. BOE, 307, 24December2001.
MurrayM. (2000). Women becoming mathematicians. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
16.
Ortega-ListonR.Rodriguez-SotoI. (2014). Challenges, choices, and decisions of women in higher education: A discourse on the future of Hispanic, Black, and Asian members of the professoriate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13, 285-302.
17.
PriceD. J. S. (1986). Little science, big science . . . and beyond. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
RennK. A. (2012). Roles of women’s higher education institutions in international contexts. Higher Education, 64, 177-191.
19.
RodriguezT. (2003). School social context effects on gender differences in academic achievement among second-generation Latinos. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2, 30-45.
20.
RosserS. V. (1995). Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics and engineering. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21.
RosserS. V. (2005). The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientist and the struggle to succeed. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
SmithJ. L.WhiteP. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles, 47, 179-191.
23.
ToutkoushianR. K.ConleyV. M. (2003). Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF: 99. Research in Higher Education, 46, 1-28.
24.
UMYC. (2014). Científicas en cifras 2013. Estadísticas e indicadores de la (des)igualdad de género en la formación y profesión [Scientific women in numbers 2013. Statistics and indicators on gender (in)equality in Education and profession]. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Retrieved from http://www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Ministerio/FICHEROS/UMYC/Cientificas_cifras_2013.pdf.
25.
VallejoM. (2005). Estudio longitudinal de la producción española de tesis doctorales sobre educación matemática (1975-2002) [Longitudinal study of the production of doctoral dissertations on mathematics education in Spain (1975-2002)]. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada.
26.
VallejoM.RojasC.Fernández-CanoA. (2002). Sesgos relativos al género en las políticas editoriales de revistas científicas españolas en el campo de la educación [Gender-related biases in editorial policies of Spanish scientific journals in the field of education]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa- RELIEVE, 8(2), 166-174.
27.
XuY. J. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49, 607-624.
28.
ZapaterF.GianottiM. (2008). Igualdad efectiva hombre-mujer en el ámbito universitario [Effective gender equality in the higher education setting]. Oviedo, Spain: XI Encuentro Estatal de Defensores Universitarios. Retrieved from. http://www.cedu.es/firmas.html
