The disparity between men and women in science is a hot topic in gender studies and a relevant target of scientific policies. The leaky pipeline metaphor illustrates the decreasing number of women along senior positions in academia; however many questions remain unanswered. What factors progressively diminish the number of women in scientific careers and why do they appear to be less successful than their male colleagues? In order to discover new insight, this work compares men's and women's career paths by taking into account academic and family milestones achieved throughout the life course. An innovative and interdisciplinary methodology (from bibliometrics, statistics, and sociology) has been constructed to examine men's and women's trajectories. Findings display gender differences in scientists’ trajectories. The evolution of scientists’ careers reveals linear careers for males, whilst women develop non-linear careers. Motherhood emerges as a problem for developing linear careers. And collegiate decisions of gatekeepers seem to systematically disfavour women scientists’ careers.
AckersLouise.2004. Managing work and family life in peripatetic careers: the experiences of mobile women scientists in the European Union.Women's Studies International Forum27: 189–201.
2.
AndersonDaun R.2005. The importance of mentoring programs to women's career advancement in biotechnology.Journal of Career Development32: 60–73.
3.
BagilholeBarbara, and GoodeJane. 2001. The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers: A feminist investigation.European Journal of Women's Studies8: 161–80.
4.
BenschopYvonne, and BrounMargo. 2003. Crumbling ivory towers: academic organizing and its gender effects.Gender, Work and Organization10(2): 194–212.
5.
BerrymanSu E.1983. Who will do science? Trends, and their Causes in Minority and Female Representation among Holders of Advanced Degrees in Science and Mathematics.New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
6.
BorregoÁngel, BarriosMaite, VillarroyaAnna, and OlléCandela. 2010. Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: a gender perspective.Scientometrics83: 93–101.
7.
BozemanBarry, DietzJames S., and GaughanMonica. 2001. Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation.International Journal of Technology Management22: 716–40.
8.
BozemanBarry, and GaughanMonica. 2011. How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers.Research Policy40: 1393–402.
9.
BuzzanellPatrice M., and GoldzwigSteven R.. 1991. Linear and nonlinear career models: metaphors, paradigms, and ideologies.Management Communication Quarterly4: 466–505.
10.
CeciStephen J., GintherDonna K., KahnShulamit, and WilliamsWendy W.. 2014. Women in academic science: a changing landscape.Psychological Science in the Public Interest15: 75–141.
11.
De la RicaSusana, and IzaAmaia. 2005. Career planning in Spain: do fixed-term contracts delay marriage and parenthood?Review of Economics of the Household3: 49–73.
12.
DietzJames S., ChompalovIvan, BozemanBarry, O'NeilEliesh L., and ParkJongwon. 2000. Using the curriculum vita to study the career paths of scientists and engineers: an exploratory assessment.Scientometrics49: 419–42.
13.
EC [European Commission].2012. Enhancing excellence, gender equality and efficiency in research and innovation.Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.Brussels: European Commission.
14.
EC [European Commission].2013. She figures. gender in research and innovation. statistcs on indicators.Brussels: European Commission.
15.
ElderGlen H.1994. Time, human agency, and social change: perspective on the life course.Social Psychology Quarterly57: 4–15.
16.
Esping-AndersenGosta, coord. 2013. El déficit de la natalidad en Europa. La singularidad del caso español. Colección Estudios Socialesn. 36.Barcelona: Obra Social La Caixa.
17.
EvettsJulia.2000. Analysing change in women's careers: culture, structure and action dimensions.Gender, Work and Organisations7: 57–67.
18.
FelsAnna.2004. Do women lack ambition?Harvard Business ReviewApril:1–11.
19.
FoxMary F.2005. Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists.Social Studies of Science35: 131–50.
20.
GonzálezAna M. and VergésNúria2013. International mobility of women in science and technology careers: shaping plans for personal and professional purposes.Gender, Place and Culture20: 613–29.
21.
GonzálezAna M.2014a. ¿Camuflaje o transformación? Estrategia profesional de las mujeres en carreras tecnológicas altamente masculinizadas.Educar50: 187–205.
22.
GonzálezAna M.2014b. Inclusion of women in science. long-term strategies for alone or with partners’ women.Géneros. Multidisciplinary Journal of Gender Studies3: 459–82.
23.
HeilmanMadeline E., and ChenJulie J.2005. Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology90: 431–41.
24.
HochschildArlie, and MachungAnne. 1990. The second shift.New York: Avon Books.
25.
KemelgorCarol, and EtzkowitzHenry. 2001. Overcoming isolation: women's dilemmas in american academic science.Minerva39: 153–74.
26.
KreftingLinda A.2003. Intertwined discourses of merit and gender: evidence from academic employment in the USA.Gender, Work and Organization10: 260–78.
27.
LangbergKamma.2006. The gender gap in the public research sector. The case of Denmark. In Women in Scientific Careers. Unleashing the Potential, ed. OCDE, 61–76. Paris: OCDE.
28.
LyonDawn, and WoodwardAlison E.. 2004. Gender and time at the top: cultural construction of time in high-level careers and homes.European Journal of Women's Studies11: 205–221.
29.
LongJ. Scott, and FoxMary F.. 1995. Scientific careers: universalism and particularism.Annual Review of Sociology21: 45–71.
30.
Lorenz-MeyerDagmar. 2014. Reassembling gender: on the immanent politics of gendering apparatuses of bodily production in science.Women: a cultural review25: 78–98.
31.
MarshHerbert W., JayasingheUpali W., BondNigel W.2008. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.American Psychologist63: 160–68.
32.
MauleónElba, and BordonsMaria. 2009. Male and female involvement in patenting activity in Spain.Scientometrics83: 605–21.
33.
MauleónElba, DaraioCinzia, and BordonsMaria. 2014. Exploring gender differences in patenting in Spain.Research Evaluation23: 62–78. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt030.
34.
Moss-RacusinCorinne A., DovidioJohn F., BrescollVictoria L., GrahamMark J., and HandelsmanJo. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109: 16474–79.
35.
ReesTeresa.2011. The gendered construction of scientific excellence.Interdisciplinary Science Reviews36: 133–45.
36.
RierDavid A.2003. Gender, lifecourse and publication decisions in toxic-exposute epidemiology: ‘now!’ versus ‘wait a minute!’.Social Studies of Science33: 269–300.
37.
SchiebingerLonda.1999. Has feminism changed science?Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
SealyRuth.2010. Changing perceptions of meritocraty in senior women's careers.Gender in Management: An International Journal25: 184–97.
39.
ShaumanKimberlee A.1998. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle.American Sociological Review63: 847–70.
40.
SiskindTheresa, and KearnsSharon. 1997. Gender bias in the evaluation of female faculty at the citadel: a qualitative analysis.Sex Roles37: 495–525.
41.
Son HingLeanne S., RamonaBobocel D., and ZannaMark P.. 2002. Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: making concession in the face of discrimination.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology83: 493–509.
42.
SvinthLisa.2006. ‘Leaky pipeline’- to be or not to be a useful metaphor in understanding why women to a disproportional degree exit from scientific careers.6th European Gender Research Conference, 31st August – 3rd September, in Lodz, Poland.
43.
Van den BrinkMarieke, and BenschopYvonne. 2011. Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: sheep with five legs.Organization19: 507–24.
44.
XieYu, and ShaumanKimberlee A.. 1998. Sex differences in research productivity: new evidence about an old puzzle.American Sociological Review63: 847–70.
45.
XieYu, and ShaumanKimberlee A.. 2003. Women in science: career processes and outcomes.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
ZynovyevaNatalia, and BaguesManuel. 2011. Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment.IZA Discussion Paper No. 5537.
