Mujeres en la ornitología colombiana: Perspectivas históricas y tendencias de participación en dos contextos académicos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59517/oc.e574Palabras clave:
equidad de género, mujeres en la ciencia, Latinoamérica, sesgos, tubería con fugasResumen
Globalmente existe un movimiento para fomentar la equidad en los entornos académicos debido a la baja representación de mujeres. Este estudio se enfoca en la participación femenina en la ornitología colombiana. Exploramos tanto la situación actual, como la participación histórica de mujeres en este campo, resaltando su escasa visibilidad en los registros históricos. Para abordar estas desigualdades, proponemos una revisión interna para identificar sesgos y sugerir acciones que fortalezcan la equidad en este campo. En nuestro análisis de la revista Ornitología Colombiana (OC) y el Congreso Colombiano de Ornitología (CCO) entre 2003 y 2023, evaluamos la participación de mujeres en diversos roles como autoras, editoras, revisoras, tesistas y asesoras de tesis, así como su presencia como ponentes magistrales y en presentaciones orales y pósteres. Los resultados muestran que, en promedio, las mujeres representan el 29,2% de los autores en la revista, con el 21,1% y 18,3% siendo primeras y últimas autoras, respectivamente. Esta baja representación se extiende al cuerpo editorial y a los revisores (una mujer editora en jefe, 28% de editoras asociadas, y 15,6% de revisoras). El CCO muestra tendencias similares, con sólo el 37,2% de resúmenes que tienen a una mujer como coautora. De manera preocupante, la participación femenina no muestra una tendencia en aumento. Como posible evidencia de la “tubería con fugas” en la ornitología colombiana, observamos que más del 50% de los tesistas son mujeres, pero esta proporción disminuye al avanzar en las etapas de la carrera académica. Con el ánimo de cambiar estas tendencias y fortalecer la disciplina, presentamos recomendaciones específicas que buscan fomentar la diversidad y equidad en la ornitología colombiana.
Descargas
Referencias
Bendels, M.H., R. Müller, D. Brueggmann & D.A. Groneberg. 2018. Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index Journals. PloS One 13 (1):e0189136. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189136
Birkhead, T.R. & I. Charmantier. 2009. History of Ornithology. En: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester. DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003096
Budden, A.E., T. Tregenza., L.W. Aarssen., J. Koricheva., R. Leimu & C.J. Lortie. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in ecology & evolution 23(1): 4-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
Caldarulo, M., J. Olsen, A. Frandell, S. Islam, T.P. Johnson, M.K. Feeney, L. Michalegro & E.W. Welch. 2022. COVID-19 and gender inequity in science: Consistent harm over time. PloS one 17(7):e0271089. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271089
Cech, E.A. & M. Blair-Loy. 2019. The Changing Career Trajectories of New Parents in STEM. PNAS 116(10): 4182– 4187. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1810862116
Cho, A.H., S.A. Johnson, C.E. Shuman, J.M. Adler, O. Gonzalez, S.J. Graves, J.R. Huebner, D.B. Marchant, S.W. Rifai, I. Skinner, & E.M. Bruna. 2014. Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ 2:e542. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.542
Córdoba-córdoba, S. 2009. Historia de la ornitología colombiana: sus colecciones científicas, investigadores y asociaciones. Boletín SAO 19:1-26. http://www.sao.org.co/publicaciones/boletinsao/Boletin%20sao.htm
Cossairt, B.M., J.L. Dempsey, & E.R. Young. 2019. The Chemistry Women Mentorship Network (CHEMWMN): A tool for creating critical mass in academic chemistry. Chemistry of Materials 31(20):8239-8242
Chrousos., G.P, & A-F.A. Mentis. 2020. Imposter syndrome threatens diversity. Science 367(6479): 749-750. DOI: 10.1126/science.aba8039
De kleijn, M., B. Jayabalasingham, H.J. Falk-krzesinski, T. Collins, L. Kuiper-hoyng, I. Cingolani & S. Tobin. 2020. The researcher journey through a gender lens: an examination of research participation, career progression and perceptions across the globe. Elsevier. 179 pp.
Demery, A.J.C. & M.A. Pipkin. 2021. Safe fieldwork strategies for at-risk individuals, their supervisors and institutions. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5(1):5-9. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01328-5
Dizney, L.J., J. Karr & R.J. Rowe. 2019. The contribution and recognition of women in the field of mammalogy. Journal of Mammalogy 100(3): 678-689. DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy170
Dubois-shaik, F., B. Fusulier & C. Vincke. 2018. A gendered pipeline typology in academia. In Gender and Precarious Research Careers (pp. 178-205). Routledge.
Farr, C.M., S.P. Bombaci, A.M. Mangan, H.L. Riedl, L.T. Stinson, K. Wilkins & L. Pejchar. 2017. Addressing the gender gap in distinguished speakers at professional ecology conferences. BioScience 67(5): 464–468. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix013
Feeney, M. & M. Bernal. 2010. Women in STEM networks: who seeks advice and support from women scientists?. Scientometrics 85(3):767-790. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0256-y
Fox, C.W. & C.T. Paine. 2019a. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9(6):3599-36-19. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4993
Fox, C.W., M.A. Duffy., D.J. Fairbairn & J.A. Meyer. 2019. Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9(6):13636–13649. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5794
Fox, C.W., C.S. Burns & J.A. Meyer. 2016. Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology 30:140–153. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12529
García-holgado, A., A. Camacho Díaz, & F.J., Garcíapeñalvo. 2019. Engaging women into STEM in Latin America: W-STEM project. En Conde-González, M. Á., F. J. Rodríguez-Sedano, C. Fernández-Llamas, & F. J. García-Peñalvo (EDS.). TEEM’19 Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (Leon, Spain, October 16th-18th, 2019) (pp. 232-239). New York, NY, USA: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3362789.3362902
Gloss, C. & K.L. Minnotte. 2010. Recruiting and hiring women in STEM fields. Journal of diversity in Higher Education 3(4): 218-229. DOI: 10.1037/a0020581
González-Pérez, S., R. Mateos de cabo & M. Sáinz. 2020. Girls in STEM: Is it a female role-model thing?. Frontiers in psychology 11:2204. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
Handelsman, J., N. Cantor, M. Carnes, D. Denton, E. Fine, B. Grosz, V. Heinshaw, C. Marrett, S. Rosser, D. Shalala & J. Sheridan. 2005. More women in science. Policy forum, Careers in science 309.
Hansen, D.S. 2020. Identifying barriers to career progression for women in science: Is COVID-19 creating new challenges?. Trends in parasitology 36(10): 799-802. DOI: 10.1016/j.pt.2020.07.016
Herrera, M.C. 2014. Educación femenina e inclusión social en Colombia a través del siglo XX. Educação e Filosofia Uberlândia 28:181-199. DOI: 10.14393/REVEDFIL.v28nn.% 20ESPa2014-24609
Hirsch, J.E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(46):16569-16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.050765510
Howe-walsh, L. & Turnbull, S. 2016. Barriers to women leaders in academia: tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education 41(3): 415-428. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2014.929102
Huang, J., A.J. Gates, R. Sinatra & A.L. Barabási. 2020. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(9):4609-4616. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914221117
Jones, T.M., K.V. Fanson, R. Lanfear, M.R. Symonds & M. Higgie. 2014. Gender differences in conference presentations: A consequence of self-selection? PeerJ 2:e627. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.627
Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. & S.T. Faber. 2016. Benefits of peer mentoring to mentors, female mentees and higher education institutions. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 24(2):137-157. DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2016.1170560
Kong, S., K. Carroll, D. Lundberg, P. Omura & B. Lepe. 2020. Reducing gender bias in STEM. MIT Science Policy Review 1:55-63. DOI: 10.38105/spr.11kp6lqr0a
Leal, A. 2020. Historia de la ornitología: Pioneras de la ornitología. Aves y naturaleza 31:20-25.
Lerman, S.B., L. Pejchar, L. Benedict, K.M. Covino, J.L. Dickinson, J. Fantle-lepczyk & C. Vleck. 2021. Juggling parenthood and ornithology: A full lifecycle approach to supporting mothers through the American Ornithological Society. The Condor 123(2):1-9. DOI: 10.1093/ornithapp/duab001
Liévano-Latorre, L.F., R.A. Da silva, R.R.S. Vieira, F.M. Resende, B.R. Ribeiro, F.J.A. Borges, L. Sales & R. Loyola. 2020. Pervasive gender bias in editorial boards of biodiversity conservation journals. Biological Conservation 251, 108767. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108767
Llorens, A., A. Tzovara, L. Bellier, I. Bhaya-Grossman, A. Bidet-Caulet, W.K. Chang & N.F. Dronkers. 2021. Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions. Neuron 109(13):2047-2074. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.002
López, C. & D. Farías. 2022. The mirage of scientific productivity and how women are left behind: the Colombian case. Tepuya: Latin American Science, Technology, and Society 5: 2037819. DOI: 10.1080/25729861.2022.2037819
lundine, J., I.L. Bourgeault, J. Clark, S. Heidari, & D. Balabanova. 2018. The gendered system of academic publishing. The Lancet 391(10132):1754-1756
Maas, B., R.J. Pakeman, L. Godet, L. Smith, V. Devictor & R. Primarck. 2021. Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top-publishing ecologist. Conservation Letters. DOI:10.1111/conl.12797
Manning, R., M. Levine & A. Collins. 2007. The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist 62(6): 555. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555
Meho, L.I. 2021. The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 2001-2020. Quantitative Science Studies 2 (3):976-989. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00148
National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/24994.
Naranjo, L.G. 2008. El arcano de la ornitología colombiana: The arcanum of Colombian ornithology. Ornitología Colombiana 7:5-16. https://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/revistaornitologia-colombiana/
Nielsen, M.W., S. Alegria, L. Börjeson, H. Etzkowitz, H.J. Falk-krzesinski, A. Joshi, E. Leahey, L. Smith-doerr, A. Williams & L. Shiebinger. 2017. Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (8):1740-1742. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1700616114
Nielsen, M.W., C.W. Bloch & L. Schiebinger. 2018. Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Nature human behavior 2 (10):726-734. DOI:10.1038/s41562-018-0433-1
Olivares, A.O. 1966. Introducción a la historia de la ornitología colombiana. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias 12:367-375.
Parra, L. 2008. Breve recuento histórico de las mujeres colombianas en la ciencia y la ingeniería. Revista de Antropología y Sociología: Virajes 10:155-166.
Patiño, L. 2020. En datos: así son las diferencias de género entre los graduados. El Tiempo. https://www.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/
cifras-de-mujeres-en-ciencia-y-tecnologia-en-educacion-en-colombia-412200
Polcuch, E., L. Brooks, A. Bello & K. Deslandes. 2018. Measuring gender equality in science and engineering: the SAGA survey of drivers and barriers to careers in science and engineering, SAGA (STEM and Gender Advancement) working papers no. 4. UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002661/266146e.pdf.
Potvin, D.A., E. Burdfield-steel, J.M. Potvin & S.M. Heap. 2018. Diversity begets diversity: A global perspective on gender equality in scientific society leadership. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197280. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197280
Purvis, A. 2006. The h index: playing the numbers game. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21(8):422. DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.014
Ramírez-Castañeda, V., E.P. Westeen, J. Frederick, S. Amini, D. Wait, A.S. Achmadi & R.D. Tarvin. 2022. A set of principles and practical suggestions for equitable fieldwork in biology. EcoEvoRxiv. DOI: 10.32942/osf.io/uszd7
Resmini, M. 2016. The “Leaky pipeline”. Chemistry a European Journal Editorial 22: 3533-3534. DOI: 10.1002/chem.201600292
Rinkus, M.A., J.R. Kelly, W. Wright, L. Medina & T. Dobson. 2018. Gendered considerations for safety in conservation fieldwork. Society & Natural Resources 31(12):1419-1426. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1471177
Ross, M.B., B.M. Glennon., R. Murciano-Goroff., E.G. Berkes., B.A. Weinberg, & J.I. Lane. 2022. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 608(7921): 135-145. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
Ross-hellauer, T., S. Reichmann, N.L. Cole, A. Fessl, T. Klebel & N. Pontika. 2022. Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review. Royal Society open science 9(1):211032. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211032
Rossi, A.S. 1965. Women in science: Why so few? Social and psychological influences restrict women’s choice and pursuit of careers in science. Science 148(3674):1196–1202. DOI: 10.1126/science.148.3674.1196
Rossiter, M.W. 1993. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social studies of science 23(2):325-341. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i212628
Salerno, P.E., M. Paez-Vacas, J.M. Guayasamin, & J.L. Stynoski. 2019. Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in ecology and zoology. PLoS One 14:1–14. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218598.
Sánchez-Montoya, M., A. Pastor, I. Aristi, A.I. Del Arco, M. Antón-Pardo, M. Bartrons & N. Catalan. 2016. Women in limnology in the Iberian Peninsula: biases, barriers and recommendations. Limnetica 35(1):61-72. DOI: 10.23818/limn.35.05
Sarseke, G. 2018. Under-representation of women in science: From educational, feminist and scientific views. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 11 (1):89-101. DOI: 10.1080/19407882.2017.1380049
Schiebinger, L. 1987. The history and philosophy of women in science: A review essay. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12(2):305-332. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/494323?journalCode=signs
Schroeder, J., H.L. Dugdale, R. Radersma, M. Hinsch, D. M. Buehler, J. Saul & C. Horrocks. 2013. Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 26: 2063–2069. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12198
Sharma, J. & D.N. Poole. 2018. Gender bias in publishing. The Lancet 392(10157):1515-1516. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31998-6
Shen, H. 2013. Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature News 495(7439):22. DOI: 10.1038/495022ª
Simmonds, A. 2014. Women scientists sexually harassed while doing fieldwork. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2014.15571
Soares, L., K. Cockle, E. Ruelas inzunza, J.T. Ibarra, C.I. Miño, S. Zuluaga, E. Bonaccoroso & P.V. Ribeiro martins. 2022. Neotropical Ornithology: Reckoning with Historical Assumptions, Removing Systemic Barriers, and Reimagining the Future. EcoEvoRxiv. DOI: 10.32942/osf.io/yu2fx.
Soto-Patiño, J., K. Certuche-Cubillos, J. Diaz-Cárdenas, D. Garzón-Lozano, E. Guzmán-Moreno, N. Niño-Rodríguez, N. Pérez-Amaya, & N. Ocampo-Peñuela. 2023. The once-invisible legacy of Elizabeth L. Kerr, a naturalist in the early 20th century and her contributions to Colombian ornithology. Ornithological applications Volume 125, Issue 2, 1 May 2023, duad006.https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duad006
Stinson, S. 2003. Participation of women in human biology, 1975–2001. American Journal of Human Biology 15 (3):440-445. DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.10160
Vaughan, K., H., van Miegroet, A. Pennino, Y. Pressler, C. Duball, E.C. Brevik & C. Olson. 2019. Women in soil science: Growing participation, emerging gaps, and the opportunities for advancement in the USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 83(5):1278-1289. DOI:10.2136/sssaj2019.03.0085
Velásquez, M. 1998. La condición de las mujeres colombianas a fines del siglo XX. En Nueva Historia de Colombia 51-78. Santa fé de Bogotá: Planeta.
Walters, M. 2004. A concise history of ornithology. Journal of the History of Biology, 37(2):412-414. Werner Washburne, M., J. Trejo, R.E. Zambrana, M.E. Zavala, A. Martinic, A. Riestra, T. Delgado & R.L. Rodriguez. 2023. Early career Latinas in STEM: Challenges and solutions. Cell 186(23): 4985-4991. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.10.016
Woolley, A.W., C.F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. hashmi & T.W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686-688. DOI: 10.1126/science.1193147
Yang, Y., T.Y. Tian, T.K. Woodruff, B.F. Jones, & B. Uzzi. 2022. Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(36):e200841119. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2200841119.
Zavala Guillen, A.L. 2020. Gender based violence during fieldwork: exploring experiences and coping strategies of women researchers. Universidad de Birmingham. Birmingham, Inglaterra.

Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Los Autores. Revista Ornitología Colombiana, Asociación Colombiana de Ornitología ACO

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.