↓ Skip to main content

Accelerated Researchers: Psychosocial Risks in Gendered Institutions in Academia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accelerated Researchers: Psychosocial Risks in Gendered Institutions in Academia
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ester Conesa Carpintero, Ana M. González Ramos

Abstract

In recent decades, scientific institutions have undergone significant changes due to new managerialism and the application of excellence in research. This research model has given rise to tensions related to increasing pressures and working demands in a competitive international environment that accelerate the pace of academic life. In addition, precarious working conditions and job insecurity have affected academics' lives and careers. Academic literature has already addressed these organizational changes and their impact on academics, however, few studies have focused on psychosocial risks related to time constraints, meritocratic pressures and career insecurity from a gender perspective. This analysis is relevant given the gendered distribution of responsibilities and the evidence of gender biases in academia that hinder the advancement of gender equality in scientific institutions, as the persistent lack of women at the top of research careers show. In this paper, we explore the psychosocial effects of the new organizational model of science characterized by accelerated time regimes and precarious working conditions from a gender perspective. We draw attention to gender-based discriminatory practices that may yield an accumulative effect on the well-being of women academics. We analyze 36 interviews from women and men researchers from five areas of knowledge in Spanish universities and research centers, following a 'gendered institutions' approach. The results highlight psychosocial risks for both men and women academics as a result of accelerated work organizations, intensified by uncertainty and hyper-competition due to lack of positions. The hegemonic male work model characterized by total availability confirms academia as a gendered institution, especially damaging women's well-being and careers, as well as those of men committed to care responsibilities - challenging motherhood explanations - which may discourage them from the pursuit of gender equality. Our findings highlight discriminatory practices toward women academics which create psychological harm and feelings of being unwelcome, putting their career progression at risk. Lastly, we suggest a different model of work organization following the implementation of a culture based on an 'ethics of care' feminist approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 25 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 21%
Psychology 11 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,017,168
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,836
of 34,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,729
of 341,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#170
of 720 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 720 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.