Volume 205 - Issue 11
Female representation at Australasian specialty conferences
Authors: Lucy J Modra, Sarah Ann Yong and Danielle E Austin
Med J Aust 2016; 205 (11): 530. || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00839
Published online: 12 December 2016
Published online: 12 December 2016
In reply
In reply:
We thank Effeney and colleagues for their comment on our article,1 and we applaud the Regional Organising Committee for the 2017 Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Annual Scientific Meeting for recognising this important opportunity for change.
We agree that a concerted effort is required to improve the low level of female representation reported in our study. In particular, we endorse Effeney and colleagues’ use of explicit targets for the proportion of female speakers. Such targets provide a measurable goal for improvement and are a powerful driver of change.2
The use of targets for female representation is controversial: some argue that these unfairly favour women and that selection should be based on merit alone. However, there is a measurable bias against women even in apparently objective, merit-based selection processes.3-5 This is likely to be amplified in informal selection processes such as invitations to speak at a conference. Attempting to select candidates based on merit alone may even increase unconscious gender bias.6 Setting targets for female representation is a transparent and effective way to counteract unconscious gender bias.
Of course, the reported low female representation at conferences occurs in the context of ongoing gender imbalance in the specialties examined. Achieving sustainable change will also require a commitment from specialty colleges, universities and hospitals to supporting female clinicians and researchers.
We are confident that the ANZCA conferences will be enriched through the conveners’ commitment to gender balance. Their decisive action provides a model for change for other specialties.
Competing interests
We are members of the Women in Intensive Care Medicine Network.
References
- Modra LJ, Austin DE, Yong SA, et al. Female representation at Australasian specialty conferences. Med J Aust 2016; 204: 385.
- World Economic Forum. Closing the economic gender gap. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2016. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2016_Closing_the_Economic_Gender_Gap.pdf (accessed July 2016).
- Jena AB, Khullar D, Ho O, et al. Sex differences in academic rank in US medical schools in 2014. JAMA 2015; 314: 1149-1158.
- Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 1997; 387: 341-343.
- Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, et al. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favour male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012; 109: 16474-16479.
- Castilla EJ, Benard S. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm Sci Q 2010; 55: 543-576.