The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Barriers to women leaders in academia: tales from science and technology
Abstract
There is growing concern regarding the lack of women in senior positions in science and technology (ST) in United Kingdom (UK) universities. Previous research has enhanced our understanding of the challenges women in academia face to progress their careers. In contrast, relatively little is known as to why so few women reach leadership positions in ST. This article reports on research to examine women's experiences regarding the perceived barriers to leadership in ST faculties in UK universities. Using in-depth interviews the authors explore personal narratives to highlight the perceived barriers to career advancement. Findings report on the gendered nature of ST faculties and how women struggle to navigate their careers. The investigation illustrates the effect of organisational influences such as temporary work arrangements, male-dominated networks, intimidation and harassment, as well as individual influences such as lack of confidence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,626
(2008) · Biostatistics and Microbiology: A Survival Manual · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_6 · Cited by 17,371
Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.)
Sharp, C. A. (2003) · Evaluation Journal of Australasia · doi:10.1177/1035719x0300300213 · Cited by 10,489
(2017) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods · doi:10.4135/9781483381411.n168 · Cited by 8,276
Cohen, D. (1998) · The Women's Review of Books · doi:10.2307/4022859 · Cited by 4,261
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
(2020) · SAGE Research Methods Foundations · doi:10.4135/9781526421036813346 · Cited by 4,040
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · Cited by 3,150
Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology
Willig, C. (2001) · Cited by 3,012
The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978) · Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice · doi:10.1037/h0086006 · Cited by 2,212
Fina, A. D. (2019) · The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography · doi:10.4324/9781315675824-12 · Cited by 2,119
Cited by
Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic
Gabster, B. P., van Daalen, K., Dhatt, R., & Barry, M. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31412-4 · Cited by 357
Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM
Silbiger, N. J., & Stubler, A. D. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.8247 · Cited by 189
Hazell, C. M., Chapman, L., Valeix, S. F., Roberts, P., Niven, J. E., & Berry, C. (2020) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01443-1 · Cited by 138
Milicev, J., McCann, M., Simpson, S. A., Biello, S. M., & Gardani, M. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-021-02309-y · Cited by 56
Mentoring for women starting a PhD: a “free zone” into academic identity
Stroude, A., Bellier-Teichmann, T., Cantero, O., Dasoki, N., Kaeser, L., Ronca, M., & Morin, D. (2015) · International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education · doi:10.1108/ijmce-06-2014-0019 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Howe-Walsh, L., & Turnbull, S.
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-06-30
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 415-428
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2087326542
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 15.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Barriers to women leaders in academia: tales from science and technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03075079.2014.929102
- The paper
- Howe-Walsh, L., & Turnbull, S. (2016). Barriers to women leaders in academia: tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.929102
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
