ArticleEcology and evolution2025
How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How Can We Make Scientific Events More Inclusive? Insights From Q&A Sessions and Surveys From an International Conference.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite growing awareness of the importance of researcher diversity, barriers to inclusion and equity persist in science and at academic conferences. As hosts of the 37th International Ethological Congress, "Behaviour 2023", we studied gender disparities that unfold during question-and-answer (Q&A) sessions using observational and experimental behavioural data and surveys. We further used the surveys to investigate broader equity, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) issues at conferences in general. Attendees perceived as women asked fewer questions than those perceived as men because they raised their hands less often to ask questions, and not because they were chosen less often by the session host. Self-reports indicated that self-identified women felt more comfortable asking questions when their own gender was represented (in the audience, by the speaker, and/or by the host) and when the setting was smaller. However, this pattern was not reflected in the observational data as perceived women asked fewer questions regardless of the situation. We report potential reasons why women asked fewer questions using survey data, and experimentally tested whether we could reduce gender disparity in question-asking. Our results indicate that session hosts cannot mitigate the gender disparity in question-asking by actively selecting perceived women to start the Q&A session. We addressed further inclusivity barriers of underrepresented minorities beyond gender in a post-congress survey, which showed that underrepresented minorities did not have a more positive or negative congress experience but did perceive EDI issues as more severe. We conclude by providing recommendations for organising more inclusive scientific events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.