NUIG agrees to gender taskforce recommendations

Dan_Solo

orl wrote: »

She supervised more PHds than anybody else including the 17 sucessful candidates so I would say it is a good record. If you read the decision carefully, you will see her Professor said that most of the good students wanted her to supervise their PhDs as she gave them so much support. A former student of hers broke down at the hearing when describing her as an insprirational teacher. So she clearly was doing something right.

I fully agree that if those were the criteria outlined in her contract for promotion then she should have been promoted.
But I don't see graduating lots of PhDs, presumably with poor publication records derived from that research, and doing little else would make somebody a stellar performer generally.

Dan_Solo

orl wrote: »

If you read the decision carefully you will see that Botantists will have less publications than other fields of study as you have to follow nature's cycles.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Do you think botanists sit and watch trees grow? They use genetics and molecular biology etc techniques as much as any other biological science, and model organisms are chosen for their ease of use and fast growth cycles. It's not a year between data points.

steddyeddy

orl wrote: »

She wasn't going for Professor. She was going for Senior Lecturer. What the Equality Officer said in the decision is that others who were promoted did not have better research records than her. If you read the decision carefully you will see that Botantists will have less publications than other fields of study as you have to follow nature's cycles.

That's BS about botany. Pure and simple.

Carlos Orange

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's not a year between data points.

Even if it was it isn't like you would choose to study the flowering of XYZ that only happens in Spring and not study anything else between flowerings.
It would take longer to work on an each paper but over a long period that wouldn't lower the publication rate.

Dan_Solo

psinno wrote: »

Even if it was it isn't like you would choose to study the flowering of XYZ that only happens in Spring and not study anything else between flowerings.

Is that what she was doing? There was no conceivable way to grow these flowers under laboratory conditions?
TBH if all she did was wait 12 months between experiments, I would be astonished if the promotions board didn't ask why she wasn't doing some other research in between anyway.

orl

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I fully agree that if those were the criteria outlined in her contract for promotion then she should have been promoted.
But I don't see graduating lots of PhDs, presumably with poor publication records derived from that research, and doing little else would make somebody a stellar performer generally.

The three criteria were
• Research and Scholarly Standing
• Teaching and Examining
• Contribution to School, University and Community
The first one was her weakest definitely. But she has superior records to the other the 17 successful candidates in the other two - i.e. had supervised more Phds, was an inspirational teacher and served on the Heritage Council for 5 years. She argued (and again this is in the decision) that because she was overloaded with teaching it meant she had less time for her research. I agree with you - I don't think she was an outstanding candidate and in an objective system she would not have topped the panel. But when you have someone without a Phd coming first and an other with less than two years experience being promoted, there was something wrong with the process.

orl

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's BS about botany. Pure and simple.

I am not a botantist so i can't argue with you. I am just reading what the external expert on the interview panel said who is a botanist.

steddyeddy

orl wrote: »

I am not a botantist so i can't argue with you. I am just reading what the external expert on the interview panel said who is a botanist.

Oh I'm not getting at you. I think the hiring and promoting system for NUIG needs to be seriously overhauled. I'm just pointing out that she shouldn't have been promoted anyway.

Then again neither should the guy without the PhD. If I had to guess this is based on nepotism rather than sexism but I am very much open to correction on this.

steddyeddy

Who made that comment about botany? I actually would love to email them. Do geologists publish one paper a millennium because it takes ages for mountains to form?

diomed

orl wrote: »

A former student of hers broke down at the hearing when describing her as an insprirational teacher.

I hate that. If you cry is it proof of something?

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who made that comment about botany? I actually would love to email them. Do geologists publish one paper a millennium because it takes ages for mountains to form?

Referred to as Dr. B:

2.1 Her external referee pointed out that many types of ecological research require several years to complete (i.e. they are not done in laboratory conditions but have to follow nature’s cycles) so final publication rates for ecologists are consequently lower in numerical output than other areas of science. Therefore, he points out that ecologists’ works have to be considered from the point of view of quality rather than numerical quantity. In his reference, he said ‘her publications are of internationally high standard’.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Referred to as Dr. B:

Ecologists publish by quality as opposed to quantity? So other scientists just belt out any old crap?

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ecologists publish by quality as opposed to quantity? So other scientists just belt out any old crap?

Are you asking me?

Do you have any comment to make on the quote from the ruling?

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Are you asking me?

Do you have any comment to make on the quote from the ruling?

No I'm not asking you. As I said I don't think she should have been promoted anyway based on her research. A number of people were promoted but shouldn't have been. So I think the issue might be nepotism rather than sexism. Quotas are also not the way forward.

As for the comment it's BS.

ucdperson

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ecologists publish by quality as opposed to quantity? So other scientists just belt out any old crap?

It would be unscientific to ignore that the volume of outputs differs in different academic disciplines. Just counting citations in ResearchGate is not a proper sole basis of comparison.

pmasterson95

diomed wrote: »

I hate that. If you cry is it proof of something?

Well I guess it is inspirational since she found a way for inferior workers to be guaranteed promotions in NUIG.

steddyeddy

ucdperson wrote: »

It would be unscientific to ignore that the volume of outputs differs in different academic disciplines. Just counting citations in ResearchGate is not a proper sole basis of comparison.

I#m comparing ecologists. My boss is a biochemist so it's not comparable but other ecologists have far higher citations and impact factors.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I'm not asking you. As I said I don't think she should have been promoted anyway based on her research.

Have you ever read a paper of hers, or do you know how many publications she has?

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Have you ever read a paper of hers, or do you know how many publications she has?

O my conversation with you over my time here has involved me making a statement and you responding with one or two (usually two) questions. Care to give your opinion on the statement?

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

O my conversation with you over my time here has involved me making a statement and you responding with one or two (usually two) questions. Care to give your opinion on the statement?

Why don't you just answer the question - Have you ever read a paper of hers? Do you know how many publications she has?

You are the one saying quite confidently that she shouldn't have been promoted based on her research, so I think my questions are absolutely legitimate.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Why don't you just answer the question - Have you ever read a paper of hers? Do you know how many publications she has?

You are the one saying quite confidently that she shouldn't have been promoted based on her research, so I think my questions are absolutely legitimate.

It is and I will answer but I'm not doing the usual thing of me answering and you only replying with questions. So you first for a change.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is and I will answer but I'm not doing the usual thing of me answering and you only replying with questions. So you first for a change.

My opinion on that statement is that I have absolutely no idea if what the expert said about botany and rate of publications is generally accepted or not. Some posters on here have questioned it.

I looked up Dr. Jane Stout who is a botanist at Trinity - Sheehy Skeffington has more listed publications than her. She also has more than Dr. Stephen Waldren at Trinity. She has just a handful of publications fewer than Professor Emeritus Daniel Kelly. So I am not convinced by the posts on here that what the external expert said was '100% bullsh!t.'


Now, could you answer my questions.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

My opinion on that statement is that I have absolutely no idea if what the expert said about botany and rate of publications is generally accepted or not. Some posters on here have questioned it.

I looked up Dr. Jane Stout who is a botanist at Trinity - Sheehy Skeffington has more listed publications than her. She also has more than Dr. Stephen Waldren at Trinity. She has just a handful of publications fewer than Professor Emeritus Daniel Kelly. So I am not convinced by the posts on here that what the external expert said was '100% bullsh!t.'


Now, could you answer my questions.

Ok here we go. Daniel Kelly from Trinity works in a similar area of ecology. I.E he relies on nature and doesn't work in the lab. He's younger than Sheehy. His papers have been referenced/cited 825 times. Sheehy's have been cited 287 times. So right away we have the quality remark out the window.

What publications do you refer to by the way? Articles, papers or chapters in books or all three?

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

His papers have been referenced/cited 825 times. Sheehy's have been cited 287 times. So right away we have the quality remark out the window.

?

How is it out the window? Are you judging the quality of the work purely by the number of citations received on a site like ResearchGate which is careful to point out that its numbers are not comprehensive? Or have you any other criterion?

steddyeddy wrote: »

What publications do you refer to by the way? Articles, papers or chapters in books or all three?

Lets go for all three. How many does she have, and have you ever read one?

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

How is it out the window? Are you judging the quality of the work purely by the number of citations received on a site like ResearchGate which is careful to point out that its numbers are not comprehensive? Or have you any other criterion?




Lets go for all three. How many does she have, and have you ever read one?

What criterion are you going by? You're the one who said she had more than someone in Trinity? More of what? Papers, articles or book chapters?

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

What criterion are you going by? You're the one who said she had more than someone in Trinity? More of what? Papers, articles or book chapters?

Listed publications is what I said.

I notice that you still haven't said whether you have ever read a paper of hers or not. You did say that you would answer my question once I answered yours, which I have done.

osarusan

Eddy, we will have to leave it there for now. I am off out for a few pints and I won't be online.

Have a good night.

Padraig Mor

osarusan wrote: »

Have you ever read a paper of hers, or do you know how many publications she has?

She only has one listed on Pubmed which is, frankly, embarrassing.

Dan_Solo

Padraig Mor wrote: »

She only has one listed on Pubmed which is, frankly, embarrassing.

If most of her work is "ecology" then it probably wouldn't be in pubmed. I thought she was a botanist though, which should be covered? She can't have that many citations all for one paper?

Padraig Mor

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If most of her work is "ecology" then it probably wouldn't be in pubmed. I thought she was a botanist though, which should be covered? She can't have that many citations all for one paper?

'ecology' returns 130000 results in Pubmed, 'botany' 32000. Not an in depth examination of the fields, but I'd imagine most of her publications are in poor quality journals (from memory, many are in 'Irish journal of xxxx' or similar, so not really at any decent standard) and book chapters. I'm surprised they gave her a job at all TBH.

orl

diomed wrote: »

I hate that. If you cry is it proof of something?

Well I don't think I would be able to bring somebody who worked with me 20 years ago to be a witness in legal proceedings and call my work inspirational. Before you say he was bribed the decision said he was in a very senior role in department of the environment. That's presumably why he does not have many publications as he is a practical ecologist rather than an academic one.

orl

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I'm not asking you. As I said I don't think she should have been promoted anyway based on her research. A number of people were promoted but shouldn't have been. So I think the issue might be nepotism rather than sexism. Quotas are also not the way forward.

As for the comment it's BS.

I think nepotism was a strong factor but the nepotism was very gendered. 16 women were interviewed but only one deemed good enough to be promoted and she came last. All women interviewed had phds and all had the required service. Unlike at least two men promoted. The picture looks skewed to me and obviously to nuig when they lost the case as they accepted the decision unreservedlyrics and set up the task force.

MaxFlower

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh I'm not getting at you. I think the hiring and promoting system for NUIG needs to be seriously overhauled. I'm just pointing out that she shouldn't have been promoted anyway.

Then again neither should the guy without the PhD. If I had to guess this is based on nepotism rather than sexism but I am very much open to correction on this.

FYP and no, I am not trying to be funny.

steddyeddy

MaxFlower wrote: »

FYP and no, I am not trying to be funny.

Yea I would agree there. Serious issues to say the least.

Carlos Orange

orl wrote: »

I think nepotism was a strong factor but the nepotism was very gendered.

Only if there was an equally related person who was overlooked due to her gender. Otherwise it is just nepotism.

RDM_83 again

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then again neither should the guy without the PhD. If I had to guess this is based on nepotism rather than sexism but I am very much open to correction on this.

I wouldn't be sure it is, it was possibly rather quick but they are well respected in the field and have been involved in very substantial research projects outside the university setting that have been published in book form (rather than individual papers).
orl won't confirm who it is for some reason (possibly as there is a bit of politics within that dept, no gender bias AFAIK*) but if anybody is curious they can pm me so you can make up your own mind (do a bit of wider browsing though or ask somebody in the field rather than just running of the staff page)

*Had a woman promoted to the only professorship

orl

psinno wrote: »

Only if there was an equally related person who was overlooked due to her gender. Otherwise it is just nepotism.

Over a period of ten years the Equality Tribunal found that men had a one in two chance of promotion to Senior Lecturer while women had less than a one in three chance of the same promotion in NUIG. 16 women were interviewed in the competition that Sheehy Skeffington case is based on but only one deemed good enough to be promoted and she came last. All women interviewed had PhDs and all had the required service. Unlike at least two men promoted. So yes I think it was not just nepotism but very gendered nepotism i.e. jobs for the boys. Otherwise NUIG would have appealed the decision to the Labour Court or judicially reviewed it. They had to hold their hands up. In fact the Higher Education Authority have seen a problem with underrepresentation of women in academia and are doing a report on same. NUIG are the worst of a bad lot.

orl

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I wouldn't be sure it is, it was possibly rather quick but they are well respected in the field and have been involved in very substantial research projects outside the university setting that have been published in book form (rather than individual papers).
orl won't confirm who it is for some reason (possibly as there is a bit of politics within that dept, no gender bias AFAIK*) but if anybody is curious they can pm me so you can make up your own mind (do a bit of wider browsing though or ask somebody in the field rather than just running of the staff page)

*Had a woman promoted to the only professorship

The reason that I don't want to name him is that friends of his have told me that he was embarassed that he came first on the panel. He knows that somebody without a Phd should not have come first.

Carlos Orange

orl wrote: »

So yes I think it was not just nepotism but very gendered nepotism i.e. jobs for the boys.

You are wrong.

RDM_83 again

orl wrote: »

The reason that I don't want to name him is that friends of his have told me that he was embarassed that he came first on the panel. He knows that somebody without a Phd should not have come first.

I thought your issue was him being on the panel, I get that he possibly shouldn't have been first.
(And I meant via pm).

The thing about this is what I'm curious about is when the Tribunal made the finding did they consider the productivity per year Dr Skeffington has fairly good credentials but when considered as after19 years of being in a post is it impressive?
Like a lot of the people talked about as having less have a greater "productivity" per year.

orl

psinno wrote: »

You are wrong.

I hope you have a lovely view there upside down in the sand. I love how you selectively quote. Ignore the stats as it causes cognitive dissonance. If I am wrong so is the Equality Tribunal, RTE who made it headline news, BBC Woman's hour who interviewed Sheehy Skeffington, NUIG who accepted the decision, the HEA who are studying the problem, the Minster for Education who is acknowledging that there is huge under-representation of women at senior levels.

I don't know if you are a betting man. But if mares had the same or better credentials than stallions and the mares had less than a one in three chance of winning the race versus the stallions having a one in two chance over a ten year period, I would be asking questions of the handicapper.

NachoBusiness

orl wrote: »

I don't know if you are a betting man. But if mares had the same or better credentials than stallions and the mares had less than a one in three chance of winning the race versus the stallions having a one in two chance over a ten year period, I would be asking questions of the handicapper.

Hang on, a sex allowance with regards to weight is given in horse racing as a filly or a mare is not as strong as a colt or gelding.

Are you suggesting women are generally less intelligent than men?

orl

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I thought your issue was him being on the panel, I get that he possibly shouldn't have been first.
(And I meant via pm).

The thing about this is what I'm curious about is when the Tribunal made the finding did they consider the productivity per year Dr Skeffington has fairly good credentials but when considered as after19 years of being in a post is it impressive?
Like a lot of the people talked about as having less have a greater "productivity" per year.

I don't have an issue with him being on the panel as friends of mine who are archaeologists say he is a good guy. I wonder how much value he provides for the taxpayer though as presumably he cannot supervise PhDs when he does not have one himself.

I take your point about productivity per year but you could also argue that cumulatively she had to have more experience than other candidates especially the guy who had less than two years experience as a lecturer i.e. he could have supervised no PhDs in that time. Remember the position was Senior Lecturer - there was no extra responsibilities with the role. It was like a more junior equivalent of a personal professorship. Senior Lecturer was supposed to acknowledge achievement in your field of study. However, from my reading of the ET decision, Dr Sheehy Skeffington complained about being overloaded with teaching which allowed her less time for her personal research. Remember she supervised more PhDs than any candidate (successful or unsuccessful) so it's not as if she was sitting on her hands. She also was five years on the Heritage Council - outreach work was one of the three criteria.

Dan_Solo

orl wrote: »

I hope you have a lovely view there upside down in the sand. I love how you selectively quote. Ignore the stats as it causes cognitive dissonance. If I am wrong so is the Equality Tribunal, RTE who made it headline news, BBC Woman's hour who interviewed Sheehy Skeffington, NUIG who accepted the decision, the HEA who are studying the problem, the Minster for Education who is acknowledging that there is huge under-representation of women at senior levels.

RTE and the BBC reporting something in whatever fashion they like isn't really proof of anything TBH.

Dan_Solo

I thought it was impossible to publish more in ecology due to "cycles of nature"? Why would a heavy lecturing load (why would it be more than anybody else's?) upset a research programme with little time commitment anyway?

orl

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Hang on, a sex allowance with regards to weight is given in horse racing as a filly or a mare is not as strong as a colt or gelding.

Are you suggesting women are generally less intelligent than men?

Exactly the opposite. Stallions are physically stronger than mares just as men are physically stronger than women mutatis mutandi. That's why i picked the analogy. This is not about physical strength.

I am saying that if you assume female lecturers are as intelligent as male lecturers and 16 women are interviewed for promotion and only 1 is promoted in comparison to 16 out of 23 men being successful. If this follows a historical pattern of men having a 1 in 2 chance of promotion and women having less than a 1 in 3, I am saying the handicapper is rigging the system against women. Until daylight highlighted the problem and amends are being made.

orl

Dan_Solo wrote: »

RTE and the BBC reporting something in whatever fashion they like isn't really proof of anything TBH.

Agreed. But they clearly thought it was a news story which they wouldn't if she was a bitter crank with no arguable case.

The Corinthian

orl wrote: »

Agreed. But they clearly thought it was a news story which they wouldn't if she was a bitter crank with no arguable case.

They clearly thought it was a news story because women's rights and empowerment stories sell. It's become big business. Being genuine or a "bitter crank with no arguable case" is of, distant, secondary importance.

orl

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I thought it was impossible to publish more in ecology due to "cycles of nature"? Why would a heavy lecturing load (why would it be more than anybody else's?) upset a research programme with little time commitment anyway?

Her argument (and again this is only from reading the decision) is that women were given bigger teaching loads as the assumption was made that they were better at the pastoral stuff. The University argued otherwise. The Equality Officer did not come down on one side or the other.

She also supervised more PhDs than anybody else which is a time commitment. She also spent 5 years on the Heritage Council.

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, she did not deserve to come top of the panel. However, neither did someone without a PhD. Nor did someone who was not even eligible for the competition deserve to be promoted.

Cumulatively the Equality Officer found that discrimination occured.

pmasterson95

Hard to believe this is still going. Obviously the only way to ensure female equality is to discriminate against men. Thats equality yeah!