Search

In this paper we contribute to the emerging literature on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity. We extend previous studies by considering men and women academics from science and non-science disciplines through an analysis of data from academics at 14 universities across two countries (seven in Australia and seven in Canada) and focusing on the role of primary caregiving. Our empirical approach used logistic regressions and the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition technique. The latter enabled us to ask: 'How much of the gender gap in perceived productivity during the pandemic is due to gender differences in primary care responsibilities?' Within the sample (N = 2,817) of academics, 33% of women and 25% of men reported that their perceived publication ability decreased a lot during the pandemic. This is an eight percentage-point gender gap in perceived publication ability. Statistical analysis revealed that two-fifths (40%) of this gap may be explained by gender differences in having primary responsibility for the care of children. Gender differences in other characteristics such as age, discipline, and increased teaching and administrative work were not, as a group, significant. There were also no differences between Australia and Canada. The findings are important, particularly for the pursuit of gender equality within academia. In the absence of specific mitigating interventions, research disruptions in 2020 may have long-lasting career scarring effects (e.g. hiring, promotion, tenure) and, as a result, see women further disadvantaged within the academy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our world suffers. Some people suffer more than others. Since the first part of 2020, ours is justly described as a time of uncertainty, threat, and upheaval. In this article, we offer reflections threaded narratively, told from the specificity of our societal contexts in Iran, Canada, and Australia. What might we learn in the present and anticipated future from people living chronically within conditions of uncertainty and immobility and also those experiencing uncertainty and immobility for the first time? We argue that reflexive comparative analysis bridging social and visual analysis, anchored in embodied conditions of such people, offers a way to learn from responses to COVID-19 while also being an exercise in ethical research practice. This reflection builds on and extends from our scholarly collaborations that have been ongoing since 2015. Our title recognizes this specific virus as stealthy. Importantly, our choice of words identifies resident Iranians—whose experiences were the original impetuses for this paper, and whose lives provide its empirical basis (98 is Iran's country code)—as equally steely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]