Study Protocol of “Exploring the Interplay between Family Responsibilities, Personal Vulnerabilities, and Motivational Theories in the Publishing Endeavours of Women Scholars: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The academic landscape is increasingly recognizing the complex interplay of personal and professional responsibilities on scholarly productivity. For women scholars, particularly those with significant parenting duties, this balance is even more precarious. This study aims to explore how family responsibilities, personal vulnerabilities, and motivational theories such as Imposter Syndrome and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) influence the motivation to publish scholarly work. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing supportive mechanisms that can enhance academic productivity and personal fulfilment. Methods: Utilizing a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) framework, this study will systematically review and synthesize qualitative research on women scholars' experiences in academia, focusing on the challenges and motivators related to publishing. Data sources will include academic databases, grey literature, and first-hand narratives. Thematic analysis will be employed to identify key themes and patterns across the collected data. Results/Findings: Preliminary findings suggest that the dual demands of parenting—especially in extreme cases such as assuming responsibility for seven children—and academic work significantly impact women scholars' publishing activities. Personal vulnerabilities, including imposter syndrome and low self-efficacy, further exacerbate these challenges. However, the data also highlight resilience strategies and the potential for intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors to mitigate these effects. Discussion: The study underscores the nuanced impact of familial and personal factors on academic motivation. The preliminary findings suggest that addressing imposter syndrome and enhancing self-determination could be pivotal in supporting women scholars. The role of institutional policies and academic culture in either exacerbating or alleviating these challenges is also discussed. Significance: By elucidating the specific challenges and motivators for women scholars in publishing, this study will contribute to the development of targeted interventions and policies that support work-life integration and promote academic productivity. The insights that will be gained could inform mentorship programs, institutional support systems, and policy reforms aimed at fostering a more inclusive and supportive academic environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.123 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".