Assessing gage: an online tool for improving gender visibility in STEMM

In January 2018, 500 Women Scientists—a grassroots, nonprofit organization with the mission to serve society by making science more open, inclusive, and accessible—launched Request a Woman in STEMM. The goal of this directory is to help diversify the face of science by developing a central location where conference organizers, educators, policymakers, and members of the media can find women and gender diverse persons in STEMM to contact for interviews, features, panels, and other forms of engagement (gage.500womenscientists.org/). While not the only directory of its kind (see 500womenscientists.org/related-resources), gage seeks to be comprehensive in its coverage of disciplines and expansive in its geographic representation. In other words, the mission behind gage is to be the largest global directory (now representing >140 countries) of women and gender diverse STEMM persons and experts. While we always strived to be inclusive of gender diverse persons in the Request directory, a big motivator for the name change to gage was to remove the word “woman” thus allowing for diverse identities to feel welcome in our directory. In the directory’s first year, more than 8000 people signed up (McCullagh et al. 2019) and by the end of 2020, the directory grew to more than 14 000 registered experts.

In 2020, gage was accessed by 7682 new users who spent an average of 5:59 minutes exploring the site—compared with Google Analytics’ benchmarking reported average of 5628 new users and 1:44 minutes on “science pages” during the same time period. “Science pages” are a defined benchmark for comparison built within Google Analytics with a similar number of average daily sessions (in this case 0–99). Our survey of directory participants showed that 16% (115 respondents) reported being contacted by an external user since joining the directory. Of those 115 scientists, 70% were contacted once, 21% were contacted twice, 7% were contacted three times, and 2% were contacted four or more times. Directory participants were most frequently contacted by members of the media, followed by preschool through secondary schools, and then organizers of conferences, meetings, or panels (Table 1).

In the survey, directory participants reported two main motivations for joining: to be a resource to others and to amplify women’s voices in science. They described the directory’s most valuable attributes as amplifying women’s voices in science and society, providing a resource for finding other women, having a way to become an easily accessible resource to others, and increasing their own visibility.

Approximately 33% of survey respondents reported using the directory to search for other women scientists and 67% reported not having searched the directory. Users’ most frequent use of gage was to find colleagues in their own field and geographic area (Table 2), highlighting two important features (discipline and location) to consider strengthening in the platform’s search functions.

We also assessed, through interviews, how external users used this resource. All external users interviewed were interested in promoting the voices of women scientists. Most external users had specific needs, such as looking for a speaker from a particular scientific field (e.g., biochemistry) or multiple speakers representing a range of disciplines. Many also wanted access to STEMM experts in a specific geographical area, and valued the “one-stop” single database representing many areas of scientific expertise. Most external users indicated that they typically find STEMM experts through word of mouth or their own extended networks (e.g., contacting faculty from relevant departments) and using Google searches.

Gage can be searched using numerous criteria, including scientific expertise, personal identity, geographical location, and by type of engagement sought (e.g., career and professional development, delivering a lecture, joining a panel, outreach, science activism, speaking to a journalist, etc.). The search bar on gage suggests entering keywords such as country, city, or discipline to find registered database users, but all keywords are searchable individually or as a list. Determining the available search categories has been an iterative process and additional options have been included in the recent relaunch of the platform. When registering to become a member of the database, directory participants are required to provide their name, email address, title, and geographical location. Adding other pieces of information—such as keywords that are professionally or personally descriptive—is optional. The directory’s search engine leverages profile content to identify registered users.

A key part of the assessment process is using identified areas of improvement to design evidence-based changes that help a program, product, or tool better reach its intended goals or purpose. When asked how the directory had met the expectations of directory participants, 47% of directory participants who responded to our survey reported feeling neutral, 29% said the platform was below their expectations, and 24% said the platform met their expectations. Respondents’ comments (Table 3)—including both negative and positive experiences—can be grouped into nine major categories: contact related, visibility of the directory, profiles, reminders, search, organization, uses, functionality, and representation. People who felt the directory had not met their expectations noted that they wanted more engagement, for example, feeling more connected to other scientists. Some respondents were also disappointed by the lack of contact initiated through the platform so far.

Gaps were further explored in focus groups with directory participants who identified several areas for improvement. Participants suggested strategic steps to increase awareness and use of the directory, such as featuring stories about gage interactions/outcomes with external users, sharing member profiles to highlight expertise, and targeting outreach to specific potential external users such as educational groups, the media, conference organizers, and journal editorial boards. Additional feedback showcased a need for professional development resources (e.g., when to ask for compensation, how to talk to the media, etc.) and for clearer expectations from users of the directory during their communications about engagement (e.g., receiving questions in advance of an interview, information about travel expectations, acknowledgement of use of the directory in publications, etc.). In addition, the focus group participants recommended increasing engagement with directory members, including through social media, newsletters, and stories of directory interactions to boost the likelihood of repeated usage of the directory.

While these recommendations were specifically made with the gage directory in mind, there are some guiding questions that stem out of gage’s assessment that may be more broadly applicable to similar types of public resources with the goal of improving interactions with and within an increasingly diverse scientific workforce. There are some guiding questions that stem out of gage’s assessment that may be more broadly applicable for designers to ask themselves when creating similar types of public resources. For example, which methods might be more effective in increasing awareness and use of a platform? What resources might different stakeholders need to maximize their satisfaction and use of a platform? Who is left out of the conversation and how might we bring them in? How do we better support links between a platform’s different user types?

The gage directory is one of many initiatives borne out of a need to increase gender diversity and visibility in STEMM and challenge assumptions of what a scientist looks like. For this directory—and other resources and programs aimed at addressing inequity in STEMM—to reach its full potential, it is critical to take stock of what works and what needs improving. Assessment through “Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning” (MEL) is one way we can ensure that the gage directory is fulfilling its intended goals. For example, our assessment indicated that gage connected directory participants with members of the media, educators, students, conference organizers, and other scientists. But to our knowledge, policy makers are not using the directory yet, and this is an area we would like to strengthen.

Gage, like other technologies or knowledge infrastructures, is “value-laden, privileging some interests and disenfranchising others”—which means that the (re)design and use of gage has important implications for shaping future labor and access conditions around knowledge sharing (Hammond et al. 2020). A consequence we would like to avoid with this directory is creating additional onus or pressure on women and gender diverse persons to fulfill service roles, knowing that their involvement in, for example, membership on committees and advising of students, surpasses that of men (Park 1996; Guarino and Borden 2017; Hanasono et al. 2019). A key part of gage’s mission is to make it simple for opportunities to present themselves to participants who are seeking them, but not to overburden them.

Moving forward, we will be implementing many of the suggested changes to our directory including increasing our engagement with directory members through offerings specifically for gage members (such as workshops and trainings), newsletters, and social media campaigns; highlighting connections made between external users and directory members; developing tools for improving capacity in science communication for directory members; and improving directory search capabilities. While visual impairments were considered in the design of the new platform during the 2020 transition and the gage rebrand, we are continuing to improve the directory’s accessibility. In addition, we are seeking additional ways to be more inclusive of gender diverse persons (Restar and Operario 2019) and expanding outreach and recruitment of underrepresented disciplines, other historically marginalized social identities, and neglected geographic areas. As we implement these changes, we plan to continue monitoring, evaluating, and learning to determine other areas for improvement so that the gage platform can more effectively meet the needs of users and help transform the face of STEMM.