The leaky pipeline and financial cost of science society memberships
Research finds insufficient concessions on membership fees across international societies in ecology and evolution.
Research finds insufficient concessions on membership fees across international societies in ecology and evolution.
A new study, published in the journal Proceedings B has collated and analysed the financial cost of scientific society subscriptions.
Researchers from over 14 different countries, including Australia, conducted a survey of 182 international societies relevant to researchers in ecology and evolution.
The team, lead by Dr Malgorzata Lagisz from UNSW’s School of Biological, Environmental and Evolutionary Sciences, found that while 83% of the societies offered concessions to students, only 26% offered any kind of discount to postdoctoral researchers.
“Being a member of academic societies is really about access to opportunities – for professional development, but also for career progression, being established and recognised in the field,” says Dr Lagisz.
“However, membership fees of professional academic societies are generally not equitable and need to be carefully reconsidered in order to support the individuals from historically marginalised and underrepresented groups in science and others who cannot afford to pay the fees for various reasons.”
Being part of one or multiple groups is not just a matter of personal self-worth, but can be an important part of social and professional success. For hundreds of years, professional organisations of various kinds have existed to fill this space for scholars and academics.
However, before gaining the support and opportunities provided by these societies, individuals often have to pay a membership fee. These fees exist to support societies and their activities, such as meetings, grants, awards, and general administrative costs.
“Most societies will have an annual conference, but many also they have networking platforms, advertise job positions, offer prizes or grants for research,” says Dr Lagisz.
By making membership financially inaccessible, societies could contribute to the ‘Matthew effect’ where relatively privileged groups become more privileged by gaining access to more resources and opportunities via cumulative advantage. On the other side of the coin, people with limited financial resources and who are not eligible for membership fee waivers, could miss out on crucial career-building opportunities, mentorship, inspiration, networking, and a sense of community, and can slide further behind through cumulative disadvantage.
“We have had this discussion now for many years, but science is dominated by certain groups of people, and we need more diversity in science,” says Dr Lagisz. “There are systemic barriers to ‘progress for all’, and we need to talk about specific issues before we can start looking for solutions.”
This research team was mainly recruited online via the research community the Society for Open Reliable and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary biology (SORTEE). This society represents a grassroots movement towards making science more equitable and accessible by its various initiatives, including annual virtual conferences, webinars, in-person meet-ups, and collaborative meta-research projects, such as the recently published paper.
“Around 20 years ago, our research group started working on synthesising evidence, collating information from published studies, and we realised that there are lots of gaps and biases in research, and that led us to meta-research, which is studying the research system and evidence itself and how to improve it,” says Dr Lagisz.
There are thousands of science societies, so the team decided to focus specifically on ecological and evolution societies. To narrow the data down even further, they gathered information on international societies, which are typically more prestigious and well-resourced than local societies. The data on society subscriptions was gathered collaboratively and relied on publicly accessible information.
Analysing a total of 182 societies, the researchers found that 83% of these societies offered fee concessions to students, but only 26% to postdoctoral researchers.
An average regular membership fee was $US 67.80, student fee – $US27.40, and postdoctoral fee – $US42.70. Other types of individual concessions, such as for emeritus, family, or unemployed, were rare.
Of the surveyed societies, 43% had discounts for members from developing countries (the Global South or low-income countries). They also found that societies that had a publicly visible commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion, were more likely to offer different types of concessions.
This study has shed light on the cost of being a member of scientific societies.
Importantly, Dr Lagisz notes that the annual membership cost of a single society doesn’t appear to be that much. “However, what we are aware of is that most people would like to be members of more than one society, and when you start adding those fees together, it becomes a significant amount,” she says. “Especially if you are not full-time employed, for example, or already carry significant financial debts due to the costs of education, which especially happens to women and other minority groups, but the societies still expect you to pay the full membership after PhD graduation. That is when membership fees can become a serious barrier.
“So there's this sort of assumption that if you work in scientific research, you have a full and generous salary that means you can afford to pay membership out of your pocket, or you have a research grant which allows you to cover society memberships, which is rare,” says Dr Lagisz. “This probably stems from the fact that most societies are led by well-established and well-funded researchers, which may cause this disconnect from reality.”
Dr Lagisz highlights how the science Nobel Prize winners can reflect these kind of systemic barriers. “The most likely winners of the Nobel Prizes for science are often wealthy men from Western countries,” she says. “It demonstrates the problem with so called ‘research pipeline’ that other groups find it really hard to break through the barriers.”
Science and academia are not without flaws, and there is significant room for improvement across many areas. Despite many calls to action and related initiatives, the progress towards greater equity has been very slow. Dr Lagisz emphasises that for science to effectively serve diverse groups within the general population, its structures must be equitable and accessible. By fostering inclusivity, we can create an environment where researchers from all backgrounds have the opportunity to thrive.
“This study provides tangible evidence – it shows the numbers that reveal what's happening at a granular level, and we are keen to think about ways we can start to support those who are not being considered for fee waivers,” says Dr Lagisz.