[{"id":3248546,"description":"How can we encourage women to pursue scientific careers? In recent years, a number of mentoring or awareness campaigns have been put in place to encourage French high school students to study maths, physics or engineering sciences, while they remain underrepresented in these fields. One of the last large-scale initiatives is the Filles et Maths program , launched in 2025, including work on gender bias, the implementation of “role models” or timetables featuring flexible hours. The program was nonetheless met with criticism: while women remain under-represented in some disciplines, they also remain a minority in the highest positions across the board in the academic world, from mathematics to social sciences. In France, gender inequalities are therefore not limited to access to scientific studies: they cut across all university careers and make many women leave French Higher Education and Research before securing tenure. This “drain” is explained by several factors among which motherhood holds an important place. A survey in Denmark illustrates that unlike men, one in three women abandon their scientific career after the birth of their first child. The survey I have been conducting among doctoral students and social scientists highlights the difficulties faced by women who became mothers before becoming permanent employees. Since the 1980s , recruitment requirements have become tougher with candidates needing to have written a good PhD paper, regularly have their work published , participate in scientific events and get involved in the life of research labs. Much of this work falls under hope labour , that is, unpaid work done in the hope of future employment. In this context, what could be called the myth of the “total researcher” takes shape. This is based on the double penalty of being a productive scientist (without necessarily receiving any financial reward) and embodying the ideal of a career woman, devoted companion, and dedicated mother all rolled into one. However, this ideal of the “total researcher” clashes with the actual conditions of scientific work and motherhood. Paying the motherhood penalty in academia Becoming a full-time researcher requires mothers who aren’t tenured researchers to reorganise their lives. Some cram several days’ work into one by doing casual work, part-time teaching, unpaid scientific projects, and parental responsibilities. The pace often makes women work under pressure, sometimes at the expense of the quantity and quality of their scientific work. Other women choose to remain unemployed or take parental leave and thus link their career to that of their spouse if they earn enough. If this strategy of linked career is favourable for scientific production when you have a child, it also creates material dependence that could lead to sexist and sexual violence within the family unit, which this testimony from Jeanne, a doctor and mother of a little girl, illustrates: “I sometimes feel like I have to [‘have sex’], telling myself that ‘I owe him’ and ‘He lets me know it’.” In a professional context , where every moment must count, maternity, parental or sick leave become scientific working hours in themselves. Rebecca, for example, shared that she continued writing her final thesis when her son was sent to hospital in an emergency. This situation feeds a feeling of double guilt: the respondents believe they are never up to par, neither as mothers nor as researchers. Joana explains: “I took parental leave from work, but I feel bad about working when I see my son next to me.” Some non-tenured researcher dads, on the other hand, benefit from an academic paternity bonus. The gendered division of domestic and parental tasks, as well as taking paternity leave, sometimes allows them to devote more time to their research. To quote Marion’s doctor of History husband’s words: “I have completed nearly two articles in one month of paternity leave!” The","source":"The Conversation – Articles (FR)","pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 07:58:21 +0100","url":"https://theconversation.com/the-impossible-equation-of-being-a-researcher-mother-striving-to-make-ends-meet-294312","titre":"The impossible equation of being a researcher mother, striving to make ends meet"},{"url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12957419","titre":"CALL Member Article: Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"CALL member Erica Friesen, Research and Instruction Librarian & Online Learning Specialist at the Lederman Law Library at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario recently wrote an article on \" Thoughts on the New Lexis+ Brief Analysis Tool: For Law Students and Novice Researchers \". It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on September 28, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. New academic year; new legal research tools. Something new always comes out right as another cohort of students is gearing up to begin their law degree. And, as with many new product launches these days, “artificial intelligence” is often a prominently displayed term with accompanying materials. As legal publishers continue to launch AI-driven research tools in Canada, what do students and other novice researchers need to know to be prepared for their first forays into legal research? Lexis recently launched the latest version of their legal research platform, Lexis+ Canada, for Canadian law schools. It features significant updates that employ artificial intelligence, including a “Brief Analysis” tool in line with similar products offered by Westlaw Edge (on the US platform) and vLex (already available in Canada). According to Lexis+, this tool helps researchers “expedite completion of briefs and other legal documents.” Once your document is uploaded, it spits out a report including the following categories: 1) recommended cases, 2) cases and legislation cited in your document, 3) jurisdiction, and 4) extracted and recommended concepts. While I do not intend to comment on the utility of this tool for practitioners, I have no doubt that students beginning law school or working in summer or articling positions are bound to encounter this new feature sooner or later. When you do, you may have questions: should I be using this tool? How or how not? The landing page for this tool in Lexis+ contains no information on how this tool works and the Lexis+ Canada “Help” database so far contains minimal documentation. Confusion or uncertainty is understandable with such opacity. To gain some insight, let’s run an experiment: take two case comments written by different authors on the same Supreme Court case from 2004. [1] An older decision means that we should retrieve an abundance of recommendations from the intervening 18 years. Both comments include an overview of the area of law at the time of this decision as well as an analysis of how this particular decision would change the area of law. Once Lexis analyzed these documents, I exported the resulting report and compared the results for each comment. Here are the two documents, in case you’d like to run the experiment yourself: Comment A: Teresa Scassa, “Recalibrating Copyright Law?: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in CCH Canadian Limited et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004) 3:2 CJLT 89. Comment B: WL Hayhurst, “The Canadian Supreme Court on Copyright: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada ”, Case Comment, (2004-2005) 41 Can Bus LJ 134. Recommended Cases “Recommendations” is the section of the Brief Analysis report that lists additional case law for you to consider adding to your legal document. Brief Analysis recommended 58 unique cases in total between Comment A and Comment B. However, only 10 of those cases were the same between the two documents (after adjusting for “recommended” cases that were actually cited in the other document). See Figure 1 . Key takeaway: Legal research and writing is an art, not a science. AI-driven tools like these run on the material that you upload, so you can expect substantially different results depending on the quality of analysis and the decisions you made in producing the original document. This does not mean that there is no value in using the tool, but you cannot expect it to help you build something from nothing. Recommendations are based on the content in the document,","id":3241473}]