Research performance and age explain less than half of the gender pay gap in New Zealand universities


Autoři: Ann Brower aff001;  Alex James aff002
Působiště autorů: School of Earth and Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand aff001;  Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence, Auckland, New Zealand aff002;  School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226392

Souhrn

We use a globally unique dataset that scores every individual academic’s holistic research performance in New Zealand to test several common explanations for the gender pay gap in universities. We find a man’s odds of being ranked professor or associate professor are more than double a woman’s with similar recent research score, age, field, and university. We observe a lifetime gender pay gap of ~NZ$400,000, of which research score and age explain less than half. Our ability to examine the full spectrum of research performance allows us to reject the ‘male variability hypothesis’ theory that the preponderance of men amongst the ‘superstars’ explains the lifetime performance pay gap observed. Indeed women whose research career trajectories resemble men’s still get paid less than men. From 2003–12, women at many ranks improved their research scores by more than men, but moved up the academic ranks more slowly. We offer some possible explanations for our findings, and show that the gender gap in universities will never disappear in most academic fields if current hiring practices persist.

Klíčová slova:

Careers – Careers in research – Engineering and technology – Inertia – Medicine and health sciences – Research assessment – Salaries – Universities


Zdroje

1. Mitchneck B, Smith JL, Latimer M. A recipe for change: Creating a more inclusive academy. Science. 2016; 352(6282):148–9. doi: 10.1126/science.aad8493 27124441

2. Mason MA, Wolfinger NH, Goulden M. Do babies matter?: Gender and family in the ivory tower. Trenton, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2013.

3. Bakker MM, Jacobs MH. Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance. PLoS One. 2016;11(9).

4. Besselaar P van den, Sandström U. Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS One. 2017;12(8).

5. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; Dec 11;504(7479):211–3. doi: 10.1038/504211a 24350369

6. Elsevier Research Intelligence, Elsevier. Gender in the Global Research Landscape. Amsterdam, Netherlands; 2017.

7. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Caprasecca A. Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics. 2009; 79(3) 517–539.

8. Symonds MRE, Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar MA. Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance. PLoS One. 2006;1(1):127.

9. McDowell JM, Larry D. Singell J. Cracks in the Glass Ceiling: Gender and Promotion in the Economics Profession. Am Econ Rev. 1999;89(2).

10. van Arensbergen P, van der Weijden I, van den Besselaar P. Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics. 2012;93(3):857–68. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y 23162173

11. West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):66212.

12. Astegiano J, Sebastián-González E, Castanho C de T. Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review. R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Jun 28;6(6):181566. doi: 10.1098/rsos.181566 31312468

13. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011 Feb 22;108(8):3157–62. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108 21300892

14. van den Besselaar P, Sandström U. Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8).

15. Blackaby D, Booth AL, Frank J. Outside Offers And The Gender Pay Gap: Empirical Evidence From the UK Academic Labour Market. Econ J. 2005;115(501): 81–107.

16. Gaston N. Why Science is Sexist. Why Science is Sexist. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books; 2015. 104 pp.

17. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):16474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 22988126

18. Babcock L, Laschever S. Women don’t ask: negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003. 223 pp.

19. Gino F, Wilmuth CA, Brooks AW. Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12354–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502567112 26392533

20. Artz B, Goodall AH, Oswald AJ. Do Women Ask? Industrial Relations. 2018 Oct 1;57(4):611–36.

21. Yee L, Krivkovich A, Kutcher E, Epstein B, Thomas R, Finch A, et al. Women in the Workplace. McKinsey&Company and LeanIn; 2016.

22. Abouzahr K, Krentz M, Taplett FB, Tracey C, Tsusaka M. Dispelling the Myths of the Gender “Ambition Gap.” Boston Consulting Group; 2017.

23. Monroe K, Chiu W. Gender equality in the academy: The pipeline problem. PS Polit Sci & Polit. 2010;43:303–8. doi: 10.1017/S1049096510990720

24. Baker M. Career confidence and gendered expectations of academic promotion. J Sociol. 2010;46.

25. Thomas NR, Poole DJ, Herbers JM. Gender in Science and Engineering Faculties: Demographic Inertia Revisited. PLoS One. 2015; 10(10).

26. Shaw AK, Stanton DE. Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. Proc R Soc Sci Biol Sci. 2012 Sep 22;279(1743):3736–41.

27. Takahashi AM, Takahashi S. Gender promotion differences in economics departments in Japan: A duration analysis. J Asian Econ. 2015 Dec 1;41:1–19.

28. Heijstra T, Bjarnason T, Rafnsdottir G. Predictors of gender inequalities in the rank of full professor. Scand J Educ Res. 2015; 59(2): 214–30.

29. Donald A, Harvey PH, McLean AR. Bridging the gender gap in UK science. Nature. 2011 Oct 6;478(7367):36–36.

30. Misra J, Lundquist JH, Holmes E, Agiomavritis S. The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work. American Association of University Professors; 2011.

31. Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser CE. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biol. 2018;16(4).

32. Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. PNAS. 2015;112(43):13201–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510649112 26460001

33. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M. The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun. 2013;35:603–25.

34. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nat News. 2013;504:211.

35. Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. 2012;42(2):307–20.

36. Amrein K, Langmann A, Fahrleitner-Pammer A, Pieber TR, Zollner-Schwetz I. Women Underrepresented on Editorial Boards of 60 Major Medical Journals. Gend Med. 2011 Dec;8(6):378–87. doi: 10.1016/j.genm.2011.10.007 22153882

37. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(41):16474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 22988126

38. Pezzoni M, Mairesse J, Stephan P, Lane J. Gender and the Publication Output of Graduate Students: A Case Study. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 13;11(1):e0145146. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145146 26760776

39. Renzulli LA, Reynolds J, Kelly K, Grant L. Pathways to gender inequality in faculty pay: The Impact of institution, academic division, and rank. Res Soc Stratif Mobil. 2013;34:58–72.

40. Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(12):4403–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314788111 24616490

41. Sandström U. Combining curriculum vitae and bibliometric analysis: mobility, gender and research performance. Res Eval. 2009;18(2):135–42.

42. Schulze U. The gender wage gap among PhDs in the UK. Cambridge J Econ. 2015;39(2):599–629.

43. Sheltzer JM, Smith JC. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(28):10107–12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403334111 24982167

44. Shen H. Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature. 2013 Mar 6;495(7439):22–4. doi: 10.1038/495022a 23467149

45. Shen YA, Shoda Y, Fine I. Too few women authors on research papers in leading journals. Nature. 2018 Mar 8;555(7695):165–165.

46. Bordons M, Morillo F, Fernández MT, Gómez I. One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists. Scientometrics. 2003;57(2):159–73.

47. Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure canidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles. 1999;41(7):509–28.

48. Box-Steffensmeier JM, Cunha RC, Varbanov RA, Hoh YS, Knisley ML, Holmes MA. Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention and Promotion in the Social Sciences by Gender. PLoS One. 2015 Nov 18;10(11):e0143093. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143093 26580565

49. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D. Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J Informetr. 2007;1(3):226–38.

50. Bayer A, Rouse CE. Diversity in the Economics Profession: A New Attack on an Old Problem. J Econ Perspect. 2016;30(4):221–42.

51. Berné O. Are women the losers in team cosmology prize? Nature. 2018 Aug 8;560(7718):307–307.

52. Bruna EM, Cho AH, Johnson SA, Schuman CE, Adler JM, Gonzalez O, et al. Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ. 2014; 2014(1): 1–11.

53. Cooray A, Verma R, Wright L. Does a gender disparity exist in academic rank? Evidence from an Australian university. Appl Econ. 2014;46(20):2441–51.

54. Dickey Zakaib G. Science gender gap probed. Nature. 2011 Feb 10;470(7333):153–153. doi: 10.1038/470153a 21307907

55. Buckley HL, Sciligo AR, Adair KL, Case BS, Monks JM. Is there gender bias in reviewer selection and publication success rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology? N Z J Ecol. 2014;38(2):335–9.

56. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan 1;23(1):4–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 17963996

57. Hengel E. Publishing While Female. Are Women Held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review. Cambridge Working Paper Economics No. 1753. 2017.

58. Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet. 2019 Feb;393(10171):531–40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4 30739688

59. van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(40):12349–53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510159112 26392544

60. Ghiasi G, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. On the Compliance of Women Engineers with a Gendered Scientific System. PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0145931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145931 26716831

61. Babcock L, Recalde MP, Vesterlund L, Weingart L. Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability. Am Econ Rev. 2017 Mar;107(3):714–47.

62. Guarino CM, Borden VMH. Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family? Res High Educ. 2017 Sep 5;58(6):672–94.

63. O’Meara K, Kuvaeva A, Nyunt G, Waugaman C, Jackson R. Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions That Shape Them. Am Educ Res J. 2017;54(6):1154–86.

64. Park SM, Shelley J, Park M. Research, Teaching, and Service: Why Shouldn’t Women’s Work Count? J Higher Educ. 1996;67(1):46–84.

65. El-Alayli A, Hansen-Brown AA, Ceynar M. Dancing Backwards in High Heels: Female Professors Experience More Work Demands and Special Favor Requests, Particularly from Academically Entitled Students. Sex Roles. 2018 Aug 3;79(3–4):136–50.

66. Stark P, Ottoboni K, Boring A. Student Evaluations of Teaching (Mostly) Do Not Measure Teaching Effectiveness. Sci Open Res. 2016; 1–11.

67. Carlin PS, Kidd MP, Rooney PM, Denton B. Academic Wage Structure by Gender: The Roles of Peer Review, Performance, and Market Forces. South Econ J. 2013;80(1):127–46.

68. MacNell L, Driscoll A, Hunt AN. What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innov High Educ. 2015;40:291–303.

69. Morgan W, Walker S, Hebl M, King E. A field experiment: Reducing interpersonal discrimination toward pregnant job applicants. PsycNET. 2013;98(5):799–809.

70. Correll SJ, Benard S, Paik I, Benard S, Paik I. Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? In: Inequality in the 21st Century. Routledge; 2018. pp. 391–9.

71. Fuegen K, Biernat M, Haines E, Deaux K. Mothers and Fathers in the Workplace: How Gender and Parental Status Influence Judgments of Job-Related Competence. J Soc Issues. 2004 Dec 1;60(4):737–54.

72. Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(43):13201–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510649112 26460001

73. Cislak A, Formanowicz M, Saguy T. Bias against research on gender bias. Scientometrics. 2018;115:189–200. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2667-0 29527071

74. Maxmen A. Why it’s hard to prove gender discrimination in science. Nature. 2018 May 15.

75. Wennerås C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997;387(6631):341–3. doi: 10.1038/387341a0 9163412

76. Grant J, Burden S, Breen G. No evidence of sexism in peer review. Nature. 1997 Dec 4;390(6659):438–438. doi: 10.1038/37213 9393992

77. Card D, DellaVigna S, Funk P, Iriberri N. Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral? NBER Working Paper No. 25967. 2019.

78. Buckle RA, Creedy J. The Impact on Research Quality of Performance-Based Funding: The Case of New Zealand’s PBRF Scheme. Agenda—A J Policy Anal Reform. 2018; 25(1): 25–48.

79. Anderson DL, Tressler J. The New Zealand performance-based research fund and its impact on publication activity in economics. Res Eval. 2014; 23(1): 1–11.

80. Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J. Measuring research: A guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools (Prepared for the Association of American Medical Colleges). Cambridge, UK; 2013.

81. New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission. Performance-Based Research Fund—Quality Evaluation Guidelines 2012. Wellington, New Zealand; 2013.

82. O’Dea RE, Lagisz M, Jennions MD, Nakagawa S. Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM. Nat Commun. 2018; 9(1); 3777–85. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06292-0 30254267


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1