Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016

Wenn Ökonominnen umsonst arbeiten ...

... nämlich immer dann, wenn sie zusammen mit männlichen Kollegen publizieren.

Zumindest wenn es um die Auswirkungen der Publikationsleistung auf das Erreichen einer Professur geht. Zu dem Schluss kommt eine neue Studie von Heather Sarsons, die die Karrieren von männlichen und weiblichen Absolventen der Top-VWL-Fakultäten in den USA untersucht hat.

Ein guter Beitrag von Justin Wolfers fasst das Problem exzellent zusammen. Auszüge:
"Here is where it gets interesting. When an economist writes a paper on her own, there is no question about who deserves the credit. Each additional solo research paper raises the probability of getting tenure by about 8 or 9 percent, she calculated. The career benefit from publishing a solo paper is about the same for women as it is for men. But unlike women, men also get just as much credit for collaborative research, and there is no statistical difference in the career prospects of authors of individually written papers and those of papers written as part of a research team.
Unfortunately for women, research done with a co-author counts far less. When women write with co-authors, the benefit to their career prospects is much less than half that accorded to men. [...]

Men get about the same degree of credit for research with a co-author, whether it is written with other men, other women or both. (The exact numbers vary a little, but in a way that may just reflect statistical noise.)

It couldn’t be more different for women. When women write with men, their tenure prospects don’t improve at all. That is, women get essentially zero credit for the collaborative work with men. Papers written by women in collaboration with both a male and female co-author yield partial credit. It is only when women write with other women that they are given full credit. These differences are statistically significant.
The numbers tell a compelling story of men getting the credit, whenever there is any ambiguity about who deserves credit for work performed in teams.
And this is a very big deal: The bias that Ms. Sarsons documents is so large that it may account on its own for another statistic: Female economists are twice as likely to be denied tenure as their male colleagues. [...]

Interestingly, Ms. Sarsons has performed a parallel analysis of the field of sociology. In contrast to economics, there are no discernible differences in how men and women are given credit for joint work. One possible reason for this happier finding is that sociologists explicitly describe who deserves the most credit in a collaboration, by listing that person as the first author. This explicit attribution eliminates the need to make inferences, reducing the scope for sexist judgments. By contrast, economists list authors alphabetically, and the ensuing ambiguity may give greater space for sexist stereotypes to express themselves. Another possibility is that sociologists, many more of whom are women, are simply less sexist than economists."

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen