Diversity in Economics: A Gender Analysis of Italian Academic Production

Giulia Zacchia
{"title":"Diversity in Economics: A Gender Analysis of Italian Academic Production","authors":"Giulia Zacchia","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3081220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economists’ infamous failure at predicting the recent financial crisis has brought new impetus to studies on diversity in the economics profession. Such studies have underlined how diversity plays a prominent role in enriching economic analyses. The main purpose of this article is to provide new insights into the degree of gender diversity: rather than looking at women’s presence in academia only, we extend our focus to the research production by academic economists in the last few decades. The tendency to identify research quality with standardized bibliometric indicators – i.e. impact factor or h index – had consequences in term of heterogeneity of researchers within institutions (at all levels), and, most of all, in terms of pluralism of research interests. Our new data uncovers a double convergence path: i) a progressive reduction in the variety of research interests of women and men economists; ii) a tendency to “homologate” with international standards of perceived research ‘excellence’. As a consequence of such an impoverishment of pluralism in research, the academic production of both men and women has been drifting away from non-mainstream fields, and, in particular, from heterodox approaches and from the history of economic thought. Since women’s academic careers remain markedly characterized by a strong vertical segregation, we find that for women this effect is even stronger since they are more subject to homologating their research activities with respect to that of their male colleagues.","PeriodicalId":445141,"journal":{"name":"Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper Series","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3081220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Economists’ infamous failure at predicting the recent financial crisis has brought new impetus to studies on diversity in the economics profession. Such studies have underlined how diversity plays a prominent role in enriching economic analyses. The main purpose of this article is to provide new insights into the degree of gender diversity: rather than looking at women’s presence in academia only, we extend our focus to the research production by academic economists in the last few decades. The tendency to identify research quality with standardized bibliometric indicators – i.e. impact factor or h index – had consequences in term of heterogeneity of researchers within institutions (at all levels), and, most of all, in terms of pluralism of research interests. Our new data uncovers a double convergence path: i) a progressive reduction in the variety of research interests of women and men economists; ii) a tendency to “homologate” with international standards of perceived research ‘excellence’. As a consequence of such an impoverishment of pluralism in research, the academic production of both men and women has been drifting away from non-mainstream fields, and, in particular, from heterodox approaches and from the history of economic thought. Since women’s academic careers remain markedly characterized by a strong vertical segregation, we find that for women this effect is even stronger since they are more subject to homologating their research activities with respect to that of their male colleagues.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经济学的多样性:意大利学术生产的性别分析
经济学家在预测最近的金融危机方面声名狼藉的失败,为经济学专业的多样性研究带来了新的动力。这些研究强调了多样性如何在丰富经济分析方面发挥重要作用。本文的主要目的是提供关于性别多样性程度的新见解:我们不仅仅关注女性在学术界的存在,而是将我们的重点扩展到过去几十年学术经济学家的研究成果。用标准化的文献计量指标- -即影响因子或h指数- -确定研究质量的趋势对机构内(各级)研究人员的异质性产生了影响,最重要的是,对研究兴趣的多元化产生了影响。我们的新数据揭示了一条双重趋同路径:1)男女经济学家研究兴趣的多样性逐渐减少;Ii)趋向于与国际公认的“卓越”研究标准“接轨”。由于研究中的多元主义如此贫乏,男性和女性的学术成果已经偏离了非主流领域,特别是偏离了非正统方法和经济思想史。由于女性的学术生涯仍然以强烈的垂直隔离为明显特征,我们发现,对于女性来说,这种影响甚至更强,因为她们更容易将自己的研究活动与男性同事的研究活动相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Identity and Conflict: Evidence from Tuareg Rebellion in Mali How Milton Friedman Exploited White Supremacy to Privatize Education The Unmaking of the Black Blue-Collar Middle Class The Updated Okun Method for Estimation of Potential Output with Broad Measures of Labor Underutilization: An Empirical Analysis Bagehot for Central Bankers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1