Does research performance explain the “leaky pipeline” in Indian academia? A study of agricultural and applied economics

IF 4.5 3区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural Economics Pub Date : 2022-10-09 DOI:10.1111/agec.12744
Sangeeta Bansal, Brinda Viswanathan, J. V. Meenakshi
{"title":"Does research performance explain the “leaky pipeline” in Indian academia? A study of agricultural and applied economics","authors":"Sangeeta Bansal,&nbsp;Brinda Viswanathan,&nbsp;J. V. Meenakshi","doi":"10.1111/agec.12744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article documents the existence of a leaky pipeline based on complete enumeration of faculty in two large public academic networks: state agricultural universities and institutions of the Indian Council of Social Science Research. We then examine if there are gender differences in the quantity and quality of research publications of women relative to men that can explain this. As proxies for quality and visibility, we use several metrics, including the number of citations, h-index, i10 index, and Scimago rank of the journal in which the research is featured. A novel aspect of the analysis is the comparison of time paths of cumulative publications over career paths of men and women professors. Our analysis of research performance is based on scraping publicly-available data sources, including faculty and institutional websites, and google scholar pages, and represents one-third (and likely positively selected) of all faculty in these institutions. Our results suggest that women are disadvantaged in terms of number of publications during early career years, however, the disadvantage is mitigated with seniority and women perform equally well or even surpass men later in their careers. Women are more likely to write single-authored articles and have fewer collaborators than men, indicating that they do not access collaborative spaces as much, and are less networked than men. In spite of this, there is suggestive evidence that women are more quality conscious than men. This nuanced look at research productivity suggests the source of the leaky pipeline does not arise from differences in performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50837,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12744","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article documents the existence of a leaky pipeline based on complete enumeration of faculty in two large public academic networks: state agricultural universities and institutions of the Indian Council of Social Science Research. We then examine if there are gender differences in the quantity and quality of research publications of women relative to men that can explain this. As proxies for quality and visibility, we use several metrics, including the number of citations, h-index, i10 index, and Scimago rank of the journal in which the research is featured. A novel aspect of the analysis is the comparison of time paths of cumulative publications over career paths of men and women professors. Our analysis of research performance is based on scraping publicly-available data sources, including faculty and institutional websites, and google scholar pages, and represents one-third (and likely positively selected) of all faculty in these institutions. Our results suggest that women are disadvantaged in terms of number of publications during early career years, however, the disadvantage is mitigated with seniority and women perform equally well or even surpass men later in their careers. Women are more likely to write single-authored articles and have fewer collaborators than men, indicating that they do not access collaborative spaces as much, and are less networked than men. In spite of this, there is suggestive evidence that women are more quality conscious than men. This nuanced look at research productivity suggests the source of the leaky pipeline does not arise from differences in performance.

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
研究绩效能否解释印度学术界的“管道泄漏”?农业经济学和应用经济学的研究
本文通过对两个大型公共学术网络(国立农业大学和印度社会科学研究理事会机构)教员的全面列举,证明了存在一个漏水的管道。然后,我们检查女性相对于男性的研究出版物的数量和质量是否存在性别差异,这可以解释这一点。作为质量和可见性的代理,我们使用了几个指标,包括引用次数、h指数、i10指数和研究所在期刊的Scimago排名。该分析的一个新颖方面是将累积出版物的时间路径与男女教授的职业路径进行比较。我们对研究表现的分析是基于收集公开可用的数据源,包括教师和机构网站,以及谷歌学者页面,代表了这些机构中所有教师的三分之一(可能是积极选择的)。我们的研究结果表明,在职业生涯早期,女性在发表论文的数量上处于劣势,然而,随着资历的增加,这种劣势有所缓解,女性在职业生涯后期的表现与男性一样好,甚至超过了男性。与男性相比,女性更有可能撰写单一作者的文章,并且拥有更少的合作者,这表明她们不像男性那样频繁地访问协作空间,而且网络化程度也不如男性。尽管如此,有证据表明,女性比男性更注重质量。这种对研究生产力的细致观察表明,管道泄漏的根源并非来自表现上的差异。
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
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
4.90%
发文量
62
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agricultural Economics aims to disseminate the most important research results and policy analyses in our discipline, from all regions of the world. Topical coverage ranges from consumption and nutrition to land use and the environment, at every scale of analysis from households to markets and the macro-economy. Applicable methodologies include econometric estimation and statistical hypothesis testing, optimization and simulation models, descriptive reviews and policy analyses. We particularly encourage submission of empirical work that can be replicated and tested by others.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Drought risk management in agriculture: A copula perspective on crop diversification Macroeconomic shock effects on beef carcass premiums Farmers’ preferences for soil conservation measures in Southern Ethiopia: Plot-level discrete choice experiment Do place-based policies impact residents’ nutrient intake? Evidence from China
×
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