IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i10d10.1007_s11192-024-04985-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there gender bias in awarding cum laude for the PhD thesis?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Besselaar

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
    DZHW - German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies GmbH
    TMC Research Amsterdam)

  • Charlie Mom

    (TMC Research Amsterdam)

Abstract

In the Dutch academic system, PhD theses can be awarded with cum laude and at most 5% of all PhD graduates receive this selective distinction for their thesis. In this paper, we investigate whether there is gender bias in awarding cum laude, using data from one of the major Dutch research universities. We measure the quality of the PhD theses using bibliometric data. A main result is that the set of PhD theses receiving cum laude on average do not have a higher quality than the best theses not getting cum laude. A second main result is that, after controlling for the quality of the PhD theses, women still have a substantially lower probability to receive cum laude. These results strongly suggest that the distribution of awards suffers from gender bias, and the study creates a strong doubt about the adequacy of the procedures leading to cum laude for the PhD thesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Besselaar & Charlie Mom, 2024. "Is there gender bias in awarding cum laude for the PhD thesis?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6349-6371, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04985-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-04985-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-04985-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-04985-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2017. "Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Pleun van Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter van den Besselaar, 2014. "The selection of talent as a group process. A literature review on the social dynamics of decision making in grant panels," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 298-311.
    3. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2019. "Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Stephanie Sardelis & Joshua A Drew, 2016. "Not “Pulling up the Ladder”: Women Who Organize Conference Symposia Provide Greater Opportunities for Women to Speak at Conservation Conferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    2. Duarte-Martínez, V. & Cobo, M.J. & López-Herrera, A.G., 2022. "Uncovering patterns in the supervision of Spanish theses: a comprehensive analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    3. Shu-Hao Chang, 2024. "International Technology Market Hotspots and Development Trends from the Perspective of Inventor Mobility," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2361-2382, March.
    4. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    5. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    6. Bradford Barham & Jeremy Foltz & Ana Paula Melo, 2020. "Academic Engagement, Commercialization, and Scholarship: Empirical Evidence from Agricultural and Life Scientists at US Land Grant Universities," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Research and Innovation in Agriculture, pages 179-208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, CiriacoAndrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2024. "The moderating role of personal characteristics of authors in the publications’ quality for quantity trade-off," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    8. Herschberg, Channah & Benschop, Yvonne & van den Brink, Marieke, 2018. "Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 303-310.
    9. Rojko, Katarina & Lužar, Borut, 2022. "Scientific performance across research disciplines: Trends and differences in the case of Slovenia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    10. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    12. Bruno S. Frey & Anthony Gullo, 2020. "Sic transit gloria mundi: What remains of famous economists after their deaths?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 283-298, April.
    13. Zhang, Mengya & Zhang, Gupeng & Liu, Yun & Zhai, Xiaorong & Han, Xinying, 2020. "Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    14. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    15. Auschra, Carolin & Bartosch, Julia & Lohmeyer, Nora, 2022. "Differences in female representation in leading management and organization journals: Establishing a benchmark," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    16. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.
    17. González-Betancor, Sara M. & Dorta-González, Pablo, 2023. "Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    18. Monika Sieverding & Constanze Eib & Andreas B Neubauer & Thomas Stahl, 2018. "Can lifestyle preferences help explain the persistent gender gap in academia? The “mothers work less” hypothesis supported for German but not for U.S. early career researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    20. Ana Jesús López & Dolores Pereira, 2021. "The Value of Transfer of Knowledge in Bridging the Gender Gap in STEM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04985-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.