IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp12021.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender Quotas or Girls' Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Checchi, Daniele

    (University of Milan)

  • Cicognani, Simona

    (Free University of Bozen/Bolzano)

  • Kulic, Nevena

    (European University Institute)

Abstract

This article investigates the role of the gender composition of selection committees and the role of connections in promoting women in research activities. Exploiting a newly collected data set on recruitment processes to entry-level research positions in a leading Italian research centre operating mainly in the hard sciences, the study finds that bias against women manifests itself at non-tenured entry level and is attenuated by the presence of a woman on the selection committee. However, the most important predictor for recruitment in the study is previous connections with the research centre, a mechanism which, due the lower density of network links with the institute among female candidates, operates as a selection device discriminating against women. The results suggest that gender of the committee members, network structure and type of recruitment must all be taken into account in approaching recruitment policy and that very early stages of scientific careers are crucial for addressing gender bias in research.

Suggested Citation

  • Checchi, Daniele & Cicognani, Simona & Kulic, Nevena, 2018. "Gender Quotas or Girls' Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection," IZA Discussion Papers 12021, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp12021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp12021.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lokman I. Meho & Yvonne Rogers, 2008. "Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‐index of human‐computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(11), pages 1711-1726, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José J. Domínguez, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Committee Quotas; The Role of Group Dynamics," ThE Papers 21/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    2. Filandri, Marianna & Pasqua, Silvia, 2019. "Gender discrimination in academic careers in Italy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201921, University of Turin.
    3. Sofia Moratti, 2020. "Do Low-Openness, Low-Transparency Procedures in Academic Hiring Disadvantage Women?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, May.
    4. Makiko Fuwa, 2021. "Women Managers’ Impact on Use of Family-friendly Measures among Their Subordinates in Japanese Firms," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 35(4), pages 716-734, August.

    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. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    2. García-Pérez, Miguel A., 2011. "Strange attractors in the Web of Science database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 214-218.
    3. Jakub Rybacki & Dobromił Serwa, 2021. "What Makes a Successful Scientist in a Central Bank? Evidence From the RePEc Database," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 13(3), pages 331-357, September.
    4. Mojtaba Ashour & Amir Mahdiyar & Syarmila Hany Haron, 2021. "A Comprehensive Review of Deterrents to the Practice of Sustainable Interior Architecture and Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Marek Gągolewski & Przemysław Grzegorzewski, 2009. "A geometric approach to the construction of scientific impact indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 617-634, December.
    6. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    7. D. Checchi & S. Cicognani & N. Kulic, 2015. "Gender quotas or girls networks? Towards an understanding of recruitment in the research profession in Italy," Working Papers wp1047, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    8. Shaher H. Zyoud & Ahed H. Zyoud, 2021. "Visualization and Mapping of Knowledge and Science Landscapes in Expert Systems With Applications Journal: A 30 Years’ Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    9. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner & Schier, Hermann & Rahm, Erhard & Thor, Andreas & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published els," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 27-35.
    10. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    11. Carolin Michels & Jun-Ying Fu, 2014. "Systematic analysis of coverage and usage of conference proceedings in web of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 307-327, August.
    12. Meho, Lokman I., 2019. "Using Scopus’s CiteScore for assessing the quality of computer science conferences," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 419-433.
    13. Miguel A. García-Pérez, 2013. "Limited validity of equations to predict the future h index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 901-909, September.
    14. Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos & Aguilar-Moya, Remedios & Melero-Fuentes, David & Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael, 2015. "A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 570-576.
    15. Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan & Hadi Khaniki & Abdolhosein Kalantari & Mehrnoosh Akhtari-Zavare & Elaheh Farahmand & Ezhar Tamam & Nader Ale Ebrahim & Havva Sabani & Mahmoud Danaee, 2019. "A Crisis in “Open Access†: Should Communication Scholarly Outputs Take 77 Years to Become Open Access?," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, August.
    16. Amador Durán-Sánchez & María de la Cruz del Río-Rama & José à lvarez-García & Cristiana Oliveira, 2022. "Analysis of Worldwide Research on Craft Beer," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    17. Mehmet Ali Abdulhayoglu & Bart Thijs, 2018. "Use of locality sensitive hashing (LSH) algorithm to match Web of Science and Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1229-1245, August.
    18. Christoph Bartneck, 2017. "Reviewers’ scores do not predict impact: bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of the human–robot interaction conference," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 179-194, January.
    19. Massimo Franceschet, 2010. "A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 243-258, April.
    20. Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A. N. F. Gomes, 2009. "A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 587-600, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Italy; gender quotas; gender bias; connections; research recruitment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J70 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iza:izadps:dp12021. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.