Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:18:46.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the evolution of the glass ceiling in Italian academia: the case of economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

Marcella Corsi Open the ORCID record for Marcella Corsi [Opens in a new window] ,
Carlo D’Ippoliti Open the ORCID record for Carlo D’Ippoliti [Opens in a new window]  and
Giulia Zacchia Open the ORCID record for Giulia Zacchia [Opens in a new window]
Marcella Corsi*
Affiliation:
Sapienza University of Rome
Carlo D’Ippoliti
Affiliation:
Sapienza University of Rome
Giulia Zacchia
Affiliation:
Sapienza University of Rome
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: marcella.corsif@uniroma1.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Following an international trend, Italy has reformed its university system, especially concerning methods and tools for research evaluation, which are increasingly focused on a number of bibliometric indexes. To study the effects of these changes, we analyze the changing profiles of economists who have won competitions for full professorship in the last few decades in the country. We concentrate on individual characteristics and on scientific production. We show that the identification of a univocal and standardized concept of “research quality” within the new research assessments has progressively imposed a strategy of “homologation,” especially for women. We find that women economists are at a higher risk of discrimination than their male colleagues and thus they are more likely to conform their research activities to the standardized profile imposed by the gender-blind application of simplistic bibliometric methods.

Keywords

women economistsglass ceilingresearch qualityhomologationbibliometrics
Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 32 , Issue 4: Change and Persistence in Contemporary Economics , December 2019 , pp. 411 - 430
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramo, Giovanni, D’Angelo, Ciriaco, and Caprasecca, Alessandro. 2009. “Gender Differences in Research Productivity: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Italian Academic System.” Scientometrics 79:517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramo, Giovanni, D’Angelo, Ciriaco, and Rosati, Francesco. 2016. “Gender Bias in Academic Recruitment.” Scientometrics 106(1):119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aistleitner, Matthias, Kapeller, Jakob, and Steinerberger, Stefan. 2017. “Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond: Assessing the Peculiarities of Economics from Two Scientometric Perspectives.” ICAE Working Paper, n. 60.Google Scholar
Albelda, Randy. 1997. Economics and Feminism: Disturbances in the Field, New York: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
Alencar de Farias, Salomão. 2018. “The Brazilian Little Way in Academia.” BAR – Brazilian Administration Review 15(1).Google Scholar
Ancaiani, Alessio, Anfossi, Alberto F, Benedetto, Barbara Anna, Blasi, Sergio, Carletti, Brigida, Cicero, Valentina, Ciolfi, Tindaro, Costa, Alberto, Colizza, Filippo, Costantini, Giovanna, di Cristina, Marco, Ferrara, Fabio, Lacatena, Antonio, Malgarini, Rosa M, Mazzotta, Marco, Nappi, Irene, Romagnosi, Carmela A, Sileoni, Sandra Serena. 2015. “Evaluating Scientific Research in Italy: The 2004–10 Research Evaluation Exercise.” Research Evaluation 24(3):242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baccini, Alberto, Barabesi, Lucio, Cioni, Martina, Pisani, Caterina. 2014. “Crossing the Hurdle: The Determinants of Individual Scientific Performance.” Scientometrics (101)3:2035–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baccini, Alberto. 2016. “Napoléon et l’évaluation bibliométrique de la recherche: Considérations sur la réforme de l’université et sur l’action de l’agence national d’évaluation en Italie.” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 40(1):37–57.Google Scholar
Baccini, Alberto, and De Nicolao, Giuseppe. 2016. “Do They Agree? Bibliometric Evaluation versus Informed Peer Review in the Italian Research Assessment Exercise.” Scientometrics 108(3):1651–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberto, Baccini, and De Nicolao, Giuseppe. 2017a. “Errors and Secret Data in the Italian Research Assessment Exercise: A Comment to a Reply.” RT: A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 5(1):1–11.Google Scholar
Baccini, Alberto, and De Nicolao, Giuseppe. 2017b. “A Letter on Ancaiani et al., ‘Evaluating Scientific Research in Italy: The 2004-10 Research Evaluation Exercise.” Research Evaluation 24(4):353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baccini, Alberto, and Barabesi, Lucio. 2014. “Gatekeepers of Economics: The Network of Editorial Boards in Economic Journals.” In The Economics of Economists: Institutional Setting, Individual Incentives, and Future Prospects, edited by Alessandro, Lanteri and Vromen, Jack, pp. 104–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagues, Manuel, Sylos-Labini, Mauro, and Zinovyeva, Natalia. 2017. “Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?” American Economic Review 107(4):1207–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertocchi, Graziella, Gambardella, Alfonso, Jappelli, Tullio, Nappi, Carmela A., and Peracchi, Franco. 2015. “Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy.” Research Policy 44(2):451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Harry. 2010. “Research Evaluation Down Under: An Outsider’s View from the Inside of the Australian Approach.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5):1530–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornmann, Lutz, Ruediger, Mutz, and Hans-Dieter, Daniel. 2007. “Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Informetrics 1:226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Chris, Fenton, Evelyn M, and Walker, James T. 2014. “Gender and the Evaluation of Research.” Research Policy 43:990–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Hannah L., Sciligo, Amber R, Adair, Karen L, Case, Bradley S, and Monks, Joanne M. 2014. “Is there Gender Bias in Reviewer Selection and Publication Success Rates for the New Zealand Journal of Ecology?” New Zealand Journal of Ecology 38(2):335–339.Google Scholar
Carr, Phyllis L., Ash, Arlene S, Friedman, Robert H, Szalacha, Laura, Barnett, Rosalind C, Palepu, Anita, and Moskowitz, Mark M. 2000. “Faculty Perceptions of Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine.” Ann Intern Medicine 132:889–896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chavance, Bernard, and Labrousse, Agnès. 2018. “Institutions and Science: The Contest about Pluralism in Economics in France.” Review of Political Economy 30(2):190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checchi, Daniele, De Poli, Silvia, and Rettore, Enrico. 2018. “Does Random Selection of Selectors Improve the Quality of Selected Candidates? An Investigation in the Italian Academia.” Italian Economic Journal 4:211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimberley, Christensen. 2001. “Thank God … I Thought for a Moment You Were Going to Confess to Converting to Socialism!’ Gender and Identity in Deirdre McCloskey’s Crossing.” Feminist Economics 7(2):105–120.Google Scholar
Corsi, Marcella, D’Ippoliti, Carlo, and Lucidi, Federico. 2010. “Pluralism at Risk? Heterodox Economic Approaches and the Evaluation of Economic Research in Italy.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5):1495–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corsi, Marcella, D’Ippoliti, Carlo, and Lucidi, Federico. 2011. “On the Evaluation of Economic Research: The Case of Italy.” Economia Politica 28(3):369–402.Google Scholar
Corsi, Marcella, D’Ippoliti, Carlo, and Zacchia, Giulia. 2018. “A Case Study of Pluralism in Economics: The Heterodox Glass Ceiling in Italy.” Review of Political Economy 30(2):172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Bruce C., Lee, Frederic S, McConnell, Scott, Dean, Erik. 2010. “Research Quality Rankings of Heterodox Economic Journals in a Contested Discipline.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5):1409–1452.Google Scholar
D’Ippoliti, Carlo. 2018. “Many-citedness.” Inet WP 57. https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_57-Dippoliti-revised.pdf (last accessed January 14, 2020).Google Scholar
Davis, William L. 1997. “Economists’ Perceptions of Their Own Research: A Survey of the Profession.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56(2):159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, William L., Bob, Bob Figgins, Hedengren, David, and Klein, Daniel B. 2011. “Economics Professors’ Favorite Economic Thinkers, Journals, and Blogs (along with Party and Policy Views).” Econ Journal Watch 8(2):126–146.Google Scholar
De Paola, Maria, Ponzo, Michela, and Scoppa, Vincenzo. 2018. “Are Men Given Priority for Top Jobs? Investigating the Glass Ceiling in Italian Academia.” Journal of Human Capital 12(3):475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Paola, Maria, and Scoppa, Vincenzo. 2015. “Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia.” Economica 82(325):162–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Paola, Maria, and Scoppa, Vincenzo. 2017. “Gender Differences in the Propensity to Apply for Promotion: Evidence from the Italian Scientific Qualification.” Oxford Economic Papers 6(4):986–1009.Google Scholar
Ferber, Marianne A., and Brün, Michael. 2011. “The Gender Gap in Citations: Does It Persist?” Feminist Economics 17(1):151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forget, Evelyn L. 1995. “America Women Economists, 1900-1940: Doctoral Dissertation and Research Specialization.” In Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Women in Economics edited by Mary, A. Dimand, Robert, W. Dimand, Evelyn, L. Forget, pp. 25–38. Aldershot and Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar,Google Scholar
Fourcade, Marion, Ollion, Etienne, and Algan, Yann. 2015. “The Superiority of Economists.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(1):89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Mary F. 2005. “Gender, Family Characteristics, and Publication Productivity among Scientists.” Social Studies of Science 35:131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Mary F., Carolyn, Fonseca, Bao, Jinghui. 2011. “Work and Family Conflict in Academic Science: Patterns and Predictors among Women and Men in Research Universities.” Social Studies of Science 41:715–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimm, Christian, Puhringer, Stephan, and Kapeller, Jakob. 2018. “Paradigms and Policies: The State of Economics in the German-Speaking Countries.” ICAE Working Paper 77.Google Scholar
Harley, Sandra, Lee, Frederic S. 1997. “Research Selectivity, Managerialism, and the Academic Labour Process: The Future of Nonmainstream Economics in U.K. Universities.” Human Relations 50:1425–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Moktan, Sidharth. 2018. “Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five.” NBER Working Paper, n. 25093.Google Scholar
Hedengren, David, Klein, Daniel B, and Carrie, Milton. 2010. “Economist Petitions: Ideology Revealed.” Econ Journal Watch 7(3):288–319.Google Scholar
HEFCE. 2015. The Metric Tide: Correlation Analysis of REF2014 Scores and Metrics (Supplementary Report II to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management).Google Scholar
Hengel, Erin. 2018. “Publishing while Female: Are Women held to Higher Standards? Evidence from Peer Review.” Mimeo, August 2018 revised version, available at http://www.erinhengel.com/research/publishing_female.pdf (last accessed January 14, 2020).Google Scholar
Hicks, Diana, Wouters, Paul, Waltman, Ludo, De Rijcke, Sarah, and Rafols, Ismael. 2015. “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature 520: 429–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe-Walsh, Liza, Turnbull, Sarah (2016), “Barriers to Women Leaders in Academia: Tales from Science and Technology.” Studies in Higher Education 41(3):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jappelli, Tullio, Nappi, Carmela A, and Torrini, Roberto. 2017. “Gender Effects in Research Evaluation”, Research Policy 46(5):911–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapeller, Jakob, and Steinerberger, Stefan. 2016. “Emergent Phenomena in Scientific Publishing: A Simulation Exercise.” Research Policy 45(10):1945–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Molly M., Bergstrom, Carl T, Correll, Shelley J, Jacquet, Jennifer, and West, Jevin D. 2017. “Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 3:1–22.Google Scholar
Knights, David, and Wendy, Richard. 2003. “Sex Discrimination in UK Academia.” Gender, Work & Organization 10(2):213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, Carroll, J. Glynn, and Huge, Michael. 2013. “The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest.” Science Communication 35(5):603–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larivière, Vincent, Chaoqun, Ni, Gingras, Yves, Cronin, Blaise, and Sugimoto, Cassidy R. 2013. “Global Gender Disparities in Science.” Nature 504:211–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahey, Erin. 2006. “Gender Differences in Productivity: Research Specialization as a Missing Link.” Gender & Society 20:754–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frederic S. 2006. “The Research Assessment Exercise, the State and the Dominance of Mainstream Economics in British Universities.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 31(2):309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frederic S., Pham, Xuan, and Gu, Gyun. 2013. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the Narrowing of UK Economics.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 37(4):693–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerback, Jory, and Hanson, Brooks. 2017. “Journals Invite Too Few Women to Referee.” Nature 541:455–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, Sharon G., and Stephan, Paula E. 1998. “Gender Differences in the Rewards to Publishing in Academia: Science in the 1970s.” Sex Roles 38:1041–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Piñeiro, Carla, and Hicks, Diana. 2015. “Reception of Spanish Sociology by Domestic and Foreign Audiences Differs and Has Consequences for Evaluation.” Research Evaluation 24(1):78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcuzzo, Maria Cristina, and Zacchia, Giulia. 2016. “Is History of Economics What Historians of Economic Thought Do? A Quantitative Investigation.” History of Economic Ideas 24(3):29–46.Google Scholar
Marini, Giulio, and Meschitti, Viviana. 2018. “The Trench Warfare of Gender Discrimination: Evidence from Academic Promotions to Full Professor in Italy.” Scientometrics 115(2):989–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Herbert W., Bornmann, Lutz, Mutz, Ruediger, Hans-Dieter, Daniel, and O’Mara, Alison. 2009. “Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches.” Review of Educational Research 79(3):1290–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Herbert W., Jayasinghe, Upali W, and Bond, Nigel W. 2011. “Gender Differences in Peer Reviews of Grant Applications: A Substantive-methodological Synergy in support of the Null Hypothesis Model.” Journal of Informetrics 5(2011):167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Ann Mary, McGarvey, Mary G., and Whaples, Robert. 2014. “Are Disagreements among Male and Female Economists Marginal at Best? A Survey of AEA Members and Their Views on Economics.” Contemporary Economic Policy 32(1):111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Ann Mary, McGarvey, Mary G., and Kucera, David. 2018. “Gender and European Economic Policy: A Survey of the Views of European Economists on Contemporary Economic Policy.” Kyklos 71(1):162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moed, Henk. 2007. “The Future of Research Evaluation Rests with an Intelligent Combination of Advanced Metrics and Transparent Peer Review.” Science and Public Policy 34(8):575–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Dakota, Siler, Kyle, Lariviére, Vincent, Wei, Mun Chan, Collings, Andrew M, Raymond, Jennifer, and Sugimoto, Cassidy R. 2018. “Gender and International Diversity Improves Equity in Peer Review.” bioRxiv, August 29.Google Scholar
Ortega, José Luis. 2017. “Are Peer-review Activities related to Reviewer Bibliometric Performance? A Scientometric Analysis of Publons.” Scientometrics 112:947–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasinetti, Luigi L. 2006. “Appendix 4. A Note on Points of Dissent.” CIVR Final Report for Area 13, Agenzia Nazionale per la Valutazione dell’Università e della Ricerca (ANVUR): Roma: https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/downloads/Pasinetti-CIVR-appendix_4_nota_di_pasinetti_sui_punti_di_dissenso.pdf (last accessed January 19, 2020).Google Scholar
Powdthavee, Nattavudh, Riyanto, Yohanes E, and Knetsch, Jack L. 2017. “Impact of Lower Rated Journals on Economists’ Judgments of Publication Lists: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” IZA Discussion Papers, n. 10752.Google Scholar
Primack, Richard B., Maron, Martine, and Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa. 2017. “Who Are Our Reviewers and How Do They Review? The Profile and Work of Biological Conservation Reviewers.” Biological Conservation 211(A):177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primack, Richard B., Ellwood, Elizabeth, Miller-Rushing, Abraham J, Marrs, Rob, and Mulligan, Adrian. 2009. “Do Gender, Nationality, or Academic Age Affect Review Decisions? An Analysis of Submissions to the Journal.” Biological Conservation 142(11):2415–2418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafols, Ismael, Leydesdorff, Loet, O’Hare, Alice, and Nightingale, Paul. 2012. “How Journal Rankings Can Suppress Interdisciplinary Research: A Comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management.” Research Policy 41(7):1262–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Ronald, and Leuven, K.U.. 2008. “Reflections on Recent Developments of the H-Index and H-type Indices.” COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 2(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stastny, Daniel. 2010. “Czech Economists on Economic Policy: A Survey”, Econ Journal Watch 7(3):275–287.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, Engelbert, Dammerer, Quirin, and Kapur, Sukriti. 2017. “The Research Excellence Framework 2014, Journal Ratings and the Marginalization of Heterodox Economics.” Working papers Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES):1715.Google Scholar
Tamblyn, Robyn, Girard, Nadyne, Qian, Christina J, and Hanley, James. 2018. “Assessment of Potential Bias in Research Grant Peer Review in Canada.” CMAJ 190:489–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vessuri, Hebe, Guédon, Jean-Claude, and Cetto, Ana Maria. 2014. “Excellence or Quality? Impact of the Current Competition Regime on Science and Scientific Publishing in Latin America and its Implications for Development.” Current Sociology 62(5):647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Jian, Veugelers, Reinhilde, and Stephan, Paula. 2017. “Bias Against Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators.” Research Policy 46(8):1416–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilsdon, James. 2006. The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London and New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Williams, Wendy M., and Ceci, Stephen J. 2015. “National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on STEM Tenure Track.” PNAS 112(17):5360–5365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, Yu, Shauman, Kimberlee A. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zacchia, Giulia. 2017. “Diversity in Economics: A Gender Analysis of Italian Academic Production.” INET WP 61 https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_61-Zacchia-Diversity-Final.pdf (last accessed January 14, 2020).Google Scholar