Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.
Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.
复制标题
特定领域的能力信念作为学术职业轨迹中性别差异的解释：来自 ORCID.Org 上公开资料的证据。
DOI：
10.1037/pspa0000348
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Cimpian, Andrei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hannak, Aniko;Joseph, Kenneth;Larremore, Daniel B.;Cimpian, Andrei
学术领域显示出相当程度的性别隔离。在这里，我们调查了特定领域的能力信念（FABs）的差异，作为对这种现象的解释。FAB可能会导致性别隔离，因为他们将成功描绘为取决于“辉煌”（即卓越的智力能力），这是一种文化上与男性而不是女性相关的特质。虽然先前的工作已经记录了学术领域的FAB与其性别组成之间的关系，但仍然不清楚是什么潜在的动态导致学术界的性别不平衡作为FAB的功能。为了深入了解这一问题，我们定制了一个新的数据集，将来自作者跟踪服务开放研究员和贡献者ID（ORCID）的信息与来自30个领域的美国学者调查的信息相结合。使用这个扩展的纵向数据集（Ns= 86，879 - 364，355），我们发现，女性在进入以服从为导向的FAB领域的人中代表性不足，而在退出这些领域的人中代表性过高。我们还发现，FAB与女性在学术领域的过渡的关联远远强于与男性过渡的关联。在机制方面，性别歧视与性别隔离之间的联系部分是因为妇女在性别歧视领域遇到更多的偏见。由于其重点是动态模式塑造隔离和其广泛的范围内的地理，职业生涯阶段和历史时间，这项研究作出了重要贡献，了解在学术界的性别隔离的驱动因素。
Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on “brilliance”(ie, exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields’ FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of US academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (Ns= 86,879–364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who enter fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who exit these fields. We also found that FABs’ association with women’s transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men’s transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs’ association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia.