Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 989–1006 | Cite as

The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy

Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

In this paper we aim to understand if gender makes a difference in the path to promotion to full professor in Italian universities, drawing on data from 2013 to 2016. The new promotion system pursuant Gelmini Law (210/2010) in Italy implies to go through two steps. First, they have to obtain the national ASN system (fit-for-the-role national filter), based on merit measured via bibliometric and non-bibliometric indicators. This step does not mean to get a position, it only means to be able to apply for it at institutional level. We believe that discrimination based on gender may happen especially at institutional level as in comparison to ASN there is less transparency and more autonomy at institutional level. It is also hypothesised that discrimination based on gender may differ according to the percentage of women already at full professor rank by disciplinary field. We investigate gender inequality using a binary variable (promoted or not promoted along 2013 until 2016) controlling by scientific productivity, normalised number of available vacancies, result of national research evaluation (VQR—department of candidate’s affiliation), age, current rank-and-file position. Multilevel logistic regression demonstrates that among those who obtained the ASN and at parity of other conditions, men have around 24% more probability to be promoted at parity of scientific production, which reveals a relevant gender discrimination. Our findings have implications on theory about inequality regimes and might serve to reflect on how to improve practices at institutional level.

Keywords

Career advancement Promotion rate Scientific productivity Gender gap Universities Italy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2013). National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case. Scientometrics, 95(1), 311–324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0875-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015a). An assessment of the first “scientific habilitation” for university appointments in Italy. Economia Politica, 32(3), 329–357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-015-0016-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015b). The VQR, Italy’s second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2202–2214.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2016). Refrain from adopting the combination of citation and journal metrics to grade publications, as used in the Italian national research assessment exercise (VQR 2011–2014). Scientometrics, 109(3), 2053–2065.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2153-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009a). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 81(1), 137.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2131-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009b). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79(3), 517–539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2014). Career advancement and scientific performance in universities. Scientometrics, 98(2), 891–907.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1075-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2015a). The determinants of academic career advancement: Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 42(6), 761–774.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu086.Google Scholar
  10. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2015b). Selection committees for academic recruitment: Does gender matter? Research Evaluation, 24(4), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2016). Gender bias in academic recruitment. Scientometrics, 106(1), 119–141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1783-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2017). How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: Evidence from Italy. Scientometrics, 110(2), 867–877.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2193-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Viel, F. (2010). Peer review research assessment: A sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated. Scientometrics, 85(3), 705–720.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0238-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Acker, S., & Armenti, C. (2004). Sleepless in academia. Gender and Education, 16(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Aiston, S. J., & Jung, J. (2015). Women academics and research productivity: an international comparison. Gender and Education, 27(3), 205–220.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1024617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers—A feminist investigation. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(2), 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2017). Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter? American Economic Review, 107(4), 1207–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Barrett, L., & Barrett, P. (2011). Women and academic workloads: Career slow lane or Cul-de-Sac? Higher Education, 61(2), 141–155.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bozzon, R., Murgia, A., Poggio, B., & Rapetti, E. (2017). Work–life interferences in the early stages of academic careers: The case of precarious researchers in Italy. European Educational Research Journal, 16(2–3), 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in Ph.D. exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Prentice-Hall: Emerald Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Coate, K., & Howson, C. K. (2014). Indicators of esteem: Gender and prestige in academic work. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1–19.Google Scholar
  26. Danell, R., & Hjerm, M. (2013). Career prospects for female university researchers have not improved. Scientometrics, 94(3), 999–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0840-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2015). Gender discrimination and evaluators’ gender: Evidence from Italian academia. Economica, 82(325), 162–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Deem, R. (2009). Leading and managing contemporary UK Universities: Do excellence and meritocracy still prevail over diversity? Higher Education Policy, 22(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  30. EC. (2012). Structural change in research institutions. Enhancing excellence, gender equality and efficiency in research and innovation. Retrieved from Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  31. EC. (2016). She Figures 2015. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  32. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, K., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fassa, F., & Kradolfer, S. (2013). The gendering of excellence through quality criteria: The case of the Swiss national science foundation professorships in Switzerland. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(3), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fletcher, C., Boden, R., Kent, J., & Tinson, J. (2007). Performing Women: The gendered dimensions of the uk new research economy. Gender, Work & Organization, 14(5), 433–453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00359.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705046630.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2017). Critical remarks on the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011–2014. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 337–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fuchs, S., von Stebut, J., & Allmendinger, J. (2001). Gender, science, and scientific organizations in Germany. Minerva, 39(2), 175–201.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010380510013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gherardi, S., & Poggio, B. (2001). Creating and recreating gender order in organizations. Journal of World Business, 36(3), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heijstra, T., Bjarnason, T., & Rafnsdóttir, G. L. (2015). Predictors of gender inequalities in the rank of full professor. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, W. B. (2007). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Ledwith, S., & Manfredi, S. (2000). Balancing gender in higher education: A study of the experience of senior women in a ‘New’ UK University. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(1), 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis, S., & Humbert, L. (2010). Discourse or reality?: “Work-life balance”, flexible working policies and the gendered organization. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marini, G. (2016). New promotion patterns in Italian universities: Less seniority and more productivity? Data from ASN. Higher Education, 1–17.Google Scholar
  45. Marzolla, M. (2016). Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: The case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 408–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morley, L. (2013). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1), 116–131.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.740888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morley, L. (2014). Lost leaders: Women in the global academy. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Perna, L. W. (2001). Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex differences in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46(3), 277–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rafnsdóttir, G. L., & Heijstra, T. M. (2013). Balancing work–family life in academia: The power of time. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(3), 283–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00571.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. (2009). Gender (in) equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(3), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosser, S. V. (2004). The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. In. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sang, K., Powell, A., Finkel, R., & Richards, J. (2015). ‘Being an academic is not a 9–5 job’: Long working hours and the ‘ideal worker’in UK academia. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 25(3), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Savigny, H. (2014). Women, know your limits: Cultural sexism in academia. Gender and Education, 26(7), 794–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & DiCrisi, F. A. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, E. (2011). Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 993–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 891–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toffoletti, K., & Starr, K. (2016). Women academics and work-life balance: Gendered discourses of work and care. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(5), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Umbach, P. D. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labor market: An analysis of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, 20(3), 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012a). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012b). Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(1), 71–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00566.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2014). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 460–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y., & Jansen, W. (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality? Organization Studies, 31(11), 1459–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weisshaar, K. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in Academia. Social Forces, 1–31.Google Scholar
  68. Winslow, S. (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender & Society, 24(6), 769–793.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210386728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Woodward, D. (2007). Work-life balancing strategies used by women managers in British “modern” universities. Equal Opportunities International, 26(1), 6–17.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150710726507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Global Higher EducationUniversity College London, Institute of EducationLondonUK
  2. 2.Huddersfield Business SchoolUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations