Gender, productivity, and prestige in computer science faculty hiring networks

25th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2016

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 1169-1179

  Way, Samuel F ^a   Larremore, Daniel B ^b   Clauset, Aaron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Data science; Em ployment networks; Gender; Modeling; Network analysis; Social dynamics

Indexed keywords

ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; EMPLOYMENT; MODELS; PRODUCTIVITY; SOCIAL SCIENCES; WORLD WIDE WEB;

COVARIATES; DATA SCIENCE; GENDER; GENDER DIFFERENCES; MODEL ERRORS; MULTI DIMENSIONAL; NETWORK MODELING; SOCIAL DYNAMICS;

COMPUTER NETWORKS;

EID: 84984667029     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2872427.2883073     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. W. R. Allen, E. G. Epps, E. A. Guillory, S. A. Suh, and M. Bonous-Hammarth. The black academic: Faculty status among African Americans in U.S. higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 69:112-127, 2000.
2. N. Bassett-Jones. The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14:169-175, 2005.
3. M. N. Bastedo and N. A. Bowman. U.S. News & World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education, 116:163-183, 2010.
4. D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:993-1022, 2003.
5. Catalyst Information Center. Why diversity matters. http://bit.ly/1OEJjFU. Accessed 22 November 2015, 2013.
6. S. J. Ceci, D. K. Ginther, S. Kahn, and W. M. Williams. Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psych. Sci. Public Interest, 15(3):75-141, 2014.
7. S. J. Ceci and W. M. Williams. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108(8):3157-3162, 2011.
8. B. Chang. Dispelling computer science gender myths: Perceived confidence levels between undergraduate men and women. B.S.Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.
9. A. Clauset, S. Arbesman, and D. B. Larremore. Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances, 1(1):e1400005, 2015.
10. J. R. Cole. Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
11. J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman. The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, pages 217-258, 1984.
12. S. J. Correll. Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-Assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6):1691-1730, 2001.
13. F. J. Crosby, A. Iyer, S. Clayton, and R. A. Downing. Afirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58:93-115, 2003.
14. H. de Vries. Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: A new procedure and review. Animal Behavior, 55:827-843, 1998.
15. J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner. Afirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4):51-75, 1996.
16. N. Ellemers. Women at work: How organizational features impact career development. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci., 1(1):1-9, 2014.
17. J. Henrich and F. J. Gil-White. The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22:165-196, 2001.
18. C. Hill, C. Corbett, and A. St Rose. Why so few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. ERIC, 2010.
19. L. Hong and B. D. Davison. Empirical study of topic modeling in Twitter. In Proc. First Workshop on Social Media Analytics, pages 80-88. ACM, 2010.
20. R. Ilies, N. Hauserman, S. Schwochau, and J. Stibal. Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the united states: Using meta-Analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56(3):607-631, 2003.
21. A. Kaatz, B. Gutierrez, and M. Carnes. Threats to objectivity in peer review: The case of gender. Trends Pharmacol. Sci., 35(8):371-373, 2014.
22. W. Kets and A. Sandroni. Challenging conformity: A case for diversity. MPRA Paper No. 68166, December 2015.
23. J. Kleinberg and S. Oren. Dynamic models of reputation and competition in job-market matching. In Proc. 2015 Conf. on Innovations in Theoretical Comp. Sci., pages 51-60. ACM, 2015.
24. L. R. Lattuca. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty. Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.
25. S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219):262-265, 2015.
26. J. S. Long. Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1):159-178, 1992.
27. D. I. Miller and J. Wai. The bachelor's to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: A 30-year analysis. Frontiers in Psych., 6:37, 2015.
28. M. Molloy and B. A. Reed. A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random Structures and Algorithms, 6(2/3):161-180, 1995.
29. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109(41):16474-16479, 2012.
30. M. E. J. Newman. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
31. S. E. Page. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press, 2008.
32. G. Robins, P. Pattison, Y. Kalish, and D. Lusher. An introduction to exponential random graph (p) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2):173-191, 2007.
33. J. M. Sheltzer and J. C. Smith. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111(28):10107-10112, 2014.
34. H. Shen. Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439):22-24, 2013.
35. J. L. Smith, I. M. Handley, A. V. Zale, S. Rushing, and M. A. Potvin. Now hiring! Empirically testing a three-step intervention to increase faculty gender diversity in stem. BioScience, 65(11):1084-1087, 2015.
36. S. M. Van Anders. Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51(9-10):511-521, 2004.
37. P. van Arensbergen, I. van der Weijden, and P. van den Besselaar. Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93:857-868, 2012.
38. R. van der Lee and N. Ellemers. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112(40):12349-12353, 2015.
39. W. M. Williams and S. J. Ceci. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112(17):5360-5365, 2015.
40. K. R. Wyche. Good Is Not Enough: And Other Unwritten Rules for Minority Professionals. Penguin Publishing Group, 2009.
41. Y. Xie and K. A. Shauman. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. Am. Sociol. Rev., 63(6):847-870, 1998.