Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks

Science Advances

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Clauset, Aaron ^a,b,c   Arbesman, Samuel ^d   Larremore, Daniel B ^e  

^a University of Colorado   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^c SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d EWING MARION KAUFFMAN FOUNDATION   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ACADEMIC SYSTEM; HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES; JOB MARKET; RESEARCH PRIORITIES; SOCIAL INEQUALITIES;

EMPLOYMENT;

EID: 85011423303     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23752548     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400005     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. R. L. Geiger, Knowledge and Money (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, 2004).
2. E. B. Petersen, Negotiating academicity: Postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work. Stud. High. Educ. 32, 475-487 (2007).
3. D. Cyranoski, N. Gilbert, H. Ledford, A. Nayar, M. Yahia, The PhD factory. Nature 472, 276-279 (2011).
4. The Royal Society, The Scientific Century: Securing our Future Prosperity (The Royal Society, London, 2010).
5. J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (Doubleday Books, New York, 2004).
6. J. Henrich, F. J. Gil-White, The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22, 165-196 (2001).
7. S.-K. Han, Tribal regimes in academia: A comparative analysis of market structure across disciplines. Soc. Networks 25, 251-280 (2003).
8. V. Buris, The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69, 239-264 (2004).
9. National Research Council, Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2010).
10. M. N. Bastedo, N. A. Bowman, U.S. News & World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. Am. J. Educ. 116, 163-183 (2010).
11. J. R. Cole, Too big to fail, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011; http: //chronicle. com/article/Too-Big-to-Fail/127212/.
12. The World Factbook 2013-14 (Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC, 2013).
13. D. Kahneman, P. P. Wakker, R. Sarin, Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Q. J. Econ. 112, 375-406 (1997).
14. H. de Vries, Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: A new procedure and review. Anim. Behav. 55, 827-843 (1998).
15. J. Park, Diagrammatic perturbation methods in networks and sports ranking combinatorics. J. Stat. Mech. P04006 (2010).
16. J. A. Hanley, B. J. McNeil, The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143, 29-36 (1982).
17. P. Csermely, A. London, L.-Y. Wu, B. Uzzi, Structure and dynamics of core-periphery networks. J. Complex Netw. 1, 93-123 (2013).
18. P. Bonacich, Power and centrality: A family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92, 1170-1182 (1987).
19. M. Newman, Networks: An Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2010).
20. D. J. Watts, S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature 393, 440-442 (1998).
21. R. Axelrod, An evolutionary approach to norms. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 80, 1095-1111 (1986).
22. S. J. Ceci, W. M. Williams, Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3157-3162 (2011).
23. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, J. Handelsman, Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 16474-16479 (2012).
24. S. Knobloch-Westerwick, C. J. Glynn, M. Huge, The Matilda effect in science communication. Sci. Commun. 35, 603-625 (2013).
25. S. A. Myers, P. J. Mucha, M. A. Porter, Mathematical genealogy and department prestige. Chaos 21, 041104 (2011).
26. R. Amir, M. Knauff, Ranking economics departments worldwide on the basis of PhD placement. Rev. Econ. Stat. 90, 185-190 (2008).
27. D. M. Katz, J. R. Gubler, J. Zelner, M. J. Bommarito II, E. A. Provins, E. M. Ingall, Reproduction of hierarchy? A social network analysis of the American law professoriate. J. Legal Educ. 61, 1-28 (2011).
28. R. A. Hanneman, The prestige of Ph.D. granting departments of sociology: A simple network approach. Connections 24, 68-77 (2001).
29. B. M. Schmidt, M. M. Chingos, Ranking doctoral programs by placement: A new method. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 40, 523-529 (2007).
30. J. H. Fowler, B. Grofman, N. Masuoka, Social networks in political science: Hiring and placement of Ph.D.s, 1960-2002. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 40, 729-739 (2007).
31. C. C. Miller, W. H. Glick, L. B. Cardinal, The allocation of prestigious positions in organizational science: Accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 489-516 (2005).
32. P. Deville, D. Wang, R. Sinatra, C. Song, V. D. Blondel, A.-L. Barabási, Career on the move: Geography, stratification, and scientific impact. Sci. Rep. 4, 4470 (2014).
33. S. Bowles, S. N. Durlauf, K. Hoff, Eds. Poverty Traps (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006).
34. M. E. J. Newman, G. T. Barkema, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999).
35. B. Efron, R. J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1994).
36. S. P. Borgatti, Centrality and network flow. Soc. Networks 27, 55-71 (2005).
37. M. Molloy, B. A. Reed, A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random Struct. Algor. 6, 161-180 (1995).
38. P. Boldi, S. Vigna, Axioms for centrality. Internet Math. 10, 222-262 (2014).
39. M. Clarke, A. P. Sanoff, M. Savino, A. Usher, College and University Ranking Systems: Global Perspectives and American Challenges (Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC, 2007), pp. 9-21.
40. National Research Council, Research Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1995).
41. T. J. Webster, A principal component analysis of the U.S. News & World Report tier rankings of colleges and universities. Econ. Educ. Rev. 20, 235-244 (2001).
42. G. Leef, M. Lowrey, Do college rankings mean anything? Inquiry 17, 1-9 (2004).
43. M. Meredith, Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News & World Report college rankings. Res. High. Educ. 45, 443-461 (2004).
44. K. O'Meara, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, J. C. Smart, Ed. (Springer, New York, 2007), vol. XXII, pp. 121-179.
45. N. A. Bowman, M. N. Bastedo, Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News & World Report on student decisions. Res. High. Educ. 50, 415-436 (2009).
46. D. J. Tancredi, K. D. Bertakis, A. Jerant, Short-term stability and spread of the U.S. News & World Report primary care medical school rankings. Acad. Med. 88, 1107-1115 (2013).
47. E. Grimson, Dangers of rankings with inaccurate data. Comput. Res. News 22, 1-4 (2010).
48. L. Wasserman, All of Nonparametric Statistics (Springer, New York, 2007).
49. M. Girvan, M. E. J. Newman, Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 7821-7826 (2002).