<\/p>\n
Send us gasp-worthy graphs that you think should be linked to or listed on this website! Email Jenny Mansbridge (jane_mansbridge@harvard.edu) with suggestions.<\/p>\n
GRAPHS TO MAKE YOU GASP #1:<\/span><\/p>\n “Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability” Gender differences in task allocations may sustain vertical gender segregation in labor markets. We examine the allocation of a task that everyone prefers be completed by someone else (writing a report, serving on a committee, etc.) and find evidence that women, more than men, volunteer, are asked to volunteer, and accept requests to volunteer for such tasks. Beliefs that women, more than men, say yes to tasks with low promotability appear as an important driver of these differences. If women hold tasks that are less promotable than those held by men, then women will progress more slowly in organizations. American Economic Review<\/em> 2017, 107(3): 714-747. View it Here!<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n \n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #2:<\/span> In Economics, women who single-author papers\u00a0are just as likely to get tenure as men who single-author papers.\u00a0 But the more papers a woman\u00a0co-authors<\/em>, the less likely\u00a0she is to get tenure.\u00a0 Men\u00a0are not penalized for co-authorship when coming up for tenure; women are. In further analysis, the penalty for co-authorship appears only when women co-author with men and disappears when women co-author\u00a0with other women. One possible mechanism is that men\u2019s names are remembered (perhaps because their names are known through friendship networks) and so they get more of the credit for co-authored papers. Another is that, as experimental studies on teamwork show, women are less likely to take credit publicly than men in mixed-gender teams, but not when the work is with other women.\u00a0 Another is simple discrimination.\u00a0 (Source:\u00a0 Heather Sarsons, “Gender Differences in Recognition for Group Work,” August 9, 2015.)\u00a0 For newspaper coverage, see:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/wonk\/wp\/2015\/11\/13\/why-men-get-all-the-credit-when-they-work-with-women\/.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #3:<\/span><\/p>\n Although both female and male assistant and associate professors (both categories are untenured at Harvard) lose about the same number of hours in their work week (about 5 hours a week) when they have a child, women faculty with children report spending, on average, 17-20 more hours a week than their male peers with children \u201cengaged in household, childcare, and\/or adult care duties.\u201d The difference for the women faculty presumably comes in the loss of leisure and\/or sleep. (Source Harvard University 2013 Faculty Climate Survey: https:\/\/www.faculty.harvard.edu\/sites\/default\/files\/FCS16final.pdf)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #4:<\/span><\/p>\n Except in Perspectives on Politics<\/em>, Political Theory<\/em>, and Comparative Politics<\/em>, the percentage of women publishing in the major political science journals is considerably less than the percentage of women in the association.\u00a0\u00a0(Source:\u00a0 Dawn Langan Teele and Kathleen Thelen, \u201cGender and Publication in Political Science,\u201d Presentation at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.\u00a0 See teele@sas.upenn.edu<\/a> and kthelen@mit.edu<\/a> for details.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #5:<\/span><\/p>\n Women are less likely than men to cite their own papers, whether the papers are single-authored or co-authored.\u00a0\u00a0 (Data drawn from Daniel Maliniak, Ryan Powers and Barbara F. Walter, “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations” 2013. International Organization <\/em>67 (4): 889-922).The same article reports that \u201cscholars tend to cite work by scholars of the same gender.<\/em> This does not necessarily pose a problem for citation counts if a field has a fairly equal number of male and female scholars. If, however, a field is heavily dominated by men, as is the case in IR, then this pattern will lead to significantly fewer citations for women and significantly less exposure for their scholarship. \u2026Scholars [also] tend to cite scholars they know\u2026. If networks tend to bifurcate along gender lines, then any field that is disproportionately male will also disproportionately favor their work\u201d (Maliniak, Powers & Walter 2013: 918, emphasis ours). The CSWP notes that many fields in political science are gender-imbalanced and most friendship networks in political science have a strong gender component. The imbalance in citations is thus likely to apply in many fields.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #6:<\/span><\/p>\n On RateMyProfessor.com, students use the word \u201cbrilliant\u201d more often to describe male than female professors. They also use the word more in Political Science<\/span> than in any other field except Philosophy.\u00a0 This graph comes from an online interactive tool developed by Benjamin Schmidt (Northwestern), which\u00a0lets you choose your own words and search to see whether those are used more to describe women than men or vice versa in the different disciplines.\u00a0\u00a0Click Here!<\/a>\u00a0 to use\u00a0this tool\u00a0yourself and choose your own words. (Try \u201carrogant.\u201d)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #7:<\/span><\/p>\n The more that academics in a field think that \u201cBeing a top scholar of [discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can\u2019t be taught\u201d and other questions designed to measure a belief in the requirement of innate brilliance, the fewer women are in that field.\u00a0\u00a0 Compare Math and Physics to Neuroscience and Molecular Biology, and Philosophy to Psychology. Political Science falls in the middle on both measures. If one were to look at subfields within political science, one might find the same pattern. (Source: Sarah-Jane Leslie<\/a>, Andrei Cimpian<\/a>, Meredith Meyer<\/a> and Edward Freeland<\/a>, 2015. \u201cExpectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines.\u201d Science <\/em>347 (6219): 262-265.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #8:<\/span><\/p>\n Although in small courses students evaluate women instructors as highly or even better than men, in moderately sized or large courses they evaluate women systematically lower. The differences might derive from stereotypes of female nurturance and male authority. Tenure and promotion committees should recognize these consistent biases. (Source: Lisa Martin, \u201cGender, Teaching Evaluations, and Professional Success in Political Science.\u201d 2016. PS: Political Science and Politics<\/i> 49 (2): 313 \u2013 319.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #9:<\/span><\/p>\n The table above signifies the unintended consequences of extending the Tenure Clock for females (Source: Heather Antecol, Kelly Bedard, and Jenna Stearns, “Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies?” Apr. 18, 2016. Discussion Paper Series.<\/i> PDF Here<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #10<\/span><\/p>\n CAN YOU FIND THE ARTICLES BY WOMEN<\/strong>?\u00a0 (HINT:\u00a0 LOOK FOR THE GREEN<\/strong><\/span>)<\/span><\/p>\n Notes<\/i>: Green nodes are authored by all females. Red nodes are authored by all males. Blue notes are authored by at least one male and at least one female. The size of the node is proportional to its HITS centrality score<\/p>\n FIGURE 2<\/strong>. Visualization of citation network<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This figure shows that in International Relations, in general authors cite articles written by female authors\u00a0less than articles by men; moreover, authors of the most influential articles cite articles by female authors less often.\u00a0 (The size of circle in the figure derives both from the numbers of times an article is cited and from the numbers of times the citing author is cited by others.)\u00a0 Friendship networks may have an effect: Men tend to cite male-authored articles more than average and women tend to cite female-authored articles more than average.\u00a0 Men also are about half again as likely as women to cite their own single-authored work (difference significant at the .001 level; see Gasp-worthy Graph #5 at link). (Source:\u00a0 Daniel Maliniak, Ryan Powers and Barbara F. Walter, “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations” 2013. International Organization <\/em>67 (4): 889-922: 912.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #11<\/span><\/p>\n The Figure above shows the Mean number of self-cites per authorship by the number of authors on a paper, in JSTOR, 1779-2011. Results are truncated at 20 authors because, given small sample sizes, the data become excessively noisy beyond that threshold. (Source: Molly M. King, Carl T. Bergstrom, Shelley J. Correll, Jennifer Jacquet, and Jevin D. West, “Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time” Copyright, 2016. PDF Here<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #12:<\/span><\/p>\n Bursztyn, Fujiwara, and Pallais Figure 8, p.28) present evidence suggesting that single women avoid signaling career ambition that could hurt them on the marriage market.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GASP-WORTHY GRAPH #13<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/web.apsanet.org\/cswp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2015\/08\/CSWP-volunteerism-graph.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nBy Linda Babcock, Maria P. Recalde, Lise Vesterlund, and Laurie Weingart<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n