Gender Differences In Productivity Research Articles

Gender differentials on productivity of rice farmers in south western Nigeria: An Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition approach

Gender differences in productivity are one of the major obstacles impeding the development of agriculture in Africa and Nigerian particularly. With the Oaxaca-Blinder (OB) and exogenous switching treatment regression (ESTER) models, this study investigates the causes of the productivity differences among 360 sampled rice farmers in Nigeria as well as gender inequality in agricultural productivity. The findings showed that there is an inequalities between men and women, which contributes to a gender productivity gap of almost 29 % in favour of men. As a result, plots managed by women are 29 % less productive than plots handled by men. The analysis of the factors influencing gender variations in production reveals that the endowment component, which accounts for 15 % of the productivity gap, is significantly influenced by marital status, education, farm size, and access to market information. Similarly, the ESTER results show that the rice yield of FHHs would have decreased by 25.41 kg/ha (a 1.02 % reduction) if they had been assigned the same returns to the observed features of MHHs. This difference is significant at the 1 % level. Thus, the findings imply that the FHHs are not at a yield disadvantage when compared to the MHHs. Therefore, it can be said that there are gender productivity disparities in the Nigerian agricultural industry. As such, policy interventions aimed at empowering women must take these disparities into consideration as well as the causes that contribute to them. Overall, the results demonstrate that although policymakers and their development partners can use improved technologies to increase MHH and FHH yields, reducing the difference in market linkages is necessary to close the gender gap in rice productivity and provide FHHs with equal access to the market.

Understanding Gender Differences in Research Productivity of Canadian Otolaryngologists-A Comprehensive National Audit.

Objective: To understand the factors contributing to gender disparities in the research productivity of Canadian academic otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons. Methods: Publicly available sources including departmental websites, SCOPUS, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada were accessed between February and April 2022 to analyze gender differences in the academic productivity of otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons across Canada. Gender differences in research productivity metrics, including h-index, i10-index, publication number, and number of first and senior authorships were assessed. Demographic data, including gender, institution, years in practice, and leadership roles were assessed for correlation with increased research productivity. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate gender differences in productivity metrics, and univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of research productivity. Results: Data were collected for 316 academic otolaryngologists (252 men, 64 women, P < .001). Men had significantly more years of publishing [mean (standard deviation, SD), 15.64 (9.45) vs 12.44 (8.28), P = .014], higher h-indices [12.22 (11.47) vs 7.33 (5.36), P < .001], i10-indices [22.61 (37.88) vs 8.17 (9.14), P > .001], publication numbers [46.63 (65.18) vs 19.59 (23.40), P < .001], and first [8.18 (9.95) vs 4.89 (6.18), P = .001] and senior authorships [12.98 (22.72) vs 3.83 (6.89), P < .001]. Gender differences were most pronounced in head and neck oncology, pediatrics, and the late career stage. Gender disparities in productivity were absent in the early career stage. Multivariate analysis identified only the number publications and number of senior author publications as being significantly influenced by gender. Conclusion: Canadian female otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeons appear to have equivalent research productivity to their male counterparts in the early career stage. This mirrors the recent findings in the United States, and demonstrates progress compared to earlier studies that found women to have lower research productivity in the early career stage.

Gender differences in dentistry and oral sciences research productivity by researchers in Nigeria.

The aim of the study was to assess gender differences in the productivity, impact, collaboration pattern and author position of dentistry and oral sciences researchers in Nigeria. We examined the Web of Science (WoS) publication records of dentistry and oral sciences researchers to assess gender differences in productivity, impact, collaboration and authorship pattern (first authorship, last authorship and corresponding author). The analysis included the number of publications in journals ranked based on their quartile rating amongst the journals in the subject area (Q1-Q4). Chi square was used to make gender comparisons. Significance was set at >5%. 413 unique authors published 1,222 articles on dentistry and oral sciences between 2012 and 2021. The number of WoS documents per female author was significantly higher than that per male author (3.7 vs. 2.6, p = 0.03). A non-significantly higher percentage of females authored papers in Q2 and Q3 journals and a higher percentage of males authored papers in Q4 journals. The number of citations per female author (25.0 vs. 14.9, p = 0.04) and the percentage of females listed as first authors (26.6% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.048) were statistically greater than men. The percentage of males listed as last authors was statistically greater than females (23.6% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.04). The correlation between the percentage of papers with researchers listed as first authors and that listed as last authors was not significant for males (p = 0.06) but was significant for females (p = 0.002). A non-significantly greater percentage of females were listed as corresponding authors (26.4% vs. 20.6%) and males were listed as international (27.4% vs. 25.1%) and domestic collaborators (46.8% vs. 44.7%). Also, there was no statistically significant gender difference in the proportion of articles published in open access journals (52.5% vs. 52.0%). Though there were significant gender differences in the productivity, impact, and collaboration profile of dentistry and oral sciences researchers in Nigeria, the higher female research productivity and impact may be driven by cultural gender nuances that needs to be explored further.

The gendered division of paid and domestic work under lockdown

AbstractThis paper provides novel empirical evidence on the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the division of labour between parents of school‐aged children in two‐parent opposite‐gender families. In line with existing evidence, we find that mothers’ paid work took a larger hit than that of fathers, and that mothers spent substantially longer doing childcare and housework than their partners. We go further to show that these gender differences cannot be explained by gender differences in the industries and occupations in which parents worked prior to the lockdown. Nor can they be explained by gender differences in earnings prior to the crisis: independently of which parent earned the most before the pandemic, it tended to be the mothers who adjusted time spent on paid and unpaid work more significantly. This is the case even in households where only one partner remained active in paid work. While we cannot fully rule out that these asymmetric responses are explained by gender differences in productivity in domestic work, our results do suggest that other factors, such as gender norms, may play an important role.

What Drives the Gender Wage Gap? Examining the Roles of Sorting, Productivity Differences, Bargaining, and Discrimination

Abstract As in other OECD countries, women in New Zealand earn substantially less than men with similar observable characteristics. In this paper, we use fifteen years of linked employer-employee data to examine different explanations for this gender wage gap. We find an overall gender wage gap between 20% and 28%, of which gender differences in sorting across occupations explain 9%, across industries 16% to 19%, and across firms 5% to 9%, respectively. The remaining within-firm gender wage gap is still between 13% and 17%. Around 5 percentage points of this are explained by women being less willing to bargain or less successful at bargaining to capture firm-specific rents. Gender differences in productivity also explain at most 4.5 percentage points of this remaining gap. These results suggest that taste discrimination is also important for explaining why women are paid less than their relative contribution to firm output. Across-industry and over-time variation in the gender wage-productivity gap further support this conclusion.

Identifying gender disparities in research performance: the importance of comparing apples with apples

Many studies on research productivity and performance suggest that men consistently outperform women. However, women and men are spread unevenly throughout the academy both horizontally (e.g., by scientific field) and vertically (e.g., by academic position), suggesting that aggregate numbers (comparing all men with all women) may reflect the different publication practices in different corners of the academy rather than gender per se. We use Norwegian bibliometric data to examine how the “what” (which publication practices are measured) and the “who” (how the population sample is disaggregated) matter in assessing apparent gender differences among academics in Norway. We investigate four clusters of indicators related to publication volume, publication type, authorship, and impact or quality (12 indicators in total) and explore how disaggregating the population by scientific field, institutional affiliation, academic position, and age changes the gender gaps that appear at the aggregate level. For most (but not all) indicators, we find that gender differences disappear or are strongly reduced after disaggregation. This suggests a composition effect, whereby apparent gender differences in productivity can to a considerable degree be ascribed to the composition of the group examined and the different publication practices common to specific groups. We argue that aggregate figures can exaggerate some gender disparities while obscuring others. Our study illustrates the situated nature of research productivity and the importance of comparing men and women within similar academic positions or scientific fields—of comparing apples with apples—when using bibliometric indicators to identify gender disparities in research productivity.

Gender issues in fundamental physics: Strumia’s bibliometric analysis fails to account for key confounders and confuses correlation with causation

Alessandro Strumia recently published a survey of gender differences in publications and citations in high-energy physics (HEP). In addition to providing full access to the data, code, and methodology, Strumia (2020) systematically describes and accounts for gender differences in HEP citation networks. His analysis points both to ongoing difficulties in attracting women to high-energy physics and an encouraging-though slow-trend in improvement. Unfortunately, however, the time and effort Strumia (2020) devoted to collating and quantifying the data are not matched by a similar rigour in interpreting the results. To support his conclusions, he selectively cites available literature and fails to adequately adjust for a range of confounding factors. For example, his analyses do not consider how unobserved factors - e.g., a tendency to overcite well-known authors-drive a wedge between quality and citations and correlate with author gender. He also fails to take into account many structural and non-structural factors - including, but not limited to, direct discrimination and the expectations women form (and actions they take) in response to it-that undoubtedly lead to gender differences in productivity. We therefore believe that a number of Strumia's conclusions are not supported by his analysis. Indeed, we re-analyse a subsample of solo-authored papers from his data, adjusting for year and journal of publication, authors' research age and their lifetime fame. Our re-analysis suggests that female-authored papers are actually cited more than male-authored papers. This finding is inconsistent with the greater male variability hypothesis Strumia (2020) proposes to explain many of his results.

The importance of collaboration and supervisor behaviour for gender differences in doctoral student performance and early career development

ABSTRACT This article provides an explanation for previously observed gender differences in scientific performance during doctoral studies and the early career. Data is based on doctoral students in science, technology, and medicine at a Swedish university. We collected information on each doctoral student's publication and employment history. We also created publication histories for the doctoral candidates main supervisors. The data was supplemented with information on gender, age, and research area. Informed by theories on academic socialization, our research questions focus on how gender differences in productivity during doctoral studies and the early career relate to research collaboration and behaviour/characteristics of the main supervisor. Results show that the gender gap in productivity during doctoral studies, and the early career, can be explained by the degree to which the doctoral students co-author publications with their main supervisors and the size of their collaborative networks.

The contribution of female health to economic development

AbstractWe analyse the economic consequences for poor countries of investing in female health within a unified growth model featuring health-related gender differences in productivity. Better female health accelerates the demographic transition and thereby the take-off towards sustained economic growth. By contrast, male health improvements delay the transition and take-off because they tend to raise fertility. However, households tend to prefer male health improvements over female health improvements because they imply a larger static utility gain. This highlights the existence of a dynamic trade-off between the short-run interests of households and long-run development goals.

‘Being good isn’t good enough’: gender discrimination in Italian academia

ABSTRACT The article analyses the effect of gender in professors’ career advancement using data on the entire population of professors in the Italian university system, data on the National Scientific Qualification (NSQ) accreditation scheme, and data on scientific productivity (SciVal) for bibliometric scientific sectors. As NSQ accreditation is a prerequisite for career advancement in Italian universities, using this data makes it possible to rule out women’s reluctance to apply for promotions -candidate professors must apply for accreditation- as a mechanism for explaining the gender gap in academia. Our results show a relevant gender gap in career advancement that is not explained by gender differences in productivity (above the minimum level needed to obtain the accreditation). A structural gender bias also remains after controlling for available resources and for the percentage of female full professors in the academic scientific sector. The results contribute to the debate on the introduction of gender quotas.

Gender differences in agricultural productivity: evidence from maize farm households in southern Ethiopia

This study examines the impact of gender differences on maize productivity in Dawuro Zone, southern Ethiopia. Our study addressed the limitations of the previous studies in two ways. First, the study separately assessed gender differences in productivity between de facto female-headed households and de jure female-headed households and revealed that female-headed households are not homogenous. Second, the study separately examined the impacts of the covariates on male-headed households and female-headed households using an exogenous switching treatment effect model. We find the existence of gender differences in maize productivity between male-headed households and female-headed households. The maize productivity of male-headed households was overall 44.3% higher than that of female-headed households. However, if female-headed households received the same return on their resources as male-headed households, their productivity would increase by 42.3%. This suggests agricultural policy should target female-headed households to help reduce the productivity gap between male-headed households and female-headed households. Finally, the distributions of the gender differentials between male-headed households and female-headed households are more pronounced at mid-levels of productivity.

Gender Differences in Academic Productivity and Advancement Among Dental School Faculty

Background: An equal number of women and men are now graduating from dental school, but women dentists have lower income and are less likely to achieve positions of leadership, including within dental academia. Materials and Methods: Demographic information and academic rank were obtained for all faculty at the eight dental schools who received the most funding from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research in 2017. Years since dental school graduation, total number of PubMed-indexed citations, first- and last-author publications, and H-index were determined for each faculty member. Gender differences in productivity and advancement were evaluated. Results: Of 702 faculty members, 36.5% were female; only 24.4% of full professors were women. Men had significantly higher numbers of publications (30.2 [95% confidence interval [CI, 28.6-39.5] vs. 20.4 [95% CI 16.3-24.6], p = 0.02) and higher H-index (8.2 [95% CI 7.1-9.1] vs. 4.7 [95% CI 3.9-5.5], p < 0.0001). Women had graduated more recently than their male colleagues at all levels of academic advancement (overall 22.83 years [95% CI 21.29-24.39] vs. 30.19 years [95% CI 28.84-31.55], p < 0.0001). When corrected for academic productivity and years since graduation, the association between gender and academic rank was not significant. Conclusions: Women are underrepresented at each academic rank except instructor; however, women may advance more quickly than their male counterparts. Increasing scholarship and mentorship opportunities for female faculty members may help improve gender equity in dental academia.

The (In)Significance of Socio-Demographic Factors as Possible Determinants of Vietnamese Social Scientists’ Contribution-Adjusted Productivity: Preliminary Results from 2008–2017 Scopus Data

As collaboration has become widespread in academia, and the number of authors per article has increased, the publication count is no longer an accurate indicator of scientific output in many cases. To overcome this limitation, this study defined and computed a relative count of publications called ‘CP’ (credit-based contribution points), based on the sequence-determines-credit (SDC) method, which takes into account the level of contribution of each author. Analyses were done on a sample of 410 Vietnamese social scientists whose publications were indexed in the Scopus database during 2008–2017. The results showed that the average CP of Vietnamese researchers in the field of social sciences and humanities is very low: more than 88% of authors have a CP less than five over a span 10 years. Researchers with a higher CP were mostly 40–50 years old; however, even for this sub-group, the mean CP was only 3.07. Multiple attributes of first-authorship—including knowledge, research skills, and critical thinking—could boost the CP by a ratio of 1:1.06. There is no evidence of gender differences in productivity, however, there is a regional difference. These findings offer significant insights into the education system in regard to science and technology, namely policy implications for science funding and management strategies for research funds.

What Drives the Gender Wage Gap? Examining the Roles of Sorting, Productivity Differences, and Discrimination.

As in other OECD countries, women in New Zealand earn substantially less than men with similar observable characteristics. In this paper, we use a decade of annual wage and productivity data from New Zealand’s Linked Employer-Employee Database to examine different explanations for this gender wage gap. Sorting by gender at either the industry or firm level explains less than one-fifth of the overall wage gap. Gender differences in productivity within firms also explain little of the difference seen in wages. The relationships between the gender wage-productivity gap and both age and tenure are inconsistent with statistical discrimination being an important explanatory factor for the remaining differences in wages. Relating across industry and over time variation in the gender wage-productivity gap to industry-year variation in worker skills, and product market and labour market competition, we find evidence that is consistent with taste discrimination being important for explaining the overall gender wage gap. Explanations based on gender differences in bargaining power are less consistent with our findings.

Write More Articles, Get More Grants: The Impact of Department Climate on Faculty Research Productivity.

Many studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty. Two waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010. Research productivity was measured as Number of Publications and Number of Grants awarded, and department climate was measured with scales for professional interactions, department decision-making practices, climate for underrepresented groups, and work/life balance. Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression methods were used to assess gender differences in productivity, influences of department climate on productivity, and gender differences in effects of climate on productivity. Female faculty published fewer articles and were awarded fewer grants in the baseline period, but their productivity did not differ from male faculty on these measures in subsequent years. Number of Publications was positively affected by professional interactions, but negatively affected by positive work/life balance. Number of Grants awarded was positively affected by climate for underrepresented groups. These main effects did not differ by gender; however, some three-way interactions illuminated how different aspects of department climate affected productivity differently for men and women in specific situations. In perhaps the first study to assess the longitudinal impact of department climate on faculty research productivity, positive department climate is associated with significantly greater productivity for all faculty-women and men. However, some positive aspects of climate (specifically, work/life balance) may be associated with lower productivity for some female faculty at specific career periods. These findings suggest that departments that wish to increase grants and publications would be wise to foster a positive workplace climate.

Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences Graduates

The aim of this study is to compare PhD students’ performance with respect to gender using a number of matching methods. The data consists of fine-grained information about PhD-students at the Institute of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark. Men and women are matched controlling for sub-disciplinary affiliation, education, year of enrolment and age. Publications and citations are identified in Web of Science. Our study shows that the average total number of publication is slightly higher for men than for women. Excluding the “other” group of publications from the analyses reveals that there is a negligible difference between men and women in terms of published articles. A substantial proportion of women is on maternity leave during the time period analysed and thus we would expect their productivity to be considerably lower. Similarly, we have found very little difference between the citation impact of men and women. We find matching methods to be a promising set of methods for evaluating productivity and impact of individuals from various sub-fields, universities and time periods as we are able to discard some of the underlying factors determining the results of analyses of gender differences in productivity and citation impact.

A Time (Not) Apart: A Lesson in Economic History from Cotton Picking Books

I use the individual-level records from my own family in rural Mississippi to estimate the agricultural productivity of African Americans in manual cotton picking nearly a century after Emancipation, 1952–1965. On average, the Logan children were more than 95 % as productive as enslaved children from the same region in the late antebellum era, 1850–1860. Gender differences in productivity were smaller than among enslaved children and disappeared by late pubescence. Additional qualitative evidence answers questions about agricultural productivity that cannot be derived from the quantitative data. For example, the method of cotton picking was not the gang-labor system described by some economic historians, but an independent process. The qualitative evidence also shows that economic roles were deeply intertwined with racial identity.

What Drives the Gender Gap? An Analysis Using Sexual Orientation

Gender differences in productivity, if any, that are unobserved to researchers may produce an omitted variable bias in gender gap studies. Finding a subpopulation with less acute differences in unobserved characteristics would allow this concern to be addressed. This paper argues that gays and lesbians are one such interesting group—for the intra-household division of labor and its effects on market productivity cannot be sex-determined in this subpopulation. Indeed, there are substantial intra-household variations in labor market outcomes and other characteristics; the patterns and magnitudes are similar to different-sex households. Simultaneously, the gender wage gap between gays and lesbians is much smaller than in the heterosexual population; in specifications that control for geographic location it is near zero. These findings suggest that the intra-household division of labor is an important factor driving gender differences in labor market outcomes. Such an interpretation is consistent with recent studies that control for productivity.

Gender and Rural Non-Farm Entrepreneurship

Despite their increasing prominence in policy debates, little is known about gender inequities in non-agricultural labor market outcomes in rural areas. Using matched household-enterprise-community data sets from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, this paper documents and analyzes gender differences in the individual portfolio choice and productivity of non-farm entrepreneurship. Except for Ethiopia, women are less likely than men to become nonfarm entrepreneurs. Women's nonfarm entrepreneurship isn't strongly correlated with household composition or educational attainment, but is especially prevalent amongst women who are the head of their household. Female-led firms are much smaller and less productive on average, though gender differences in productivity vary dramatically across countries. Mean differences in log output per worker suggest that male firms are roughly 10 times as productive as female firms in Bangladesh, three times as those in Ethiopia and twice as those in Sri Lanka. By contrast, no significant differences in labor productivity were detected in Indonesia. Differences in output per worker are overwhelmingly accounted for by sorting by sector and size. They can't be explained by differences in capital intensity, human capital or the local investment climate, nor by increasing returns to scale.

Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain (review)

Reviewed by: Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain Eric Schneider (bio) Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain. By Joyce Burnette. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pp. xii+377. £55. This book is the most forceful argument to date that gender wage differences and occupational sorting during the Industrial Revolution were based on market responses to real differences between male and female productivity, not on gender discrimination or custom. Joyce Burnette argues that productivity differences between the genders can be explained by two key factors. Most important, men's greater strength gave them a productivity advantage over women in manual labor, which resulted in men receiving higher wages for their greater productivity. Differences in human capital between men and women also contributed to the gender wage gap. Burnette sees strength as exogenous to the economic system because it was a product of biology, and human capital as endogenous because men and women had different incentives to invest in human capital. Thus, women earned approximately one-half to two-thirds the salaries of men performing the same task for equal periods of time because they were less productive. This argument challenges earlier historiography, which has emphasized the role of ideology, gender discrimination, and custom in determining women's wages. Burnette argues that ideological concepts of "women's work" rarely limited the industries in which women could work. Instead, conceptions of women's work reflected natural and efficient occupational segregation and were later harnessed by male unions in noncompetitive markets to justify the exclusion of women. Gender discrimination did not influence wages because men and women were given equal piece-rate wages for producing the same goods. Finally, women's wages were not set by custom because they varied over time and were responsive to regional economic pressures. Burnette also argues that, in competitive labor markets, occupational sorting based on strength decreased the gender difference in wages by allowing women to specialize in low-strength industries where they could [End Page 195] be more productive. This was the most efficient outcome for women and the economy as a whole. However, women were sometimes excluded from industries where labor markets were less competitive by men's distributional coalitions, which used ideological and discriminatory language to justify their attempt to maintain higher wages by excluding women. This outcome was less efficient for women and the economy. Of particular interest to the readership of this journal will be Burnette's discussion of how technological change shifted occupational structure. Because hand spinning in preindustrial England required little strength, women had a comparative advantage and performed most spinning work. Even with several substantial improvements in spinning technology in the early years of the Industrial Revolution—the spinning jenny and throstle—women continued to dominate the spinning industry because these new technologies were not strength-intensive. However, with the invention of mule-spinning, a task requiring a great deal of strength, women were pushed out of the spinning industry because men had a greater comparative advantage. After men became dominant in mule-spinning, they created unions and successfully excluded women after the self-actor decreased the strength requirements necessary to operate the machine. Thus new technology that either increased or decreased strength requirements could significantly influence occupational sorting in the economy. I agree with Burnette that strength did create real differences in productivity between men and women, but these productivity differences could have had an endogenous as well as exogenous determinant. For example, Burnette too readily dismisses the influence of gender inequality in the distribution of food in the household, which has been shown to leave women in a weaker and less-productive state than men. Therefore, it may not be possible to remove gender roles and ideology from gender differences in productivity and wages, even if wages were determined by the marginal product of female and male labor. In addition, in order to definitively prove that wage differences were determined by productivity differences and not by custom, Burnette would have to show quantitatively that wage differences were greater for occupations where strength was more important than in occupations where strength was not important. This is a difficult task given the paucity and nature...