Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explaining Gender Differences in Academics' Career Trajectories

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2009.10830 v1 pith:HHBEY5ML submitted 2020-09-22 cs.SI

classification cs.SI
keywords fieldfieldsgenderdifferenceswomenacademicsbrilliancecareer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. To date, most attempts to explain this persistent global phenomenon have relied on limited cross-sections of data from specific countries, fields, or career stages. Here we used a global longitudinal dataset assembled from profiles on ORCID.org to investigate which characteristics of a field predict gender differences among the academics who leave and join that field. Only two field characteristics consistently predicted such differences: (1) the extent to which a field values raw intellectual talent ("brilliance") and (2) whether a field is in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Women more than men moved away from brilliance-oriented and STEM fields, and men more than women moved toward these fields. Our findings suggest that stereotypes associating brilliance and other STEM-relevant traits with men more than women play a key role in maintaining gender segregation across academia.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Revisiting gender bias research in bibliometrics: Standardizing methodological variability using Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards

    cs.DL 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Seventy bibliometric gender-bias studies show heterogeneous author name disambiguation and gender identification methods, prompting a new SoDA Cards reporting template to improve comparability.

Pith tools