Gender differences in research collaboration (1810.13355v1)

Abstract: The debate on the role of women in the academic world has focused on various phenomena that could be at the root of the gender gap seen in many nations. However, in spite of the ever more collaborative character of scientific research, the issue of gender aspects in research collaborations has been treated in a marginal manner. In this article we apply an innovative bibliometric approach based on the propensity for collaboration by individual academics, which permits measurement of gender differences in the propensity to collaborate by fields, disciplines and forms of collaboration: intramural, extramural domestic and international. The analysis of the scientific production of Italian academics shows that women researchers register a greater capacity to collaborate in all the forms analyzed, with the exception of international collaboration, where there is still a gap in comparison to male colleagues.

• The paper reveals that female academics display a higher collaboration propensity in intramural and domestic settings than their male counterparts.
• The study employs a rigorous bibliometric approach with Mann–Whitney U-tests to accurately capture discipline-specific collaboration behaviors.
• The findings suggest targeted policy measures, including enhanced funding and mobility support, to address disparities in international collaboration.

Gender Differences in Research Collaboration

The paper by Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, and Gianluca Murgia offers a comprehensive analysis of gender differences in the propensity to collaborate among researchers. Employing an innovative bibliometric approach, the authors investigate collaboration patterns among Italian academics across various scientific disciplinary sectors. Their analysis encompasses intramural, extramural domestic, and international collaborations, providing distinct insights into gender-based collaboration behaviors and propensities.

Within the Italian academic landscape, the paper demonstrates a consistent pattern where female researchers exhibit a higher propensity to collaborate than their male counterparts, particularly in intramural and domestic extramural settings. Notably, the research indicates that women are less inclined towards international collaborations, underscoring ongoing barriers related to cultural biases, funding disparities, and family constraints, as discussed in the existing literature. The gender gap in international collaboration emphasizes the need for policies that enhance mobility opportunities for female academics.

The methodology used in this paper is noteworthy for its precision in measuring individual-level collaboration behaviors, thereby minimizing distortion from outliers and aggregate-level biases. By doing so, the researchers provide a nuanced understanding of gender differences across disciplinary lines, revealing how these differences are often contingent upon the specific characteristics and cultures of the various fields.

Key numerical insights include the higher average propensity to collaborate among women in Chemistry and Medicine. The Mann-Whitney U-test results, showing statistical significance at various levels in different disciplines, offer credible evidence of these gender-based propensities. Interestingly, the paper also reports contrasting findings for disciplines like Mathematics and Computer Sciences, and Economics and statistics, suggesting intricate discipline-specific dynamics.

The implications of these findings extend beyond academic discourse and into the field of policy-making. For institutions aiming to foster gender equity, understanding these collaboration patterns is crucial. It promotes informed decisions regarding mentorship programs, funding allocations, and mobility support structures that consider the diverse forms of collaboration women engage in.

Looking forward, the insights from this research could inform future investigations focusing on the structural composition of collaboration networks, examining homophily, mentor-mentee dynamics, and hierarchical differences. This could further elucidate the complex relationships between collaboration, academic productivity, and gender, prompting targeted interventions to address barriers at both national and international levels.

In summary, the paper substantiates gender-based differences in research collaboration, with robust bibliometric evidence. It offers critical guidance for developing equitable academic environments that recognize and reinforce women's collaborative efforts, facilitating broad-scale improvements in gender representation and productivity within the scientific community.