Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 421–442 | Cite as

Decision Theoretic Model of the Productivity Gap

  • Liam Kofi Bright
Original Article

Abstract

Using a decision theoretic model of scientists’ time allocation between potential research projects I explain the fact that on average women scientists publish less research papers than men scientists. If scientists are incentivised to publish as many papers as possible, then it is necessary and sufficient for a productivity gap to arise that women scientists anticipate harsher treatment of their manuscripts than men scientists anticipate for their manuscripts. I present evidence that women do expect harsher treatment and that scientists’ are incentivised to publish as many papers as possible, and discuss some epistemological consequences of this conjecture.

Keywords

Cognitive Diversity Woman Scientist Social Epistemology Female Orgasm Idea Homogeneity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

My thanks for helpful comments from Cailin O’Connor, Haixin Dang, Remco Heesen, David M. Levy, Daniel Malinsky, Eric Schliesser, Elizabeth Silver, Julia Staffel, Jennifer Saul, Olúfȩ́mi O. Táíwò, Zina B. Ward, Danielle Wenner, Kevin Zollman, and the reviewers at Erkenntnis. Special thanks to Carole Lee for providing both the initial impetus to research and also helpful commentary throughout.

References

  1. Ayala, S. (2015). Philosophy and the non-native speaker condition. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, 14(2), 2–9.Google Scholar
  2. Barres, B. A. (2006). Does gender matter? Nature, 442(1), 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bebbington, D. (2002). Women in science, engineering, and technology: A review of the issues. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme, 3(3), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256(2), 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Policy Research, 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dougherty, T., Baron, S., & Miller, K. (2015a). Female under-representation among philosophy majors: A map of the hypotheses and a survey of female under-representation among philosophy majors: A map of the hypotheses and a survey of the evidence. Feminist Philosophical Quarterly, 1(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dougherty, T., Baron, S., & Miller, K. (2015b). Why do female students leave philosophy? The story from sydney. Hypatia, 30(2), 467–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1935). Black reconstruction in America, 1860–1880. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Erkowitz, H., Fuchs, S., Gupta, N., Kemelgor, C., & Ranga, M. (2008). The coming gender revolution in science. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fernandez, A. I. M., Rocha, J. R., Burgess, S., Navarro, I. L., & Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for english-medium journals: The impact of proficiency in english versus publication experience. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 24(1), 157–183.Google Scholar
  16. Forman, P. (2002). Recent science: Late-modern and postmodern. In P. Mirowski & E.-M. Sent (Eds.), Science brought and sold. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, M. F., & Firebaugh, G. (1992). Confidence in science: The gender gap. Social Science Quarterly, 73(1), 101–113.Google Scholar
  19. Glover, J. (2002). Women and scientific employment: Current perspectives from the UK. Science Studies, 15(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  20. Gunter, R., & Stambach, A. (2005). Differences in men and women scientists’ perceptions of workplace climate. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Publishing by-and for-the numbers. Science, 250, 1331–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harding, S. (1995). “Strong objectivity”: A response to the new objectivity question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16385–16389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hwang, K. (2012). How to write a scientific paper: Three tips to remember. Archives of Plastic Surgery, 39(1), 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labour. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative. An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamont, M. (2006). How professors think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, C. (2016). Revisiting current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. In J. Saul & M. Brownstein (Eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy: Metaphysics and epistemology (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lloyd, E. A. (2009). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Longino, H. E. (1987). Can there be a feminist science? Hypatia, 2(3), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merton, R. K. (1961). Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 10(5), 470–486.Google Scholar
  36. Merton, R. K. (1968). Behavior patterns of scientists. American Scientist, 57(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  37. Neil, U. S. (2008). Publish or perish, but at what cost? The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118(7), 2368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J., Malone, K. R., & Newstetter, W. C. (2011). Science as psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Peart, S. J., & Levy, D. M. (2005). The “vanity of the philosopher”. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Qiu, J. (2010). Publish or perish in China. Nature, 463, 142–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosser, S. V., & Daniels, J. Z. (2004). Widening paths to success, improving the environment, and moving toward lessons learned from the experiences of POWRE and CBL awardees. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 10(1), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosser, S. V., & Lane, E. O. N. (2002). Key barriers for academic institutions seeking to retain female scientists and engineers: Family-unfriendly policies, low numbers, stereotypes, and harassment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(2), 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothgeb, J. M., & Burger, B. (2009). Tenure standards in political science departments: Results from a survey of department chairs. Political Science and Politics, 42(3), 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Stewart, A. J., & Mallet, J. (2007). Voice matters: Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3), 270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1996). Career patterns of women and men in the sciences. American Scientist, 84(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  47. Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  48. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (2001). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. In M. Wyer & D. Giesman (Eds.), Women, science, and technology (pp 46–52). Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Yank, V., & Barnes, D. (2003). Consensus and contention regarding redundant publications in clinical research: Cross-sectional survey of editors and authors. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(2), 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yap, A. (2014). Idealization, epistemic logic, and epistemology. Synthese, 191(14), 3351–3366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zollman, J. S. K. (2010). The epistemic benefits of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Baker Hall 161Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations