Skip to main content

Childbearing and (female) research productivity: a personnel economics perspective on the leaky pipeline

Abstract

Despite the fact that childbearing is time-consuming (i.e., associated with a negative resource effect), we descriptively find female researchers with children in business and economics to be more productive than female researchers without children. Hence, female researchers with children either manage to overcompensate the negative resource effect associated with childbearing by working harder (positive incentive effect), or only the most productive female researchers decide to go for a career in academia and have children at the same time (positive self-selection effect). Our first descriptive evidence on the timing of parenthood among more than 400 researchers in business and economics from Austria, Germany and the German-speaking part of Switzerland hints at the latter being the case: only the most productive female researchers with children dare to self-select (or are selected) into an academic career. Our results have important policy implications when it comes to reducing the “leaky pipeline” in academia.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    An alternative explanation might be that appointment committees in fact use higher hurdles for female researchers with children than for those without. While we do not rule out that occasionally such discriminatory hiring processes may exist, we expect them not to be widespread and hence conclude that if we observe positive productivity differences, these will be the results of a positive self-selection effect.

  2. 2.

    However, there is evidence—at least outside academia—that wages do not only reflect productivity differences but may also reflect differences in social norms—particularly when comparing wages of males and females as shown by Janssen et al. (2013 ). But of course, a large part of descriptive differences in the gender wage gap is due to differences in labor attachment, in career choices or in working time patterns as shown in an overview for example by Kolesnikova and Liu (2011).

  3. 3.

    As a robustness check we also measured career age by the number of years since obtaining the PhD (see e.g., Fiedler et al. 2008; Chlosta et al. 2010) and find our results to be robust to this alteration.

  4. 4.

    Since Breuninger (2012), working on the same data set, detected “research abroad” (defined as a research stay of at least one month at a foreign research institution) to be related to research productivity, we also include it as a control variable. 71 % of the researchers in our data set stayed at a foreign research institution for at least one month. With the same reasoning, we further control for a researcher’s attendance of a formal mentoring program, since Muschallik and Pull (2012) have found publication productivity to differ between researchers who attended or still attend a formal mentoring program. Five percent of researchers in our dataset attended or still attend a formal mentoring program.

  5. 5.

    Flaherty et al. ( 2013 ), e.g., show that the research output at the time of the tenure review of faculty members who stopped their tenure clock is not significantly different from non-users and they conclude that “stopping the tenure clock polices” are effective for leveling out the playing field for the tenure decision. However, they also find that faculty members stopping the clock suffer from lower incomes as stopping the tenure clock might signal a lower commitment.

  6. 6.

    Interestingly, a handicap-system favoring female researchers with children would not reduce incentives for the others, but would in fact restore incentives for all researchers by reducing contestant heterogeneity—as has been shown theoretically for appointment tournaments (see Chlosta and Pull 2010) and empirically for tournaments in a business context (see Backes-Gellner and Pull 2013).

References

  1. Backes-Gellner U, Pull K (2013) Tournament compensation systems, employee heterogeneity and firm performance. In print: Human Resource Management

  2. Backes-Gellner U, Schlinghoff A (2010) Monetary rewards and faculty behavior: how economics incentives drive publish or perish. European Education 42(3):26–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barbezart DA (2006) Gender differences in research patterns among PhD economists. J Econ Educ 2006:359–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker GS (1985) Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. J Lab Econ 3(1):33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellas ML, Toutkoushian RK (1999) Faculty time allocations and research productivity: gender, race, and family effects. Rev High Educ 22(4):367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blackburn ML, Bloom DE, Neumark D (1993) Fertility timing, wages, and human capital. J Popul Econ 6:1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blau DM, Robins PK (1988) Child-care costs and family labor supply. Rev Econ Stat 70(3):374–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brannen J (1989) Childbirth and occupational mobility: evidence from a longitudinal study. Work Employ Soc 3(2):179–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Breuninger S (2012) Expatriation of academics: the impact of stays abroad on researchers’ productivity, Mimeo

  10. Buber I, Berghammer C, Prskawetz A (2011) Doing science, forgoing childbearing? evidence from a sample of female scientists in Austria. Vienna Institute of Demography Working Papers 1:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chlosta K, Pull K (2010) The incentive effects of appointment tournaments in german higher education. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 62:378–400

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chlosta K, Pull K, Fiedler M, Welpe IM (2010) Should I stay or should I go? Warum Nachwuchswissenschaftler in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre das Universitätssystem verlassen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 80(11):1207–1229

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cole JR, Zuckerman H (1991) Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science. In: Zuckerman H, Cole JR, Bruer JT (eds) The outer circle: women in the scientific Community, W.W. Norton & Company, New York

  14. Elder GH Jr (1975) Age differentiation and the life course. Ann Rev Sociol 1:165–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Elder GH Jr, Rockwell RC (1979) An ecological perspective. Int J Behav Dev 2(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ellwood D, Wilde T, Batchelder L (2004) The mommy track divides: the impact of childbearing on wages of women of different skill levels. Working Paper, Russell Sage Foundation

  17. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (2013) Gutachten zur Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/Gutachten/EFI_2013_Gutachten_deu.pdf

  18. Fiedler M, Welpe IM, Lindlbauer K, Sattler K (2008) Denn wer da hat, dem wird gegeben: Publikationsproduktivität des BWL-Hochschullehrernachwuchses und deren wissenschaftlicher Betreuer. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 78(5):477–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Findeisen I (2011) Hürdenlauf Zur Exzellenz. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  20. Finkel SK, Olswang SG (1996) Child rearing as a career impediment to women assistant professors. Rev High Educ 19(2):123–139

    Google Scholar 

  21. Flaherty C, Leslie LM, Kramer A (2013) Is the clock still ticking? An evaluation of the consequences of stopping the tenure clock. Ind Labor Relat Rev 66(1):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fox MF, Faver CA (1985) Men, women, and publication productivity: patterns among social work academics. Sociol Quart 26(4):537–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hamovitch W, Morgenstern RD (1977) Children and the productivity of academic women. J High Educ 47(6):443–462

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ishii-Kuntz M, Coltrane S (1992) Predicting the sharing of household labor: are parenting and housework distinct? Sociol Perspect 35(4):629–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Janssen S, Tuor SNS, Backes-Gellner U (2013) Social norms and firm’s discriminatory pay-setting. Zurich, Working Paper 2013

  26. Kind M, Kleibrink J (2012) Time is money: the influence of parenthood timing on wages. SOEP paper No. 467

  27. Kolesnikova NA, Liu Y (2011) Gender wage gap may be much smaller than most think. The Regional Economist. www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

  28. Krapf M (2011) Research evaluation and journal quality weights. J Bus Econ 81:5–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Krapf M, Ursprung HW, Zimmermann C (2013) Parenthood and productivity of highly skilled labor: evidence from the groves of Academe. Working Paper May 2013

  30. Kyvik S (1990) Motherhood and scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 20(1):149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kyvik S, Teigen M (1996) Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci Technol Human Values 21(1):54–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mason MA, Goulden M (2004) Do babies matter (part II)? Closing the baby gap. Academe 90(6):10–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller AR (2011) The effects of motherhood timing on career path. J Pop Econ 24(3):1071–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Muschallik J, Pull K (2012) Mentoring in higher education: does it enhance mentees’ research productivity? SSRN working paper

  35. Niederle M, Segal C, Versterlund L (2013) How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in competitive environments. Manag Sci 59(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  36. Paull G (2008) Children and women’s hours of work. Econ J 118(526):F8–F27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Perna LW (2001) The relationship between family responsibilities and employment status. J High Educ 72(5):584–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ropers-Huilman B (2000) Aren’t you satisfied yet? Women faculty member’s interpretations of their academic work. In: Hagedorn LS (ed) What contributes to job satisfaction among faculty and staff. New Directions for Institutional Research 27(1): 21–32

  39. Sax LJ, Hagedorn LS, Arredondo M, Dicrisi FA (2002) Faculty research productivity: exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Res High Educ 43(4):423–446

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sayer LC (2005) Gender, time and inequality: trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time. Soc Forces 84(1):285–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schlinghoff A (2001) Der Forschungsoutput von Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern im Karriereverlauf: eine anreiztheoretische und ökonometrische Analyse. Entlohnung, Arbeitsorganisation und personalpolitische Regulierung: Beiträge zum 4. Köln-Bonner Kolloquium zur Personalökonomie (2001): 187–215

  42. Schulze GG, Warning S, Wiermann C (2008) What and how long does it take to get tenure? The case of economics and business administration in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Ger Econ Rev 9(4):473–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shauman KA, Xie Y (1996) Geographic mobility of scientists: sex differences and family constraints. Demography 33(4):455–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith N, Smith V, Verner M (2013) Why are so few females promoted into CEO and vice president positions? Danish empirical evidence, 1997–2007. Ind Labor Relat Rev 66(2):380–408

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stack S (2004) Gender, children and research productivity. Res High Educ 45(8):891–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Taniguchi H (1999) The timing of childbearing and women’s wages. J Marr Family 61(4):1008–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Waldvogel J (1997) The effect of children on women’s wage. Am Sociol Rev 62:209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ward K, Wolf-Wendel L (2004) Academic motherhood: managing complex roles in research universities. Rev High Educ 27(2):233–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Xie X (1997) Children and female labour supply behaviour. Appl Econ 29(10):1303–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uschi Backes-Gellner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joecks, J., Pull, K. & Backes-Gellner, U. Childbearing and (female) research productivity: a personnel economics perspective on the leaky pipeline. J Bus Econ 84, 517–530 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0676-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Research productivity
  • Women in academia
  • Childbearing
  • Resources
  • Self-selection

JEL Classification

  • L23
  • J14
  • J16