Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 03 January 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

In this paper we aim to understand if gender makes a difference in the path to promotion to full professor in Italian universities, drawing on data from 2013 to 2016. The new promotion system pursuant Gelmini Law (210/2010) in Italy implies to go through two steps. First, they have to obtain the national ASN system (fit-for-the-role national filter), based on merit measured via bibliometric and non-bibliometric indicators. This step does not mean to get a position, it only means to be able to apply for it at institutional level. We believe that discrimination based on gender may happen especially at institutional level as in comparison to ASN there is less transparency and more autonomy at institutional level. It is also hypothesised that discrimination based on gender may differ according to the percentage of women already at full professor rank by disciplinary field. We investigate gender inequality using a binary variable (promoted or not promoted along 2013 until 2016) controlling by scientific productivity, normalised number of available vacancies, result of national research evaluation (VQR—department of candidate’s affiliation), age, current rank-and-file position. Multilevel logistic regression demonstrates that among those who obtained the ASN and at parity of other conditions, men have around 24% more probability to be promoted at parity of scientific production, which reveals a relevant gender discrimination. Our findings have implications on theory about inequality regimes and might serve to reflect on how to improve practices at institutional level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 03 January 2019

    In the original publication of the article, the second sentence of the Abstract and one of the references were incorrectly published. The correct version is given in this Correction.

  • 03 January 2019

    In the original publication of the article, the second sentence of the Abstract and one of the references were incorrectly published. The correct version is given in this Correction.

Notes

  1. Some disciplines in “area 10” are bibliometric such as some in “area 8” are not bibliometric. This detail has no great relevance as some normalisation has been pursued.

  2. At the current stage, we omit variable VQR_14 as it would lose around 1000 observations. Running the same analysis with this variable does not change the main findings.

References

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2013). National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case. Scientometrics, 95(1), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0875-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015a). An assessment of the first “scientific habilitation” for university appointments in Italy. Economia Politica, 32(3), 329–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-015-0016-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015b). The VQR, Italy’s second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2202–2214. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2016). Refrain from adopting the combination of citation and journal metrics to grade publications, as used in the Italian national research assessment exercise (VQR 2011–2014). Scientometrics, 109(3), 2053–2065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2153-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009a). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 81(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2131-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009b). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79(3), 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2046-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2014). Career advancement and scientific performance in universities. Scientometrics, 98(2), 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1075-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2015a). The determinants of academic career advancement: Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 42(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2015b). Selection committees for academic recruitment: Does gender matter? Research Evaluation, 24(4), 392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2016). Gender bias in academic recruitment. Scientometrics, 106(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1783-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Soldatenkova, A. (2017). How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: Evidence from Italy. Scientometrics, 110(2), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2193-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Viel, F. (2010). Peer review research assessment: A sensitivity analysis of performance rankings to the share of research product evaluated. Scientometrics, 85(3), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0238-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acker, S., & Armenti, C. (2004). Sleepless in academia. Gender and Education, 16(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiston, S. J., & Jung, J. (2015). Women academics and research productivity: an international comparison. Gender and Education, 27(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1024617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers—A feminist investigation. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(2), 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2017). Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter? American Economic Review, 107(4), 1207–1238. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L., & Barrett, P. (2011). Women and academic workloads: Career slow lane or Cul-de-Sac? Higher Education, 61(2), 141–155.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bozzon, R., Murgia, A., Poggio, B., & Rapetti, E. (2017). Work–life interferences in the early stages of academic careers: The case of precarious researchers in Italy. European Educational Research Journal, 16(2–3), 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in Ph.D. exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Prentice-Hall: Emerald Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coate, K., & Howson, C. K. (2014). Indicators of esteem: Gender and prestige in academic work. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1–19.

  • Danell, R., & Hjerm, M. (2013). Career prospects for female university researchers have not improved. Scientometrics, 94(3), 999–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0840-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2015). Gender discrimination and evaluators’ gender: Evidence from Italian academia. Economica, 82(325), 162–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R. (2009). Leading and managing contemporary UK Universities: Do excellence and meritocracy still prevail over diversity? Higher Education Policy, 22(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2012). Structural change in research institutions. Enhancing excellence, gender equality and efficiency in research and innovation. Retrieved from Luxemburg.

  • EC. (2016). She Figures 2015. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, K., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fassa, F., & Kradolfer, S. (2013). The gendering of excellence through quality criteria: The case of the Swiss national science foundation professorships in Switzerland. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(3), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, C., Boden, R., Kent, J., & Tinson, J. (2007). Performing Women: The gendered dimensions of the uk new research economy. Gender, Work & Organization, 14(5), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00359.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705046630.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2017). Critical remarks on the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011–2014. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, S., von Stebut, J., & Allmendinger, J. (2001). Gender, science, and scientific organizations in Germany. Minerva, 39(2), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010380510013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi, S., & Poggio, B. (2001). Creating and recreating gender order in organizations. Journal of World Business, 36(3), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijstra, T., Bjarnason, T., & Rafnsdóttir, G. L. (2015). Predictors of gender inequalities in the rank of full professor. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 214–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. B. (2007). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledwith, S., & Manfredi, S. (2000). Balancing gender in higher education: A study of the experience of senior women in a ‘New’ UK University. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(1), 7–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S., & Humbert, L. (2010). Discourse or reality?: “Work-life balance”, flexible working policies and the gendered organization. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(3), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marini, G. (2016). New promotion patterns in Italian universities: Less seniority and more productivity? Data from ASN. Higher Education, 1–17.

  • Marzolla, M. (2016). Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: The case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 408–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, L. (2013). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.740888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, L. (2014). Lost leaders: Women in the global academy. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W. (2001). Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W. (2005). Sex differences in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family ties. Research in Higher Education, 46(3), 277–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafnsdóttir, G. L., & Heijstra, T. M. (2013). Balancing work–family life in academia: The power of time. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00571.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. (2009). Gender (in) equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(3), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (2004). The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. In. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sang, K., Powell, A., Finkel, R., & Richards, J. (2015). ‘Being an academic is not a 9–5 job’: Long working hours and the ‘ideal worker’in UK academia. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 25(3), 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savigny, H. (2014). Women, know your limits: Cultural sexism in academia. Gender and Education, 26(7), 794–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & DiCrisi, F. A. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. (2011). Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 993–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 891–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toffoletti, K., & Starr, K. (2016). Women academics and work-life balance: Gendered discourses of work and care. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(5), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labor market: An analysis of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, 20(3), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012a). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012b). Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00566.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2014). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 460–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y., & Jansen, W. (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality? Organization Studies, 31(11), 1459–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisshaar, K. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in Academia. Social Forces, 1–31.

  • Winslow, S. (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender & Society, 24(6), 769–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210386728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, D. (2007). Work-life balancing strategies used by women managers in British “modern” universities. Equal Opportunities International, 26(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150710726507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Global Higher Education, University College London, Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0A, UK

    Giulio Marini

  2. Huddersfield Business School, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK

    Viviana Meschitti

Authors
  1. Giulio Marini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viviana Meschitti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Marini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marini, G., Meschitti, V. The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy. Scientometrics 115, 989–1006 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2696-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2696-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation