The #MeToo movement was a necessary corrective action recognising decades of toxic behaviour across many occupations. Economics was not immune (for example, see here or here). However, could the #MeToo movement have had an unintended consequence on the careers of female economists? If having a female co-author increases the chances of a male economist being called out for even minor indiscretions, does this meaningfully raise the cost of having female co-authors? And if the cost of having female co-authors meaningfully increases, we would expect to see fewer male-female collaborations (especially where the male economist is more senior).
That is the topic addressed in this new article by Noriko Amano-Patiño, Elisa Faraglia, and Chryssi Giannitsarou (all Cambridge University), published in the journal European Economic Review (open access). The use data on co-authorships in the nearly 27,000 working papers published in the NBER and CEPR working paper series between January 2004 and December 2020. They first note that:
The MeToo movement’s impact on the economics profession may have fostered a more respectful research environment, increased scrutiny of existing practices, and promoted greater diversity and inclusivity within the community. Conversely, it could have induced a chilling effect on collaborations, potentially causing researchers to become more hesitant in forming partnerships outside their established networks due to heightened concerns about trust and reputational risk.
Although the #MeToo movement started in 2017, Amano-Patiño et al. use the second quarter of 2018 as the effective date for the onset within the economics profession (that dates to the fallout arising from a series of studies, including a particularly notable study by Alice Wu, which I blogged about here). However, Amano-Patiño et al. vary the effective start date and find little difference in their results. So, comparing papers written before and after 2018, and controlling for a variety of author characteristics, Amano-Patiño et al. find that there was:
...a rise in the proportion of women coauthors for men, both overall and within junior and senior subgroups. Conversely, we find a decrease in the proportion of women coauthors for women, both overall and within corresponding seniority levels. Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, these increases in mixed-gender collaborations, translate to an estimated 12.3% increase in women coauthors per 100 men-authored papers.
That seems to go against what we might expect, if the cost of having female co-authors has increased for male economists after #MeToo. However:
...we estimate decreases in the proportion of senior coauthors (especially senior women) for juniors, and symmetrically, in the proportion of junior coauthors (particularly junior women) for seniors. The decreases in collaborations between senior and junior economists we quantify, suggest a 3.0% decrease in the share of senior authors collaborating with junior coauthors.
Amano-Patiño et al. interpret this as showing that:
...post-MeToo, authors have increasingly sorted their collaborations by seniority rather than by gender.
What might explain these findings? Researchers who are worried that they might get called out by female co-authors might respond by reducing their collaborations with female co-authors generally, as I noted at the start of this post. Or, they might reduce their collaborations with new co-authors, who they have not developed trust with, while continuing to collaborate with more senior authors that they trust. This is also consistent with Amano-Patiño et al.'s further results, where they note that:
...we find evidence of a general chilling effect on the expansion of economists’ professional networks. We estimate decreases in the share of new coauthors across all seniorities and genders, the share of new senior coauthors for juniors, and the share of new junior coauthors for seniors. Our estimates translate into 5.4% fewer new coauthorships per 100 papers. This trend is primarily driven by a substantial decrease in new coauthorships between senior and junior authors: for seniors, the share of new junior coauthors has dropped by 18.4%, with a particularly sharp 48% decrease in their share of new junior women coauthors.
Amano-Patiño et al. interpret their results as bad news, noting that if the results can be interpreted as causal:
First, authors may have prioritised increasing gender diversity in their collaborations. Second, senior authors have increasingly relied on their existing collaboration networks rather than forming new coauthorships. The latter trend, if persistent, could have long-lasting consequences for the career development of women economists and potentially exacerbate the already ‘leaky’ pipeline in the profession.
Amano-Patiño et al. stop short of noting that this is a substantial negative unintended consequence of the #MeToo movement in economics. Although the environment for female economists may be improving, at least one aspect, being the opportunities for collaboration and mentoring from senior economists, appears to be declining. And that will be a difficult problem to address. Indeed, Amano-Patiño et al. aren't able to offer any concrete steps that could be implemented to solve this issue, concluding with some more general statements:
These results underscore the urgent need for sustained efforts to cultivate a supportive ecosystem and dismantle systemic barriers hindering the advancement of women and junior economists in the field. The economics profession must proactively continue to foster a safe, inclusive environment by evaluating, monitoring, and educating on relevant issues.
Sadly, I also can't offer anything concrete, and only hope that the current desire for change within the profession will ultimately lead to greater opportunities for female economists overall.
No comments:
Post a Comment