|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Paredes, Valentina (Universidad de Chile); Paserman, M. Daniele (Boston University); Pino, Francisco J. (University of Chile) |
| Abstract: | Recent research has highlighted unequal treatment for women in academic economics along several different dimensions: promotion, hiring, credit for co-authorship, and standards for publication in professional journals. Can the source of these differences lie in biases against women that are pervasive in the discipline, even among students in the earliest stages of their training? In this paper, we provide direct evidence on the importance of explicit and implicit biases against women among students in economics relative to other fields. We conducted a large scale survey among undergraduate students in Chilean universities, among both entering first-year students and students in years 2 and above. The survey elicits measures of implicit bias, explicit bias, and gender attitudes. We document that, on a wide battery of measures, economics students are more biased than students in other fields. There is some evidence that economics students are more biased already upon entry, before exposure to any economic classes. The gap becomes substantially more pronounced among students in years 2 and above, in particular for male students. We also find evidence of an increase in bias in a sample of students that we can follow longitudinally. Differences in political ideology and religiosity explain essentially all the gap at entry, but none of the increase in the gap with exposure. Exposure to female students and female professors attenuates some of the bias of economics students. |
| Keywords: | discrimination, implicit biases, sociology of economics |
| JEL: | J16 J71 A22 A13 A14 |
| Date: | 2020–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp13223&r=all |
| By: | Huntington-Klein, Nick (California State University); Arenas, Andreu (University of Barcelona); Beam, Emily A. (University of Vermont); Bertoni, Marco (University of Padova); Bloem, Jeffrey R. (University of Minnesota); Burli, Pralhad (Idaho National Laboratory); Chen, Naibin (Pennsylvania State University); Greico, Paul (Pennsylvania State University); Ekpe, Godwin (Northern Illinois University); Pugatch, Todd (Oregon State University); Saavedra, Martin (Oberlin College); Stopnitzky, Yaniv (University of San Francisco) |
| Abstract: | Researchers make hundreds of decisions about data collection, preparation, and analysis in their research. We use a many-analysts approach to measure the extent and impact of these decisions. Two published causal empirical results are replicated by seven replicators each. We find large differences in data preparation and analysis decisions, many of which would not likely be reported in a publication. No two replicators reported the same sample size. Statistical significance varied across replications, and for one of the studies the effect's sign varied as well. The standard deviation of estimates across replications was 3-4 times the typical reported standard error. |
| Keywords: | replication, metascience, research |
| JEL: | C81 C10 B41 |
| Date: | 2020–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp13233&r=all |