IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1750.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender stereotype and the scientific career of women: Evidence from biomedical research genters

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in the top ranks of the scientific career, including the biomedical disciplines. This is not generally the result of explicit and easily recognizable gender biases but the outcome of decisions with many components of unconscious nature that are difficult to assess. Evidence suggests that implicit gender stereotypes influence perceptions as well as decisions. To explore these potential reasons of women's underrepresentation in life sciences we analyzed the outcome of gender-science and gender-career Implicit Association Tests (IAT) taken by 2,589 scientists working in high profile biomedical research centers. We found that male-science association is less pronounced among researchers than in the general population (34% below the level of the general population). However, this difference is mostly explained by the low level of the IAT score among female researchers. Despite the highly meritocratic view of the academic career, male scientists have a high level of male-science association (261% the level among women scientists), similar to the general population.

Suggested Citation

  • José Garcia Montalvo & Daniele Alimonti & Sonja Reiland & Isabelle Vernos, 2020. "Gender stereotype and the scientific career of women: Evidence from biomedical research genters," Economics Working Papers 1750, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/1750.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Larivière & Chaoqun Ni & Yves Gingras & Blaise Cronin & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2013. "Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 504(7479), pages 211-213, December.
    2. Helen Shen, 2013. "Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7439), pages 22-24, March.
    3. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    4. Lerchenmueller, Marc J. & Sorenson, Olav, 2018. "The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1007-1017.
    5. Isabelle Régner & Catherine Thinus-Blanc & Agnès Netter & Toni Schmader & Pascal Huguet, 2019. "Committees with implicit biases promote fewer women when they do not believe gender bias exists," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(11), pages 1171-1179, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sonja Reiland & Daniele Alimonti & José García-Montalvo, 2020. "Gender Stereotype and the Scientific Career of Women: Evidence from Biomedical Research Centers," Working Papers 1212, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Emre Özel, 2025. "What is Gender Bias in Grant Peer review?," Working Papers halshs-03862027, HAL.
    3. Aleksandra Cislak & Magdalena Formanowicz & Tamar Saguy, 2018. "Bias against research on gender bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 189-200, April.
    4. Nikola Komlenac & Lisa Stockinger & Margarethe Hochleitner, 2022. "Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors Moderate Associations between Work Stress and Exhaustion: Testing the Job Demands–Resources Model in Academic Staff at an Austrian Medical University," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Rosa Puertas & Luisa Marti & Jose M. García-Álvarez-Coque, 2023. "Are female researchers more efficient? An analysis of gender in a Spanish technological university," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6611-6632, December.
    6. repec:osf:osfxxx:yr8me_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Letki, Natalia & Biały, Grzegorz & Sankowski, Piotr & Walentek, Dawid, 2022. "Streamlining for excellence discriminates against women: A study of research productivity of 2.7 mln scientists in 45 countries," OSF Preprints yr8me, Center for Open Science.
    8. Haotian Xu & Wenqin Shen, 2025. "The double penalty of class and gender: the research productivity of married female doctoral students," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(7), pages 4117-4140, July.
    9. Mohsen Jadidi & Fariba Karimi & Haiko Lietz & Claudia Wagner, 2018. "Gender Disparities In Science? Dropout, Productivity, Collaborations And Success Of Male And Female Computer Scientists," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03n04), pages 1-23, May.
    10. Natalia Restrepo & Alfonso Unceta & Xabier Barandiaran, 2021. "Gender Diversity in Research and Innovation Projects: The Proportion of Women in the Context of Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Kjersten Bunker Whittington & Molly M. King & Isabella Cingolani, 2024. "Structure, status, and span: gender differences in co-authorship networks across 16 region-subject pairs (2009–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 147-179, January.
    12. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2015. "Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 795-812, June.
    13. Stefano Bianchini & Patrick Llerena & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Emre Özel, 2022. "Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Manuel Goyanes & Tamás Tóth & Gergő Háló, 2024. "Gender differences in google scholar representation and impact: an empirical analysis of political communication, journalism, health communication, and media psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1719-1737, March.
    15. Matthias Kuppler, 2022. "Predicting the future impact of Computer Science researchers: Is there a gender bias?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6695-6732, November.
    16. González-Álvarez, Julio & Cervera-Crespo, Teresa, 2017. "Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 232-243.
    17. L. Elisa Celis & Amit Kumar & Nisheeth K. Vishnoi & Andrew Xu, 2024. "Centralized Selection with Preferences in the Presence of Biases," Papers 2409.04897, arXiv.org.
    18. Wullum Nielsen, Mathias & Börjeson, Love, 2019. "Gender diversity in the management field: Does it matter for research outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1617-1632.
    19. Kai Li & Xiang Zheng & Chaoqun Ni, 2025. "Gender disparities in the STEM research enterprise in China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Fengyuan Liu & Petter Holme & Matteo Chiesa & Bedoor AlShebli & Talal Rahwan, 2023. "Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 353-364, March.
    21. Thamyres T. Choji & Manuel J. Cobo & Jose A. Moral-Munoz, 2024. "Is the scientific impact of the LIS themes gender-biased? A bibliometric analysis of the evolution, scientific impact, and relative contribution by gender from 2007 to 2022," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6023-6047, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J44 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Professional Labor Markets and Occupations
    • J7 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1750. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.upf.edu/en/web/econ/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.