Study Of Orcid Adoption Across Disciplines And Locations

Dasler, Robin; Deane-Pratt, Adèniké; Lavasa, Artemis; Rueda, Laura; Dallmeier-Tiessen, Sünje

doi:10.5281/zenodo.841777

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This model also revealed a significant interaction between gender and STEM, b = −0.83, SE = 0.01, p < .001. Both men and women were more likely to enter STEM (vs. non-STEM) fields, consistent with the reality that STEM fields are much bigger (e.g., Dasler et al, 2017), but the STEM versus non-STEM difference was significantly larger for men, b = 1.01, SE = 0.01, p < .001, than for women, b = 0.18, SE = 0.01, p < .001. Men's probability of entering a STEM field was .25 greater than their probability of entering a non-STEM field; for women, this difference was only .04.…”

Section: Fabs and Field Entriessupporting

confidence: 75%

Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

Hannák¹,

Joseph²,

Larremore³

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on “brilliance” (i.e., exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields’ FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of U.S. academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (Ns = 86,879–364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who enter fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who exit these fields. We also found that FABs’ association with women’s transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men’s transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs’ association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia.

show abstract

Section: Fabs and Field Entriessupporting

confidence: 75%

Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

Hannák¹,

Joseph²,

Larremore³

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(5) What if, in addition to observing only 0% to 20% of transitions and variable adoption of ORCID by gender, the transitions that were observed were heavily weighted toward STEM such that non-STEM usage rates were 0% to 5% while STEM usage rates were 15% to 20%? This scenario directly reflects the observations of Dasler and colleagues in their 2017 study of ORCID usage [53].…”

Section: Supplementary Textsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…We caution that ORCID users do not constitute a uniform random sample of world scholars [53]. As a result, one might ask whether there are biases in ORCID usership that could invalidate our conclusions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…As a result, one might ask whether there are biases in ORCID usership that could invalidate our conclusions. To address this concern, we systematically simulated possible sampling biases in the ORCID data-including biases of the type identified in previous surveys of ORCID membership (e.g., oversampling of STEM fields [53])-to assess the extent to which such sampling biases would affect our conclusions (see Section 2 in the Supplementary Text). These simulations revealed that the inferences drawn about gender differences in field transitions are valid under a wide range of sampling bias scenarios.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explaining Gender Differences in Academics' Career Trajectories

Hannak,

Joseph,

Cimpian

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. To date, most attempts to explain this persistent global phenomenon have relied on limited cross-sections of data from specific countries, fields, or career stages. Here we used a global longitudinal dataset assembled from profiles on ORCID.org to investigate which characteristics of a field predict gender differences among the academics who leave and join that field. Only two field characteristics consistently predicted such differences: (1) the extent to which a field values raw intellectual talent ("brilliance") and ( 2) whether a field is in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Women more than men moved away from brilliance-oriented and STEM fields, and men more than women moved toward these fields. Our findings suggest that stereotypes associating brilliance and other STEMrelevant traits with men more than women play a key role in maintaining gender segregation across academia.

show abstract

“…There are only a few comparable studies of ORCID adoption worldwide. Dasler et al (2017) analyzed the ORCID profiles created over 2012-2016, stressing breakdowns by discipline and location. This study at the global scale lacks a reference population, contrary to two studies on French scientific areas published later.…”

Section: It Also Happened Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

ORCID growth and field‐wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area

Heusse

Cabanac

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research-focused information systems harvest and promote the scientific output of researchers. Disambiguating author identities is key when disentangling homonyms to avoid merging several persons' records. ORCID offers an identifier to link one's identity, affiliations and bibliography.While funding agencies and scholarly publishers promote ORCID, little is known about its adoption rate. We introduce a method to quantify ORCID adoption according to researchers' discipline and occupation in a highereducation organization. We semi-automatically matched the 6,607 staff members affiliated to the 145 labs of the Toulouse scientific area with the 7.3 million profiles at orcid.org. The observed ORCID adoption of 41.8% comes with discipline-wise disparities. Unexpectedly, only 48.3% of all profiles listed at least one work and profiles with no works might just have been created to get an identifier. Those 'empty' profiles are of little interest for the entity disambiguation task. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ORCID adoption at the scale of a multidisciplinary scientific metropole. This method is replicable and future studies can target other cases to contrast the dynamics of ORCID adoption worldwide.

show abstract

Study Of Orcid Adoption Across Disciplines And Locations

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

Field-specific ability beliefs as an explanation for gender differences in academics’ career trajectories: Evidence from public profiles on ORCID.Org.

Explaining Gender Differences in Academics' Career Trajectories

ORCID growth and field‐wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About