The influence of gender ratios on academic careers: Combining social networks with tokenism

Abstract

This paper examines how gender proportions at the workplace affect the extent to which individual networks support the career progress (i.e. time to promotion). Previous studies have argued that men and women benefit from different network structures. However, the empirical evidence about these differences has been contradictory or inconclusive at best. Combining social networks with tokenism, we show in a longitudinal academic study that gender-related differences in the way that networks affect career progress exist only in situations where women are in a token position. Our empirical results further show that women not in severely underrepresented situations benefit from the same network structure as men.

Do women in science form more diverse research networks than men? An analysis of Spanish biomedical scientists

“…Since women are underrepresented in positions of organizational authority (e.g., 18% of research group leaders in our sample were women), they suffer from disadvantages linked to minorities such as being under greater performance pressure than their direct peers or failure to challenge distorted expectations and stereotypes [90]. Schoen et al [36] show that when the proportion of women in authority positions is high, they benefit from the same network structures as men. This might suggest that women act differently in their attempt to achieve greater social legitimacy (e.g., a successful research career), rather than that they have different preferences.…”

“…In turn, this supposed preference might be largely influenced by other actor's explicit or implicit demands. For instance, some researchers argue for a legitimacy deficit as central to understanding differences in networking behaviour [29,36]. Since women are underrepresented in positions of organizational authority (e.g., 18% of research group leaders in our sample were women), they suffer from disadvantages linked to minorities such as being under greater performance pressure than their direct peers or failure to challenge distorted expectations and stereotypes [90].…”

“…For example, it is suggested that there are differences in how women and men perceive institutional, economic and other barriers to collaboration (e.g., men express more frustration about external conditions such as lack of resources for collaboration, while women tend to blame their inability to access the resources needed for collaboration) [18,22]. Also, the effect of collaboration patterns on research performance can be different for men and women, usually to the latter's disadvantage (e.g., stereotyping of women in male-dominated teams and fewer opportunities to benefit from structural holes) [29,36,37]. However, it has been shown, also, that women develop specific collaboration strategies to cope with the problems they experience [22,36,38].…”

“…Also, the effect of collaboration patterns on research performance can be different for men and women, usually to the latter's disadvantage (e.g., stereotyping of women in male-dominated teams and fewer opportunities to benefit from structural holes) [29,36,37]. However, it has been shown, also, that women develop specific collaboration strategies to cope with the problems they experience [22,36,38]. Bozeman and Gaughan [34] found that women are involved in a higher number of research collaborations than men, while there is evidence, also, that women's networks are more egalitarian [39].…”

Professional networking by gender: A case study on LinkedIn contacts for a professor in science

“…Networking includes behaviors that construct, develop and use informal professional relations with the aim to gain professional resources. It is an important component in self-management of a career (van den Brink & Benschop, 2014;Schoen, Rost, & Seidl, 2018;Yang, Chawla, & Uzzi, 2019). In the literature, it is postulated that the importance of networking is increasing in times of globalization and new technologies demand a much higher degree of flexibility.…”