We analyse the research performance of 36,000 Italian and Norwegian professors; men outperform women across countries, fields and academic ranks; the differences can be largely explained by the top 10 % professors

Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway. Giovanni Abramo, Dag W. Aksne, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo. Journal of Informetrics, Volume 15, Issue 2, May 2021, 101144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101144

Highlights

• We analyse the research performance of 36,000 Italian and Norwegian professors.

• We apply an output to input indicator of research performance, the FSS.

• We find that men outperform women across countries, fields and academic ranks.

• Performance differences can be largely explained by the top 10 % professors.

• Possible biases intrinsic in quantitative performance indicators are discussed.

Abstract:In this study, the scientific performance of Italian and Norwegian university professors is analysed using bibliometric indicators. The study is based on over 36,000 individuals and their publication output during the period 2011–2015. Applying a multidimensional indicator in which several aspects of the research performance are captured, we find large differences in the performance of men and women. These gender differences are evident across all analysed levels, such as country, field, and academic position. However, most of the gender differences can be explained by the tails of the distributions—in particular, there is a much higher proportion of men among the top 10 % performing scientists. For the remaining 90 % of the population, the gender differences are practically non-existent. The results of the two countries, which differ in terms of the societal role of women, are contrasting. Further, we discuss possible biases that are intrinsic in quantitative performance indicators, which might disfavour female researchers.

Keywords: ItalyProductivityNorwayBibliometricsUniversityGender gaps

Intelligence compensate for background disadvantage: Although personality traits may help compensate for background disadvantage to a small extent, they do not usually lead to a “full catch-up,” unlike intelligence

Damian, R. I., Su, R., Shanahan, M., Trautwein, U., & Roberts, B. W. (2015). Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000024

Abstract: This study investigated the interplay of family background and individual differences, such as personality traits and intelligence (measured in a large U.S. representative sample of high school students; N = 81,000) in predicting educational attainment, annual income, and occupational prestige 11 years later. Specifically, we tested whether individual differences followed 1 of 3 patterns in relation to parental socioeconomic status (SES) when predicting attained status: (a) the independent effects hypothesis (i.e., individual differences predict attainments independent of parental SES level), (b) the resource substitution hypothesis (i.e., individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at lower levels of parental SES), and (c) the Matthew effect hypothesis (i.e., “the rich get richer”; individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at higher levels of parental SES). We found that personality traits and intelligence in adolescence predicted later attained status above and beyond parental SES. A standard deviation increase in individual differences translated to up to 8 additional months of education, $4,233 annually, and more prestigious occupations. Furthermore, although we did find some evidence for both the resource substitution and the Matthew effect hypotheses, the most robust pattern across all models supported the independent effects hypothesis. Intelligence was the exception, the interaction models being more robust. Finally, we found that although personality traits may help compensate for background disadvantage to a small extent, they do not usually lead to a “full catch-up” effect, unlike intelligence. This was the first longitudinal study of status attainment to test interactive models of individual differences and background factors.