The Howard-Harvard effect: Institutional reproduction of intersectional inequalities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04391v1
• Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:46:54 GMT
• Title: The Howard-Harvard effect: Institutional reproduction of intersectional inequalities
• Authors: Diego Kozlowski, Thema Monroe-White, Vincent Larivi\`ere and Cassidy R. Sugimoto
• Abstract summary: The U.S. higher education system concentrates the production of science and scientists within a few institutions. This has implications for minoritized scholars and the topics with which they are disproportionately associated. We observe a Howard-Harvard effect, in which the topical profile of minoritized scholars are amplified in mission-driven institutions.
• Score: 0.36868085124383626
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The US higher education system concentrates the production of science and scientists within a few institutions. This has implications for minoritized scholars and the topics with which they are disproportionately associated. This paper examines topical alignment between institutions and authors of varying intersectional identities, and the relationship with prestige and scientific impact. We observe a Howard-Harvard effect, in which the topical profile of minoritized scholars are amplified in mission-driven institutions and decreased in prestigious institutions. Results demonstrate a consistent pattern of inequality in topics and research impact. Specifically, we observe statistically significant differences between minoritized scholars and White men in citations and journal impact. The aggregate research profile of prestigious US universities is highly correlated with the research profile of White men, and highly negatively correlated with the research profile of minoritized women. Furthermore, authors affiliated with more prestigious institutions are associated with increasing inequalities in both citations and journal impact. Academic institutions and funders are called to create policies to mitigate the systemic barriers that prevent the United States from achieving a fully robust scientific ecosystem.

Related papers

• Biases in gendered citation practices: an exploratory study and some reflections on the Matthew and Matilda effects [2.0277446818410994]
  This paper aims at analyzing gendered citation practices in the software engineering literature. Our results show that some efforts still need to be done to achieve fairness in citation practices in the SE field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T19:53:41Z)
• Understanding Fine-grained Distortions in Reports of Scientific Findings [46.96512578511154]
  Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public is crucial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:00:01Z)
• Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process [82.2069685579588]
  We investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T20:05:49Z)
• Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets [56.67097829383139]
  We focus on the nuanced distinctions in framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. We observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T06:40:21Z)
• Diversity dilemmas: uncovering gender and nationality biases in graduate admissions across top North American computer science programs [0.0]
  We study whether there is a preference for students' gender and nationality in the admission processes. Our findings show that there is no gender bias in the admission of graduate students to research groups, but we observed bias based on students' nationality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-01T17:02:08Z)
• Exploring the Confounding Factors of Academic Career Success: An Empirical Study with Deep Predictive Modeling [43.91066315776696]
  We propose to explore the determinants of academic career success through an empirical and predictive modeling perspective. We analyze the co-author network and find that potential scholars work closely with influential scholars early on and more closely as they grow. We find that being a Fellow could not bring the improvements of citations and productivity growth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T08:16:21Z)
• Award rate inequities in biomedical research [55.850540873687386]
  The authors performed an analysis of 14,263 biomedical research proposals with proposed start dates between 2010-2022 from the University of Michigan Medical School. There is a clear relationship between race/ethnicity and rates of proposal award. Black/African American and Asian researchers appear disadvantaged across all submission categories relative to White researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-14T14:05:39Z)
• How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI [75.40051547428592]
  Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible AI technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-16T14:39:37Z)
• Emergence of Structural Inequalities in Scientific Citation Networks [20.754274052686355]
  We identify two types of structural inequalities in scientific citations. First, female authors, who represent a minority of researchers, receive less recognition for their work relative to male authors. Second, authors affiliated with top-ranked institutions, who are also a minority, receive substantially more recognition compared to other authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-19T17:53:08Z)
• Convergence and Inequality in Research Globalization [6.267366754791155]
  The catch-up effect and the Matthew effect offer opposing characterizations of globalization. We conduct an in-depth study based on scholarly and patent publications covering STEM research from 218 countries/regions over the past four decades.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T22:04:24Z)
• Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: Evidence from biomedicine [2.741266294612776]
  We study one aspect of societal benefits that is contributing to the development of patented technologies. We measure the degree of interdisciplinarity of a paper using three popular indicators, namely variety, balance, and disparity. Our work may have policy implications for interdisciplinary research and scientific and technological impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-27T15:21:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.