PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Corsi, Marcella

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    On the evolution of the glass ceiling in Italian academia: the case of economics Open PDF 
    (Cambridge University Press, 2019)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D’Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    Following an international trend, Italy has reformed its university system, especially concerning methods and tools for research evaluation, which are increasingly focused on a number of bibliometric indexes. To study the effects of these changes, we analyze the changing profiles of economists who have won competitions for full professorship in the last few decades in the country. We concentrate on individual characteristics and on scientific production. We show that the identification of a univocal and standardized concept of “research quality” within the new research assessments has progressively imposed a strategy of “homologation,” especially for women. We find that women economists are at a higher risk of discrimination than their male colleagues and thus they are more likely to conform their research activities to the standardized profile imposed by the gender-blind application of simplistic bibliometric methods.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Case Study of Pluralism in Economics: The Heterodox Glass Ceiling in Italy Open PDF 
    (Routhledge, 2018)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D'Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    Quantitative measures of supposed scientific ‘quality’ (or ‘impact’) based on bibliometric indicators are used as the primary or exclusive tools of research evaluation in a growing number of countries. The negative impact of this method of evaluation on pluralism in economic teaching and research has been documented in Italy, France, Australia and the United Kingdom. We provide new evidence for Italy by investigating the CVs and publications of all candidates for the ‘national scientific qualification’, which is needed to access all tenured Italian academic positions. With respect to past evidence, we focus on the homologation of research topics and methods as well as the delegitimization of particular publication outlets. Our analysis has relevant implications internationally. First, research evaluation aimed at identifying ‘excellence’ often boils down to (as in the case of Italy) the adoption of rankings of supposedly top journals, which systematically discriminate against heterodox journals. Second, the legitimacy of academic research published in the form of books and book chapters must be reclaimed. Third, heterodox economists risk discrimination not so much because of their methods or policy recommendations, but because of the topics and research fields they investigate.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gendered careers: women economists in Italy
    (ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, 2017)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D'Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    Recent reforms of the Italian university system introduced a centralized national qualification competition (called ASN), necessary for accessing all academic positions in the country. Following a well-known international trend, the new mechanism is founded on rigid standardized indexes of “scientific productivity” based on bibliometric indicators. In economics, women’s lower success rate (35%) compared to men’s (44%) is often connected to lower productivity. We provide evidence matching all candidates’ CVs with their record of publications on EconLit, showing that women’s typical career profiles, e.g. in terms of type of publications, topics and methods of inquiry, were penalized regardless of scientific productivity. Our work aims not only at documenting, through a large scale natural experiment, the causes of the underrepresentation of women in academia (especially in top positions) and within economics, but also at raising the issue of new incentives and constrains that increasingly push women to uniform their careers and their research interests to those of their men colleagues.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Corsi, Marcella
    ;
    D’Ippoliti, Carlo
    ;
    Zacchia, Giulia
    This paper contributes to the literature on the effect of research evaluation in terms of preserving and reproducing diversity. Through a large-scale natural experiment encompassing two entire cohorts of Italian economists, we document how candidates for academic positions, especially top-tier positions, in economics are pushed to increasingly conform to a standardised research profile. We find evidence of gender bias in research evaluation and observe substantial variability in the chances of qualifying for an academic position, depending on candidates’ main fields, topics and methods of research. Our results also indicate that economists working on less popular research fields and/or with heterodox methods are less likely to qualify for top-tier academic positions, independently of their bibliometric indicators.