STI Policy Review

Science & Technology Policy Institute (과학기술정책연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Gender Composition of Research Teams on Individual Researchers' Performance in China

  • Ma, Ying (McGill University, Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development)
  • Published : 2017.12.14
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between the gender composition of scientific research teams and scientists' individual performance. The gender composition of research teams is an important feature of workplace settings and influences the way people interact and communicate; however, previous research has not directly examined its relationship with scientists' individual performance. Drawing on data collected on university faculties in China in 2016, this article tests several hypotheses about individual's performance in teams with different gender compositions. The results show that team gender composition has a clear gendered effect on scientists' individual performance. The effects of tokenism for women in men-majority teams is proven, but men in women-majority teams appear to be unaffected by tokenism. Moreover, the theories claiming that homogenous teams are more conducive to better individual performance than mixed teams are supported for men but not for women. The findings of this research suggest that recruiting more women into the scientific workforce may improve their performance and thereby help diminish the gender gap in performance. It also indicates that the Chinese preferential policies towards women in science formulated in recent years have had positive impacts. However, considering that more than half of the researchers in the survey are working in men-majority teams, the task of narrowing the gender gap in performance remains a challenge. Further work is needed to explore the tensions and benefits of working with the opposite gender.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, V. D., & Thoits, P. A. (1985). Token achievement: An examination of proportional representation and performance outcomes. Soc. F., 64(2), 332-340. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/64.2.332
  2. Allmendinger, J., & Hackman, J. R. (1995). The more, the better? A four-nation study of the inclusin of women in symphony orchestras. Social Forces, 74(2), 423-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/74.2.423
  3. Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095801
  4. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
  5. Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337
  6. Blalock, H. M. (1957). Percent non-white and discrimination in the South. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 677-682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089197
  7. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7). New York: Free Press.
  8. Budig, M. J. (2002). Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: Who rides the glass escalator? Social Problems, 49(2), 258-277. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.2.258
  9. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). Academic Press.
  10. Cox, Jr., T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. Jossey-Bass.
  11. Diaz-Garcia, C., Gonzalez-Moreno, A., & Jose Saez-Martinez, F. (2013). Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation, 15(2), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.2.149
  12. Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (1997). Employee satisfaction in work groups with different gender composition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199703)18:2<181::AID-JOB799>3.0.CO;2-M
  13. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 31(4), 847-856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500053452
  14. Fox, M. F. (1991). Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In H. Zuckeman, J. R. Cole, & J. T. Bruer (Eds.), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community (pp.188-204). N.Y.: W. W. Norton
  15. Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 542-571. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2007.0032
  16. Garcia Martinez, M., Zouaghi, F., & Garcia Marco, T. (2016). Diversity is strategy: The effect of R&D team diversity on innovative performance. R&D Management, 47(2), 311-329.
  17. Henderson, L., & Herring, C. (2013). Does critical diversity pay in higher education? Race, gender, and departmental rankings in research universities. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1(3), 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2013.818565
  18. Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203
  19. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Hinnant, C. C., Stvilia, B., Wu, S., Worrall, A., Burnett, G., Burnett, K. Kazmer, M. M., & Marty, P. F. (2012). Author-team diversity and the impact of scientific publications: Evidence from physics research at a national science lab. Library & Information Science Research, 34(4), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.03.001
  21. Hollis, A. (2001). Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Economics, 8(4), 503-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(01)00041-0
  22. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
  23. Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491
  24. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York City: Basic books Inc.
  25. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social studies of science, 35(5), 673-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
  26. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 45-71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401
  27. Ma, Ying. (2017). Policies and measures towards promoting women's development in S&T fields-International experiences and China's status. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 3,180-184.
  28. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x
  29. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
  30. Martin, P. Y., & Harkreader, S. (1993). Multiple gender contexts and employee rewards. Work and Occupations, 20(3), 296-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888493020003003
  31. Nakhaie, M. R. (2002). Gender differences in publication among university professors in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 39(2), 151-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2002.tb00615.x
  32. Newcomb, T. (1961). The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. doi:10.1037/13156-000.
  33. Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615-631. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.6.615
  34. Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizational demography: Implications for management. California Management Review, 28(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165170
  35. Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organization theory and structural perspectives on management. Journal of Management, 17(4), 789-803. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700411
  36. Pierce, J. L. (1996). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley; LA; London: University of California Press.
  37. Price de Solla, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
  38. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1156
  39. Sarsons H. (2015). Gender differences in recognition for group work. Harvard University Working Paper. Also Available at https://scholar.harvard.edu/sarsons/publications/note-gender-differences-recognition-group-work
  40. South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., & Corder, J. (1982). Social structure and intergroup interaction: Men and women of the federal bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 47(5), 587-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095160
  41. South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., & Corder, J. (1983). Female labor force participation and the organizational experiences of male workers. The Sociological Quarterly, 24(3), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1983.tb00707.x
  42. Spangler, E., Gordon, M. A., & Pipkin, R. M. (1978). Token women: An empirical test of Kanter's hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1086/226745
  43. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius, (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings, key readings in social psychology (pp. 276-293). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  44. Tolbert, P. S., Simons, T., Andrews, A., & Rhee, J. (1995). The effects of gender composition in academic departments on faculty turnover. ILR Review, 48(3), 562-579. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399504800313
  45. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549-579. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393472
  46. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and Research (pp. 77-122). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
  47. Wharton, A., & Bird, S. (1996). Stand by your man: Homosociality, work groups, and men's perceptions of difference. Research on Men and Masculinities Series, 9, 97-114.
  48. Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the "female" professions. Social problems, 39(3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096961
  49. Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav, 20, 77-140.
  50. Winquist, J. R., & Larson Jr, J. R. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.371
  51. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847-870. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657505
  52. Zhu, Y. & Ma, Y. (2015). Gender, Time Allocation and Scholarly Productivity among Chinese University Faculty. Collection of Women's Studies, 4, 24-49.