COVID-19 and the gender gap in research productivity: understanding the effect of having primary responsibility for the care of children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we contribute to the emerging literature on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gender gap in research productivity. We extend previous studies by considering men and women academics from science and non-science disciplines through an analysis of data from academics at 14 universities across two countries (seven in Australia and seven in Canada) and focusing on the role of primary caregiving. Our empirical approach used logistic regressions and the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition technique. The latter enabled us to ask: ‘How much of the gender gap in perceived productivity during the pandemic is due to gender differences in primary care responsibilities?’ Within the sample (N = 2,817) of academics, 33% of women and 25% of men reported that their perceived publication ability decreased a lot during the pandemic. This is an eight percentage-point gender gap in perceived publication ability. Statistical analysis revealed that two-fifths (40%) of this gap may be explained by gender differences in having primary responsibility for the care of children. Gender differences in other characteristics such as age, discipline, and increased teaching and administrative work were not, as a group, significant. There were also no differences between Australia and Canada. The findings are important, particularly for the pursuit of gender equality within academia. In the absence of specific mitigating interventions, research disruptions in 2020 may have long-lasting career scarring effects (e.g. hiring, promotion, tenure) and, as a result, see women further disadvantaged within the academy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".