Parenthood Penalties in Academia: Childcare Responsibilities, Gender Role Beliefs and Institutional Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite progress toward gender parity, women remain underrepresented in academia, particularly in senior research positions. This study investigates the role of parenthood in shaping gender disparities in academic careers, focusing on the complex interplay between gender, childcare responsibilities, gender role beliefs, institutional support, and scientists' career achievements. Using a large-scale survey of 5,670 U.S. and Canadian academics, supplemented with bibliometric data from Web of Science, it reveals that childcare responsibilities significantly mediate gender disparities in both subjective and objective academic achievements, with women assuming a disproportionate share of childcare duties. In particular, women shoulder a greater caregiving load when their partners are employed full-time outside academia. However, egalitarian gender role beliefs have been playing an important role in shifting this structure by transforming women academics' behaviors. As women's egalitarian gender role beliefs strengthen, their childcare responsibilities tend to diminish-an effect not mirrored in men. Institutional parental support policies show mixed effects. While flexible work schedules and childcare support can mitigate the negative association between childcare responsibilities and career outcomes of women academics, policies such as tenure clock extensions and paternity leave may inadvertently intensify it. Addressing these disparities necessitates a comprehensive approach that integrates shifts in individual attitudes, broader sociocultural changes, and policy improvements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".