The STEM field is characterized by a strong gender gap, both in Business and in Academia. Previous studies showed how the gender gap in Academia presents some peculiarities: women result to publish less than men across all disciplines, and this is the reason why this publication gap is often referred to as “productivity puzzle”. Strongly believing that gender should not influence the choice of the career to pursue, recent literature in organization has paid greater attention to gender related issues, analyzing the role played by team heterogeneity on performance. Such studies often obtained controversial outcomes, suggesting that the relationship between group heterogeneity and performance is a complex phenomenon. The dynamics taking place within working groups have been vastly studied in organizational psychology, showing that factors shaping group members’ behavior are various. In this context, the working environment results to be a crucial factor. For these reasons, in this study we investigated the impact of heterogeneity on academic teams performance, taking into account gender representation in the overall working environment. More specifically, we evaluated the impact of diversity on the research conducted at the Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria of Politecnico di Milano. Data are available for scientific paper published between 1965 and 2018 we took into account the transformations occurred in terms of gender representation, considering teams characteristics, research outcomes and productivity puzzle. The results obtained showed how the impact of heterogeneity varied according to perceived value of diversity. Heterogeneity per se does not account for a boost in performance. Gender heterogeneity leads to an increase in performance only when also inclusion is achieved.

1. Diversity
and
inclusion
{letizia.clementi, riccardo1.cavadini, fabiola.casasopra} @mail.polimi.it
1
{marco.rabozzi, sara.notargiacomo, marco.santambrogio} @polimi.it
05.17 - 06.01
NECST Group Conference X

2. Gender Gap in STEM field is a known fact
2

3. 3
In Academia is evident in the productivity puzzle

4. J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman, “The productivity puzzle,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Women in Science. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984.
L. S. Rigg, S. McCarragher, and A. Krmenec, “Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals,” The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 491–502, 2012.
Y. Xie and K. A. Shauman, “Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle,” American Sociological Review, pp. 847–870, 1998.
Productivity puzzle: women result to publish less
than man across all disciplines
4

5. Productivity puzzle: quality of scientific publication
does not seem to be influenced by author’s gender
J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman, “The productivity puzzle,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Women in Science. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984.
L. S. Rigg, S. McCarragher, and A. Krmenec, “Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals,” The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 491–502, 2012.
Y. Xie and K. A. Shauman, “Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle,” American Sociological Review, pp. 847–870, 1998.
4

6. J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman, “The productivity puzzle,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Women in Science. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984.
L. S. Rigg, S. McCarragher, and A. Krmenec, “Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals,” The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 491–502, 2012.
Y. Xie and K. A. Shauman, “Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle,” American Sociological Review, pp. 847–870, 1998.
5
The first formalization ever of the problem was done in
1984 by Cole and Zuckerman.
They studied a sample of 526 PhD students both
women and men, equally distributed, over a 12 years time
frame. They found out that women publish 0.57 times
less than men.
Productivity puzzle
in the State of the Art

7. They addressed various hypothesis to explain such gap:
1. marital status
2. discrimination in the access to collaborations
6
Productivity puzzle
in the State of the Art

8. They addressed various hypothesis to explain such gap:
1. marital status
2. discrimination in the access to collaborations
6
Productivity puzzle
in the State of the Art

9. Xie and Shauman (1998) explored other reasons behind productivity
puzzle and concluded that it can be linked to:
- personal characteristics
- structural positions: role in Academia
Y. Xie and K. A. Shauman, “Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle,” American Sociological Review, pp. 847–870, 1998.
Productivity puzzle
in the State of the Art
7

10. What are the outcomes of such a gap
on group dynamics?
8

11. Influenced by
- the attributes along which
members differ
- surrounding environment
dynamics
L. G. Campbell, S. Mehtani, M. E. Dozier, and J. Rinehart, “Gender heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science,” PloS one, vol. 8, no. 10, p. e79147, 2013.
J. B. Bear and A. W. Woolley, “The role of gender in team collaboration and performance,” Interdisciplinary science reviews, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 146–153, 2011.
H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict,” The social psychology of intergroup relations, vol. 33, no. 47, p. 74, 1979.
9
Diversity impact on performance

12. 10
Definitions of diversity

13. Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein. "What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations."
Academy of management review 32.4 (2007): 1199-1228.
Team members have diverging opinions, beliefs or values
from each other. People tend to bond with people they
consider similar to themselves
11
Separation

14. Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein. "What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations."
Academy of management review 32.4 (2007): 1199-1228.
}When the separating attribute
is central to the task that has
to be performed by the team,
such differences may create a
conflict
Separation
12

15. 1
2
3
4
Difference in socially evaluated assets such as prestige,
income or decision-making authority inside the team
Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein. "What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations."
Academy of management review 32.4 (2007): 1199-1228.
13
Disparity

16. Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein. "What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations."
Academy of management review 32.4 (2007): 1199-1228.
}It deters collaboration within
team-members, while
enhancing endogenous
competition
1
2
3
4
Disparity
14

17. Differences in categorical attributes which are not socially
evaluated as more or less prestigious, such as functional
background, ethnicity, or gender
Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein. "What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations."
Academy of management review 32.4 (2007): 1199-1228.
15
Variety

18. Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein. "What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations."
Academy of management review 32.4 (2007): 1199-1228.
}
The presence of multiple
categories inside a group
broadens its cognitive and
behavioural repertoire
A more diverse group may be
at the basis of more creative
solutions
Variety
16

19. Assess the presence of a productivity puzzle
in scientific publications
Our goals
17

20. Assess the impact of variety on performance
Assess the presence of a productivity puzzle
in scientific publications
Our goals
17

21. Dipartimento di Elettronica Informazione e
Bioingegneria (DEIB) comprises the
research areas of Computer Science,
Bioengineering and ElectronicsDIPARTIMENTO DI ELETTRONICA
INFORMAZIONE E BIOINGEGNERIA
Scenario
18

22. Name Collection
We gathered all the names of full
professors, associate professors,
assistant professors, PhD students,
research assistants, contract
professors, research collaborators
and emeriti professors
Methodology
19

23. Name Collection
We gathered all the names of full
professors, associate professors,
assistant professors, PhD students,
research assistants, contract
professors, research collaborators
and emeriti professors
Publication List
Given the first and last names of
authors, we acquired from Scopus:
1. list of publications for each
identifier;
2. co-authors list;
3. number of citations;
4. date and venue of
publication
Methodology
19

24. Name Collection
We gathered all the names of full
professors, associate professors,
assistant professors, PhD students,
research assistants, contract
professors, research collaborators
and emeriti professors
Publication List
Given the first and last names of
authors, we acquired from Scopus:
1. list of publications for each
identifier;
2. co-authors list;
3. number of citations;
4. date and venue of
publication
Gender Inference
Authors’ gender is not disclosed on
peer-reviewed. We inferred them by
employing Genderize.io API.
Methodology
19

25. Diversity Performance
Indexes
20
Quantification of qualitative concepts

26. C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell system technical journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, 1948.
D. A. Harrison and K. J. Klein, “What’s the difference? diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations,” Academy of management review, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1199–1228, 2007.
Our main focus is diversity in terms of gender difference, which are
attributable to variety
Information Entropy
Diversity index
21

27. Maximum
heterogeneity
Teams are equally
represented
Perfect
homogeneity
All team members
belong to the same
category
Diversity index
22

28. Number of citations adjusted for the
number of months since publication
Performance index
23

29. 16,096 published works analyzed over 53 years:
1965-2018
The number of paper published grew from 63 in
the 1960s to 14340 in the last decade
DIPARTIMENTO DI ELETTRONICA
INFORMAZIONE E BIOINGEGNERIA
Data overview
24

30. Comparison of research teams based on gender
Data overview
25

31. Percentage of male and female authors
Data overview
26

32. Monthly citations over decades
Data overview
27

33. Possible explanation:
technological advancements
which took place in the period
considered
Past literature is widely accessible to
more and more people thanks to the
new technologies. Everybody has a
higher possibility to share and
publish their studies.
Data overview
Monthly citations over decades
27

34. Diversity over decades
Data overview
28

35. Possible explanation:
increasing presence of
women in Academia during the
last decades
Female population is 24.67 times
what it was in ‘60s
Male population grew by a factor
of only 3.7
Data overview
Diversity over decades
28

36. J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman, “The productivity puzzle,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Women in Science. JAI Press, Greenwich CT, 1984.
L. S. Rigg, S. McCarragher, and A. Krmenec, “Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals,” The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp.
491–502, 2012.
Results
29
Assessment of first and solo authorship: most prestigious positions and
SoA standard for productivity puzzle evaluation.

37. J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman, “The productivity puzzle,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Women in Science. JAI Press, Greenwich CT, 1984.
L. S. Rigg, S. McCarragher, and A. Krmenec, “Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals,” The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp.
491–502, 2012.
Results
30
First - authorship: only in the last decade the
percentage of female first author matches the
representation of women in the Department.
Women’s performance is still 0.8 men’s one.

38. J. R. Cole and H. Zuckerman, “The productivity puzzle,” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Women in Science. JAI Press, Greenwich CT, 1984.
L. S. Rigg, S. McCarragher, and A. Krmenec, “Authorship, collaboration, and gender: Fifteen years of publication productivity in selected geography journals,” The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp.
491–502, 2012.
Results
30
First - authorship: only in the last decade the
percentage of female first author matches the
representation of women in the Department.
Women’s performance is still 0.8 men’s one.
Solo - authorship: in the ‘60s accounted for the
13%, in the last decade only 3.7%, while
women’s increased. Possible explanation:
reduction of gender gap, rather than lower
proclivity to collaborate.

39. While diversity is increasing
the productivity puzzle still holds
31

40. Assess the impact of variety on performance
Results
32

41. Diversity and Performance 1965-1978
Results
33
Less diverse teams are performing
better.
Possible explanation:
gender difference is perceived
as separation due to holding
stereotypes.

42. Diversity and Performance 2008-2019
Results
34
While homogenous teams are still
performing better, more diverse
teams performance are
improving.
Possible explanation:
the surrounding environment has
changed, and the gender gap
narrowed: gender difference is
starting to be perceived more as
variety than heterogeneity.

43. Diversity impact is strongly influenced by
how difference is perceived
35

44. Diversity per se does not account for a boost in performance.
Conclusions
How it is perceived by team members is crucial for its impact on
intragroup dynamics
36

45. In order to experience such positive dynamics a group needs to
something more, which is inclusion.
Conclusions
37

46. ○ Investigate the presence of a causal relationship by including as
variables other typologies of diversity: background, ethnicity and level of
education;
○ Include an analysis of perceived inclusion measured through surveys;
○ Investigate furtherly the presence of a productivity puzzle assessing
directly the authors’ work and not grouping them by published paper;
Future works
38

47. Thanks
for your
attention
{letizia.clementi, riccardo1.cavadini, fabiola.casasopra} @mail.polimi.it
{marco.rabozzi, sara.notargiacomo, marco.santambrogio} @polimi.it
05.17 - 06.01
NECST Group Conference X