# data[].attributes.body
Nice write-up: "Much like an essay, an infographic is often the end product of a research project or inquiry process. As an academic work, it is important that the information be accurate and properly cited. Infographics should easily allow readers to access referenced material through citation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the elements of an effective Infographic Assignment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post is a summary of the eLearning Lunch and Learn session presented on October 2nd, 2017. Images presented throughout are available for download as full infographics - these are available under Resources at the bottom of the post. Video clips from the Lunch and Learn session are also available throughout.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an online world, content rocks it.

Statistics show that infographics in particular are an important part of your content marketing strategy. Infographics have become extremely popular because they combine two things that people like: information and graphics.

However, slapping just any old infographic on your website will not automatically generate traffic or go viral. With so much content, including visuals, uploaded every day, you need to put some serious thought into your infographic creation if you want to get a successful one.

Here are 7 mistakes you should avoid when you create an infographic.

1. Your infographic is the same-old, same-old.

Infographics are popular because they contain information. However, creating an infographic for something that everybody has already done is a surefire way of getting lost in the crowd.

Imagine that you are doing an infographic on social media, which you think is an important topic. But about 11 million other people have done the same thing.

It such a popular topic, that an infographic you create may have to fight an uphill battle to get noticed. If you want to create an infographic on a popular topic, make sure you have something new or interesting to add, and work on your headline to make it more search-friendly.

If you don't have anything new to bring to the table and, by some miracle, you get some hits, you will only succeed in boring your audience and increasing your bounce rate. Worse, you might give them a bad first impression about your authority and site.

Takeaway: Avoid topics that have been done to death, or at least make sure you give your audience something interesting or new if you do make an infographic on a popular topic.

2. Your infographic has too much text.

The main reason infographics are so popular is because it provides a visual and easily digestible version of a concept or statistics, so they should not be too wordy.

The infographic above is certainly informative, and it does have graphics, but it forces the audience to focus on the text rather than the , so it is not an effective way to retain the audience's interest or help them understand the information you have presented. Keep your text short, simple, and powerful.

Here is a good example of information visualization and when actually don't need any words:
What Matters Most to People Around the World? Source
Takeaway: You need to keep your text as tight and simple as possible. If you have a problem condensing your information in an effective way, get a professional copywriter to do it for you.

3. Your infographic has the wrong information.

One of the most unforgivable things you can do is create an infographic that give the wrong information.

It is easy enough to conduct research on almost anything, but anyone can post anything and sound authoritative. Just because you see it on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

You need to ensure that the facts you will include in your infographic are accurate. It does take a bit more digging and cross-referencing to make sure you get the real deal, but it will be worth the effort when you see your visitor counter, re-tweets, and shares go up!

The best way to ensure the accuracy of your figures is to use reputable sources. If you are creating an infographic on a medical thematic, go to peer-reviewed articles in established medical journals and double check the findings.

If you are posting statistics on the number of drunk driving incidents in a given place, go to government websites that collect such information. That way, you will get the most recent validated and confirmed data.

To clinch the credibility check, cite all your sources. Your audience will be able to check the facts for themselves. It not only makes you seem more professional, you can legitimately pass the buck if the information turns out to be inaccurate, after all.

Takeaway: Make accuracy a priority when you create an infographic.

4. Your infographic is copycatting.

Okay, so you saw a really awesome infographic online, and you want to share the same information with your audience.

It is a great idea to get your inspiration from it but not so much to copy it and pass off as your own. Changing the color and the fonts will not make it your own, and people will notice. Not cool.

If you like the information, you can use it as a base, but put your own spin into it. Get ideas from other infographic designs you like. Mix the information up a bit by putting in quotes, or adding facts and statistics from reputable sources. Create a kickass headline to get attention. In other words, eyes on your own paper.

Takeaway: There is nothing wrong with learning from others, but there is everything wrong with copycatting. Have your own take and style.

5. Your infographic has too many clashing colors.

Color is like spicy food. Just the right amount is good for you, but too much can give you hemorrhoids.

An infographic should definitely have , but you need to be careful about spinning that color wheel too hard to avoid confusing your audience.

Using too many colors in an infographic can make it hard for your audience to understand the information you are offering. From a design viewpoint, it also makes it look incoherent and messy.
Source
Here is an infographic with good color selection:

Takeaway: Use no more than five colors in any infographic, and try to use it to draw attention to the important information rather than drowning it out.

6. Your infographic is too long.

The thing with information is that if you have it, you want to share it. Some infographics reflect this need by being excessively long.

Not only does it force your reader to scroll down (and possibly miss important information), you also make them wait for it to load. Most of your viewers will not bother to do either. As a rule of thumb, try not to go bigger than 8,000 pixels and no heavier than 1.5 MB.

Takeaway: If you have a lot to share, break your infographic into several parts.

7. Your infographic is as busy as a bee.

Complex information can easily translate into an overly busy infographic with too many design elements, if you're not careful.

You have all these cool graphics and information you want to put in, but you know you only have so much space to put it in. What do you do? You cram it all in.

Big mistake. You don't need any studies to see why this is.

You want to spare your viewer a headache from reading reams of boring information, not give them one with a busy infographic. While the one above does this deliberately, cleverly convey how red tape can convolute the easiest process, that is not true for many infographic creators.

Takeaway: Use whitespace with great deliberation to give your viewers a break and help them focus on important stuff.

Creating an awesome infographic can do your content marketing strategy successful. However, you need to steer clear of some common problems that can spell death and loneliness to your creation. Avoid these seven mistakes and you stand a good chance of reaping the benefits of your efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Mistakes to Avoid When You Create an Infographic - Venngage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an online world, content rocks it. Statistics show that infographics in particular are an important part of your content marketing strategy. Infographics have become extremely popular because they combine two things that people like: information and graphics. However, slapping just any old infographic on your website will not automatically generate traffic or go viral.

# data[].attributes.body
These are some podcasts I enjoy listening to. They aren't super long (many are about 10-15 minutes) and they involve the hosts diving deep into one or two peer reviewed journal articles or talking about one particular issue in economics/policy. I think that they are good guides for how to make an econ podcast.

# data[].attributes.body
Also check out their "sister" podcast, Planet Money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A little show about big ideas. From the people who make Planet Money, The Indicator helps you make sense of what's happening today. It's a quick hit of insight into work, business, the economy, and everything else. Listen weekday afternoons.

# data[].attributes.body
Some of these are a little longer, but definitely worth a listen, especially since many of them feature authors we read.
https://voxdev.org/talks

# data[].attributes.body
Podcast about Econ of Crime research. Again, longer than I would expect from you, but good examples of folks talking about reasearch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conviction Courts Domestic Violence Drugs Education Employment Guns Health Incarceration Neighborhoods Pre-Trial Policing Re-Entry Resources Difference in Differences Event Study Instrumental Variables Randomized Controlled Trial Regression Discontinuity Synthetic Control

# data[].attributes.body
From the St. Louis Fed. I am linking here to one from a previous UW faculty member who talks about her research into higher education. The podcasts vary from being more about the person to more about the research (we should focus more on research for the assignment).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This 17-minute podcast was released Dec. 18, 2019.

"One reason why the U.S. is still a world leader in terms of academic research is because we bring together so many people from all over the world to come to our graduate schools," says Oksana Leukhina, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. She talks with Maria Hasenstab, media relations coordinator at the St. Louis Fed, about how her research might inform policies, such as the decision to invest in college education. She also discusses how her childhood in the Soviet Union sparked her early interest in economic systems.

Transcript:

Maria Hasenstab: Hello. I'm Maria Hasenstab, and you're listening to Women in Economics, a podcast series from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Today I'm speaking with Oksana Leukhina, a senior economist at the St. Louis Fed. Oksana, thanks for joining me today.

Oksana Leukhina: Oh, thank you for inviting me. I'm happy to be here.

Hasenstab: Tell me a little bit about the work you do here at the St. Louis Fed.

Leukhina: Well, our main goal is to produce high quality economic research that can inform the policy making process. I am a macroeconomist with special interests in economic growth and human capital accumulation. I can tell you a little bit about my recent research on college education, which is joint work with Lutz Hendricks. So in our recent papers, we focus on quantifying financial gains and risks involved in the decision to invest in college education. This is an important question, obviously, from policy making perspective. So if returns to college are high for most students, then policies that encourage college education would be helpful.

So the naive approach to measuring such returns would be just to look at the difference in lifetime earnings. So college graduates and high school graduates. For example, for the generation of man born around 1960, this difference is about 70%. But of course, part of that difference should be simply attributed to the difference in fixed characteristics of these two groups of students. In fact, those students that managed to graduate from college would likely make more money over their lifetime, even if they never went to college. In fact, we find that as much as half of that 70% earnings gap can be attributed to such selection effects, and then the remaining half would be your average return to college investment.

What is novel about our approach is that we actually model how college students progress towards earning an explicit graduation requirement, and this approach allows us to bring college transcript data to the table and tease out some information involved student characteristics that way.

Hasenstab: When you mentioned selection effects, could that include things like soft skills and other characteristics that people might have learned outside of the world of education?

Leukhina: Absolutely. What I mean by ability is actually any set of characteristics that would help you both do better in school and later on in labor markets.

Hasenstab: That's really interesting. This podcast series, obviously we've titled it Women in Economics. When you hear that phrase, what does it mean to you?

Leukhina: So women in economics, what comes to mind I guess is just that life for women in academic in general I think is a bit tougher than it is for men. We know, for example, that teaching evaluations are biased against women, and the studies that show these effects are actually pretty convincing, because they're based on online courses where the same instructors are assigned different names. And basically what we see is that students systematically give a high evaluation for the same exact course with the same exact instructor if they think the instructor is a man. So I find it really shocking, to be honest.

And also when it comes to tenure promotion, economics in particular seems to suffer from gender bias. So a study that comes to mind is a 2014 study in psychological science and public interest, and it follows women in STEM fields. And if you just look at the data and you see that women are less likely to obtain tenure in all STEM fields, however, this gap typically disappears when one controls for publication numbers or journal quality. In other words, if we think mathematics, for example, we can explain why fewer women get tenure relative to men by simply looking at their CV. It is because for whatever reasons, and I'm not going to get into that, they happen to produce fewer publications.

But the funny thing is that when you do that for economics, the gap actually remains even after you control for differences in CV. So I mean, I'm mentioning these studies because I feel like we need to raise awareness of the bias that exist, and I just feel like women have to work a little extra hard trying to be successful in this profession.

But I mean, my personal experience is just I come from academia, so I can attest to that. And I mean, I just feel like we need to have more role models. The John Bates Clark Medal didn't go to a female until 2007. So we just need more role models, and this way I feel like we can encourage talent among high school girls. If we could get them interested in economics we'll have more women and eventually the bias will disappear.

Hasenstab: Well, you mentioned that you come from the world of academia, so can you tell me a little bit about why did you choose economics? And then maybe explain kind of how your career progressed?

Leukhina: Sure, I would like to. So I was actually born in the Soviet Union, which was a planned economy with government controlled prices and production. I was a kid when the Soviet Union dissolved and I actually lived through the episode of hyperinflation and the near collapse of the payment system. So both of my parents are engineers, but at some point my mom switched to be a school teacher. And I remember when she wouldn't get paid for months and months at a time. And so just these memories as a child kind of made me think about economics and I wanted to understand what's going on around me. I wanted to learn how to better design the economic system. And so I think I just have that natural background, but I actually never really planned to study it. Actually, my aspiration was to become an international diplomat. So as soon as I got to college I declared political science as my major and I dreamt of going to the Fletcher School of Diplomacy.

So I think it was the summer in my sophomore year that I changed my mind. And what happened is I was fortunate enough to be a part of the Fund for American Studies Program. That brought together a bunch of students from all over the country, and we all came to D.C. We took econ and poly sci classes in Georgetown in the afternoons, and every morning we would go and work on Capitol Hill. I was interning for Senator Hollings from South Carolina. But the best part of that program was actually that we got to meet a bunch of government officials and we got to speak to them and ask a bunch of questions. And I think the advice that I got from Jamie Rubin - so he was the spokesperson for the State Department at that time, and he basically said that if you want to make it in politics without connections, you need to be a true expert in something so the senators would have to think of your name when something came up and pick up the phone and call you, because you're an expert. And his advice really stuck with me and it made me think hard about PhD programs. And since I always liked math and econ, economics seems to be like a natural choice for me. And I should also thank my economics and math professors that helped me form that plan and just always encouraged me.

Hasenstab: When you applied for that program, that you said where you ended up going to classes at Georgetown, where were you going to school at the time?

Leukhina: I went to a liberal arts college in Charleston, South Carolina. That was kind of a coincidence, maybe. I came to the U.S. as a high school exchange student. It was under the Freedom Support Act, which was an American sponsored program that the goal was to spread democracy. And so I came as a high school student and I was placed in a host family in Charleston, South Carolina, and my guidance counselor told me, "Well, you can go to the citadel or you can go to the College of Charleston." And I just kind of - well, it was an obvious choice at that point, but I didn't have much information. But in hindsight, I feel very lucky. I feel like I got a very special treatment.

I remember my math professor, Martin Jones, just taught us the caustic processes class just for me and another student going to grad school, because he knew that we needed that class.

Hasenstab: So that was an eye-opening experience when you came over as a high school student, right?

Leukhina: Oh, absolutely. At that time, Russia was so different than it is now. And it was really like coming to a completely different world, a different culture.

Hasenstab: So you've explained why you chose economics. And then after your education you said you went into academia. Can you tell me a little bit about that path; how that happened? Were there specifics topics that interest you that drew you to that?

Leukhina: Yes. So like I said, I kind of decided that I would go for a Ph.D. program. I applied to a bunch of schools and went to the University of Minnesota, which is one of the very top programs in macroeconomics.

And the first year I would say was very challenging, just because there's a known gap between undergraduate education and economics in U.S., and what you have to know and do in graduate school. But I was very lucky to have excellent classmates and I learned a lot from my classmates. So these were the challenges early on, just figuring out what you want to do. And I mean, graduate school is all about investment and your tools, right? So you want to take as many courses as possible, learn the tools, because once you're out you never get a chance to go back and to really, really learn those tools. So here's your chance to invest in your skill set and kind of determine what it is you want to focus on, because it pays to stay focused on the research topics that you select. At least for a while until you establish your name.

Hasenstab: And so you mentioned some of those early on challenges. You want to talk more about those or any other struggles? And how did you overcome them?

Leukhina: Perhaps to give some advice to everybody graduating and getting an academic job or some research based job, I think it's important to develop your network of coauthors. You want to work with people that you can learn from, that you feel comfortable with, that are interested in the same topics and that can really drive your curiosity. And that's a challenge and it takes time, but you have to be active in developing your network.

Also, it's important to kind of reach out to the senior colleagues and make sure they know what you're doing, because at the end of the day, they're going to be writing letters of recommendation for you, and it's important to establish those connections early on and become a regular. Say if you go to an NBR group, you should be sticking to just one or two groups at most and showing up there every summer.

Hasenstab: Yeah. That's great advice.

Leukhina: Thank you.

Hasenstab: Do you want to talk about some of your successes in your career?

Leukhina: Well, just I feel like it's a tough profession to survive. I mean, just the fact that I'm still around and still get to do what I love. And I feel very lucky to be a part of this department, because it's just such a high quality department and every one of my colleagues is just amazing, and I feel like I can talk to them about my research, they can help, and they're interested in similar topics, and it's not that often that you get to have so many colleagues that you can talk to. Typically, if you get a job in a top 30, say, Ph.D. granting institutions, you're going to have just a few colleagues. Maybe one or two sort of in your field, right? So being in St. Louis Fed is actually great, because we have a department full of macroeconomists here.

So I feel like I have been successful in the sense that I am still able to do the work that I love, and my favorite thing to do is just economics research.

Hasenstab: Well, that's great. I wanted to ask you why do you think it's important to have women and other underrepresented minorities in the field of economics?

Leukhina: Well, that's kind of I guess an easy question. I feel that the best ideas come from diversity. So having people from different backgrounds, people with different experiences, I think that's one reason why the U.S. is still a world leader in terms of academic research is because we bring together so many people from all over the world to come to our graduate schools. Just the diversity of ideas coming from people with different backgrounds. I mean, if you think about females and males, I mean, females, for example, make most of the consumption purchases, right? And they do all the shopping, they make a lot of family related decisions. And if you think that families are important for aggregate activities and when we have more women who can offer their own perspective on things. And then just going back to that bias that I mentioned earlier. You know, the biases come from the unknown. The more women we have, the less bias we are going to have in this profession. And there is just so much talent among high school kids, and I feel like if we were to have more role models, more talent would be attracted. Men or women, it doesn't matter. But I think at this point, we definitely need to encourage some of the girls to join us.

Hasenstab: That's a great point: The more women who enter the field, the less it would be an unknown. How were you mentored throughout your education and your career? And do you try to reach out and mentor other economists?

Leukhina: Oh, absolutely. I think mentoring is super important. I reach out on my own, so there are mentors in my life that don't even realize that they are my mentors. I basically seek advice whenever I can get it. If I see an opportunity to get some advice, I will go ahead and get it. But I mean, again, just going back to high school, when I was back in Russia I had an excellent math teacher who just every Saturday, she would come and do math problems with me because she wanted me to represent our high school in various math Olympiads, which is kind of a big deal in Russia. She didn't get anything for it. Nothing. Right? She just kind of came and she did it because she wanted our school to do better. And so I'm thankful to people like her, and the same goes for college. I had excellent math and econ professors in college that spent extra time with me. In graduate school, Minnesota is a very special culture. If I were to do this all over again, I would go to Minnesota. It's just the camaraderie between students. There's a lot of co-authorships going on. You're actually encouraged to coauthor your papers. Lots of students coauthor with professors. It's quite a culture. It's just so much fun, and everything is about economics, you talk about economics, everyone's excited about economic ideas. That's something that is very special.

And personally, I placed a few undergraduate students into top graduate programs, and we keep in touch, and they still reach out to me and ask me for advice. Sometimes about little things, but it's very important to make yourself available to younger scholars, because that's one way to make an impact.

Hasenstab: Well, Oksana, I want to thank you so much for your time today. It's been so interesting to hear your story in your words.

To hear more about Women in Economics podcasts, visit Stlouisfed.org/womeninecon. That's one word. Stlouisfed.org/womeninecon. Thanks, Oksana.

Leukhina: Thank you so much for having me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oksana Leukhina | Women in Economics | St. Louis Fed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This 17-minute podcast was released Dec. 18, 2019. "One reason why the U.S. is still a world leader in terms of academic research is because we bring together so many people from all over the world to come to our graduate schools," says Oksana Leukhina, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St.

# data[].attributes.body
Program for making infographic. Free accounts available

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best Examples of Charts, Reports, Infographics and Maps - Infogram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get inspired by this wonderful collection of charts, reports, maps, infographics, dashboards and social media assets made by Infogram users.

# data[].attributes.body
Also free

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
easel.ly | create and share visual ideas using infographics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Easel.ly is a simple web tool that empowers anyone to create and share powerful visuals (infographics, posters)... no design experience needed! We provide the canvas, you provide the creativity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Google Public Data Explorer makes large datasets easy to explore, visualize and communicate. As the charts and maps animate over time, the changes in the world become easier to understand. You don't have to be a data expert to navigate between different views, make your own comparisons, and share your findings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Featuring great examples of infographics, data visualizations and visual communication including critique, commentary, best practices, tips, design tools, jobs board, posters, and the Cool Infographics book!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interactive Mapping & Visualization Software

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Map maker software for creating fully customizable interactive flash maps.

# data[].attributes.body
This link is to the free version. You might have access to the paid version through the UW.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a pretty perfect assignment, except I will have you do fewer papers (maybe 5-10?) and you don't need to go into as much detail about the paper. Note the use of introduction and conclusion to synthesize your research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: ECON 390: Feminist Economics - Bolduc: Annotated Bibliography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to main content It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

# data[].attributes.body
From UNC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Writing Center * University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What this handout is about

This handout will explain why annotated bibliographies are useful for researchers, provide an explanation of what constitutes an annotation, describe various types of annotations and styles for writing them, and offer multiple examples of annotated bibliographies in the MLA, APA, and CBE/CSE styles of citation.

Introduction

Welcome to the wonderful world of annotated bibliographies! You're probably already familiar with the need to provide bibliographies, reference pages, and works cited lists to credit your sources when you do a research paper. An annotated bibliography includes descriptions and explanations of your listed sources beyond the basic citation information you usually provide.

Why do an annotated bibliography?

One of the reasons behind citing sources and compiling a general bibliography is so that you can prove you have done some valid research to back up your argument and claims. Readers can refer to a citation in your bibliography and then go look up the material themselves. When inspired by your text or your argument, interested researchers can access your resources. They may wish to double check a claim or interpretation you've made, or they may simply wish to continue researching according to their interests. But think about it: even though a bibliography provides a list of research sources of all types that includes publishing information, how much does that really tell a researcher or reader about the sources themselves?

An annotated bibliography provides specific information about each source you have used. As a researcher, you have become an expert on your topic: you have the ability to explain the content of your sources, assess their usefulness, and share this information with others who may be less familiar with them. Think of your paper as part of a conversation with people interested in the same things you are; the annotated bibliography allows you to tell readers what to check out, what might be worth checking out in some situations, and what might not be worth spending the time on. It's kind of like providing a list of good movies for your classmates to watch and then going over the list with them, telling them why this movie is better than that one or why one student in your class might like a particular movie better than another student would. You want to give your audience enough information to understand basically what the movies are about and to make an informed decision about where to spend their money based on their interests.

What does an annotated bibliography do?
A good annotated bibliography:

encourages you to think critically about the content of the works you are using, their place within a field of study, and their relation to your own research and ideas.

proves you have read and understand your sources.

establishes your work as a valid source and you as a competent researcher.

situates your study and topic in a continuing professional conversation.

provides a way for others to decide whether a source will be helpful to their research if they read it.

could help interested researchers determine whether they are interested in a topic by providing background information and an idea of the kind of work going on in a field.

What elements might an annotation include?

1. Bibliography according to the appropriate citation style (MLA, APA, CBE/CSE, etc.).

2. Explanation of main points and/or purpose of the work-basically, its thesis-which shows among other things that you have read and thoroughly understand the source.

3. Verification or critique of the authority or qualifications of the author.

4. Comments on the worth, effectiveness, and usefulness of the work in terms of both the topic being researched and/or your own research project.

5. The point of view or perspective from which the work was written. For instance, you may note whether the author seemed to have particular biases or was trying to reach a particular audience.

6. Relevant links to other work done in the area, like related sources, possibly including a comparison with some of those already on your list. You may want to establish connections to other aspects of the same argument or opposing views.

The first four elements above are usually a necessary part of the annotated bibliography. Points 5 and 6 may involve a little more analysis of the source, but you may include them in other kinds of annotations besides evaluative ones. Depending on the type of annotation you use, which this handout will address in the next section, there may be additional kinds of information that you will need to include.

For more extensive research papers (probably ten pages or more), you often see resource materials grouped into sub-headed sections based on content, but this probably will not be necessary for the kinds of assignments you'll be working on. For longer papers, ask your instructor about her preferences concerning annotated bibliographies.

Did you know that annotations have categories and styles?

Decisions, decisions

As you go through this handout, you'll see that, before you start, you'll need to make several decisions about your annotations: citation format, type of annotation, and writing style for the annotation.

First of all, you'll need to decide which kind of citation format is appropriate to the paper and its sources, for instance, MLA or APA. This may influence the format of the annotations and bibliography. Typically, bibliographies should be double-spaced and use normal margins (you may want to check with your instructor, since he may have a different style he wants you to follow).

MLA (Modern Language Association)

See the UNC Libraries citation tutorial for basic MLA bibliography formatting and rules.

MLA documentation is generally used for disciplines in the humanities, such as English, languages, film, and cultural studies or other theoretical studies. These annotations are often summary or analytical annotations.

Title your annotated bibliography "Annotated Bibliography" or "Annotated List of Works Cited."

Following MLA format, use a hanging indent for your bibliographic information. This means the first line is not indented and all the other lines are indented four spaces (you may ask your instructor if it's okay to tab over instead of using four spaces).

Begin your annotation immediately after the bibliographic information of the source ends; don't skip a line down unless you have been told to do so by your instructor.

APA (American Psychological Association)

See the UNC Libraries citation tutorial for basic APA bibliography formatting and rules.

Natural and social sciences, such as psychology, nursing, sociology, and social work, use APA documentation. It is also used in economics, business, and criminology. These annotations are often succinct summaries.

Annotated bibliographies for APA format do not require a special title. Use the usual "References" designation.

Like MLA, APA uses a hanging indent: the first line is set flush with the left margin, and all other lines are indented four spaces (you may ask your instructor if it's okay to tab over instead of using four spaces).

After the bibliographic citation, drop down to the next line to begin the annotation, but don't skip an extra line.

The entire annotation is indented an additional two spaces, so that means each of its lines will be six spaces from the margin (if your instructor has said that it's okay to tab over instead of using the four spaces rule, indent the annotation two more spaces in from that point).

CBE (Council of Biology Editors)/CSE (Council of Science Editors)

See the UNC Libraries citation tutorial for basic CBE/CSE bibliography formatting and rules.

CBE/CSE documentation is used by the plant sciences, zoology, microbiology, and many of the medical sciences.

Annotated bibliographies for CBE/CSE format do not require a special title. Use the usual "References," "Cited References," or "Literature Cited," and set it flush with the left margin.

Bibliographies for CSE in general are in a slightly smaller font than the rest of the paper.

When using the name-year system, as in MLA and APA, the first line of each entry is set flush with the left margin, and all subsequent lines, including the annotation, are indented three or four spaces.

When using the citation-sequence method, each entry begins two spaces after the number, and every line, including the annotation, will be indented to match the beginning of the entry, or may be slightly further indented, as in the case of journals.

After the bibliographic citation, drop down to the next line to begin the annotation, but don't skip an extra line. The entire annotation follows the indentation of the bibliographic entry, whether it's N-Y or C-S format.

Annotations in CBE/CSE are generally a smaller font size than the rest of the bibliographic information.

After choosing a documentation format, you'll choose from a variety of annotation categories presented in the following section. Each type of annotation highlights a particular approach to presenting a source to a reader. For instance, an annotation could provide a summary of the source only, or it could also provide some additional evaluation of that material.

In addition to making choices related to the content of the annotation, you'll also need to choose a style of writing-for instance, telescopic versus paragraph form. Your writing style isn't dictated by the content of your annotation. Writing style simply refers to the way you've chosen to convey written information. A discussion of writing style follows the section on annotation types.

Types of annotations

As you now know, one annotation does not fit all purposes! There are different kinds of annotations, depending on what might be most important for your reader to learn about a source. Your assignments will usually make it clear which citation format you need to use, but they may not always specify which type of annotation to employ. In that case, you'll either need to pick your instructor's brain a little to see what she wants or use clue words from the assignment itself to make a decision. For instance, the assignment may tell you that your annotative bibliography should give evidence proving an analytical understanding of the sources you've used. The word analytical clues you in to the idea that you must evaluate the sources you're working with and provide some kind of critique.

Summary annotations

There are two kinds of summarizing annotations, informative and indicative.
Summarizing annotations in general have a couple of defining features:

They sum up the content of the source, as a book report might.

They give an overview of the arguments and proofs/evidence addressed in the work and note the resulting conclusion.

They do not judge the work they are discussing. Leave that to the critical/evaluative annotations.

When appropriate, they describe the author's methodology or approach to material. For instance, you might mention if the source is an ethnography or if the author employs a particular kind of theory.

Informative annotation

Informative annotations sometimes read like straight summaries of the source material, but they often spend a little more time summarizing relevant information about the author or the work itself.

Indicative annotation

Indicative annotation is the second type of summary annotation, but it does not attempt to include actual information from the argument itself. Instead, it gives general information about what kinds of questions or issues are addressed by the work. This sometimes includes the use of chapter titles.

Critical/evaluative

Evaluative annotations don't just summarize. In addition to tackling the points addressed in summary annotations, evaluative annotations:

evaluate the source or author critically (biases, lack of evidence, objective, etc.).

show how the work may or may not be useful for a particular field of study or audience.

explain how researching this material assisted your own project.

Combination

An annotated bibliography may combine elements of all the types. In fact, most of them fall into this category: a little summarizing and describing, a little evaluation.

Writing style

Ok, next! So what does it mean to use different writing styles as opposed to different kinds of content? Content is what belongs in the annotation, and style is the way you write it up. First, choose which content type you need to compose, and then choose the style you're going to use to write it

Telescopic

This kind of annotated bibliography is a study in succinctness. It uses a minimalist treatment of both information and sentence structure, without sacrificing clarity. Warning: this kind of writing can be harder than you might think.

Paragraph

Don't skimp on this kind of annotated bibliography. If your instructor has asked for paragraph form, it likely means that you'll need to include several elements in the annotation, or that she expects a more in-depth description or evaluation, for instance. Make sure to provide a full paragraph of discussion for each work.

Conclusion

As you can see now, bibliographies and annotations are really a series of organized steps. They require meticulous attention, but in the end, you've got an entire testimony to all the research and work you've done. At the end of this handout you'll find examples of informative, indicative, evaluative, combination, telescopic, and paragraph annotated bibliography entries in MLA, APA, and CBE formats. Use these examples as your guide to creating an annotated bibliography that makes you look like the expert you are!
MLA Example APA Example CBE Example
Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout's topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial. We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bell, I. F., and J. Gallup. 1971. A Reference Guide to English, American, and Canadian Literature. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzburg. 1991. Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing, 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford Books.

Center for Information on Language Teaching, and The English Teaching Information Center of the British Council. 1968. Language-Teaching Bibliography. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Engle, Michael, Amy Blumenthal, and Tony Cosgrave. 2012. "How to Prepare an Annotated Bibliography." Olin & Uris Libraries. Cornell University. Last updated September 25, 2012. https://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/content/how-prepare-annotated-bibliography.

Gibaldi, Joseph. 2009. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th ed. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Grasso, Michael. 2004. "Speech Recognition Annotated Bibliography" (Website). University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Department of Computer Science. https://www.csee.umbc.edu/~mgrass2/dissert/annbib.html.

Huth, Edward. 1994. Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. New York: University of Cambridge.

Kilborn, Judith. 2004. "MLA Documentation." LEO: Literacy Education Online. Last updated March 16, 2004. https://leo.stcloudstate.edu/research/mla.html.

Spatt, Brenda. 1991. Writing from Sources, 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin's.

Memorial University. n.d. "How to Write Annotated Bibliographies." Memorial University Libraries. Accessed June 14, 2019. https://www.library.mun.ca/researchtools/guides/writing/annotated_bibl/.

University of Kansas. 2018. "Bibliographies." KU Writing Center. Last updated April 2018. http://writing.ku.edu/bibliographies.

University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2019. "Annotated Bibliography." The Writing Center. Accessed June 14, 2019. https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/annotatedbibliography/.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.
You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Make a Gift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Annotated Bibliographies - The Writing Center * University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What this handout is about This handout will explain why annotated bibliographies are useful for researchers, provide an explanation of what constitutes an annotation, describe various types of annotations and styles for writing them, and offer multiple examples of annotated ... Read more

# data[].attributes.body
Written by econs for an econ audience, so it's good modeling. Annotated bib on literature about women in econ profession!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Compiled by:
Donna K. Ginther, University of Kansas, Department of Economics
Janet Stefanov, Vanderbilt University
Using a very large sample of matched author-referee pairs, we examine how the gender of referees and authors affects the former's recommendations. Relying on changing matches of authors and referees, we find no evidence of gender differences among referees in charitableness toward authors; nor do we find any effect of the interaction between the referees' and authors' gender. With substantial research showing gender differences in fairness, the results suggest that an ethos of objectivity can overcome tendencies toward same-group favoritism/opposite-group discrimination.

In Italy, women's advancement in economics has been curtailed by the structure of editorial boards of Italian economics journals. In this paper, we examine the presence of men and women economists on the editorial boards of thirty-six Italian economics journals published since 1970 and analyze the gender distribution across different kinds of boards, roles, and fields. Because boards are hierarchically ordered, women work mostly in the lower positions, and the increase in women's participation has led only to more "editorial secretaries." Since men and women tend to have different scientific interests and men's standards of academic value prevail, women economists cannot build publication records as strong as those of their male colleagues, which, in turn, affects women's hiring, promotion, and wages, as well as the shape of the discipline.

Feminist economists have used feminist thought to analyze and revise the discipline of economics. This paper extends these analyses to the teaching of economics in college and suggests that feminist teaching methods might serve economists well in transforming the economics classroom to one that is more hospitable to wider audiences. The approach explored proceeds from the intersections of two avenues for incorporating more inclusive teaching methods. In the McIntosh tradition, stages for making course contents more inclusive are presented along with a discussion of how to develop inclusive classroom learning environments. The interaction of contents and methods and the implications of feminist thought for the teaching of economics are explored.

This paper considers a new approach for ranking the research productivity of academic departments. Our approach provides rankings in terms of residual research output after controlling for the key characteristics of each department's academic staff. More specifically, we estimate residual research output rankings for all of New Zealand's economics departments based on their publication performance over the 2000 to 2006 period. We do so after taking into account the following characteristics of each department's academic staff: gender, experience, seniority, academic credentials, and academic rank. The paper concludes with a comparison of rankings generated by the residual research approach with those generated by traditional approaches to research rankings.

Many skilled professional occupations are characterized by an early period of intensive skill accumulation and career establishment. Examples include law firm associates, surgical residents, and untenured faculty at research-intensive universities. High female exit rates are sometimes blamed on the inability of new mothers to survive the sustained negative productivity shock associated with childbearing and early childrearing in these environments. Gender-neutral family policies have been adopted in some professions in an attempt to "level the playing field." The gender-neutral tenure clock stopping policies adopted by the majority of research-intensive universities in the United States in recent decades are an excellent example. But to date, there is no empirical evidence showing that these policies help women. Using a unique data set on the universe of assistant professor hires at top-50 economics departments from 1980-2005, we show that the adoption of gender-neutral tenure clock stopping policies substantially reduced female tenure rates while substantially increasing male tenure rates. However, these policies do not reduce the probability that either men or women eventually earn tenure in the profession.

Men outnumber women as undergraduate economics majors by three to one nationwide. Even at the best research universities and liberal arts colleges men outnumber women by two to one or more. The Undergraduate Women in Economics Challenge was begun in 2015 as an RCT with 20 treatment schools and at least 30 control schools to evaluate whether better course information, mentoring, encouragement, career counseling, and more relevant instructional content could move the needle. Although the RCT is still in the field, results from several within treatment-school randomized trials demonstrate that uncomplicated and inexpensive interventions can substantially increase the interest of women to major in economics.

Gender differences in task allocations may sustain vertical gender segregation in labor markets. We examine the allocation of a task that everyone prefers be completed by someone else (writing a report, serving on a committee, etc.) and find evidence that women, more than men, volunteer, are asked to volunteer, and accept requests to volunteer for such tasks. Beliefs that women, more than men, say yes to tasks with low promotability appear as an important driver of these differences. If women hold tasks that are less promotable than those held by men, then women will progress more slowly in organizations.

This papers studies how the presence of women in academic committees affects the chances of success of male and female candidates. We exploit evidence from Italy, where candidates to Full and Associate Professor positions are required to qualify in a nation-wide evaluation known as Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale. In 2013, this evaluation was conducted in 184 academic disciplines and they involved around 70,000 applications and one thousand evaluators who were selected through a lottery. We estimate the causal effect of committees' gender composition on candidates' chances of success exploiting the random assignment of evaluators to committees. In a five-member committee, each additional female evaluator decreases by 2 percentage points the success rate of female candidates relative to male candidates. Information from 274,000 individual evaluation reports shows that, in mixed-gender committees, male and female evaluators are equally biased against female candidates, suggesting that the presence of women in the committee affects the voting behavior of male evaluators.

An increasing number of countries are introducing gender quotas in scientific committees. We analyze how a larger presence of female evaluators affects committee decision-making using information on 100,000 applications to associate and full professorships in all academic disciplines in two countries, Italy and Spain. These applications were assessed by 8,000 evaluators who were selected through a random draw. A larger number of women in evaluation committees does not increase either the quantity or the quality of female candidates who qualify. If anything, when evaluators' are not familiar with candidates' research area, gender-mixed committees tend to be less favorable towards female candidates than all-male committees, with the exception of evaluations to full professorships in Spain. Data from 300,000 individual voting reports suggests that men become less favorable towards female candidates as soon as a woman joins the committee.

Research has found that women tend to have more negative predispositions towards studying economics than men, which contributes to their underrepresentation in the field. This paper uses survey data on principles students at a large state university to investigate causes of this difference. We find that students widely view economics as a business-oriented field that prioritizes math skills and making money - a combination that is a turnoff for women, but not so much men. Thus, emphasizing uses of economics for social welfare analysis, while de-emphasizing its business applications, may help to rebalance predispositions at the outset of the principles class.

This study is based on a 1996 survey of PhD economists working in the academic and nonacademic sectors since 1989. Despite a raw gender difference in all types of research output, the male dummy variable proves statistically significant in predicting only one publication measure. In a full sample and faculty subsample, number of years since receipt of PhD, publication in a refereed journal as a graduate student, and the total number of presentations made in professional forums were consistently, positively related to research productivity. The importance of other independent variables varies by research output. Typically unavailable variables such as workload, time use, submissions data, and family circumstances are also examined.

The history and achievements of the American Economic Association's (AEA) Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) over the past twenty-five years are reviewed. A picture of women's standing in the economics profession in 1972 is drawn with statistics on the number of women on economics faculties, on prestigious editorial boards, and on the AEA program at its national meeting. While 1997 statistics reveal considerable progress for women in the profession, several questions and challenges for the next twenty-five years are outlined with suggestions as to how CSWEP hopes to address them.

The representation of women in the economics profession has increased dramatically since CSWEP was established. For example, women's share of Ph.D.'s awarded in economics more than tripled between 1972 and 2003, from 7.6 to 27.9 percent.1 Similarly, women have dramatically increased their representation among faculty. In 1972 women were only 8.8 percent of assistant professors, 3.7 percent of associate professors and 2.4 percent of full professors- comprising, overall, less than five percent of faculty members in these ranks. By 2004, their representation among assistant professors had tripled to 26.5 percent; gains at the higher ranks were proportionately even larger as women's share of associate professors increased to 20.5 percent and of full professors to 8.5 percent-with women comprising 15.0 percent of all faculty in these ranks.

The economics profession includes disproportionately few women and members of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, relative both to the overall population and to other academic disciplines. This underrepresentation within the field of economics is present at the undergraduate level, continues into the ranks of the academy, and is barely improving over time. It likely hampers the discipline, constraining the range of issues addressed and limiting our collective ability to understand familiar issues from new and innovative perspectives. In this paper, we first present data on the numbers of women and underrepresented minority groups in the profession. We then offer an overview of current research on the reasons for the underrepresentation, highlighting evidence that may be less familiar to economists. We argue that implicit attitudes and institutional practices may be contributing to the underrepresentation of women and minorities at all stages of the pipeline, calling for new types of research and initiatives to attack the problem. We then review evidence on how diversity affects productivity and propose remedial interventions as well as findings on effectiveness. We identify several promising practices, programs, and areas for future research.

The determinants of job satisfaction are estimated for PhD‐level scientists in the United States across academic and nonacademic sectors. In initial estimates, female scientists report lower job satisfaction than males in academia but higher job satisfaction than males in the nonacademic sector. While academic scientists with tenure have substantially greater job satisfaction than nonacademic scientists, we show that the magnitude of this influence varies by gender. After correcting for the lower evaluation placed by females both on earnings and on tenure, female academic scientists actually match nonacademic scientists in reporting greater job satisfaction than men.

The relative scarcity of female students enrolling in economics has become entrenched over the last decade. We provide evidence of gender differences in performance and in preferences across subfields of the discipline and explore students' beliefs about the profession and their opinions on different subjects. The areas where women stand out relative to men are those that seem to be least well known to our students. We work on three fronts. First, using web scraping and machine learning techniques, we document the relative presence of women across subfields in recent AEA annual meetings. Macroeconomics and finance register the greatest scarcity of women. Second, using administrative records for economics students in a large public university in Spain from 2010 to 2014, we find that women outperform men in microeconomics, while men outperform women in macroeconomics, more evidently in the upper tail of the grades distribution. Finally, data gathered through a self-statement survey given to economics majors reveal that (i) they hold a macroeconomics-biased view of the economics profession; (ii) they exhibit gender differences in their perceptions of the interest and difficulty inherent in different subfields (macro vs. microeconomics); and (iii) their interests and performance are influenced differently by their male and female peers in macro and microeconomics subjects. Taken together, these three pieces of evidence provide a plausible explanation as to why women are relatively less attracted than men to economics, and suggest lines of action to redress the imbalance.

The achievements (or lack thereof) of the AEA's Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) are compared to those of analogous committees in three of our sister disciplines. In psychology, sociology, and history, committees of women professionals advocated and facilitated radical changes in the disciplines' treatment of issues involving gender. They also fought effectively for a far bigger role for women professionals in their disciplines. In the economics profession, the treatment of women's issues and the marginalization of women professionals remain problematic, despite the quarter century of CSWEP's existence.

This article examines the status of women in the environmental economics profession in terms of their representation and impact. Three indicators are used to gauge the status of women in the profession. They are the representation of women in academia in the United States and Canada, the publication profiles of female environmental economists, and the representation of women in the roles of leadership within the professional association and lead journal of the profession. In a survey of schools with graduate programs in environmental economics, we find that female environmental economists are better represented in the faculty of non-economics departments than in those of economics departments. A study of the publication profiles of women in the profession's main journal, the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, indicates that women publish fewer articles on average than their male counterparts, and their papers receive fewer citations on average. Women are well represented in the leadership of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists and also in editorial positions at the Journal of Environment Economics and Management.

Using a survey questionnaire of academic economists in the United Kingdom, we examine the representation of ethnic and other minorities. We find that nearly 12% of UK‐employed academic economists are of ethnic minority origin. However, only 1% of the sample are UK‐born ethnic minority. Controlling for individual and workplace characteristics, there is no significant ethnic minority effect on academic rank. However, there is a significant negative earnings effect. Further, 41% of ethnic minority economists feel that they have suffered workplace discrimination.

Using a unique data source on academic economist labor market experiences, we explore gender, pay and promotions. In addition to earnings and productivity measures, we have information on outside offers and perceptions of discrimination. We find both a gender promotions gap and a within‐rank gender pay gap. A driving factor may be outside offers: men receive more outside offers than women of comparable characteristics, and gain higher pay increases in response. This may arise due to discrimination. We find that perceptions of discrimination and also outside job applications correlate with an individual receiving earnings below that expected, given their characteristics.

The results from a randomized experiment conducted at the American Economic Review on the effects of double-blind versus single-blind peer reviewing on acceptance rates and referee rating indicate that acceptance rates are lower and referees are more critical when the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity. These patterns are not significantly different between female and male authors. Authors at top-ranked universities and at colleges and low-ranked universities are largely unaffected by the different reviewing practices, but the authors at near-top-ranked universities and at nonacademic institutions have lower acceptance rates under double-blind reviewing.

While much has been written about the potential benefits of mentoring in academia, very little research documents its effectiveness. We present data from a randomized controlled trial of a mentoring program for female economists organized by the Committee for the Status of Women in the Economics Profession and sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the American Economics Association. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial of a mentoring program in academia. We evaluate the performance of three cohorts of participants and randomly-assigned controls from 2004, 2006, and 2008. This paper presents an interim assessment of the program's effects. Our results suggest that mentoring works. After five years the 2004 treatment group averaged .4 more NSF or NIH grants and 3 additional publications, and were 25 percentage points more likely to have a top-tier publication. There are significant but smaller effects at three years post-treatment for the 2004 and 2006 cohorts combined. While it is too early to assess the ultimate effects of mentoring on the academic careers of program participants, the results suggest that this type of mentoring may be one way to help women advance in the Economics profession and, by extension, in other male-dominated academic fields.

Women are less likely to major in economics than men. While this simple fact is well documented, the cause of this difference is still up for debate. Most previous research has focused on identifying causes through skill differences and pedagogical practices. Heretofore neglected is the role of students' attitudes towards economics. This work establishes that women and men have no performance differences in principles of economics courses, but that attitudes differ significantly. Furthermore, the finding that women have a significantly more negative attitude towards economics prior to taking the principles course is compounded by the results that indicate a polarization of attitudes after taking the course. In other words, women have more negative attitudes and men have more positive attitudes towards economics after taking the course. Women can do economics, but are less inclined to like it.

This paper reports the results of the Royal Economic Society Women's Committee 1998 survey on the gender balance in UK academic economics. In 1998, female representation was 4% of professors, 11% of senior lecturers or readers, 17% of permanent lecturers, 28% of fixed term lecturers, and 33% of PhD/research students. The main growth in female representation since 1996 has been in fixed term lectureships and in PhD/research students (a 5 percentage point increase for each). We suggest reasons for the low representation of women in academic economics, and also argue that it is a cause for concern.

Boschini, A. and Sjogren, A. (2007). Is team formation gender neutral? Evidence from coauthorship patterns. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(2), 325-65. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/510764

We model team formation as a random matching process influenced by agents' preferences for team size and gender composition. We then test if the coauthorship pattern in articles published during 1991-2002 in three top economics journals is gender neutral, exploiting variation in female presence across subfields. Controlling for author, team, and field characteristics, we find that the gender gap in the propensity to coauthor with a woman increases in the presence of women in the subfield. We also find that women single author significantly more than men. These findings allow us to reject gender neutrality in team formation in economics.

Differences in promotion across genders are still prevalent in many occupations. Recent work based on experimental evidence indicates that women participate less in or exert lower effort during contests. We exploit the unique features of the promotion system for French academics to look at women's attitudes towards competition in an actual labour market. Using data for academic economists over the period 1991-2008 we find that, conditional on entering the competition, there is no difference in promotions across the genders, which is difficult to reconcile with either discrimination or a poorer performance of women in contests. In contrast, women have a substantially lower probability than men to enter the promotion contest. Our data does not support that this gap is due to differences in costs or preferences concerning department prestige, indicating that women are less willing than men to take part in contests.

We document wide and persistent variation in women's representation and success across graduate programs in economics. Using new data on early career outcomes for recent graduates, including first job placement, publications, and promotion, we rank (anonymized) departments on outcomes for women relative to men graduating from the same program. We then conduct interviews with faculty and former students from five programs with better and worse relative outcomes. We find that departments with better outcomes for women also hire more women faculty, facilitate advisor-student contact, provide collegial research seminars, and are notable for senior faculty with awareness of gender issues. We offer our qualitative evidence as the first step in learning about "what works" in expanding women's representation in economics.

Using data on articles published in the top-five economic journals in the period 1991 to 2010, we explore whether the gender composition of editorial boards is related to the publishing success of female authors and to the quality of articles that get published. Our results show that female editors reduce, rather than increase, the share of articles that are (co-)authored by females. We also find evidence that female editors benefit article quality at low levels of representation on editorial boards, but harm article quality at higher levels. Several robustness checks corroborate these findings. Our results are broadly consistent with existing evidence on the behavior of gender-mixed hiring committees and of relevance for gender equality policy.

We track faculty for 30 years at five PhD-granting departments of economics. Two-thirds of faculty who take alternative employment move downward; less than one-quarter moves upward. We find a substantial penalty for seniority, even after richly controlling for faculty productivity, and the penalty is little changed when we allow wages and returns to seniority to differ by mobility status. Faculty who end up moving to better or comparable positions were penalized as severely for seniority while they were in our sample as faculty who stay. These results are incompatible with the raiding hypothesis. Faculty from top 10 programs are also punished for seniority but to a lesser degree than other faculty, which could reflect reduced monopsony power against such faculty if they are more marketable. All results persist when we control for prospective publications and allow lower returns for older publications. Match-quality bias has dissipated in the post-internet period, which may be the consequence of greater availability of information.

This paper tests for gender differences in remuneration and professional achievement among academic economists using data on grants and grant applications to the National Science Foundation. A simultaneous equations model is used to examine the determinants of salary, rank, department affiliation and research output. In addition to confirming some long‐standing folklore about the composition of faculty in research‐oriented institutions, significant gender differences were found among older cohorts. Although the signs of the gender coefficients are consistent with a discrimination hypothesis for the sample of assistant professors, the results were not statistically significant.

Based on reviews of grant proposals to the National Science Foundation (NSF), this study presents evidence of significant differences in the reviewing of female and male authors by male and female referees. Even when author quality is controlled by comparing ratings on the same paper, female reviewers rate female-authored papers lower than do their male colleagues. This result still holds when controlling for institutional affiliation and experience of reviewer are also included. This indicates that there is a significant downward bias in the ratings by female reviewers and of female proposals, independent of paper quality and reviewer background.

This paper estimates the relationships among the attributes of graduate economics programs and the occupational choices and publishing proficiency of recent Ph.D.s. The estimates indicate that research experience in graduate school (e.g. working as a research assistant, submitting and publishing articles) is positively associated with subsequent publishing proficiency. Other variables included in the analysis include graduate school ranking, graduate school faculty size and its publishing proficiency, and individual demographic characteristics and academic experiences.

While women comprise over half of all undergraduate students in the United States, they account for less than one-third of economics majors. From there, the proportion of women at each stage of the academic tenure track continues to decrease, creating a "leaky pipeline." In this paper, I provide a toolkit of interventions that could be implemented by individuals, organizations, or academic units who are working to attract and retain women students and faculty at each stage of this pipeline. I focus on smaller-scale, targeted interventions that have been evaluated in a way that allows for the credible estimation of causal effects.

Cainelli, G., Maggioni, M., Uberti, T., & de Felice, A. (2012). Co-authorship and productivity among Italian economists. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 1609-13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2011.646063

The world of scientific research has undergone dramatic changes in recent decades. These changes, which likely originated in the 'hard sciences' realm, rapidly extended to the social sciences and, in particular, to economics, often seen as bridging these two areas. Increased specialization and extensive collaboration are common behaviors in the scientific community, as well as in the evaluation of scientific research based on bibliometric indicators. This article aims to analyze the effect of co-authorships on the scientific productivity of Italian economists. The empirical analysis is based on an original database using two independent data sources: the Econlit database of the American Economic Association and the official database of the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research. Using econometric methods, we explain the productivity of individual Italian economists in terms of 'attributional' variables (such as age, gender, academic position, tenure, scientific sub-discipline and geographical location) and 'relational' variables (such as the propensity to cooperate and the international reach of the individual co-authorship network).

Increased specialization and extensive collaboration are common behaviors in the scientific community, as well as the evaluation of scientific research based on bibliometric indicators. This paper aims to analyze the effect of collaboration (co-authorship) on the scientific output of Italian economists. We use Social Network Analysis to investigate the structure of co-authorship, and econometric methodologies to explain the productivity of individual Italian economists, in terms of attributional variables (such as age, gender, academic position, tenure, scientific sub-discipline, geographical location, etc.), & relational variables (such as propensity to cooperate and the stability of cooperation patterns) and positional variables (such as betweenness and closeness centrality indexes and clustering coefficients).

We study the role of gender in the evaluation of economic research using submissions to four leading journals. We find that referee gender has no effect on the relative assessment of female- versus male-authored papers, suggesting that any differential biases of male referees are negligible. To determine whether referees as a whole impose different standards for female authors, we compare citations for female and male-authored papers, holding constant referee evaluations and other characteristics. We find that female-authored papers receive about 25% more citations than observably similar male-authored papers. Editors largely follow the referees, resulting in a 6 percentage point lower probability of a revise and resubmit verdict for female-authored papers relative to a citation-maximizing benchmark. In their desk rejection decisions, editors treat female authors more favorably, though they still impose a higher bar than would be implied by citation-maximization. We find no differences in the informativeness of female versus male referees, or in the weight that editors place on the recommendations of female versus male referees. We also find no differences in editorial delays for female versus male-authored papers.

Using papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008, we analyze how gender, as well as other characteristics of the authors and reviewers, affects the grading of these papers by the reviewers. Correcting for other variables, including the country and research field, as well as the academic level of the author, we focus on the difference in grades between blind and non‐blind review treatments. We find that non‐blind reviewing has little effect, and there is no significant evidence of gender discrimination. Furthermore, we do not find any significant difference between the average grading by female and male reviewers.

The sex, race, and undergraduate composition of newly minted Ph. D. s in economics is analyzed. Liberal arts colleges are shown to yield a disproportionate number of female economists while economists of color tend to come from comprehensive universities.

This paper presents data from the first-ever survey of members of the American Society of Health Economists (ASHEcon) that was conducted in 2012. We present summary statistics of health economist earnings by rank and type of employer, and estimate log earnings models as a function of education, experience, type of employer, and research productivity. The results indicate that (1) academic salaries for health economists have risen in real terms since the previous survey in 2005; (2) we find no statistically significant evidence of disparities in academic salaries between men and women, or between whites and nonwhites; (3) there is a salary premium associated with earning a PhD at one of the top economics departments; and (4) we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no difference in salary by type of employer. We also report on the extent of consulting activities, and provide the first published data on the hourly consulting rates charged by health economists.

Much has been written in the past two decades about women in academic science careers, but this literature is contradictory. Many analyses have revealed a level playing field, with men and women faring equally, whereas other analyses have suggested numerous areas in which the playing field is not level. The only widely-agreed-upon conclusion is that women are underrepresented in college majors, graduate school programs, and the professoriate in those fields that are the most mathematically intensive, such as geoscience, engineering, economics, mathematics/computer science, and the physical sciences. In other scientific fields (psychology, life science, social science), women are found in much higher percentages. In this monograph, we undertake extensive life-course analyses comparing the trajectories of women and men in math-intensive fields with those of their counterparts in non-math-intensive fields in which women are close to parity with or even exceed the number of men. We begin by examining early-childhood differences in spatial processing and follow this through quantitative performance in middle childhood and adolescence, including high school coursework. We then focus on the transition of the sexes from high school to college major, then to graduate school, and, finally, to careers in academic science. The results of our myriad analyses reveal that early sex differences in spatial and mathematical reasoning need not stem from biological bases, that the gap between average female and male math ability is narrowing (suggesting strong environmental influences), and that sex differences in math ability at the right tail show variation over time and across nationalities, ethnicities, and other factors, indicating that the ratio of males to females at the right tail can and does change. We find that gender differences in attitudes toward and expectations about math careers and ability (controlling for actual ability) are evident by kindergarten and increase thereafter, leading to lower female propensities to major in math-intensive subjects in college but higher female propensities to major in non-math-intensive sciences, with overall science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at 50% female for more than a decade. Post-college, although men with majors in math-intensive subjects have historically chosen and completed PhDs in these fields more often than women, the gap has recently narrowed by two thirds; among non-math-intensive STEM majors, women are more likely than men to go into health and other people-related occupations instead of pursuing PhDs. Importantly, of those who obtain doctorates in math-intensive fields, men and women entering the professoriate have equivalent access to tenure-track academic jobs in science, and they persist and are remunerated at comparable rates-with some caveats that we discuss. The transition from graduate programs to assistant professorships shows more pipeline leakage in the fields in which women are already very prevalent (psychology, life science, social science) than in the math-intensive fields in which they are underrepresented but in which the number of females holding assistant professorships is at least commensurate with (if not greater than) that of males. That is, invitations to interview for tenure-track positions in math-intensive fields-as well as actual employment offers-reveal that female PhD applicants fare at least as well as their male counterparts in math-intensive fields. Along these same lines, our analyses reveal that manuscript reviewing and grant funding are gender neutral: Male and female authors and principal investigators are equally likely to have their manuscripts accepted by journal editors and their grants funded, with only very occasional exceptions. There are no compelling sex differences in hours worked or average citations per publication, but there is an overall male advantage in productivity. We attempt to reconcile these results amid the disparate claims made regarding their causes, examining sex differences in citations, hours worked, and interests. We conclude by suggesting that although in the past, gender discrimination was an important cause of women's underrepresentation in scientific academic careers, this claim has continued to be invoked after it has ceased being a valid cause of women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields. Consequently, current barriers to women's full participation in mathematically intensive academic science fields are rooted in pre-college factors and the subsequent likelihood of majoring in these fields, and future research should focus on these barriers rather than misdirecting attention toward historical barriers that no longer account for women's underrepresentation in academic science.

We document the representation of female economists on the conference programs at the NBER Summer Institute from 2001-2016. Over the period from 2013-2016, women made up 20.6 percent of all authors on scheduled papers. However, there was large dispersion across programs, with the share of female authors ranging from 7.3 percent to 47.7 percent. While the average share of women rose slightly from 18.5% since 2001-2004, a persistent gap between finance, macroeconomics and microeconomics subfields remains, with women consisting of 14.4 percent of authors in finance, 16.3 percent of authors in macroeconomics, and 25.9 percent of authors in microeconomics. We examine three channels potentially affecting female representation. First, using anonymized data on submissions, we show that the rate of paper acceptance for women is statistically indistinguishable to that of men. Second, we find that the share of female authors is comparable to the share of women amongst all tenure-track professors, but is ten percentage points lower than the share of women among assistant professors. Finally, within conference program, we find that when a woman organizes the program, the share of female authors and discussants is higher.

We use data from the 2007-2008 Ph.D. economist job market to investigate initial job placement in terms of job location, job type, and job rank. Our results suggest gender differences in all three dimensions of job placement. Relative to their male counterparts, female candidates are less (more) likely to be placed into academic (government or private sector) jobs and, on average, are placed into worse ranked jobs. Foreign female candidates are also more likely than foreign males to stay in the U.S. When foreign students are placed outside the U.S., they are more likely to be in academia than in government or private sector, while the opposite holds when foreign students are placed in the U.S., which is largely consistent with a stylized theory model. Our results also reveal various country/region heterogeneities in the type, location, and rank of job placements.

Despite an increasing number of women entering the economics profession during recent decades, it is still dominated by men. This paper summarizes the situation in academic economics in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, the United States, and Sweden (substantial appendices, not previously available in English, detail the situation in Sweden). Women constitute about a third of the PhD graduates in each country, but their share of the economics full professors is still between 5 and 9 percent. Compared to other academic fields, economics has the greatest gender discrepancy in career attainment. We discuss various reasons for the under-representation of women, and call for continued efforts to increase the presence of women.

This paper analyzes the determinants of success at the concours d'agrégation en sciences économiques. This is a centralized hiring procedure through which professors of economics are selected in France. Using detailed data from all concours held between 1984 and 2003, we focus on the role of the candidates' publication records (number and quality of articles) and networks (defined as professional links between candidates and the jury members who take the recruitment decisions). Both sets of variables have statistically significant effects on the likelihood of getting hired. The effect of network connections is important in the sense that a substantial improvement of the publication record is needed to compensate for not being linked to the jury.

Conley, J., Onder, A., & Torgler, B. (2016). Are all economics graduate cohorts created equal? Gender, job openings, and research productivity. Scientometrics, 108(2), 937-58. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-1987-1

Using life cycle publication data of 9368 economics PhD graduates from 127 U.S. institutions between 1987 and 1996, we compare research productivities of male and female graduates, and how these correlate with macroeconomic conditions prior to starting graduate studies and with availability of academic jobs at the time of graduation. We find that availability of academic jobs is positively correlated with research productivity for both male and female graduates. Unfavorable employment conditions prior to starting graduate education are negatively correlated with female graduates' research productivity and positively correlated with male graduates' research productivity.

The Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession was formed in response to a grassroots motion from the floor of the December 1971 Executive Committee Meeting of the American Economic Association. A group calling itself the Women's Caucus and spurred by a belief that the economics profession should be open to women as well as men, brought a series of resolutions before the Committee intended to foster equal opportunities for women in economics, including equitable early career encouragement, mentoring and job market assistance, hiring, wages and benefits, and promotion and tenure opportunities.

Davis, Joe, Huston, John, & Patterson, Debra (2001). The Scholarly Output of Economists: A Description of Publishing Patterns. Atlantic Economic Journal, 29(3), 341-349. http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02300554

This paper analyzes the research productivity of a cohort of economists over the 15 years following receipt of their doctorate degrees, contrasting their results in publishing articles, books, and textbooks after controlling for the individual characteristics of the economists in the sample. Specifically, this paper considers the quality of graduate school, the type of employment, the general area of dissertation research, and the gender of each individual in the cohort. Primary conclusions indicate that scholarly journals are the most important research outlet, and that book production is a complementary activity to output in scholarly journals. Moreover, publishing success is closely related to the quality of the graduate school attended as well as the type of employer. According to this research, women do not face a statistically significant disadvantage to publishing. Finally, the analysis documents that midway through the 15-year time span covered by this study, output begins to decline, reflecting the post-tenure drop-off in research productivity.

Davis, Joe C. & Patterson, Debra Moore (2001). Determinants of Variations in Journal Publication Rates of Economists. The American Economist, 45(1), 86-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/056943450104500109

We track a cohort of economists over a 16-year period following receipt of the Ph.D. Using a multivariate model, we assess the influence on publishing success before and after tenure of graduate school attended, dissertation topic, type of employer, gender, and co-authorship.

This paper describes the gender distribution of research fields chosen by the faculty members in the top fifty Economics departments, according to the rankings available on the Econphd.net website. We document that women are unevenly distributed across fields and test some behavioral implications from theories underlying such disparities. Our main findings are that the probability that a woman chooses a given field is positively related to the share of women in that field (path-dependence), and that the share of women in a field at a given department increases with the sizes of the department and field, while it decreases with their average quality. However, these patterns seem to be changing for younger female faculty members. Further, by using Ph.D. cohorts, we document how gender segregation across fields has evolved over the last four decades.

We illustrate problems of measuring discrimination using elections to AEA offices. With a new econometric technique, we find female candidates have a much better than random chance of victory. This advantage is either reverse discrimination or reflects beliefs that women are more productive. The former interpretation could be explained by an unchanging median voter whose preferences were not satisfied by suppliers of candidates; but there was a structural change in voting behavior in the mid-1970s. The results suggest it is generally impossible to claim differences in rewards, for different groups measure the extent of discrimination or even its direction.

The job market for academic economists is examined with data from a sample of applicants for a position at a middle-tier university. Search methods and outcomes are reported, and regression results for an accepted salary equation are presented. A recursive system of equations is also estimated to examine the effects of gender, degree quality and networking on the outcomes of the various stages in the job search process.

Although women are underrepresented in the field of economics, many see little need for intervention, arguing that women are inherently less interested in economics, or are less willing or able to get the math skills needed to do well in the subject. At the same time, others support active efforts to increase the number of women in the field, citing other possible causes of their current underrepresentation. These people argue, for example, that women are deterred from entering the field because of a lack of female role models, or that women are discouraged by an unappealing classroom environment. This study assesses these hypotheses by examining factors that influence undergraduate students' decisions to become economics majors using a survey of students in the introductory economics course at Harvard University as well as data on an entire class of students from Harvard's registrar. We find that although women in the introductory economics course at Harvard tend to begin the course with a weaker math background than men, math background does not explain much of the gender difference in students' decisions about majoring in economics. The class environment and the presence or absence of role models also do not explain much of the gender gap. On the other hand, women do less well in economics relative to other courses than men do, and controlling for this difference in relative performance significantly diminishes the estimated gender gap. An economically large but statistically insignificant difference between sexes in the probability of majoring in economics remains, however, which may be due to differing tastes or information about the nature of economics.

Using a panel of 159 institutions over 10 years, we investigate the role model effect of women faculty and quantitative requirements on the female proportion of undergraduate economics majors. We find no evidence that female faculty attract female students. Calculus, however, does matter. A one semester calculus requirement is associated with more female majors at institutions offering business degrees and liberal arts colleges. A second semester calculus requirement deters women from majoring in economics at Ph.D.-granting universities, but is associated with more female majors at liberal arts colleges. Econometrics requirements are unrelated to the gender gap in economics majors.

Underrepresentation of women in economics is documented in many studies. Investigation of its sources at the undergraduate level is examined through students' decisions to persist in economics, either beyond an introductory course or in their major choices. The authors add to the literature by analyzing students' decisions to take their first introductory economics course, an intermediate theory course, and ultimately major in economics, using the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development. Results indicate that a smaller percentage of women take economics at all levels-introductory courses, theory courses, and majoring in economics. Even after controlling for aptitude, demographic characteristics, prior interest, course performance, environment, and course timing, persistent gender differences in the likelihood of partaking in economic education beyond the introductory course decision endure.

This article is basically a review of "Sex and Gender in the Social Sciences: Reassessing the Introductory Course". Ferber suggests that if instructors were more even-handed in their treatment of various subjects (and especially those most relevant to women) both female and male students would benefit, both immediately and later in the work place. She also suggests that better communication between students and instructors and the observance of correct amenities in their relationships would improve the self-image and confidence of female students.

Increasingly, scholars recognize that reputation influences bargaining power in the academic marketplace. Jonathan R. Cole was one of the first to explore such issues systematically. He emphasized other researchers' citations of an author's work as a key indicator of that author's stature in the profession. Since then, Daniel S. Hamermesh, George E. Johnson, and Burton A. Weisbrod have shown that the number of times a scholar's work is cited significantly influences his or her salary. As Gaye Tuchman suggests, the question that needs to be answered is whether citations are an objective measure of merit-especially when one compares the citations of men and women.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several researchers showed the importance, in the United States, of the number of times scholars' publications are cited for determining their bargaining power in academia. Not surprisingly, the question was soon raised whether citations are a good measure of scholarly merit. Are women at a disadvantage in male-dominated fields, such as economics? Studies had shown that authors tended to cite a larger proportion of publications by authors of the same gender. This paper examines whether women's disadvantage in garnering citations has been reduced by the increasing representation of women in economics and finds that this has been the case in both labor economics and economics in general, albeit not to the same degree.

Many researchers have found that highly educated women are rewarded less than men with comparable characteristics and achievements. Most of these, as well as some other studies, have also found that women do not have the same characteristics and achievements. They obtain their terminal degrees somewhat later, are less likely to obtain the highest degree available in a field, they tend to have accumulated less experience per unit of time since their terminal degree, they are likely to have published less, etc. This note attempts to make a small contribution to our knowledge of this subject by focusing on one subgroup, namely economists, and one type of credentials, namely publications in scholarly journals.

The history of American women economists in the economics profession during the 20th century can be divided into four phases. Before 1918, women represented a distinct minority within the profession but published monographs and professional journal articles, received PhDs in economics from leading graduate schools, appeared at professional gatherings and built careers as economists. In the interwar years, women became less visible in the economics profession as women interested in social issues began to drift to related fields such as social work and home economics. Academic employment of women declined, as did the proportion of economics doctorates awarded to women, but women working on economic problems increasingly found employment in state and federal government agencies. Between 1950 and 1970, women began to return to economics and once again found academic employment alongside male colleagues although they fought against social pressures for professional recognition and career awards. Finally, by the 1970s, women began to enter in profession in ever larger numbers, building careers in the field as social barriers to career advancement fell away.

This paper examines the entry-level labor market for academic economists and investigates the determinants of market salaries. The focus is on the effects of tenure and nontenure track jobs and departmental ranking that are based upon faculty research productivity. The results reveal that the market works differently depending upon whether the hiring department is ranked in terms of research productivity. Being hired on the tenure track significantly influences academic salaries in both ranked and unranked departments. The paper also analyzes the impact of observable characteristics of individuals and hiring departments on the probability of being hired into tenure track positions.

There are times when objective inquiry becomes so impossible that the scientists must emulate the detective and theorize rather than conclude. Here the topic under study proved immune to analysis by common statistical survey practices. So the authors had no choice but to cast aside their calculators, clap on their deerstalkers, and speculate, conjecture, and theorize.

This paper summarizes research that examines the relationship between hiring, promotion, and salary for tenure track science and social science faculty using data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR). Gender differences in hiring and promotion can be explained by observable characteristics. However, gender differences in salaries persist at the full professor rank. In particular, women in science and social science are less likely to have tenure track jobs within five years of the doctorate when compared with men. However, when controls for marital status and children are included in the analysis, the research finds that unmarried women are significantly more likely to have tenure track jobs than unmarried men. Marriage provides a significant advantage for men relative to women. Presence of children, especially young children, significantly disadvantages women while having no impact on men in obtaining tenure track jobs. The research also finds no significant gender differences in the probability of obtaining tenure in life science, physical science, and engineering. These results also hold for promotion to full professor. However, significant gender promotion differences are evident in the social sciences, in particular, economics. Finally, the research finds large gender differences in salaries are partially explained by academic rank. However, gender salary differences for full professors, on the order of 13% in the sciences, are not fully explained by observable characteristics.

The percentage of economics doctorates awarded to women has increased over the past twenty years. This article considers whether women Ph.D. economists have increased their representation in academia, particularly at higher tenured ranks. Our study draws upon several empirical approaches and multiple data sets for the 1990s. We find that when compared with other academic disciplines, women in economics are less likely to get tenure and take longer to achieve it. Although gender differences in productivity and the effect of children on promotion partly explain women's lesser chances of receiving tenure in economics, a significant portion of the gender promotion gap remains unexplained by observable characteristics.

Many studies have shown that women are under-represented in tenured ranks in the sciences. We evaluate whether gender differences in the likelihood of obtaining a tenure track job, promotion to tenure, and promotion to full professor explain these facts using the 1973-2001 Survey of Doctorate Recipients. We find that women are less likely to take tenure track positions in science, but the gender gap is entirely explained by fertility decisions. We find that in science overall, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor after controlling for demographic, family, employer and productivity covariates and that in many cases, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor even without controlling for covariates. However, family characteristics have different impacts on women's and men's promotion probabilities. Acknowledgements: We also thank the National Science Foundation for granting a site license to use the data and Kelly Kang of the NSF for providing technical documentation. Serena Huang provided research assistance. Ginther acknowledges financial support from NSF grant SES-0353703. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research, research methods, or conclusions contained in this report.

Although women have reached parity and surpassed men in the attainment of bachelor's degrees (Goldin et al. J Econ Perspect 20(4): 133-156, 2006; Ceci et al. Psychol Sci Public Interest 15(3): 75-141, 2014), their representation within academic departments and disciplines depends on the field and rank. Here, we review the literature about women in academia, focusing on the evidence from the economics literature, but supplementing it with notable studies from other disciplines. We also examine the special case of the economics profession, where - surprisingly - women's progress has stagnated.

We start by describing the representation of women in science academia and its antecedents in higher education. Since, in mathematics-intensive sciences, the under-representation has its roots prior to the doctorate, we briefly summarize what is known about gender differences related to mathematics and science at earlier ages. In particular, we examine the impact of role models, bias and stereotype threat in explaining the differences. We then transition to research on gender differences in academic career outcomes, considering issues related to work-life balance and bias in the academic hiring process, in academic productivity, in promotion and in salaries. Finally, we discuss how policies influence the representation of women in academia.

Goldin, Claudia (2015). Gender and the Undergraduate Economics Major: Notes on the Undergraduate Economics Major at a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/claudia_gender_paper.pdf

Differences in the male and female rates of majoring in economics are large and do not appear to be narrowing. It should be said at the outset that economics continues to be a highly popular major in most universities and colleges. Around 10 to 20 percent of all male undergraduates major in economics among the top-ranked 100 universities and top 100 liberal arts colleges without an undergraduate business major. At Adams almost one in five male students majors in the field. The emphasis in this note is on the relative popularity of economics among female undergraduates.

Many variables which affect salary, such as age, education, and race, have been studied in detail. Less is known about salary profiles and differentials related to sex. This study uses data on all full-time academic employees of a large urban university. It controls for age, race, years at the university, education, rank, and department. We investigate the relationship between salary and the explanatory variables for men and women separately as well as for all employees together, where sex is an additional independent variable. Regression analyses yield unambiguous results; about three-fourths of the variation in salary across employees is explained. The salary profile for women differs from that for men primarily in the effects of race, age, and department. Salary increments between ranks are similar. However, on average, a woman faculty member earns 11 percent less than would be predicted for a man with her
characteristics. Blacks earn 13 percent more than comparable whites. A medical school faculty member with an M.D. earns 93 percent more than an otherwise comparable Ph.D. in the social sciences.

This paper investigates gender differentials in citations of articles published in two journals specialized in Demographic Economics, a field that has traditionally attracted relatively large numbers of women researchers. In contrast to findings based on citations of top economics journals, we find a gender gap in citations favoring women among articles published in the Journal of Population Economics (JPOP) or the Review of Economics of the Household (REHO) between 2003 and 2014. If the corresponding author is male, having at least one female co-author boosts citations. Across subfields of demographic economics, citations of female authors increase as female representation in the subfield increases. The gender gap in citations favoring women is not found for authors with limited experience past graduate school, which supports an explanation for the gender gap based on authors' prior experience with economics journals of higher rank.

We analyze the drivers of audience size and the number of questions asked in parallel sessions at the annual conference of the German Economics Association. We find that the location of the presentation is at least as important for the number of academics attending a talk as the combined effect of the person presenting and the paper presented. Being a presenter in a late morning session on the second day of a conference, close to the place where coffee is served, significantly increases the size of the audience. When it comes to asking questions, location becomes less important, but smaller rooms lead to more questions being asked. Younger researchers and very senior researchers attract more questions and comments. There are also interesting gender effects. Women attend research sessions more diligently than men, but seem to ask fewer questions than men. Men are less likely to attend presentations on health, education, welfare and development economics than women. Our findings suggest that strategic scheduling of sessions could ensure better participation at conferences. Moreover, different behaviors of men and women at conferences might also contribute to the lack of women in senior scientist positions.

Analyzing university faculty and graduate students data for ten of the top U.S. economics departments between 1987 and 2007, we find persistent differences in the gender compositions of both faculty and graduate students across departments. There is a positive correlation between the share of female faculty and the share of women in the PhD class graduating six years later. Using instrumental variable analysis, we find robust evidence that this relation is causal. These results contribute to our understanding of the persistent under-representation of women in economics, as well as for the persistent segregation of women in the labor force.

Presenting data on all full-length articles published in the three top general economics journals for one year in each of the 1960s through 2010s, I analyze how patterns of co-authorship, age structure and methodology have changed, and what the possible causes of these changes may have been. The entire distribution of number of authors has shifted steadily rightward. In the last two decades the fraction of older authors has almost quadrupled. The top journals are now publishing many fewer papers that represent pure theory, regardless of sub-field, somewhat less empirical work based on publicly available data sets, and many more empirical studies based on data assembled for the study by the author(s) or on laboratory or field experiments.

This paper focuses on the differences that arise from employing a multi-equation system rather than the single-equation model used in previous research to explain variations in earnings of academic economists.

Using survey data collected in 1995, 2000 and 2005 from US academic economists, in which respondents were asked to indicate what percentage of their work time they allocate to research, teaching and service activities, and also how their departments and schools weight research, teaching and service in determining annual raises and making promotion and tenure decisions, we find these economists were allocating more time to teaching even though perceived departmental and school incentives provided a clear premium for research. The overall samples did not show major changes in their allocation of time from 1995-2005, but there were different responses at different types of schools, with increased time spent on research by faculty at doctoral schools while at masters′ and baccalaureate schools more time was devoted to teaching. We use regression analysis to investigate factors that affect how different faculty members allocate their time between teaching and research. In addition to Carnegie school classifications and related school characteristics, faculty members′ gender and rank were significant predictors of how economists allocate their time. Male economists, particularly among assistant professors at research universities, spent less time on teaching and more time on research than female economists.

The existing empirical evidence on the role of gender in economic education has resulted in a variety of findings. Two-thirds of the studies that examined students' level of understanding, or stock of knowledge, report significant gender differences, with men outperforming women on measures of economic knowledge (John Siegfried, 1979). These gender effects do not appear in analyses of economic learning or knowledge using elementary (Donald Davison and John Kilgore, 1971; William Walstad, 1979) or junior high students (Michael MacDowell et al., 1977; Stephen Buckles and Vera Freeman, 1984). However, the evidence suggests that by the time students reach high school, significant gender differences exist in both the learning and understanding of economic knowledge (Robert Highsmith, 1974; Daniel Thornton and George Vredeveld, 1977; M. E. Moyer and D. W. Paden, 1968).

This paper examines gender differences in citations for articles published in top-five economics journals. On average, male-authored papers are cited more than female-authored papers. Yet this finding is driven by a small number of highly cited papers, most of which were written by men-many of whom are Nobel prize winners-over 30 years ago. After controlling for time, author prominence and including either fixed effects for 91 superstar economists or all Nobel prize winners, I find female-authored papers are actually cited more. Moreover, when skewness in the distribution of citations is adjusted using the inverse hyperbolic sine function, female-authored papers are always cited more. I additionally estimate the marginal impact of co-authoring with more women for male authors, only. Using a fixed effects framework, I find that men earn 13 log points more citations when they increase the share of female co-authors on a paper by 50 percent. I conclude by roughly applying a theoretical framework developed in Hengel (2018) to identify the cause behind higher citations in female-authored papers. The results demonstrate suggestive evidence that women's higher citations are driven by factors outside their control.

I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women's writing in academic peer review. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1-6 percent better written than equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap is two times higher in published articles than in earlier, draft versions of the same papers; (iii) women's writing gradually improves but men's does not-meaning the readability gap grows over authors' careers. In a dynamic model of an author's decision-making process, I show that tougher editorial standards and/or biased referee assignment are uniquely consistent with this pattern of choices. A conservative causal estimate derived from the model suggests senior female economists write at least 9 percent more clearly than they otherwise would. These findings indicate that higher standards burden women with an added time tax and probably contribute to academia's "Publishing Paradox" Consistent with this hypothesis, I find female-authored papers spend six months longer in peer review. More generally, tougher standards impose a quantity/quality tradeoff that characterises many instances of female output. They could resolve persistently lower-otherwise unexplained-female productivity in many high-skill occupations.

Labor economic theory posits that job mobil ity should affect worker salaries. The degree to which this holds for academic faculty has received considerable attention. Prior empirical studies have estimated log wage regressions that control for both years of total work experience and years of seniority at the current institution in an effort to determine whether negative returns to seniority exist in academic labor markets. We add to this literature by examining two unique datasets that allow us to examine gender differences in both job mobility patterns and the resulting salary effects for academic economists.

We examine the differential impact of each of the four possible mentorship configurations (female student-female advisor, female student-male advisor, male student-female advisor, and male student-male advisor) on both initial job placements and early-career research productivity. In addition, the richness of our data allows us to address a number of issues related to the supply of potential female advisors through our access to information on both the reputation of the student's PhD program and the relative research productivity of his or her dissertation advisor.

We analyze the pay and position of 1009 faculty members who teach in doctoral-granting economics departments at 53 large public universities in the United States. Using the Web of Science, we have identified the journal articles published by these scholars and the number of times each of these articles has been subsequently cited in published research articles. We find that research influence, as measured by various measures of total citations, is a remarkably strong predictor of the salary and the prestige of the department in which professors are employed. We also examine the effect of coauthorship. Surprisingly, we find no salary penalty for sharing authorship; however, in terms of prestige of employing department, coauthorship is fully discounted.

Despite the fact that childbearing is time-consuming (i.e., associated with a negative resource effect), we descriptively find female researchers with children in business and economics to be more productive than female researchers without children. Hence, female researchers with children either manage to overcompensate the negative resource effect associated with childbearing by working harder ( positive incentive effect), or only the most productive female researchers decide to go for a career in academia and have children at the same time ( positive self-selection effect). Our first descriptive evidence on the timing of parenthood among more than 400 researchers in business and economics from Austria, Germany and the German-speaking part of Switzerland hints at the latter being the case: only the most productive female researchers with children dare to self-select (or are selected) into an academic career. Our results have important policy implications when it comes to reducing the "leaky pipeline" in academia.

We address the issues raised by commentators on our paper in the symposium "Why few women in economics." The commentators suggest that economics is gendered, a male subject reflecting basic differences in men's and women's life preferences and abilities. We find that, while less schooling in mathematics historically may be related to the relative scarcity of women in economics and the natural sciences, today women's and men's mathematical skills are rapidly approaching each other. Experimental economics have found gender differences in preferences in risk taking, competitiveness, and social preferences which may deter women from entering academic fields with an overwhelming majority of men. In addition, the internal academic culture may have developed to adjust to a traditional male lifestyle. Adding everything up, women economists may find their comparative advantage to lie outside the universities.

Despite an increasing number of women entering the economics profession during recent decades, it is still dominated by men. This paper summarizes the situation in academic economics in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, the United States, and Sweden (substantial appendices, not previously available in English, detail the situation in Sweden). Women constitute about a third of the PhD graduates in each country, but their share of the economics full professors is still between 5 and 9 percent. Compared to other academic fields, economics has the greatest gender discrepancy in career attainment. We discuss various reasons for the under-representation of women, and call for continued efforts to increase the presence of women.

This paper considers women's progress among Ph.D. academics in the field of economics and management. This kind of analysis can be extremely useful to gauge the progress or lack of progress within our own field. If differences are found between men and women of similar backgrounds, this is not necessarily evidence that employer discrimination exists. Gender differences might arise because women and men, faced with the same options and opportunities, have made different choices or investments in their careers; or gender differences might arise because of discrimination at some other level, for instance among journal editors or funding sources.

Kahn, S. (2012). Gender differences in academic promotion and mobility at a major Australian University. Economic Record, 88, 407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2012.00828.x

This paper analyses gender differences in faculty promotion and mobility at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) using personnel records for 1999-2010. It finds female lecturers less likely than men to be promoted or to leave UNSW and female associate professors more likely to be promoted. These results are consistent with a flipping statistical discrimination model. Leave‐taking did not account for gender differences. Instead, taking maternity leave indicates higher likelihood of staying at UNSW and being promoted. The paper finds that gender differences narrowed over time but not always as predicted by gender‐related policy changes.

This paper summarizes this recent research. Before beginning, a few words of warning are appropriate. The entire population of female economists is sufficiently small that studies that limit this population in any way-by sampling, by limiting to specific cohorts, by limiting to people working in higher prestige jobs, and so on- end up with scanty numbers of observations. As a result, the usual caveats that statistical insignificance may be due to lack of power take on a special meaning in this literature. My approach in this paper is to identify the career situations and junctures where men and women with similar abilities and backgrounds have similar outcomes in the economics profession (where the problem isn't), and then where those with similar backgrounds have divergent outcomes (where the problems might be).

Kahn, Shulamit and Ginther, Donna K. (2018). Women and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM): Are Differences in Education and Careers due to Stereotypes, Interests or Family? In The Oxford Handbook on the Economics of Women, ed. Susan L. Averett, Laura M. Argys, and Saul D. Hoffman (New York: Oxford University Press. 2018). 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190628963.013.13

Researchers from economics, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines have studied the persistent underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This chapter summarizes this research. It argues that women's underrepresentation is concentrated in the math-intensive science fields of geosciences, engineering, economics, math/computer science, and physical science. Its analysis concentrates on the environmental factors that influence ability, preferences, and the rewards for those choices. The chapter examines how gendered stereotypes, culture, role models, competition, risk aversion, and interests contribute to the gender STEM gap, starting in childhood, solidifying by middle school, and affecting women and men as they progress through school and higher education and into the labor market. The results are consistent with preferences and psychological explanations for the underrepresentation of women in math-intensive STEM fields.

A sample of 299 U.S. economics professors responded to our 2010 survey. This paper reports on their views on 17 policy issues. We relate attitude toward liberalization to political-party voting. Abortion and occupational licensing are among the questions novel to the survey. We also look at gender, favorite economists, the frequent lack of consensus on issues, and the percent of economics professors who firmly support the principles of free enterprise.

Kolpin, V., & Singell, L. (1996). The Gender Composition and Scholarly Performance of Economics Departments: A Test for Employment Discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(3), 408-423. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2524194

Using data on academic economists in the years 1973, 1977, 1982, and 1987, the authors investigate gender differences in placement and their consequences for departmental productivity. The initial analysis shows that in the years studied, the departments that were highest-ranked on a measure of scholarly publications per faculty member were the least likely to hire female faculty. A second analysis shows that departments that hired fewer women in the 1970s subsequently declined in publications rank relative to other departments. Finally, in a third analysis the authors find that the research output of women in the 1970s cohort of economists was greater than that of their male counterparts at comparable institutions. These results reject productivity-based explanations for the observed differential placement, and they provide some of the first formal evidence that employment discrimination is costly to the employer.

This paper analyzes anonymous job applications of Ph.D. economists in the academic job market. We use data on interview invitations from a randomized experiment at a European-based research institution. Results show that the underrepresented gender was hurt by anonymous applications.

In addition to critiques of the content and methodology of neoclassical economics, feminist economists have also offered constructive reflections on the way economics is taught. The "Voluntary Economics Content Standards for PreCollege Economics Education," developed in 1997 by the U.S. National Council of Economic Education, present yet another challenge to feminist economic educators. In this paper, we first review general methods for challenging and expanding these standards. Next, we select a specific content standard and explore how it might be reworked to reflect more accurately feminist economic scholarship and pedagogy. This reformulation of the standard will help broaden the pedagogy and content that are both implicit and explicit in all of the standards, allowing for a more inclusive classroom.

The gender gap in economics majors (i.e., male students are much more likely to major in economics than are their female counterparts) has remained large, despite narrowing gaps observed in many other fields. This study examines whether mentoring, the provision of additional information, and nudges help reduce the gender gap in economics majors via a randomized controlled experiment conducted in introductory economics classes at a large, public, four-year institution in the United States. The results show that the treatment effects are heterogeneous and have the most significant impact on female students with grades above the median. The treatments increase these female students' probability of majoring in economics by 5.41-6.27 percentage points.

Women are still a minority in the economics profession. By the mid-2000s, just under 35 percent of PhD students and 30 percent of assistant professors were female, and these numbers have remained roughly constant ever since. Over the past two decades, women's progress in academic economics has slowed, with virtually no improvement in the female share of junior faculty or graduate students in decades. Little consensus has emerged as to why, though there has been a renewal of widespread interest in the status and future of women in economics and of the barriers they face to professional success. In this paper, we first document trends in the gender composition of academic economists over the past 25 years, the extent to which these trends encompass the most elite departments, and how women's representation across fields of study within economics has changed. We then review the recent literature on other dimensions of women's relative position in the discipline, including research productivity and income, and assess evidence on the barriers that female economists face in publishing, promotion, and tenure. While differences in preferences and constraints may directly affect the relative productivity of men and women, productivity gaps do not fully explain the gender disparity in promotion rates in economics. Furthermore, the progress of women has stalled relative to that in other disciplines in the past two decades. We propose that differential assessment of men and women is one important factor in explaining this stalled progress, reflected in gendered institutional policies and apparent implicit bias in promotion and tenure processes.

In 2 studies that draw from the social role theory of sex differences (A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, & A. B. Diekman, 2000), the authors investigated differences in agentic and communal characteristics in letters of recommendation for men and women for academic positions and whether such differences influenced selection decisions in academia. The results supported the hypotheses, indicating (a) that women were described as more communal and less agentic than men (Study 1) and (b) that communal characteristics have a negative relationship with hiring decisions in academia that are based on letters of recommendation (Study 2). Such results are particularly important because letters of recommendation continue to be heavily weighted and commonly used selection tools.

The authors apply a regression-discontinuity design to identify the causal impact of letter grades on student effort within a course, subsequent credit hours taken, and the probability of majoring in economics. Their methodology addresses key issues in identifying the causal impact of letter grades: correlation with unobservable factors, such as motivation, and direction of causation. They find no evidence that letter grades influence undergraduate students' course-taking behavior or decision to major in economics. They find that, within a course, the first exam letter grade can affect student performance on the second exam.

This study examines the opportunity cost of non‐research responsibilities on research output. Using a sample of early career faculty members who received their Ph.D. in economics, we consider the effect of two dimensions of time use on research output: (1) time allocation, or how time is divided between research and other duties and (2) time concentration, or how research time is distributed during the academic year relative to summer months. This second dimension has not been used in prior studies on research productivity; however, the inherent delays in the publication process as well as start‐up costs may imply that concentrating research time exclusively in the summer months reduces research output. We find that both dimensions of time use are significant predictors of peer‐reviewed publications and that time concentration is a significant predictor of submissions. We find gender differences in both dimensions of time use, which are attributable to gender differences in employment at research institutions and on‐going childcare responsibilities.

Using a longitudinal administrative data set from a large research university, the authors empirically evaluate the consequences of using stop the clock (STC) policies for the career success of tenure track faculty. STC policies were introduced approximately 40 years ago, yet surprisingly little has been written about how they affect career outcomes. The prevalence of the ideal worker norm in academia raises the possibility of negative consequences as evaluators may treat STC policy use as a signal that the faculty member lacks sufficient commitment to his or her academic role. Consistent with this possibility, the authors find that faculty members who stop their clock for family reasons incur a salary penalty relative to faculty members who do not stop their clock, which cannot be explained by differences in productivity. Alternatively, faculty members who use the policy are not at a promotion disadvantage as compared with nonusers, and they actually have higher promotion rates.

In the present research, we provide one of the first empirical analyses of the relationship between faculty members' use of STC policies and career rewards, specifically promotion and pay. Although originally aimed at women who give birth during their pretenure years, STC policies are now available to both male and female faculty and can be used for a variety of family and nonfamily reasons. We therefore explore if outcomes of stopping the tenure clock vary by the gender of the user or the reason for use. We find that use of STC policies by pretenure faculty is not significantly related to their prob ability of promotion to a tenured position; however, STC use constrains pay for both male and female faculty. Moreover, we find that the pay penalty associated with stopping the tenure clock is larger and more persistent for faculty members who stop the clock for family reasons, as compared to nonfamily reasons. We discuss different mechanisms that may explain the observed relationships between STC use and faculty rewards and describe our ongoing efforts to isolate which of these mechanisms is at work.

A model of the determinants of articles produced by male and female economists is estimated using data from a survey of members of the American Economics Association. Years of experience, coauthorship rates, gender, research‐teaching orientation of the respondent's institution, and teaching loads are shown to be important estimators. Coauthorship appears to increase the overall production of articles and may help explain why collaboration among economists has increased in recent years. Males produce, on average, about seven more articles than females, with approximately 59% of gender‐specific differentials left unexplained by the variables included in the model.

This paper contends that women tend to eschew the economics profession due to institutional barriers and that women tend to identify themselves with professions less obtuse than economics. Furthermore this paper suggests that social pressures foster perceptions that appropriate fields of thought exist for women reinforcing the idea of appropriate academic fields for women.

The authors survey economists in the United States holding membership in the American Economic Association (AEA) to determine if there are significant differences in views between male and female economists on important policy issues. Controlling for place of current employment (academic institution with graduate program, academic institution-undergraduate only, government, for-profit institution) and decade of PhD, the authors find many areas in which economists agree. However, important differences exist in the views of male and female economists on issues including the minimum wage, views on labor standards, health insurance, and especially on explanations for the gender wage gap and issues of equal opportunity in the labor market and the economics profession itself. These results lend support to the notion that gender diversity in policy-making circles may be an important aspect in broadening the menu of public policy choices.

The existence of old boy networks has long been postulated as a possible explanation for the presence of gender differences in market outcomes but with little empirical support because of the difficulty of measuring network access. This article exploits the unique attributes of academic labor markets and detailed data on individuals and jobs for PhD economists over nearly four decades. The results suggest that networks impact the joint decision to publish and coauthor, that these network effects differ by gender, and that gender differences in network access change over time as women become more well represented in a profession.

The authors use unique panel data on American Economic Association members to test for gender differences in promotion in a profession with a well-defined promotion and job hierarchy and in which men and women exhibit similar labor-market attachment. The results suggest that over the period from the 1960s through the early 1980s, female economists had lower levels of professional attainment and career advancement than did their male colleagues with similar attributes. These gender differences remain in evidence despite controls for unobserved heterogeneity and self-selection between academic and non-academic jobs. There is evidence, however, that promotion prospects for female economists significantly improved during the 1980s, not only at all ranks, but also within both Ph.D.-granting institutions and non-Ph.D.-granting institutions. In fact, the results reveal no unexplained gender-specific differences in promotion by the end of the 1980s.

A cohort sample of Ph.D. economists indicates a significant propensity for researchers to select coauthors of the same sex. This gender‐sorting contributes to lower article production for women. Further, we find evidence of bias in academic promotion when single‐authored and coauthored articles carry the same weight in promotion and salary decisions. The evidence explains, in part, why women academics wait longer for promotion and are not as likely to be promoted as men. Among the effects of gender‐sorting is self‐selection of women into larger departments where they are more likely to find colleagues of the same sex.

The present study uses conjoint analysis to examine college students' choices of elective courses. The relative contributions to student satisfaction or 'utility' of six course and instructor attributes are computed. Results suggest that choice is in large part a function of the perceived interest in course topic, the applicability of course material to future career opportunities, and the time of day the course is offered. A relative preference for low levels of course and instructor rigor may suggest that students also place a high premium on expected grade. The gender of the instructor does not appear to influence the registration choices of most students, but may affect registration decisions made by students that do not belong to a fraternity or sorority, students with low grade point averages, and sophomores. The implication of these results for gender biases in student evaluations is discussed.

Relatively little is known about career choice within a profession. In this paper, we model the first-job choice of economists among several careers, and use data on new Ph.D. economists over the last thirty years to examine whether career choices differ by gender over a period of low, but increasing, representation of women. An advantage of our single-profession analysis is that it contains a relatively homogeneous set of workers with quantitative human-capital measures that other studies of job choice suggest are important. There is significant variation in career choices available within economics that permits possible market segmentation: there are research and teaching academic jobs, and the government and private sectors employ large numbers of economists. We find significant structural differences in the placements of male and female economists, indicating that the choices of female economists differ from those of the male counterparts both within academia and between this and other sectors.

Using curricula vitae and EconLit, we examine the publication records of nearly 2000 academic economists. We consider the probationary period and the years between tenure and promotion to professor. Faculty tenured at top programmes average 3.44 articles in top-ten journals (and 8.75 total articles). The quality of faculty members' publications decreases with programme ranking; the quantity of publications does not differ much among top-100 programmes. Those promoted to professor generate fewer top-ten and total articles. There is some evidence that females produce fewer top-ten and total journal articles than males at many programmes.

Mixon, Franklin G. & Treviño, L. (2005). Is there gender discrimination in named professorships? An econometric analysis of economics departments in the US South. Applied Economics, 37(8), 849-854. 10.1080/00036840500048902

This study examines the correlates of the probability that an individual academician holds a named professorship. Named professorships, like other positions within an organization, are determined by a mixture of market and non-market forces. Thus, both merit (both past and expected future productivity) and discrimination may play a role. Regression results and Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition tests presented here support a conclusion of gender discrimination in the named professorship process at American institutions of higher education. Specifically, it is found that gender discrimination results in a 7.6 percentage point disadvantage for females (relative to males) regarding the likelihood of holding a named professorship in economics.

One potential method to increase the success of female graduate students in economics may be to encourage mentoring relationships between these students and female faculty members. Increased hiring of female faculty is viewed as one way to promote such mentoring relationships, perhaps because of role-model effects. A more direct method of promoting such relationships may be for female graduate students to have female faculty serve as dissertation chairs. The evidence in his paper addresses the question of whether either of these strategies results in more successful outcomes for female graduate students. The evidence is based on survey information on female graduate students and faculties of Ph.D.-producing economics departments, covering the mid- 1970s to the early 1990s.

With respect to characteristics of the institutions at which students are first placed when leaving graduate school, the empirical evidence provides no support for the hypothesis that outcomes for female graduate students are improved by adding female faculty members, or by having a female dissertation chair. However, with respect to time to complete graduate school, and the completion rate, there is some limited evidence of beneficial effects of female faculty members.

North American economics departments produce a substantial amount of economics PhDs, and these PhDs are responsible for a disproportionately large share of research published in top academic journals. This column provides an overview of 35 years of peer-reviewed publications by North American economics PhDs. Since 1980, the size of author teams grown and female representation steadily improved. The shares of the major research fields show relatively little variation, though international economics, development economics, and finance are exceptions to this.

We analyze and document various qualities of peer-reviewed journal publications listed in the EconLit database between 1980 and 2014. At least one author of the publication had to graduate from a North American economics PhD program between 1970 and 2009. We find that the share of single-author papers diminishes over time, and North American PhDs engage more in coauthored publications. While two-author papers are published on average more than three-author papers during 1980-1999, this switches after 2000. We also find that author teams containing at least one author who is a graduate of a top thirty department publish significantly more compared with other author teams. All-female and mixed-gender author teams publish significantly less compared with all-male author teams between 1980-1999, but we find no significant difference after 2000. The shares in the different fields in total publications show little variation in three decades. While male authors are over-represented in micro and macroeconomics, female authors are over-represented in labor and development economics. Some fields, such as microeconomics, econometrics, and experimental economics, are published in high quality journals, whereas macroeconomics, public economics, industrial organization, finance, health and urban economics, and development economics are published in journals that have lower quality weights than the average journal. Labor economics and economic history are published significantly better after 2000.

The author employs a regression discontinuity design to provide direct evidence on the effects of grades earned in economics principles classes on the decision to major in economics and finds a differential effect for male and female students. Specifically, for female students, receiving an A for a final grade in the first economics class is associated with a meaningful increase in the probability of majoring in economics, even after controlling for the numerical grade earned in the class. This suggests that for female students, the feedback that is embedded in the course letter grade has an encouragement effect on their decision to study economics further. The author finds no evidence of a similar effect for male students.

This paper describes the evolution of Gender & Economics in Sweden during recent decades. It treats several sub-themes. One is that of economic research on women/gender. It is shown that in Sweden this research area has gradually grown into a fairly large mainstream research area in Economics. Two factors have contributed to this. One is the external (to the academic community) demand and support for such research in Sweden. Another is the fact that a number of theoretical and methodological developments in economics have had interesting applications within gender research.

Price, Gregory & Razzolini, Laura (2002). The returns to seniority in the labor market for academic economists. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.5609&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This paper empirically explores the idea that the labor market for academic economists is possibly monopsonistic whereby employers can exploit the heterogeneity of employees to lower the returns to seniority. We estimate the returns to seniority in wage equations from censored salary data generated by grant applications submitted to the National Science Foundation Economics Program. Our results reveal that for academic economists, the returns to seniority are negative. This suggests that the labor market for economics faculty is monopsonistic with employers able to engage in salary discrimination as a result of heterogeneity in employee moving costs.

Workers with high seniority usually have higher wages than workers with low seniority and the same total labor market experience. In contrast, the results of this paper indicate that higher seniority is associated with lower salaries for university professors. The author documents this finding for national surveys and individual institutions and explains it as due to monopsonistic discrimination by employers.

There is a gender imbalance in undergraduate economics departments with most departments educating a strong majority of young men. This imbalance has led many economists to ponder the question of why relatively few women choose to take courses and major in economics. Our hypothesis is that the gender imbalance in undergraduate economics, particularly at institutions with traditional liberal arts curriculums, is partly explained by women's greater sensitivity to grades, particularly lower grades. Students choose their majors based on both their interests and their abilities. The literature indicates that the grade a student receives in an introductory class relative to grades received in other departments is one of the strongest predictors of whether or not the student chooses to enroll in more courses in the discipline. However, our hypothesis is that men who take economics courses are less responsive to this signal than are women. As a result, men who do poorly in economics are more likely to continue in the major. Women who do poorly, in contrast, are more likely to abandon economics and pursue a different major. Our results, generated from 16 years of data from a liberal arts college where economics is one of the most popular majors, support this hypothesis. The overall economics GPA for female majors is significantly higher than that for males and male students dominate the bottom of the grade distribution. Finally, results from the estimation of a series of selection models of the decision to take more economics courses indicate that, holding other characteristics constant, women are more responsive to the relative grade received than are men.

Last year the Association adopted a set of principles disavowing sex discrimination in the profession of economics and estab- lished the committee which I chair to in- vestigate conformity with these principles. The resolutions expressing these principles were published in the 1972 Papers and Proceedings issue of the A merican Eco- nomic Review. Appointed in March, the committee met first on May 31 and second in Washington on October 6, with a press conference to release preliminary results of our findings. This interim report covers three major activities. We have accumu- lated data on the supply of women econo- mists; we have attempted to respond to the demand for women economists; and we have worked out programs for affirmative action.

The decision to pursue economics may be thought of as involving a two-stage process. In the first stage, the high school student decides to take economics (or a program requiring economics) in the first year at the university; in the second stage, the university student decides to take further courses in economics conditional on having taken the introductory course. Although the analyses of these decisions are quite limited, recent work by Dynan and Rouse (1997) for the United States indicates that women are significantly less likely than men to take introductory economics in the first place or to major in economics conditional on having taken the introductory course.

This research note finds significant earnings differentials across gender that cannot be explained by differences in individual, job, or institutional characteristics. Specifically, we find that female economics and business faculty earn between 1.3 and 7.4% less than would be predicted in the absence of discrimination.

How is credit for group work allocated when individual contributions are not perfectly observed? Do demographic traits like gender influence the allocation of credit? Using data from academic economists' CVs, I test whether coauthored and solo-authored publications matter differently for tenure for men and women. Because coauthors are listed alphabetically in economics, coauthored papers do not provide specific information about each contributor's skills or ability. Solo-authored papers, on the other hand, provide a relatively clear signal of ability. I find that men are tenured at roughly the same rate regardless of whether they coauthor or solo-author. Women, however, become less likely to receive tenure the more they coauthor. The result is most pronounced for women coauthoring with men and less pronounced among women who coauthor with other women. I contrast economics with sociology, a discipline in which coauthors are listed in order of contribution, and find that when contributions are made clear, men and women receive equal credit for coauthored papers.

This paper investigates the determinants of tenure decisions in Germany, Austria and the German-speaking part of Switzerland for professorships in economics, business administration and related fields. Our dataset comprises candidates who were awarded tenure as well as those who were eligible but were not tenured. We show that business candidates have a higher probability of being tenured than economists. Youth, marital status and publications matter; gender and children do not. The market for first appointments in economics relies much more on publication performance than the market for business administration.

This paper examines the frequency and ways in which men and women appear in principles of economics textbooks. Men account for more than 90 percent of business leaders, policymakers, and economists mentioned in textbooks. In addition, women are a minority of the fictionalized people appearing in textbooks and a minority of celebrities. Fictionalized women are shown taking fewer actions and are more likely to be involved in food, fashion, or household tasks, while men are more likely both to be in leadership positions and in business or policy.

We report early career outcomes of economics Ph.D.s by tracking the U.S. class of 1996-97. We examine employment outcomes, work activities, salaries, and graduates' attitudes toward their jobs. By 2003, all of the respondents were employed, although almost half changed employers during the six years. Salaries of the cohort increased at an average annual rate of 8.2 percent from 1997 through 2003. Academic-year salaries rose about 5.7 percent per year, while private sector salaries skyrocketed at 15 percent per year. Finally, the median salaries of first-year full-time permanent 9-10 month academic economists hired in 2002-03 actually exceed the 2003 salaries of their counterparts initially hired in 1997-98. Some of this apparent salary inversion reflects a different mix of employers and departments between the two cohorts, with the younger group securing relatively more jobs at higher paying institutions.

This study of Ph.D. economists' careers during the period 1960-1989 examines both initial and current employment and explicitly accounts for the joint relationship between choosing an employment sector and placement within the academic sector. Initial placement and market conditions create effects that tend to persist throughout an individual's career. With the exception of the labor and welfare fields, women are not less likely than men either to enter or to persist in academia. But significant evidence shows that in the past, women have placed in lower-ranked departments. Among recent degree recipients, however, underplacement of women as a general phenomenon apparently has disappeared.

Using a unique data set from our survey of academic economists in Japan, we present the first detailed study of gender promotion gaps in Japanese academia. The length of time from initial appointment to promotion to associate professor is greater for women than men, largely due to women spending more time as lecturers, the lowest academic rank. The gender gaps in promotions from associate professor to full professor are more complex. Childless women are promoted faster than childless men. However, since the effects of marriage and children are negative for women, this 'reverse gender gap' disappears for childless married academics, and women's time to promotion becomes substantially longer than men's if they have children.

By using unique survey data, we conduct a detailed study of the gender salary gap within economics departments in Japan. Despite the presence of rigid pay scales emphasizing age and experience, there is a 7% gender salary gap after controlling for rank and detailed personal, job, institutional and human capital characteristics. This gender salary gap exists within ranks. We find no gender promotion differences. In addition, we find a concentration of the salary gap in public universities and in research oriented universities. Our results show no evidence that the gender salary gap is reducing over time, and reject the hypothesis that females' choice between household work and market activities is responsible for the gender salary gap.

This study investigates the relationships among research productivity, teaching, and service on the basis of individual-specific information involving approximately 715 academic economists. Responding to an online survey, these economists provided information regarding their teaching and service commitments as well as personal and institutional information. The publication record of each respondent was then obtained from EconLit. Together, these data constitute a rich field for the systematic study of research productivity. Results of a Tobit analysis reveal much about the nature of research productivity, underscoring, for instance, the importance of gender, coauthorship, presentations at conferences, and peers who publish. Among the more important findings from this analysis is that both teaching and service commitments have a significantly negative impact on the research productivity of academic economists. These relations hold across types of academic employer, though to varying degrees. Taken together, the results provide interesting insights into the roles of academic scholars, teachers, and colleagues.

In 1998, the Committee on Women in Agricultural Economics (CWAE) began a tracking project to more closely examine and report on issues and trends in the agricultural economics profession. This study presents results on performance and pay among academics, focusing on differences across genders. Experience and refereed journal articles appear to have the greatest affect on salary differences. Discussion on several academic issues of debate, including nine- versus eleven-month appointments and workload expectations, is also presented.

Toutkoushian, R., Bellas, M., & Moore, J. (2007). The interaction effects of gender, race, and marital status on faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 572-601. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/222934
Female Economists Organizations Abroad
Large national surveys of faculty afford analysts the opportunity to examine differences in faculty salary based on combinations of all three dimensions--gender, race/ethnicity, and marital status--as well as the possible interactive effects among them. In this study, the authors used data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) to examine the different ways in which a faculty member's gender, race/ethnicity, and marital status can interact to influence compensation. They begin by reviewing the literature on the effects of these variables on faculty salaries and then discuss empirical approaches to measuring differences in faculty salary. The authors then provide a description of the data, followed by the results of their analyses. They conclude with some thoughts on the implications of their findings and future directions for research.

This paper examines the possibility that the gender rank distribution observed in the academic labor market is predominantly explained by two factors. First, the differing average characteristics of male and female academics, and second, barriers to female promotion. Despite detailed controls for personal attributes, including career breaks and publication history, male academics are more likely to be found in higher grades. Promotion from researcher to lecturer is a relatively high hurdle for women. Evidence suggests that initial placement and the process of moving between universities contributes to the male advantage in rank attainment.

This paper considers salary determination and the gender salary gap in the academic labor market utilizing a particularly detailed data set of academics from five old established Universities. Results reveal an aggregate gender salary differential for academic staff of 15%. Most of this differential can, however, be explained by our model. Evidence suggests a limited opportunity for female academics to combine career and family, despite the flexibility of an academic job and emphasizes the importance of mobility to the male career. Publication record is found to be an important determinant of salary.

This paper examines whether people in academia portray and judge women and men differently in everyday conversations that take place online. I combine methods from text mining, machine learning and econometrics to study the existence and extent of gender stereotyping on the Economics Job Market Rumors forum. I first design a propensity score model to infer the gender a post mainly refers to from text, and simultaneously identify the individual words with the strongest association with gender. The words selected provide a direct look into the gender stereotyped language on this forum. Through a topic analysis of the posts, I find that when women are under discussion, the discourse tends to become significantly less academic or professionally oriented, and more about personal information and physical appearance. Moreover, a panel data analysis reveals the state dependence between the content of posts within a thread. In particular, once women are mentioned in a thread, the topic is likely to shift from academic to personal. Finally, I restrict the analysis to discussions about specific economists, and find that high-profile female economists tend to receive more attention on EJMR than their male counterparts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Compiled by: Donna K. Ginther, University of Kansas, Department of Economics Janet Stefanov, Vanderbilt University Using a very large sample of matched author-referee pairs, we examine how the gender of referees and authors affects the former's recommendations.

# data[].attributes.body
Check out the citations!

# data[].attributes.body
Another with sources!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Status Report on Preventing Violence Against Children 2020: Infographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide is for people working in the health sector, and outlines the specific provisions of the Children's Act that apply to health professionals. It explains the children's rights and principles that inform the Act and addresses difficult questions such as how to determine the best interests of the child, and whether consensual sex between adolescents should be reported.

# data[].attributes.body
Also posted in Canvas!

# data[].attributes.body
You don't need to do anything this complicated, though!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclosure: Links to other sites may be affiliate links that generate us a small commission at no extra cost to you.

If you're looking for a guide that walks you through how to start a podcast, you're absolutely in the right place...

Starting a podcast isn't difficult, but there are a number of steps you'll need to go through in order to get it launched.

In this podcasting tutorial, we'll walk you through every step of the process:

Choosing a topic & name

Show and episode format

Cover art creation

Intro & outro music

Equipment selection

Audio recording & editing

Submission to Apple Podcasts (iTunes)

Promotion tips

And much more...

Bonus: Free 10-Day "How To Start A Podcast" Email Course
Just click the link and enter your email to get the first lesson:
Click Here To Get The Free "How To Start A Podcast" Email Course
Just a few of the things you'll learn:

What to podcast about

Equipment you'll need

How to record & edit

How to promote your podcast

Get started today!

Podcasting is a much less crowded and competitive space than blogging, making now the perfect time to get started.

As of November 2023, there are just over 2 million podcasts, but over 600 million blogs!

In case you're wondering, I've helped thousands of people start a podcast in the last several years and have started a few shows in different industries myself.

Looking to start a podcast quickly? Sign up with Buzzsprout, upload your audio files, and submit to Apple & Spotify.

Let's get started:

Planning

This is the initial (often overlooked) stage to make a podcast. You'll want to spend a good amount of time here before you move on.

Feel free to get out a notebook or a whiteboard so you can start planning your podcast like a pro.

Choose A Topic

You want your podcast to be focused on a particular topic or niche.

Try to narrow it down to something you can speak about for many episodes (100+) but that isn't so broad that you won't appeal to your potential audience.

For example, instead of having an "outdoor" podcast, talk about hiking - or even more specific, like hiking 14ers.

You can always expand your topic later as you get more popular.

Important: see the section about choosing a name to make sure you don't limit yourself.

Pick A Co-host (optional)

Do you have a friend, business partner, or coworker that you want to co-host with?

It can be much easier to start podcasting if you have a co-host.

You will naturally have a more engaging conversation if you both share your points of view on a topic. It can also be helpful to have someone to keep things on track.

Plus, you can split additional tasks of editing, promoting, and more.

There can be downsides though.

You'll want to make sure both of you are committed to it for the long term. And it helps to set a schedule from the beginning so you know when you will be recording every week.

There aren't rules here though. If your co-host drops off, you could still continue the podcast without them. Or you could start solo and add a co-host later.

The important thing is to just get started.. so let's choose a name:

Choose A Name

If you look at the top Apple Podcasts charts, you'll see a variety of different names.

Some are descriptive of what the show is about, while others don't mean much.

I'm actually going to seemingly contradict what I said earlier: You want to choose a name that is broader than your topic.

Using the hiking example earlier, if we choose "The 14er Cast" as our name, what happens when we want to talk about backpacking & ultralight camping too?

Instead, choose a name that will let you expand if you decide to later. Maybe "Mountain Adventures (Above & Below 14K ft)" would work as it gives a hint to hiking 14ers but gives you the option to talk about all kinds of stuff if you want.

I just came up with that as I was writing this, I'm sure you could do better!

Action Step: Purchase a domain name (opens in a new tab) for your podcast.

Another option is to get a free domain name with a Bluehost web hosting plan. You can search right here on this page - try it out!

I also have some more tips on choosing a domain name here if you want.

Show Format

Length

You'll find a number of "experts" claim that certain lengths are perfect for podcasts. The problem is that's just BS.

You don't need a 28-minute podcast because that's the average driving time. Or under an hour because people can't pay attention longer than that.

There are 5 minutes podcasts and there are 6-hour podcasts. Find whatever works for you and run with it!

What I would try to avoid is making it longer than it needs to be because you went off-topic for 15 minutes.

Here's a great image from Pop Up Podcasting that shows "easy, good, or long - pick two":

Style

Interview shows are popular, but that doesn't mean you have to do one.

You can do solo (or co-hosted) shows half the time and interview shows the other half.

One big benefit of doing interviews is that they help a ton with getting new listeners - especially if you make it easy for your guest to share with pre-written templates and graphics.

Episode Format

So what does a specific episode sound like? I wrote this post about podcast intros, but it has a bunch of examples of different episode formats for popular podcasts.

Here's one example:

Get creative with this part.

Different segments make it easier to share small clips on social media too.

But remember that for every episode you put out, you will have both repeat listeners and new listeners so you should try to speak to both of them.

Preparation

Now that you've written down your topic, format(s), and secured a domain name, we'll need to get a few things prepared ahead of launch...

Create Cover Art

Your cover art is the first impression most people will see as they browse through Apple Podcasts or their favorite podcast app.

It's might also be the image someone sees when you share your show on social media.

Buzzsprout has written an excellent article about designing cover art, so I would definitely start there.

If you have a little bit of a budget, I highly recommend 99 Designs to get yours created.

You'll get hundreds of different designers to produce a draft - then you can choose the ones you like to have them further refined.

Get A Professional Intro (Optional)

Music Radio Creative is the best place to get professional-quality voiceovers and intros.

Having a third-party introduce you just takes your perceived value up a notch, which is a great way to stand out when first starting a podcast.

Choose Intro Music

I'm a big fan of PremiumBeat for podcast music.

It's easy to search, you get a full license, and they have a bunch of different styles.

Take a look at this post on royalty-free music for more options.

Most people don't need an unlimited subscription-style music service - just a song or two.

Get A Microphone

Audio quality is important but it doesn't have to cost a ton to get a good quality microphone for podcasting. One of the most popular podcasting microphones is the Audio-Technica ATR2100x-USB.

It's both a USB microphone and has an XLR connection which lets you upgrade your recording equipment without needing a new mic.

I recommend taking a look at our podcast starter kit post for more options here, especially if you plan on having a co-host or two.

Podcast Guests

If you are doing an interview show, now is the time to get a list together of who you want on your podcast.

Then start reaching out to them.

It can help to use a service like Acuity Scheduling so people can book right on your calendar when it's convenient for you.

This saves the headache of going back and forth working out a meeting time - and means you can focus on getting more guests!

Plus you can ask them for certain info like their Skype username or an intro you can read when they schedule with you.

To record your interviews when you're not in-person (or if your co-host doesn't record in the same room with you) I use and recommend Iris.

Recording & Editing

Alitu (The Easy Way)

If you haven't used editing software before, even simple actions in GarageBand or Audacity can be quite intimidating.

It's understandable: audio production is completely full of jargon!

If that's the case, then Alitu might be the way to go.

It's a 'podcast making' tool that automates a lot of the confusing technical parts, and practically builds your episode for you. It's all based right inside your browser, so no software to download, and it works on any computer connected to the internet.

It is built to be super simple to use and does pretty much everything:

Takes care of audio cleanup

Lets you add music

Helps you piece together your audio segments

Has direct publishing of your episodes.

All you need to do is upload your recordings, and use the fool-proof podcast-specific editor to take out any big mistakes. Alitu does the rest!

Even better, Alitu includes a library of music and jingles which you can use as your theme tune, or as transitions between segments.

Whether you're a complete beginner, or an experienced podcaster looking to drastically cut down on your production time, you should definitely give Alitu a try. It comes with a 7-day free trial, so sign up here and try it out!

GarageBand (Free Option)

I'm going to show you how to use GarageBand for recording and editing.

Other audio editing software is similar but most have more advanced features that you don't need when getting started. Popular options are Adobe Audition & Audacity (both work with Mac & PC).

You can also check out our full post on podcast editing software.

Create A Template

Before you get started, it will be much easier if you create a template that you can reuse every time you record a podcast episode.

What this means is that you will have your intro & outro music already placed, space for ad spots, as well as your tracks for your voice or an interviewee.

Keep in mind this will look different depending on your episode format - create a podcast template that works for you. Here's one I use:

I'll just open the template up, click File -> Save As, and save the file as my episode name (i.e. 008-episode-8-title).

This will also keep any effects you have applied to the tracks, including compression, EQ, or anything else. I'll show you the settings I use in the editing section below.

Record Your First Episode (Or 3)

Solo

If you're just recording a solo episode or want to record an intro to an interview you did, simply select the track you want to record to (see the light gray Podcast Audio track selected above) and click the red Record button up top:

Multiple Hosts

If you have multiple hosts, you'll need to click Track -> Configure Track Header and check Record Enable.

This will give you the option to enable multiple tracks to record at once and you'll see the Record Enable button on each track:

You'll click that button on each track you want to record, then click the big record button up top. Easy enough!

Remote Interview

Many people use Skype for recording remote interviews and the easiest way to actually record the audio (or video) is with Ecamm Call Recorder For Skype (Mac only) or Pamela (for Windows).

If you want better audio quality than Skype or Zoom allow, or a way to have individual audio files for more than 2 people, services like Iris are excellent. They are designed for remote recording and podcast interviews.

When you are done recording, you'll have two separate tracks that you will place on top of each other like this:

This also shows another template that you may want to use. The Podcast Audio track is only used for solo shows, and the Interview tracks are only used for interview shows.

Edit Your Episode

There are a couple of things you can easily set up once (and save in your template) that will make your podcast (and your voice) sound much better.

Keep in mind that everyone's voice is different so there aren't perfectly universal settings, but these may give you a good starting point:

1. Select the track you want to work with (start with your voice)

2. Click an empty space in the Plug-ins box

3. Add compression by going to Dynamics -> Compressor:

4. I use these settings (sometimes I'll add more gain):Play around with them and just click the power button next to the compressor plugin to easily compare.

5. Next we're going to add EQ (under EQ -> Channel EQ).

6. Here are my settings:

100 Hz: 24dB/Oct roll off, Q: 0.79

160 Hz: -2.5dB, Q: 2.20

500 Hz: -1.0dB, Q: 0.71

930 Hz: -0.5dB, Q: 3.20

3400 Hz: +0.5dB, Q: 0.71

5400 Hz: +2.5dB, Q: 0.71

I'm not going to get into what all that means, but if you just do one, the low-end roll-off (on the left) will be a good start.

Or you can just download my Podcast Vocal EQ settings here (.pst file on Dropbox).

The last step I'd recommend is going to Auphonic to apply some normalization for loudness (LUFS), leveling, and filtering. It will also automatically add ID3 tags should you need them.

Launch!

Get A Podcast Host

I use and highly recommend Buzzsprout podcast hosting after trying many different companies over the years.

Plus you'll get a free $20 Amazon gift card after you sign up for a paid plan!

Feel free to check out our complete podcast hosting guide if you want to see other options, but another great choice for larger brands is Transistor.

You can also look at this list of the best podcast platforms.

Once you've signed up, you'll need to fill out some required information about your podcast (name, description, categories, etc.).

Upload Your First Episode

If you use Buzzsprout, this process is super simple.

If not, it's possible you need to mess with things like embedding ID3 tags into your MP3. Sounds confusing and unnecessary - let's not do that.

You'll just need to click the "Upload" button:

and they'll apply some magic processing to your mp3 file.

Then you'll need to fill out the episode title, description, summary, publish date, and episode #.

If you want to use Seasons, put a "1" there, otherwise leave it blank. If you use a lot of bad words, click the explicit checkbox.

It can be helpful to create a template for your episode description (in a separate text document) to reuse for every episode - I use something like this:

Click save and repeat this step for your initial release of episodes.

It's recommended to launch a podcast with more than 1 episode so that people don't have to wait to hear more.

3 to 5 episodes is a good number to start with.

Submit To Apple Podcasts (iTunes)

I have a separate guide on how to submit your podcast to iTunes but within Buzzsprout just click Apple Podcasts under the Directories tab and follow the steps they've put together.

After that, grab your podcast RSS feed and submit it to other podcast directories too.

As you upload new episodes, your host will automatically update your RSS feed and any podcast directory you're listed on will also update with your new episode.

Spread The Word

Use Buzzsprout's social sharing feature to generate teaser videos and start sharing!

There are other companies that will help you generate different styles of audiograms, but having it built into your host makes it really easy to create (and it won't cost you extra).

Wavve and Headliner are two excellent choices if you want to create more custom podcast videos to share.

Check out this article on podcast promotion to for a bunch of other marketing tactics. One of the most impactful ones is building your own website (see next step below).

Recommended Steps (After Starting A Podcast)

Your job isn't done once you start a podcast. Here are my recommendations to help make your show more appealing and easier to grow:

Create A Website

WordPress (Easy To Medium Difficulty)

Podcast hosting companies usually give you a website, but if you want to be taken seriously get yourself a separate WordPress host.

For beginners, Bluehost is easily the best option (plus you'll get a free domain name for the first year).

If you need a bit more guidance, start with this how to start a WordPress blog post for the initial steps.

I have a list of excellent WordPress plugins that a podcaster would need too.

And if you need more help, I have a course called Podcast Website LaunchPad that walks you through everything.

Podcastpage (Easiest Method)

Podcastpage is a website builder and hosting all-in-one made specifically for podcasts. Kind of like Wix but designed for the needs podcasters.

No coding is necessary. You just choose one of their themes, customize to your liking, and optionally integrate email marketing or Google Analytics.

You can add pages or blog posts, customize your audio player, and make it easy for your visitors to subscribe!

It works with any podcast hosting provider and pricing is fair, starting at $80/year or $8/month.

Check it out and sign up for a free trial here.

Get Transcriptions

Transcriptions are an excellent way for search engines (like Google) to "read" your podcast episodes. They also give your audience another way to look something up quickly.

You don't have to start out with them, but it's another one of those things that will set you apart.

Buzzsprout has a built-in transcription service (on paid plans) that costs $.10/minute, but my favorite transcription service is Rev - give them a try.

Create Show Notes

Show notes can be transcriptions like above, a simple summary of what you talked about, or a full blog post tailored more toward reading than listening.

Some people do a combination.

On this site, we start with written content first and then create podcast episodes after.

Embed Your Episode

Grab your episode embed code and place it on your show notes page so people can listen from your website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate Guide To Starting A Podcast (Free Forever)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to start a podcast in 2023 with this step-by-step tutorial. You'll learn everything from coming up with an idea to recording to launching!

# data[].attributes.body
zoom.us
(pro-tip: record in the cloud and zoom produces and audio-only file and a transcript that can be submitted as your script)

https://www.audacityteam.org/ (More high-tech, but likely more than you need)

https://screencast-o-matic.com/ (can get a free trial, but probably more than you need since it includes screen capture)