Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm

Ibarra, Herminia

doi:10.2307/2393451

Cited by 1,733 publications

(1,483 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,379

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…36 Moving forward, we must understand how faculty coauthor networks map onto individual's perceived networks, including any instrumental (e.g., influence, communication, advice) and expressive (e.g., friendship) functions. 37,38 Also unknown are the mechanisms by which information and other capital are exchanged, as well as how strength of network ties 39 versus number of connections may influence promotion or attrition. Authorship order may matter-a stronger or more meaningful relationship may exist when coauthors are first and last authors or first and second authors, than for relationships among middle authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty Promotion and Attrition: The Importance of Coauthor Network Reach at an Academic Medical Center

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Business literature has demonstrated the importance of networking and connections in career advancement. This is a little-studied area in academic medicine. OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of intra-organizational connections, as measured by network reach (the number of first-and second-degree coauthors), and their association with probability of promotion and attrition. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study between 2008 and 2012. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5787 Harvard Medical School (HMS) faculty with a rank of assistant professor or fulltime instructor as of January 1, 2008. MAIN MEASURES: Using negative binomial models, multivariable-adjusted predictors of continuous network reach were assessed according to rank. Poisson regression was used to compute relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the association between network reach (in four categories) and two outcomes: promotion or attrition. Models were adjusted for demographic, professional and productivity metrics. KEY RESULTS: Network reach was positively associated with number of first-, last-and middle-author publications and h-index. Among assistant professors, men and whites had greater network reach than women and underrepresented minorities (p<0.001). Compared to those in the lowest category of network reach in 2008, instructors in the highest category were three times as likely to have been promoted to assistant professor by 2012 (RR: 3.16, 95 % CI: 2.60, 3.86; p-trend <0.001) after adjustment for covariates. Network reach was positively associated with promotion from assistant to associate professor (RR: 1.82, 95 % CI: 1.32, 2.50; p-trend <0.001). Those in the highest category of network reach in 2008 were 17 % less likely to have left HMS by 2012 (RR: 0.83, 95 % CI 0.70, 0.98) compared to those in the lowest category.CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that coauthor network metrics can provide useful information for understanding faculty advancement and retention in academic medicine. They can and should be investigated at other institutions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty Promotion and Attrition: The Importance of Coauthor Network Reach at an Academic Medical Center

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information withholding in reference groups composed of scientists who are more professionally similar to a focal scientist in their field, specialty, and status can be expected to be more influential for that scientist because homophily-preference for similar others-is a strong basis for influence in social contexts (e.g., Festinger 1954, Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954, Ibarra 1992. Since social cues are more salient when they come from more similar others, withholding behavior by more similar others attracts more attention from the focal scientist, heightening its visibility.…”

Section: Hypothesis 1 (H1) Information Withholding By Reference Groumentioning

confidence: 99%

To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists

Haas

Park

2010

Organization Science

110

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do scientists withhold information from colleagues, violating the professional norm of sharing? Norm violations are usually attributed to individual interests that lead scientists to reject professional norms. In contrast, we take the view that norm violations can occur when professional norms are valued but it is difficult to ascertain the appropriate course of professional conduct. This view suggests that scientists may look to cues from their professional reference groups to resolve sociological ambivalence arising from conflicting role expectations. We analyze a data set of 1,251 geneticists and other life scientists from 100 U.S. universities and find that beyond individual-level explanations, information withholding is influenced by the behaviors of peers as well as the attitudes of superiors in the profession. We discuss the implications for the professions literature, theories of organizational learning, and knowledge management initiatives in firms.

show abstract

“…For example, cross-gender expressive ties are often viewed as inappropriate or suspect outside the context of marriage or other family relationships (Rubin, 1990;Williams, 2000). Previous studies suggest that women have a stronger tendency to form homophilous ties in expressive networks compared to instrumental networks (Ibarra, 1992). As such, the predicted interaction effects between marginalized status and gender homophily might only materialize within the instrumental research network.…”

Section: The Relational Context Of Social Isolationmentioning

confidence: 86%

Social isolation, survey nonresponse, and nonresponse bias: An empirical evaluation using social network data within an organization

Watanabe

Olson

Falci

2017

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey researchers have long hypothesized that social isolation negatively affects the probability of survey participation and biases survey estimates. Previous research, however, has relied on proxy measures of isolation, such as being a marginalized group member within a population. We re-examine the relationship between social isolation and survey participation using direct measures of social isolation derived from social network data; specifically, instrumental research and expressive friendship connections among faculty within academic departments. Using a reconceptualization of social isolation, we find that social network isolation is negatively associated with unit response. Among women (a numerical minority group within the organization), we further find that social group isolation (i.e., lacking instrumental network connections to men, the majority group in the organization) is negatively associated with survey participation. Finally, we show that some survey estimates are systematically biased due to nonparticipation from socially isolated people.

show abstract

Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm

Cited by 1,733 publications

References 38 publications

Faculty Promotion and Attrition: The Importance of Coauthor Network Reach at an Academic Medical Center

Faculty Promotion and Attrition: The Importance of Coauthor Network Reach at an Academic Medical Center

To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists

Social isolation, survey nonresponse, and nonresponse bias: An empirical evaluation using social network data within an organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About