Prepping for my R maps workshop

I’m thoroughly enjoying gathering data and writing the scripts for the maps I’m going to share in my upcoming Women in Tech Summit workshop. I’m starting with world-level maps, then will move to US and then more local. A main challenge is that there are lots of different ways to draw maps in R. My personal favorite is to use ggplot2. I have seen there is a choroplethr package, but I haven’t tried that yet.

Here’s my latest map:


It’s based on the wrld_simpl SpatialPolygonsDataFrame, and I merged in data from the World Bank Development Indicators. Next up: gender differences in economic and education outcomes across the US. Whee!

Sucky stuff in re women at work: link roundup

“The current study has implications for group decisions in general, and jury deliberations in particular, by suggesting that expressing anger might lead men to gain influence, but women to lose influence over others (even when making identical arguments).”

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Woman in a Meeting: “I have to say — I’m sorry — I have to say this. I don’t think we should be as scared of non-fear things as maybe we are? If that makes sense? Sorry, I feel like I’m rambling.”

“[Jennifer Lawrence] says that she blamed herself for not negotiating harder but also explores why it was she didn’t push that hard. Admitting that it’s “difficult to speak about my experience as a working woman because I can safely say my problems aren’t exactly relatable” — she was negotiating over millions of dollars — she speaks to a dynamic that is all-too-relatable to the rest of us non-millionaire women too.”

“Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant.”

Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM.”

Abrasive alone was used 17 times to describe 13 different women, but the word never appeared in men’s reviews. In fact, this type of character critique that was absent from men’s reviews showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.”

Gender and Self-promotion

It’s back-to-school time for most academic economists, who have hopefully had a productive summer on the research front.

In case you missed it, a recent article from Inside Higher Ed highlighted the fact that men self-cite significantly more frequently than women do. I’m having trouble remember ever citing myself in a paper, but perhaps I have. Anyway, why does it matter?

“Self-citation may have a consequential impact on scholarly careers by both directly and indirectly increasing an author’s citation counts.”

While citation counts aren’t generally important for tenure and promotion to Associate, this sort of data is considered for promotion to full, research awards, and sometimes annual reviews. So yeah, it matters. And nobody checks for self-citations. Who’s got time for that?

The evidence is just piling up, albeit slowly. Women engage in self-defeating behaviors that hinder their career progress. Or, put differently, men engage in self-promoting behaviors that boost their career progress. I suppose both are true.

Men are more likely to ask for raises and bonuses and perqs. Women wait until their articles are near-perfect to submit to the first journal for consideration. Men overestimate their abilities. Women underestimate theirs.

Discriminatory treatment (which does still happen, btw) is certainly a barrier for women, but they could do more horn-tooting for themselves. And maybe some men could nibble a slice of humble pie every once in a while.