The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Science

AI-generated keywords: Diversity Paradox Scientific Innovation Career Success Structural Topic Models Log-Odds Ratio

AI-generated Key Points

  • Diversity paradox in scientific innovation and career success
  • Previous research shows diversity promotes innovation but underrepresented groups have less successful careers
  • Study analyzes dataset of 1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015
  • Structural Topic Models (STMs) used to detect scientific innovations
  • Fit metrics plateau at K = 400, 500, and 600 for topic models
  • Three weighing schemes for extracting top terms: equal balance, more weight to frequency, more weight to exclusivity
  • Sensitivity analyses conducted on nine hyperparameter scenarios
  • Dataset includes doctoral abstracts from 1982-2010 as input documents for assessing students' scholarship
  • Year fixed-effects account for left and right-censoring for comparisons within years
  • Co-occurring concepts in abstracts aggregated each year to identify students introducing novel links
  • Spurious links removed using significance score based on log-odds ratio of link occurrence probability compared to component concept term occurrence probabilities independently over the corpus
  • Outcome variable measured as novelty and impactful novelty in text
  • Underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty but contributions undervalued and less likely to be taken up by other scholars compared to majority groups.
  • Equally impactful contributions from underrepresented groups less likely to lead to successful scientific careers compared to majority groups.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Bas Hofstra, Vivek V. Kulkarni, Sebastian Munoz-Najar Galvez, Bryan He, Dan Jurafsky, Daniel A. McFarland

Updated paper; tightened up terminology, added better theoretical explanation, tested for a mechanism in the updated paper, added robustness analyses, updated and improved metrics across the board
License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Abstract: Prior work finds a diversity paradox: diversity breeds innovation, and yet, underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-population of ~1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977-2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: e.g., novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity's role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.

Submitted to arXiv on 04 Sep. 2019

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1909.02063v2

This study examines the diversity paradox in the context of scientific innovation and career success. Previous research has shown that while diversity promotes innovation, underrepresented groups within organizations often have less successful careers. The researchers aim to determine if this paradox also applies to scientists by analyzing a dataset of approximately 1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015. To detect scientific innovations, the researchers utilize Structural Topic Models (STMs), which are commonly used to identify latent thematic dimensions in large text corpora. They fit topic models at various levels (K = [50-1000]) and find that fit metrics plateau at K = 400, 500, and 600. They extract concepts by identifying terms of relative importance within each latent theme using the STM output. The researchers explore three weighing schemes for extracting top terms: equally balancing frequency and exclusivity (50/50), attaching more weight to frequency and less to exclusivity (75/25), and attaching more weight to exclusivity and less to frequency (25/75). They conduct sensitivity analyses on nine hyperparameter scenarios and report results where frequency and exclusivity are equally balanced at K = 500. The dataset includes doctoral abstracts from 1982-2010 as input documents for assessing students' scholarship at the beginning of their careers. Year fixed-effects account for left- and right-censoring, enabling comparisons within years. Using extracted scientific concepts, co-occurring concepts in abstracts are aggregated each year to identify students who introduce novel links. Spurious links are removed by computing a significance score based on the log-odds ratio of link occurrence probability compared to component concept term occurrence probabilities independently over the corpus. The outcome variable is measured as novelty and impactful novelty in text. The researchers filter for meaningful links using top FREX terms from structural topic models and remove spurious links through a link significance score. If a link is introduced by two students, it indicates that the concept is novel and impactful. The results show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are undervalued and less likely to be taken up by other scholars compared to contributions from gender and racial majorities. Additionally, equally impactful contributions from underrepresented groups are less likely to lead to successful scientific careers compared to majority groups.
Created on 13 Sep. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.