From kindergarten through college, students perceive boys as more intelligent than girls, yet few sociological studies have identified how school processes shape students’ gender status beliefs. Dr...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122419837567

Brilliant or Bad: The Gendered Social Construction of Exceptionalism in Early Adolescence:

This paper reports the results of the first systematic attempt at quantitatively measuring the seminar culture within economics and testing whether it is gender neutral. We collected data on every interaction between presenters and their audience in hundreds of research seminars and job market talks across most leading economics departments, as well as during summer conferences. We find that women presenters are treated differently than their male counterparts. Women are asked more questions during a seminar and the questions asked of women presenters are more likely to be patronizing or hostile. These effects are not due to women presenting in different fields, different seminar series, or different topics, as our analysis controls for the institution, seminar series, and JEL codes associated with each presentation. Moreover, it appears that there are important differences by field and that these differences are not uniformly mitigated by more rigid seminar formats. Our findings add to an emerging literature documenting ways in which women economists are treated differently than men, and suggest yet another potential explanation for their under-representation at senior levels within the economics profession.

/pdf/gender-and-the-dynamics-of-economics-seminars-aak97sqd9h.pdf

Gender and the Dynamics of Economics Seminars

Deploying gamification to engage physicians in an online health community: An operational paradox

Women are less successful than their male counterparts at Supreme Court oral arguments under certain circumstances. However, existing work relies on mere presence rather than on any action female a...

Beyond Mere Presence: Gender Norms in Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court:

/pdf/advancing-women-in-academic-medicine-ten-strategies-to-use-4aan675w8x.pdf

Advancing women in academic medicine: ten strategies to use every day.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are important — they affect case outcomes and constitute the only opportunity for outsiders to directly witness the behavior of the justices of the highest court. This Article studies how the justices compete to have influence at oral argument, by examining the extent to which the Justices interrupt each other; it also scrutinizes how advocates interrupt the Justices, contrary to the rules of the Court. We find that judicial interactions at oral argument are highly gendered, with women being interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues, as well as by male advocates. Oral argument interruptions are also highly ideological, not only because ideological foes interrupt each other far more than ideological allies do, but we show that conservatives interrupt liberals more frequently than vice versa. Seniority also has some influence on oral arguments, but primarily through the female justices learning over time how to behave more like male justices, avoiding traditionally female linguistic framing in order to reduce the extent to which they are dominated by the men. 
We use two separate databases to examine how robust these findings are: a publicly available database of Roberts Court oral arguments, and another that we created, providing in-depth analysis of the 1990, 2002, and 2015 Terms. This latter data allows us to see whether the same patterns held when there were one, two, and three female justices on the Court, respectively. These two sets of analyses allow us to show that the effects of gender, ideology, and seniority on interruptions have occurred fairly consistently over time. It also reveals that the increase in interruptions over time is not a product of Justice Scalia’s particularly disruptive style, as some have theorized, nor of the political polarization in the country generally arising from the 1994 Republican Revolution. We also find some evidence that judicial divisions based on legal methodology, as well as ideology, lead to greater interruptions.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2947374_code459690.pdf?abstractid=2933016&mirid=1&type=2

Dylan Schweers

Papers

Justice, Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Justice, interrupted: The effect of gender, ideology, and seniority at supreme court oral arguments