Homophily and the Glass Ceiling Effect in Social Networks

The glass ceiling effect has been defined in a recent US Federal Commission report as "the unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements". It is well documented that many societies and organizations exhibit a glass ceiling. In this paper we formally define and study the glass ceiling effect in social networks and propose a natural mathematical model, called the biased preferential attachment model, that partially explains the causes of the glass ceiling effect. This model consists of a network composed of two types of vertices, representing two sub-populations, and accommodates three well known social phenomena: (i) the "rich get richer" mechanism, (ii) a minority-majority partition, and (iii) homophily. We prove that our model exhibits a strong moment glass ceiling effect and that all three conditions are necessary, i.e., removing any one of them will prevent the appearance of a glass ceiling effect. Additionally, we present empirical evidence taken from a mentor-student network of researchers (derived from the DBLP database) that exhibits both a glass ceiling effect and the above three phenomena.

[1]  M. Graham,et al.  Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Michael Ley,et al.  DBLP - Some Lessons Learned , 2009, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[3]  Allan Fisher,et al.  Undergraduate women in computer science: experience, motivation and culture , 1997, SIGCSE '97.

[4]  M. Kappelman.  The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart: Coming Together , 2000 .

[5]  Erika Falk,et al.  The Glass Ceiling Persists: The 3rd Annual APPC Report on Women Leaders in Communication Companies , 2003 .

[6]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science , 2013, Nature.

[7]  Vivian Anette Lagesen,et al.  The Strength of Numbers , 2007 .

[8]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[9]  Patrizia Longo,et al.  Whack! I've hit the glass ceiling! Women's efforts to gain status in surgery. , 2008, Gender medicine.

[10]  Bette Ann Stead,et al.  Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Some Successful Corporate Practices , 1998 .

[11]  Ellen Spertus.  Why are there so few female computer scientists , 1991 .

[12]  M. Hallinan,et al.  Sex differences in children's friendships. , 1978, American sociological review.

[13]  J. Kleinberg,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets , 2010 .

[14]  Herminia Ibarra,et al.  Paving an alternative route : Gender differences in managerial networks , 1997 .

[15]  Jason M. Sheltzer,et al.  Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Wendy M. Williams,et al.  More Women in Computer Science ? , 2010 .

[17]  Wendy Faulkner,et al.  Gender in the Information Society: Strategies of Inclusion , 2007 .

[18]  Morroe Berger,et al.  Freedom and control in modern society , 1954 .

[19]  Seth Ovadia,et al.  The Glass Ceiling Effect , 2001 .

[20]  Eric S. Roberts,et al.  Encouraging women in computer science , 2002, SGCS.

[21]  K. Vasanthi Kumari.  WOMEN IN MANAGEMENT - THE GLASS CEILING , 2013 .

[22]  H. Ibarra.  Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. , 1992 .

[23]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship , 2012, PloS one.

[24]  J. Østergaard.  Mind the gap or gender?: When boys and girls get drunk at the party , 2007 .

[25]  Paula England,et al.  Theory on gender/feminism on theory , 1993 .

[26]  Athena Petraki Kottis,et al.  WOMEN IN MANAGEMENT: THE “GLASS CEILING” AND HOW TO BREAK IT , 1993 .

[27]  Richard F. Martell,et al.  Male-female differences: A computer simulation. , 1996 .

[28]  C. Hill,et al.  Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. , 2010 .

[29]  A. Applewhite,et al.  Why so few women , 2002 .

[30]  F. Chung,et al.  Complex Graphs and Networks , 2006 .

[31]  Andrei Cimpian,et al.  Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines , 2015, Science.

[32]  Helen Shen.  Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap , 2013, Nature.

[33]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  Homophily and Long-Run Integration in Social Networks , 2012, J. Econ. Theory.

[34]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The paradox of critical mass for women in science. , 1994, Science.

[35]  A. Pell,et al.  Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia. , 1996, Journal of animal science.

[36]  Maureen T. Hallinan,et al.  The Effects of Sex, Race, and Achievement on Schoolchildren's Friendships , 1979 .

[37]  Daniel J. Brass.  Men's and Women's Networks: A Study of Interaction Patterns and Influence In an Organization , 1985 .

[38]  G. Jackson.  Mind the (gender) gap , 2011, International journal of clinical practice.

[39]  S. Davies-Netzley,et al.  Women above the Glass Ceiling , 1998 .

[40]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Leaving Careers in IT: Gender Differences in Retention , 2005 .

[41]  S. Ceci,et al.  Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Harald Niederreiter,et al.  Probability and computing: randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis , 2006, Math. Comput..

[43]  Noga Alon,et al.  The Probabilistic Method , 2015, Fundamentals of Ramsey Theory.

[44]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[45]  T. Ley,et al.  The Gender Gap in NIH Grant Applications , 2008, Science.

[46]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  Gender Differences in Patenting in the Academic Life Sciences , 2006, Science.

[47]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The paradox of critical mass for women in science. , 1994, Science.

[48]  Mazliza Othman,et al.  Women in computer science , 2006, Commun. ACM.

[49]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.