Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-qc52z Total loading time: 0.452 Render date: 2023-02-02T10:21:36.135Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English
Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Science

Article contents

Discrimination and Collaboration in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Hannah Rubin  and
Cailin O’Connor
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use game theoretic models to take an in-depth look at the dynamics of discrimination and academic collaboration. We find that in collaboration networks, small minority groups may be more likely to end up being discriminated against while collaborating. We also find that discrimination can lead members of different social groups to mostly collaborate with in-group members, decreasing the effective diversity of the social network. Drawing on previous work, we discuss how decreases in the diversity of scientific collaborations might negatively affect the progress of epistemic communities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 380 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†.

We would like to thank Liam Kofi Bright, Mike D. Schneider, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and feedback. We are also grateful for questions and comments from members of the UC Irvine Social Dynamics research group, the Norms and Networks Cluster at the University of Groningen, and audiences at the following conferences and universities: the Formal Epistemology Workshop at University of Washington, the Australian National University, the 2017 Salzburg-Irvine-Munich Workshop on Scientific Philosophy at UC Irvine, Risk and the Culture of Science at the University of Cambridge, Formal Models of Scientific Inquiry at Ruhr-Universität Bochum, ENSO V at Lund University, and the Philosophy Faculty at the University of Groningen. This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant STS-1535139.

References

Alexander, Jason, and Skyrms, Brian. 1999. “Bargaining with Neighbors: Is Justice Contagious?” Journal of Philosophy 96:588–98.Google Scholar
Axtell, Robert L., Epstein, Joshua M., and Young, H. Peyton. 2001. “The Emergence of Classes in a Multiagent Bargaining Model.” Social Dynamics 27:191–211.Google Scholar
Barjak, Franz, and Robinson, Simon. 2008. “International Collaboration, Mobility and Team Diversity in the Life Sciences: Impact on Research Performance.” Social Geography 3 (1): 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschini, Anne, and Sjögren, Anna. 2007. “Is Team Formation Gender Neutral? Evidence from Coauthorship Patterns.” Journal of Labor Economics 25 (2): 325–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botts, Tina Fernandes, Bright, Liam Kofi, Cherry, Myisha, Mallarangeng, Guntur, and Spencer, Quayshawn. 2014. “What Is the State of Blacks in Philosophy?” Critical Philosophy of Race 2 (2): 224–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Justin P. 2017. “Minority (Dis)advantage in Population Games.” Synthese, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1487-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Justin P., and O’Connor, Cailin. 2017. “Dynamics and Diversity in Epistemic Communities.” Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-017-9950-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Justin P., and O’Connor, Cailin 2018. “Power, Bargaining, and Collaboration.” In Scientific Collaboration and Collective Knowledge, ed. Boyer, Thomas, Weisberg, Michael, and Mayo-Wilson, Conor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lesley G., Mehtani, Siya, Dozier, Mary E., and Rinehart, Janice. 2013. “Gender-Heterogeneous Working Groups Produce Higher Quality Science.” PloS One 8 (10): e79147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currarini, Sergio, Jackson, Matthew O., and Pin, Paolo. 2009. “An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities, and Segregation.” Econometrica 77 (4): 1003–45.Google Scholar
Del Carmen, Alejandro, and Bing, Robert L. 2000. “Academic Productivity of African Americans in Criminology and Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11 (2): 237–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dezsö, Cristian L., and Ross, David Gaddis. 2012. “Does Female Representation in Top Management Improve Firm Performance? A Panel Data Investigation.” Strategic Management Journal 33 (9): 1072–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Carla. 2011. “What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities.” In Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, ed. Grasswick, Heidi E., 133–55. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Feldon, David F., Peugh, James, Maher, Michelle A., Roksa, Josipa, and Tofel-Grehl, Colby. 2017. “Time-to-Credit Gender Inequities of First-Year PhD Students in the Biological Sciences.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 16 (1): art. 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferber, Marianne A., and Teiman, Michelle. 1980. “Are Women Economists at a Disadvantage in Publishing Journal Articles?” Eastern Economic Journal 6 (3/4): 189–93.Google Scholar
Freeman, Richard B., and Huang, Wei. 2015. “Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Coauthorship within the United States.” Journal of Labor Economics 33 (S1): S289–S318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, Benjamin, and Jackson, Matthew O. 2012. “Network Structure and the Speed of Learning Measuring Homophily Based on Its Consequences.” Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d’Économie et de Statistique (107/108): 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grim, Patrick, Singer, Daniel J., Reade, Christopher, and Fisher, Steven. 2015. “Germs, Genes, and Memes: Function and Fitness Dynamics on Information Networks.” Philosophy of Science 82 (2): 219–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra G. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Bruner, Justin P. 2015. “The Problem of Intransigently Biased Agents.” Philosophy of Science 82 (5): 956–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Matthew O. 2010. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Matthew O., and Wolinsky, Asher. 1996. “A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks.” Journal of Economic Theory 71 (1): 44–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Merton, Robert K. 1954. “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis.” In Freedom and Control in Modern Society, ed. Berger, Morroe, Abel, Theodore, and Page, Charles H., 18–66. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo-Wilson, Conor, Zollman, Kevin, and Danks, David. 2013. “Wisdom of Crowds versus Groupthink: Learning in Groups and in Isolation.” International Journal of Game Theory 42 (3): 695–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John M., and Smith, Janet Kiholm. 1992. “The Effect of Gender-Sorting on Propensity to Coauthor: Implications for Academic Promotion.” Economic Inquiry 30 (1): 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, John F. 1950. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18:155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Cailin. 2017a. “The Cultural Red King Effect.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 41 (3): 155–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Cailin 2017b. “The Dynamics of Inequity.” Manuscript, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Cailin, Bright, Liam K., and Bruner, Justin P. 2017. “The Evolution of Intersectional Oppression.” Working paper. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13474/.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1994. “Gender and the Biological Sciences.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24 (S1): 21–42.Google Scholar
Page, Scott E. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Katherine W., Northcraft, Gregory B., and Neale, Margaret A. 2006. “Surface-Level Diversity and Decision-Making in Groups: When Does Deep-Level Similarity Help?” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 9 (4): 467–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poza, David, Galán, José Manuel, Santos, José Ignacio, and López-Paredes, Adolfo. 2010. “An Agent Based Model of the Nash Demand Game in Regular Lattices.” In Balanced Automation Systems for Future Manufacturing Networks, 243–50. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Richard, Orlando C., Murthi, B. P., and Ismail, Kiran. 2007. “The Impact of Racial Diversity on Intermediate and Long-Term Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Context.” Strategic Management Journal 28 (12): 1213–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstock, Sarita, O’Connor, Cailin, and Bruner, Justin. 2017. “In Epistemic Networks, Is Less Really More?” Philosophy of Science 82 (2): 234–52.Google Scholar
Sarsons, Heather. 2017. “Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia.” American Economic Review 107 (5): 141–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Mike D. 2017. “The Non-epistemic Origins of Research Strongholds.” Working paper, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Schneider, Mike D., Rubin, Hannah, and O’Connor, Cailin. 2017. “Promoting Diverse Collaborations.” Working paper. https://www.academia.edu/34240685/Promoting_Diverse_Collaborations_working_paper.Google Scholar
Sigmund, Karl, Hauert, Christoph, and Nowak, Martin A. 2001. “Reward and Punishment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (19): 10757–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skyrms, Brian. 1994. “Sex and Justice.” Journal of Philosophy 91:305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian 2014. Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, Samuel R. 2006. “On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (4): 597–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Lariviere, Vincent, Ni, C. Q., Gingras, Yves, and Cronin, Blaise. 2013. “Global Gender Disparities in Science.” Nature 504 (7479): 211–13.Google Scholar
Watts, Alison. 2003. “A Dynamic Model of Network Formation.” In Networks and Groups, ed. Dutta, Bhaskar and Jackson, Matthew O., 337–45. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
West, Jevin D., Jacquet, Jennifer, King, Molly M., Correll, Shelley J., and Bergstrom, Carl T. 2013. “The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship.” PloS One 8 (7): e66212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, H. Peyton. 1993. “The Evolution of Conventions.” Econometrica 61:57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin J. S. 2007. “The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities.” Philosophy of Science 74 (5): 574–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin J. S. 2010. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity.” Erkenntnis 72 (1): 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Discrimination and Collaboration in Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Discrimination and Collaboration in Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Discrimination and Collaboration in Science
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *