To deal with its gender shortfall, economics needs two tools that it often uses to analyse and solve problems elsewhere: its ability to crunch data and its capacity to experiment. Take data first. The AEA study is commendable, but only a fifth of its 45,000 present and past members replied to its poll. More work is needed to establish why women are discouraged from becoming economists, or drop out, or are denied promotion.
为了解决性别差异，经济学需要两种工具来分析和解决其他领域的问题：处理数据的能力和实验能力。先看数据。AEA的研究是值得称赞的，但在其4.5万名现任和前任成员中，只有五分之一的人回复了调查。需要做更多的工作来确定为什么妇女不被鼓励成为经济学家，或辍学，或被拒绝升职。
More benchmarking is needed against other professions where women thrive. Better data are needed to capture how work by female economists is discriminated against. There is some evidence, for example, that they are held to higher standards than men in peer reviews and that they are given less credit for their co-writing than men. And economics needs to study how a lack of women skews its scholarly priorities, creating an intellectual opportunity cost. For instance, do economists obsess more about labourmarket conditions for men than for women? The more comprehensive the picture that emerges, the sooner and more easily action can be taken to change recruitment and to reform professional life.
其他女性活跃的职业需要更多基准衡量。捕捉女性经济学家的工作如何受到歧视需要更有力的数据来支撑。例如，有一些证据表明，女性在同行评审中的标准比男性更高，但在合著方面得到的好评却比男性少。经济学需要研究缺乏女性是如何扭曲其学术重点的，从而造成智力上的机会成本。例如，相比女性经济学家，男性经济学家是否更受劳动力市场状况困扰？覆盖的内容越全面，改变现有招聘、改革职业生活就越快，实行也更容易。
The other priority is for economists to experiment with new ideas, as the AEA is recommending. For a discipline that values dynamism, academic economics is often conservative, sticking with teaching methods, hiring procedures and social conventions that have been around for decades. The AEA survey reveals myriad subtle ways in which those who responded feel uncomfortable. For example 46% of women have not asked a question or presented an idea at conferences for fear of being treated unfairly, compared with 18% of men. Innovation is overdue. Seminars could be organised to ensure that all speakers get a fair chance. Job interviews need not typically happen in hotel rooms, a practice that men regard as harmless but which makes some women uncomfortable. The way that authors’ names are presented on papers could ensure that it is clear who has done the intellectual heavy lifting.
经济学家的另一个优先权是试验新想法，正如AEA建议的那样。对于一个重视活力的学科来说，学术经济学往往是保守的，坚持数十年来的教学方法、招聘程序和社会惯例。AEA的调查揭示了那些做出反应的人感到不舒服的无数微妙方式。例如，46%的女性因为害怕受到不公平待遇而没有在会议上提出问题或提出想法，而男性的这一比例为18%。创新姗姗来迟。可以通过举办研讨会，确保所有讲者获得公平的机会。工作面试通常不需要在酒店房间里进行，在酒店房间面试这种做法在男性看来是无害的，但会让一些女性感到不舒服。论文中呈现作者姓名的方式，可以明确谁是其中完成智力重任的人。
Instead of moving cautiously, the economics profession should do what it is best at: recognise there is a problem, measure it objectively and find solutions. If the result is more women in economics who are treated better, there will be more competition for ideas and a more efficient use of a scarce resource. What economist could possibly object to that?
经济学专业人士不应谨慎行事，而应做自己最擅长的事情：认识到存在问题，客观地衡量问题，并找到解决方案。若结果让更多的女性在经济学领域得到更好的待遇，就会有更多的想法竞争，更有效地利用稀缺资源。哪位经济学家可能会反对这一点呢？
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
评论
打印
