Evaluating the CSWEP Mentoring Program for Female Junior Faculty in Economics

Last registered on December 02, 2013

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Evaluating the CSWEP Mentoring Program for Female Junior Faculty in Economics

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0000136

First published

December 02, 2013, 9:16 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country

United States of America

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Francine Blau

Affiliation

Cornell University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Janet Currie

PI Affiliation

Princeton University

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Rachel Croson

PI Affiliation

University fo Texas, Arlington

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Donna Ginther

PI Affiliation

University of Kansas

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

On going

Start date

2003-09-15

End date

2014-01-07

Keywords

Education, Labor

Additional Keywords

gender, employment, mentoring, discrimination, economics, economists, higher education

JEL code(s)

A11: Role of Economics; Role of Economists, I23: Higher Education and Research Institutions, J16: Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination, J44: Professional Labor Markets; Occupational Licensing

Secondary IDs

Abstract

While much has been written about the potential benefits of mentoring in academia, very little research documents its effectiveness. We use a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a mentoring program for female economists organized by the Committee for the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) and sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the American Economics Association. We have evaluated the performance of three cohorts of participants and randomly-assigned controls from 2004, 2006, and 2008. Ongoing work continues the evaluation of longer term outcomes for these three cohorts and investigates outcomes for three additional cohorts--2010, 2012, and 2014. Our interim assessment of the program’s effects for the first three cohorts suggests that mentoring works. After five years the 2004 treatment group averaged .4 more NSF or NIH grants and 3 additional publications, and were 25 percentage points more likely to have a top-tier publication. There are significant but smaller effects at three years post-treatment for the 2004 and 2006 cohorts combined. While it was too early to assess the ultimate effects of mentoring on the academic careers of program participants from these cohorts, the results suggest that this type of mentoring may be one way to help women advance in the Economics profession and, by extension, in other male-dominated academic fields.

External Link(s)

Blau, Francine D., Janet M. Currie, Rachel T. A. Croson, and Donna K. Ginther. 2010. "Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized Trial." American Economic Review, 100(2): 348-52. DOI: 10.1257/aer.100.2.348

Registration Citation

Citation

Blau, Francine et al. 2013. "Evaluating the CSWEP Mentoring Program for Female Junior Faculty in Economics." AEA RCT Registry. December 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.136-1.0

Former Citation

Blau, Francine et al. 2013. "Evaluating the CSWEP Mentoring Program for Female Junior Faculty in Economics." AEA RCT Registry. December 02. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/136/history/650

Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

The American Economic Association (AEA) Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP) has sponsored biannual mentoring workshops for junior female faculty since 2004. For each cohort (wave), we use a randomized controlled trial to evaluate this program. We first screen out unqualified applicants and then divide applicants into groups by field of economics and randomly allocate qualified applicants to participate in the CEMENT Mentoring program (treatments) or not to participate in the program (controls). Data were collected from both treatments and controls at the point of application. Subsequent data on outcomes were collected from publicly available sources such as on-line curriculum vitas for both groups. There will be at least 6 cohorts in total (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014).

Intervention Start Date

2004-01-04

Intervention End Date

2014-01-07

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Publications total, publicatons top tier, grants, remaining in academia, tenure, tenure at institution of first job

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Qualified applicants to the CSWEP mentoring program were first divided into groups by field, and then randomly allocated to participate in the CeMENT Mentoring program (treatments) or not to participate (controls). Data were collected from both treatments and controls at the point of application. Subsequent data on outcomes were collected from publicly available sources such as on-line vitas for both groups.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization was done in office by drawing names from a hat.

Randomization Unit

Randomization was within groups defined by field of specialization for each of 6 cohorts (waves)

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

6 treatment cohorts, each with approximately 80 treatments and controls divided into approximately 8-10 groups defined by academic sub-field.

Sample size: planned number of observations

6 cohorts, each with approximately 80 participants (including both treatments and controls) divided into approximately 8-10 groups by academic sub-field.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

6 cohorts, each with approximately 80 participants divided into 8-10 groups by academic sub-field and randomized within each group to treatment and control status.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB