Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers

The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers The number of countries that have devoted time and attention to establishing gender equal- ity regulations in academia is increasing. However, various studies indicate that women remain underrepresented among tenured faculty and in senior positions, and that female academic staff earn less than male ones. The reasons for these gaps, in particular those specific to academia, remain unclear. This article analyzes Polish female and male PhD graduates to measure the pay gap between them and its progression over time. The arti- cle studies the sources of the pay gap, with a special focus on parenthood. It draws on a dataset that covers the entire population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees and were hired at any Polish university between 2014 and 2018. The study’s results reveal that despite equal pay regulations, a relatively narrow (3–5%) but stable adjusted gender pay gap already exists among early-career academics who do not have children, and that the gap widens considerably when income from outside academia (6–11%) is considered. Basic incomes of mothers in academia are 18–20% lower than those of nonmothers. A substantial fatherhood wage premium (33–37%) arises when all sources of income are con- sidered. Academia is not necessarily an equal workplace. Keywords Gender pay gap · Women in academia · Earnings · Careers * Iga Magda [email protected] Jacek Bieliński [email protected] Marzena Feldy [email protected] Anna Knapińska [email protected] SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland Institute for Structural Research (IBS), Warsaw, Poland National Information Processing Institute, Warsaw, Poland Vol.:(0123456789) I. Magda et al. 1 Introduction Research on the gender pay gap in academia dates back to the 1970s. Since then, numer- ous studies have been conducted at individual universities. All have found that women are underrepresented among tenured faculty and higher academic ranks, and that female faculty typically earn less than male faculty. Although many countries have devoted con- siderable time and attention to establishing gender equality policies and ensuring the equal treatment of men and women in the academic labor market (Salinas and Bagni 2017), pay differences between male and female faculty members persist (European Commission 2021). Due to the significant gender pay gap, work–family conflicts, and female academ- ics not yet seeing themselves as deeply embedded in the scientific community, women in the early stages of their careers are particularly vulnerable to leaving academia or science entirely (Wolfinger et al. 2009). Although the gender pay gap remains a critical challenge in academia, its nature and its determinants are not fully understood. Although many of the factors behind gender pay differences are shared between academia and other sectors or occupations, several are specific to academia and are little recognized. For instance, while the measurement of scientists’ productivity is possible, it is challenging in practice. Pres- tige and recognition form the basic currency of the science sector, and they are achieved first and foremost through publications in top journals and via top publishing houses (Fochler et  al. 2016; Lindahl 2018). Scholars are required to be scientifically productive, and in Anglo-Saxon systems, prestige and funds derive primarily from research activities. In Europe, by contrast, high salaries are more likely to be obtained in high-level adminis- trative roles (Kwiek 2018). Teaching activities are often considered to be of lower value than research, and it is difficult to measure teaching productivity (Boring 2017). Finally, workers in the academic sector tend to have different sources of income, which, in turn, are subject to different gender gaps. This issue is particularly important in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) context that this article explores. At the early stages of their careers, the remuneration of women and men tends to be more equitable than it is at the later stages. The process of hiring and determining the appropriate salary typically involves a rigorous assessment of an individual’s qualifica- tions; however, the influence of nonlegitimate criteria on an individual’s annual salary is likely to increase with the number of years since they were initially hired or promoted (Sato et al. 2021). Thus, the tendency for women to be offered lower initial salaries followed by more modest rises causes the gender pay gap to increase year by year, and is likely to put women at a career-long disadvantage (Amilon and Persson 2013; Claypool et  al. 2017; Momani et al. 2019; Perna 2001; Takahashi and Takahashi 2011). Most of the current evidence on gender pay differences in the academic sector comes from Western European and Anglo-Saxon countries, with their distinct institutional and educational settings, and employment and pay policies. This article focuses on Poland, a CEE country that has undergone far reaching economic and educational changes since 1989. Despite growing public interest in gender equality in the CEE region, there remains a dearth of research on the gender dimension of the academic sector, and in particular on salary differences in academia. The most current research indicates that, in Poland, women earn on average 7.9% less than men in the total economy, and as much as 17.7% less in For instance, for the US: Carlin et  al. 2013; Chen and Crown 2019; Australia: Currie and Hill 2013; Canada: Brown and Troutt 2017; Sweden: Gonäs and Bergman 2009. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers professional, scientific and technical activities (Statistics Poland 2024). Like other CEE countries, Poland has reformed its science and higher education sectors to ensure a more competitive allocation of research funds, thereby increasing the impact of the economy on science and rewarding international collaboration (Bieliński and Tomczyńska 2019). The marketization of the science sector in Poland has brought it closer to the Anglo-Saxon model, which is founded on productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness in knowledge pro- duction. This direction of change in Poland might lead to a wider gender pay gap, as men tend to invest more time in research than women, and are more likely than women to be promoted to higher positions, hold full professorships, and to have lighter teaching and administrative loads (Abramo et al. 2009; Blackaby et al. 2005; Gibney 2017; Ginther and Hayes 2003; Guarino and Borden 2017; Hesli and Lee 2011; Mitchell and Hesli 2013; O’Meara et al. 2017; Perna 2003; Takahashi et al. 2018). This article aims to shed light on the determinants of scholars’ incomes in the early stages of their academic careers in Poland, and the width of the potential gender gaps in their pay. In particular, it addresses the following research questions: (1) Is there a pay gap among recent male and female PhD graduates who work in academia?; (2) Can this gap be explained by differences in male and female researchers’ individual and workplace charac- teristics?; (3) How is the gender pay gap in academia evolving?; (4) Do differences in the amount of extra-university income men and women earn contribute to the gender pay gap?; and (5) In particular, does parenthood contribute to the gender pay gap among scholars? An essential advantage of this research is that it can draw on a unique administrative dataset that covers the entire population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees and were hired at any Polish university between 2014 and 2018. The data comes from the Polish Graduate Tracking System (ELA). The dataset contains individual data on the sala- ries and research productivity of PhD holders that are extracted from universities, and are merged with income and employment history data from the Social Insurance Institution registers. The research makes three main contributions to the literature on the gender pay gap in academia. First it focuses on the early stages of academic careers, which are crucial for the later career development of male and female faculty researchers alike. Second it provides evidence on the gender pay gap in a setting that differs from those that have been previ- ously studied: specifically, in a CEE country with a heavily reformed academic sector, a large share of women in lower-level academic positions, and a large share of scientists with multiple income sources. Third, in light of the differences in the institutional settings of academia between Poland and the Western European countries, it revisits the factors that are known to contribute to the gender pay gap in academia, while also examining new fac- tors that have rarely been studied, such as whether an institution is public or private, the degree of feminization in the field of study, and the role of additional sources of income among faculty members. We find that men who graduated with PhD diplomas and work in academia earn con- siderably more than women in the same circumstances. The average difference is 15–18% for incomes from academia and 25–26% if all sources of income are considered. This raw pay gap is only partially explained by differences in male and female researchers’ indi- vidual and workplace characteristics. The pay gap is particularly high among parents and in incomes outside of academia. This article is organized as follows. It commences by reviewing the literature on the potential determinants of gender pay differences in the academic labor market. It then I. Magda et al. describes the positions women tend to hold in academia in Poland. Next it describes the data and the methods we use, and present the results of our analyses. It later discusses our find- ings and their implications. The article concludes with our thoughts on directions for future research. 2 Determinants of the gender pay gap in academia A rich literature has developed on the gender pay gap (Blau and Kahn 2017 offer a com- prehensive review), which has identified gender sectoral and occupational segregation, and motherhood penalties among the most important factors in the gender pay gap. We intend to contribute to this strand of the literature by focusing on the gender pay gap in a single sector, academia—and specifically on the young employees and PhD graduates who work in it. Only a few existing studies of gender pay gaps have focused on subgroups of workers, such as young university graduates (Bobbitt-Zeher 2007; Goldin et al. 2017) or graduates in a particular field of study (Ceci et  al. 2014). When studying the gender pay gap, such a narrow focus has its advantages. First, such an endeavor is not limited by the need to control for sectoral segregation, a highly relevant factor in gender pay inequality. Second, several factors that are peculiar to the academic working environment could play roles in gender differences in pay. Our study is able to adjust for these factors. In particular, we measure (or proxy) potential research productivity differences between men and women that could contribute to gender pay inequality. Researchers’ productiv- ity is typically measured by the number of publications or research grants they receive. Many studies have found a male advantage in productivity (Abramo et al. 2009; Blackaby et  al. 2005; Ceci et  al. 2014; Hesli and Lee 2011), and that the differences in the num- bers of publications and grants men and women receive explain a substantial portion of the gender pay gap (Perna 2003; Takahashi et al. 2018). Other studies have found that female academics spend less time than male ones on research due to their higher teaching and/or service loads (Gibney 2017; Guarino and Borden 2017; Mitchell and Hesli 2013; O’Meara et  al. 2017; Takahashi et  al. 2018). Samaniego et  al. (2023) demonstrated that cumula- tive research productivity related more strongly to compensation for male than for female researchers—although this effect was revealed exclusively in STEM disciplines. The ques- tion arises whether the correlation between productivity and compensation also exists at the beginnings of scientific careers when the researchers have authored fewer works. Mixed evidence exists on whether women are as likely as men to have their manuscripts reviewed and their grant proposals funded (Lundberg and Stearns 2019; Krawczyk and Smyk 2016; Witteman et  al. 2019), which might impact their research productivity via a discrimination channel. While the experiment by Krawczyk and Smyk (2016) revealed that female authors were perceived as less competent than male ones and were less often believed that their papers had been published, Ceci et al. (2014) concluded that manuscript reviewing and grant funding are gender-neutral. Card et  al. (2020) found that referees of both genders impose higher standards for female authors when studying referees’ decisions on submissions to four leading economics journals and further citations of those papers. In addition, Sarsons (2017) found that women benefitted less markedly than men from their contributions to coauthored publications, particularly when men were named as coauthors in the same publications. Moss-Racusin et al. (2012), in turn, provided evidence of a gen- der bias in academia, demonstrating that compared to (identical) female applicants, male applicants are perceived to be more competent and suitable for positions, and are offered The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers higher salaries and more career mentoring. This kind of bias reflects widespread cultural stereotypes that emphasize men’s scientific competence. In consequence, the ex-ante per - ception of greater male productivity is likely to result in salary differences that might not be justified by ex-post productivity. Harris et al. (2023), using the latest data provided by British universities and controlling for a range of covariates, confirm that women earn less than men, and suggest that bias rather than differences in their research productivity is the cause. The doubts regarding the relationship between productivity and the gender pay gap justify the need for further research on this subject. We contribute to this strand of literature by utilizing the fact that a publication points system is applied in the parametric evaluation of academic institutions in Poland, which is conducted every four years. While the grading of monographs and academic journals was originally designed to serve as one of several assessment criteria in the evaluation of academic institutions, it has in recent years become an informal point of reference for valu- ing scientific work and the quality of individual scientists’ research. For an institution, the points awarded for the publications of its researchers contribute substantially to the results of its evaluation, and thus to the subsidies it receives from the central government budget. Scientists who are capable of earning more points for their institutions might be perceived to be more productive, and thus deserving of higher remuneration. We therefore operation- alize scientific productivity as the annual mean number of points awarded for publications scaled in a field of science. Differences in the characteristics of academic institutions are also likely to contribute to the gender pay gap (Monroe and Chiu 2010; Nettles et al. 2000). Most of the previous studies on this subject focus on the features of the institutions that hire researchers; no con- sensus has been established, however, on whether the characteristics of the academic insti- tutions from which PhD holders graduated contribute to the gender pay gap. For instance, the evidence on whether the width of the gender pay gap differs between public and private universities is inconclusive. Research conducted in Japan revealed identical wage differ - ences between women and men at both types of university (Takahashi et  al. 2018) and a considerable gender pay gap at public universities, despite the existence of rigid pay scales based on the experience, ages, and educational attainment of academics (Takahashi and Takahashi 2011). Simultaneously, according to Rabovsky and Lee (2018), greater reliance on public funding results in narrower wage differences between men and women, while dependence on competitive research funding is linked to wider pay gaps. Moreover, Mon- roe and Chiu (2010) discovered that while top research institutions pay scholars more than other universities (Nettles et  al. 2000; Smart 1991; Toutkoushian 1998), gender pay ine- qualities widen with an institution’s prestige. In Poland, the institutions that are consid- ered the most prestigious are the ones that are authorised to confer the academic degree of doctor habilitus (the majority of them are public) and those that obtain the highest grades in the nationwide evaluation of the scientific activity. It is worth examining whether the prestige of academic institutions and their ownership (public vs. private) impact the remu- neration offered to the early stage scientists to whom they confer research degrees and, consequently, the gender pay gap. This study adjusts the gender pay gap that we estimate for a set of characteristics of the academic institutions from which young people graduate (such as whether an institution is Each scientific journal is assigned a number of points by the Polish Ministry of Science. The higher the quality of the journal, the higher the number of points. Each researcher is encouraged to publish in journals of higher quality, and these points serve as a proxy for productivity. I. Magda et al. public or private, the scientific quality of an institution, and the academic field in which a PhD was obtained). These characteristics might determine the reputation of a university, while also serving as an indicator of a graduate’s educational attainment. Claypool et  al. (2017) found that graduating from a highly ranked PhD program has a positive effect on salary. We examine whether the patterns of the interactions of gender and the characteris- tics of the academic institutions that employ graduates reported in research on the gender pay gap are the same as those of the institutions from which the PhD holders graduated. The feminization or the masculinization of academic fields might also influence the width of the gender pay gap in these fields, or among their graduates. Academics who work in fields that employ significantly more women than men typically earn less than their peers in male-dominated fields (Perna 2001, 2003; Smart 1991; Umbach 2007). Both men and women tend to pursue different disciplines, and women are particularly under - represented in STEM fields, which offer higher salaries (Brown and Corcoran 1997; Zhang 2008). Evidence on the gender pay gap in STEM remains limited (Gerber and Cheung 2008; Silander et  al. 2013; Xu 2015; Zając et  al. 2024; Zhang 2008). In one of the few studies that addresses this issue, Momani et al. (2019) discovered that the gender pay gap is wider in the STEM disciplines than in non-STEM ones, but also that the average salary differences between female and male faculty are narrower in disciplines in which more women participate. There is also evidence that gender bias persists even in fields in which the representation of women has increased considerably (Begeny et al. 2020). The hetero- geneity of pay differences between men and women who work in and graduate from differ - ent academic fields, and the role of feminization in the gender pay gap in academia, also merit further research. This article also aims to address those areas. Our research examines the role of parenthood, which has been reported widely in the recent literature as a crucial driver of the pay gap. Women who become mothers expe- rience a so-called “motherhood penalty”, a wage gap associated with motherhood. Cuk- rowska-Torzewska and Matysiak (2020), in a meta-analysis that relies on ninety-five empirical studies on the motherhood wage penalty, found an average wage gap associated with being a mother of approximately 3.6–3.8%. The gap is explained primarily by the loss of human capital during child-related career breaks. From a broader perspective, the “child penalty” affects a number of other labor market outcomes including job acquisition, reten- tion in academia, promotion, tenure achievement (Finkel and Olswang 1996; Mason et al. 2013; Lassen and Ivandić 2024), grant rewards, paper publications (Lutter and Schröder 2020; Mairesse et al. 2019; Morgan et al. 2021), scientific collaboration (Hunter and Lea- hey 2010), and professional mobility (Wagner et al. 2017). For instance, Cairo et al. (2023) report an annual 24% reduction in scientific productivity for mothers in STEM fields rela- tive to fathers in the first five years after childbirth. Simultaneously, some studies (e.g. Fuller and Cooke 2018; Glauber 2018; Hodges and Budig 2010; Simonsen and Skipper 2012; Yu and Hara 2021) have found that men are in fact rewarded with higher incomes after becoming fathers, with the gender income gap related to parenthood widening over time (Angelov et  al. 2016). However, the relation seems to be more complex. Killewald (2013) discovered a wage premium for men who were married, residential and biological fathers (but not unmarried, nonresidential fathers, or stepfathers) while Yu and Kuo (2024) discovered pay increases exclusively for residen- tial fathers whose children were born after marriage. Event studies showed no impact of child rearing on men’s earnings (Kleven et  al. 2019; Wilde et  al. 2010). Some research- ers found fatherhood wage penalties (Cools and Strøm 2016; Evertsson 2016; Paweenawat and Liao 2022), explained primarily by men’s involvement in child rearing and paternity leave in Scandinavian countries. A different light on the association between fatherhood The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers and incomes is shed by Kunze (2020). She discusses selection effects, finding that it is not the effect of children that causes fathers to earn higher incomes, but that higher earners are more likely to become fathers (e.g. men who plan to become parents self-select into higher- track occupations). Likewise, Icardi et  al. (2022) question the role of specialization and employer discrimination in creating the positive fatherhood effects described in the litera- ture, as well as offering fresh evidence that it is mainly a result of selection into fatherhood. Academia is a domain in which the interruptions that result from having children can substantially hamper career advancement. Some studies confirm the negative impact of being a mother on publication productivity (Lutter and Schröder 2020; Mairesse et  al. 2019; Morgan et  al. 2021), promotion process (Finkel and Olswang 1996; Mason et  al. 2013), scientific collaboration (Hunter and Leahey 2010), and academic mobility (Wagner et al. 2017). For this reason, the so-called “stop-the-clock” policies, as discussed by Man- chester et al. (2010), are being implemented more frequently. They aim to extend, due to major life events, the time allotted for academic assessment, degree attainment, or grant settlement. Nevertheless, the mere fact of having children harms mothers’ salaries in aca- demia. An incremental decline in women’s incomes with each child (Mason et  al. 2013, p. 88) and clear evidence of fatherhood premiums have been identified (Kelly and Grant 2012). The differences between male and female incomes in academia may be narrowed by collective bargaining, but are likely to be wider under decentralized, individualized wage- setting schemes (Claypool et al. 2017; Gonäs and Bergman 2009). Women might be less aggressive in asking for promotions and pay raises. Moreover, they receive fewer job offers than men with comparable characteristics and are more risk-averse due to family respon- sibilities (Blackaby et  al. 2005). Women’s lower job mobility gives university employers monopsonistic power and enables them to pay women less than men (Takahashi and Taka- hashi 2011). This article differentiates between the types of income academics earn from their main employers and from external sources. Most studies on the gender pay gap in academia focus on the base salary scholars receive from the academic institutions at which they are employed. However, the earning of supplemental income—either for additional services rendered within academia or for consulting and other services undertaken outside aca- demia—is a widely accepted practice in academia, and Poland is no different. Perna (2002) discovered that compared to their male counterparts, female academics are less likely to earn supplemental incomes, and that the supplemental income they do earn is, on average, lower. However, the evidence on how these forms of additional income influence gender pay differentials in academia is severely limited. We intend to shed more light on this issue. Finally, this article offers additional evidence on the gender pay gap in academia in Poland, a CEE country. This context has rarely been studied and is ripe for further exploration. 3 Women in academia in Poland and the European Union The institutional setting of academia in Poland differs from those of Western European and Anglo-Saxon countries along several dimensions. In Poland, women constitute a relatively large share of PhD graduates (56%, compared to an average of 47% in the EU-15—so-called “old Europe”—which puts Poland in fourth place among the EU-27 countries). This female advantage also holds among academic staff: in Poland, women I. Magda et al. constitute 51% of academic staff with a PhD, compared to 46% in Western European countries. However, Poland also has high rates of attrition at subsequent academic career stages (a “leaky pipeline”). Thus, the female advantage among early-career researchers is promptly lost, with women constituting only 39% of associate professors and 25% of full professors. By comparison, the respective shares in the EU-15 countries, are, on average, 42% and 22%. Other former socialist CEE countries also have relatively high shares of female research- ers. This pattern reflects both the historically high female labor force participation rates and the Soviet legacy of gender equality as part of the official socialist agenda. Moreover, for many years, academia has been a low-paid sector; thus, the so-called “field status para- dox” plays an important role: “When the status of a field is low, women will be found in large numbers” (Etzkowitz and Ranga 2011). Distinct patterns of gendered attrition can be observed in different fields of study. In the EU-15, the shares of women among graduates at the master’s level vary between 74% in education and a mere 24% in information and communication technologies (ICT). In Poland, the respective proportions are 86% for education and 20% for ICT; however, among doctoral graduates in STEM, the share of women is 37.5% in the EU-15, com- pared to 49% in Poland. Poland has the highest share of female PhD STEM graduates in the EU. Little is known about wage progression in academia in CEE countries, particularly from a gender perspective. While the “raw” (unadjusted) gender pay gap in Poland is relatively narrow (5–8%), it is much wider when adjusted for personal and workplace characteristics (over 15%, with the CEE countries having wider adjusted gender pay differences than the Western European countries). Other features of the Polish academic institutional setting that might be relevant to our study concern the sector’s partial privatization during the transition to a market economy in the 1990s and the implementation of efficiency-seeking reforms (Kwiek 2014): “Fostering this growth were equally liberal approaches to quality assurance mechanisms, licensing, and accreditation that encouraged the nascent private sector during its first decade of its operation” (Kwiek 2012: 134–135). The number of private higher education institutions increased considerably (from 36 in 1994 to 274 in 2004), as did the number of students who attended private institutions (from 29,000 in 1994 to 546,000 in 2004). The share of all students who attended private universities reached 30% at the beginning of the 2000s. However, the number of academic teachers who worked at private universities increased only modestly, as most academic teachers continued to work for public universities, while also earning additional income from the newly established tertiary education institutions. We account for this supplementary income, as it is highly relevant in understanding the gender pay gap in Polish academia. Academic institutional settings differ across countries, including with respect to their funding and assessed quality levels (which often translate into financing). In Poland, the quality of academic institutions is assessed every four years in a nationwide evalu- ation of scientific activity. The evaluation process investigates institutions’ scientific, research, and development activities. In 2017 each institution was assigned to one of four Eurostat (online data code: sdg_05_20), accessed on March 3, 2022. In 2012, approximately 9% of all academic teachers worked at more than one university (data from POL- on, the Polish Science and Higher Education register). Among academic teachers employed at private uni- versities, the share was 38%. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers categories: A + (a national leader), A (very good), B (satisfactory, with a recommenda- tion to strengthen its scientific activity), or C (unsatisfactory). The budgetary resources allocated to institutions depend on their grades, and might influence the salaries they pay. However, the regulatory framework of pay setting is more complex. Although Polish public universities determine their employees’ salaries autonomously, they are obliged to follow the ministerial rules on the minimum basic salaries for full, associate, and assis- tant professors. Private universities are less reliant on state funding and do not have to conform to state-mandated salary scales. Thus, questions arise whether scientific institu- tions with higher salaries have wider adjusted gender pay gaps, and whether these gaps differ between public and private entities. While we are unable to study these issues directly, we investigate whether gender pay gaps are narrower among graduates of public universities. 4 Data and sample description We used data on the entire population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland. We observed their labor market outcomes in the 2015–2020 period. The data comes from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Track- ing System (MNiSW 2021), which links data from two administrative registers: the Sci- ence and Higher Education register and the Social Insurance Institution register. The data- set covers a range of characteristics, including: 1) gender, age, and year when a PhD was awarded; 2) the field of science in which a degree was awarded; 3) the academic institution that awarded a degree, whether it was public or private, and its quality grade; 4) the PhD holder’s detailed labor market status (described by the code of social security contribu- tions paid) and labor market history (employment status, type of employment contract if employed, self-employed status, unemployment status, being on sickness or maternity or parental leave); 5) the amount of social security contributions paid, which enables us to calculate the labor income earned; and 6) a set of scientific individual productivity meas- ures based on a PhD holder’s publication record. We also calculate the degree of feminiza- tion of different fields of study (the share of women among a field’s graduates) to adjust for the potential link between the share of female academics in a given field and the salaries paid to male and female researchers. Since our aim is to study the gender pay gap in the academic sector, our final dataset contains data only on PhD graduates who remained employed at Polish academic institu- tions in each consecutive year after they obtained their PhDs during the analyzed period. We exclude self-employed workers, as we lack data on their total incomes (they pay social security contributions on a minimum basis, irrespective of total income earned). The main dataset also excludes individuals employed at C-grade institutions and church institutions, due to the low number of graduates in these categories. As discussed in the literature review, parenthood appears to be the crucial factor behind gender gaps in earnings. We explore this relationship by controlling both for parenthood For the first two cohorts of PhD graduates, from 2014 and 2015, a full five-year monitoring period is available. For subsequent cohorts, the set of annual indicators decreases by one; thus, the 2018 cohort can be monitored for two years after they obtained their degrees. The results do not change if we enlarge the sample by adding C-level institutions or church institutions. The results are available upon request. I. Magda et al. Table 1 Sample size and structure, by year of graduation year of PhD number of distinct % of women % of dropouts from academia in individuals in analyzed subset 2nd year after PhD and no return to in analyzed subset academia men, women, analyzed subset analyzed subset 2014 4,799 54.14% 2.80% 2.98% 2015 5,143 54.14% 2.65% 3.08% 2016 5,011 54.50% 3.18% 2.91% 2017 4,697 54.09% 3.88% 4.34% 2018 4,923 54.61% 5.47% 6.32% sum 24,573 — — — The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecutive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, and indi- viduals employed at C-grade institutions or church institutions were excluded. The two last columns pertain to individuals who dropped out from academia in the second year after graduation and never returned and its interaction with gender. Although we cannot observe children directly in our data- base, we capture parenthood by observing whether individuals have used maternity, pater- nity, or parental leave. The final dataset contains data on 24,573 individuals (see Table  1) and 50,987 person-year observations (see Table A in the Appendix). 4.1 Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the key descriptive statistics. The number of students who graduate each year (and commence paid work in academia) is roughly equal over time, at approximately 4,697 to 5,143 individuals. We observe a stable share of women among PhD graduates in consecutive years of approximately 54–54.6%. We also calculated the share of individuals who moved to nonacademic sectors at least one year after being awarded their degrees to discover whether any gender patterns could bias our analysis. We discovered that approxi- mately 39% to 45% of PhD graduates took up and maintained employment at academic institutions in the five years after they were awarded their degrees. In each cohort, over 90% of PhD holders remained at academic institutions after the first year of employment, with no specific patterns by gender (cf. Table  1). Moreover, most (61.5–68.5%) of the PhD We might fail to attribute parenthood status to fathers and mothers who had children prior to obtaining an employment contract in academia, or any other employment contract (which is necessary to become eligible to parental and maternity leave). However, we expect that most women decided and managed to enter formal employment prior to having children (even for one month), as this offered them relatively gen- erous periods of leave during pregnancy and maternity. We are more likely to underestimate the number of fathers, as they remain much less likely to use childcare leave. We underestimate fatherhood in our data if fathers do not use a single day of leave to which they are entitled (paternity leave lasts for two weeks and is paid 100% by social security, which offers an incentive to use it). No gendered patterns are visible if we extend the definition of dropout to include also individuals who dropped out from academia temporarily and returned after some time. We additionally run an analysis that focuses on a subsample of those who are observed for the full five years. The results are robust and are available from the authors upon request. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers holders were employed at the academic institution from which they graduated eight years after being awarded their PhDs. Table B in the Appendix presents the share of parents among men and women, by year of graduation. Among men and women who graduated in 2014, 16% and 36% are parents, respectively; among the most recent cohorts, 7% of men and 16% of women are parents. These statistics confirm that women are more likely to become parents earlier than men. Simultaneously we observe a pattern of increased fertility among women up to three years after graduation, with no such a pattern for men (Fig. A1 in the Appendix). Table C in the Appendix summarizes the variables used in this analysis by time elapsed since graduation. Most of the observed individuals have degrees in the social sciences, the humanities, in engineering, or in medical and health sciences. The data also indicates the relative insignificance of private education at the PhD level, as only approximately 1.57–1.69% of the PhD graduates were awarded their degrees at private institutions (in part because most private institutions are not permitted to offer PhD-level studies or to award PhD degrees). Moreover, most PhD graduates were awarded their degrees from high-quality (A-grade) research institutions. The average rate of feminization in the fields of science in which the PhD students graduated is approximately 47–49%, which sug- gests a relatively high degree of gender equality. The proportion of women is the lowest in engineering and technology, ranging from 32 to 39%, and the highest in medical and health sciences, in which the figure reaches 54%. Finally, we compared the labor income of PhD holders in two ways: by looking at their (1) income from employment contracts in academia; and at their (2) total income (income from all types of contracts, including standard employment contracts and civil code contracts) from sources both in and beyond academia. 5 Empirical strategy To study the gender pay gap in labor income, we used hierarchical linear models. These enabled us to adjust gender differences in income for the individual-level characteristics and features of the academic institutions at which PhD degrees were awarded. Consider- ing the nested structure of the data, employing hierarchical regression accounts for het- erogeneity of regression, which is a variation of regression parameters across cluster- ing factors (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). In the models, we pooled all individual-year observations. Log mean annual income from paid employment at a scientific institution (employ - ment contracts) and log mean annual total income (all types of contracts in and beyond academia) of individuals i from institution j are the dependent variables we estimate (logIncome ), and gender is our key independent variable. We started with the model i,j that accounts for gender, parenthood, gender*parenthood interaction, time, cohort, and time*cohort interaction (Model 1). According to the Polish Science and Higher Education register, https:// polon. nauka. gov. pl/ en, accessed on June 28, 2023. Statistical analysis, data transformation, and model estimation are conducted using R Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Core Team 2020). The models are estimated using maximum likelihood and BOBYQA optimization with the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015). I. Magda et al. Fig. 1 Inflation-adjusted income and raw gender pay gap by year since PhD completion The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecu- tive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, individuals employed at C-grade institu- tions and church institutions were excluded. Model 1: logIncome =  +  ∙ time +⋯ +  ∙ time +  ∙ cohort +⋯ +  ∙ cohort i,j 0,j 1,0 2.i,j 4,0 5.i,j 5,0 2.i,j 8,0 5.i,j +  ∙ gender +  ∙ parent +  ∙ time ∙ cohort +  ∙ gender ∙ parent + r 9,0 i,j 10,0 i,j 11…20,0 2…5.i,j 2…5.i,j 21 i,j i,j i,j Next, we added individual-level predictors in subsequent models: age and age at which a PhD was awarded (Model 2); the field of science in which a PhD was awarded, its degree of feminization, and the parametric evaluation category of the institution at which it was awarded (Model  3). In Model  4, we adjusted for productivity measures, captured by the mean annual points earned for publications, as well as for the type of academic institution (public/private). We then estimated the models based on Model  4, supplemented with interactions of gender and age, age at which a PhD was awarded, the year after a PhD was obtained, para- metric evaluation category, academic productivity, type of academic institution, and field of science (Model 5–Model 11). The data we have enabled us to study the role of the institutions from which young PhD holders graduated, but not that of the institutions at which they work. This transpired to be a minor limitation of our study, as approximately 61.5–68.5% of PhD graduates who remain in academia continue working at the institution from which they graduated in eight The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers consecutive years after being awarded their PhDs. This enabled us to shed light on the role of academic institutions in shaping the gender pay gap. 6 Results 6.1 Descriptive dynamics of wages and the gender gap in basic income We commenced our analysis of the gender gap in income in Polish academia by investigat- ing the pay dynamics among young men and women who work in the sector. We did so by studying the income they derive from their employment contracts at their main academic workplaces. Figure  1 presents the changes over time in average male and female income from employment contracts in academia (left axis). A raw gender pay gap can already be observed upon labor market entry: in the first year of employment, the average difference between men’s and women’s wages amounts to 14.5% of the male wage (right axis). We observe real wage growth over time (five years after a PhD is awarded, average salaries for PhD holders are over 50% higher than in the first year—see the left panel in Fig.  1 and Table C in the Appendix). We also observe increasing income dispersion as earnings at the bottom and top decile diverge. Simultaneously we observe the average raw gender pay gap decreasing slightly in the third year, and increasing to 18.1% in the fifth year after a PhD is awarded. 6.2 Adjusted gender pay gaps in basic incomes from academia only The raw differences in the pay of men and women who work in academia become much narrower when incomes are adjusted for a set of employees’ and academic institutions’ characteristics. Across model specifications in Table  2, the adjusted gender gap in aca- demic income amounts to 3.2–4.8% for statistically significant estimates (Table  2 presents a summary of the estimates of the coefficients attached to the female dummy in the models discussed in the empirical strategy; the full set of estimates is presented in the Appendix, Table D). The gender gap in salaries shrinks (compared to the raw gender pay gap) to 4.7% when only time, and cohort dummies, as well as their interactions, are conditioned. These results prove that PhD graduates who work in entry-level jobs in academia differ with respect to their characteristics and those of their institutions, and that some of these differ - ences widen the raw pay gaps. When these characteristics are controlled for, the pay dif- ferences between “similar” men and women are much narrower—although they still exist. In other words, while the adjusted (unexplained) gender wage gap in academia is narrower than the raw differences in men’s and women’s pay would suggest, female PhD graduates still earn less than “similar” male PhD graduates—even at the entry level. As discussed in the literature, parenthood is an important driver of the observed dif- ferences in pay, including among young PhD graduates in academia; however, a pay gap of 4–5% exists even among men and women who do not have children, all other things equal. The parent variable (Table  2, column 2) demonstrates the difference in incomes between fathers and nonfathers. This difference is narrow (men who have children earn According to the Polish Science and Higher Education register, https:// polon. nauka. gov. pl/ en, accessed on June 28, 2023. I. Magda et al. Table 2 The gender pay gap in employment contracts in academia Column [1] [2] [3] Model Female Parent Female*Parent Controls Exp(B) Exp(B) Exp(B) Model1 0.953*** 0.967 0.829*** time, cohort, time*cohort Model2 0.952*** 0.971 0.831*** Model1 + age, age of being awarded PhD Model3 0.961** 0.962 0.838*** Model1 + field of study, grade, degree of feminization Model4 0.968* 0.978 0.845*** Model1 + publication record, HEI ownership Model5 0.957** 0.961 0.860*** Model4 + gender*age Model6 0.961 0.961 0.860*** Model4 + gender*age of obtaining PhD Model7 0.986 0.967 0.847*** Model4 + gender*time Model8 0.960* 0.968 0.845*** Model4 + gender*evaluation Model9 0.964*** 0.968 0.845*** Model4 + gender*productivity Model10 0.998 0.968 0.845*** Model4 + gender*HEI ownership Model11 1.002 0.964 0.850*** Model4 + gender*field of study ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 A summary of the estimates of the regression coefficients attached to the female dummy in the hierarchical linear models; dependent variable: log mean annual income from paid employment at a scientific institution (employment contracts); the full set of estimates is presented in the Appendix, Table D. The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecutive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, individuals employed at C-grade institutions and church institutions were excluded approximately 3% less than those who do not) and is statistically insignificant. This effect stands in contrast to most of the current literature, which suggests the existence of a father- hood premium. Potential explanations behind these differences are offered in the Conclu- sions section of this article. The effects of parenthood on pay primarily concern women: women who are mothers earn 18–20% less than women who do not have children (Table 2, column 2 and 3). These results hold strong across all model specifications. The estimated pay gaps associated with motherhood are much wider than the average gaps found by Cukrowska-Torzewska and Matysiak (2020), but are lower than the recent estimates by Kleven et  al. (2023), which estimate a child penalty of 32% in Poland (though these estimates are based on an event study research design). Also using an event study but a different data source, Pałka (2024) discovers a motherhood income penalty of 10% in the first year and 28% in the long term. Despite expectations of a more equal and family-friendly work environment in academia, parenthood remains associated with substantial wage penalties—which apply exclusively to women. We must, however, emphasize the methodological limitations of our study, as both mothers and fathers might be a (positively) selected group of women and men, and women and men who do not have children might not be a suitable control group (Kunze 2020). What other factors are associated with earning higher or lower income? The results in Table  D in the Appendix enabled us to investigate the determinants of pay in academia Combining the estimates from column [1] and [3] we see that mothers earn on average 20% less than fathers. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers for both men and women in depth. We discovered an age premium for PhD graduates aged 33–40 compared to graduates of younger ages. Men and women who graduated in 2018 also enjoy a wage premium compared to other cohorts, irrespective of the number of years since graduation. This likely relates to the reforms of the remuneration system in 2017–2018, which offered pay rises to young researchers in particular. The field of sci- ence also matters: pay in academia is the highest among graduates with engineering and technology degrees (15–26% higher than among graduates with social science degrees) and is the lowest among graduates with humanities and arts or medical sciences degrees (10–11% lower than among those with social science degrees). A positive association also exists between productivity (as measured by publication records) and pay (around 10%). Simultaneously, the “quality” of a graduate’s institution, whether it is public or private, and the feminization of the field of science in which a PhD was awarded appear to have little impact (1–2%) on a graduate’s academic pay. Only some of these associations differ between male and female researchers and con- tribute to gender pay gaps. For instance, while pay is the highest among PhD graduates with engineering and technology degrees, the widest adjusted gender pay gap is also observed among graduates with degrees in this field (15%, cf. Model 11). We identified no statistically significant association between women’s pay and the quality of their universi- ties or whether they were public or private. Moreover, we observed no association between researchers’ productivity, as measured by the points awarded for publications, and the gen- der pay gap. Finally, we observed that the adjusted gender pay gaps are quite stable over the analyzed period. 6.3 Gender pay gaps in total income We re-run our analysis but used a different measure of income, which accounts not only for basic pay from employment contracts in academia, but also for additional income earned in or beyond academia through either employment contracts or civil law contracts. First we observed that the raw gender pay gaps are much wider if all forms of income are considered (around 25%), rather than only basic income from employment contracts in academia (Fig.  1, right panel). This suggests that compared to women, men on average earn higher supplementary incomes, even though men are not more likely to earn additional income. Our data shows that the share of researchers who earn income from multiple sources is 27–38% among men and 27–34% among women, depending on the year of observation. The raw gender pay gap in total income earned is 7–10 percentage points wider than the gender pay gap in basic income from aca- demia only. The gender pay gap in total income is again narrower when the raw differences in pay for individual and workplace characteristics are adjusted (Table  3, detailed results are available in the Appendix, Table  E). The adjusted, unexplained pay gap amounts to 6–11% among men and women who do not have children (column 1) when all forms of income are considered (compared to a pay gap of 4–5% for main incomes from academia only). These differences in gender pay gaps become much wider for parents. Men who have children earn in total 33–37% more than men who do not have children, which makes a substantial difference compared to the insignificant gap of 3% observed in incomes from academia only. A decrease in the pay gap from all sources of income can be observed between mothers and nonmothers: the former earn between 0.2% less and 6% more than I. Magda et al. Table 3 The gender pay gap: income from academia and from external sources Column [1] [2] [3] Model Female Parent Female* Parent Controls Exp(B) Exp(B) Exp(B) Model1 0.897*** 1,332*** 0,666*** time, cohort, time*cohort Model2 0.899*** 1,364*** 0,669*** Model1 + age, age of being awarded PhD Model3 0.909*** 1,347*** 0,672*** Model1 + field of study, grade, degree of feminization Model4 0.915*** 1,364*** 0,673*** Model1 + publication record, HEI ownership Model5 0.893*** 1,350*** 0,690*** Model4 + gender*age Model6 0.928* 1,349*** 0,690*** Model4 + gender*age of obtaining PhD Model7 0.937*** 1,364*** 0,674*** Model4 + gender*time Model8 0.885*** 1,366*** 0,673*** Model4 + gender*evaluation Model9 0.914*** 1,364*** 0,674*** Model4 + gender*productivity Model10 1.142 1,363*** 0,674*** Model4 + gender*HEI ownership Model11 0.924** 1,359*** 0,676*** Model4 + gender*field of study ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 A summary of the estimates of the regression coefficients attached to the female dummy in the hierarchical linear models; dependent variable: log mean annual total income (all types of contracts in and beyond aca- demia, excluding self-employment); the full set of estimates is presented in the Appendix, Table E The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecutive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, individuals employed at C-grade institutions and church institutions were excluded the latter. Therefore, the motherhood wage penalties in academia appear primarily to con- cern basic incomes and these penalties are much smaller for total incomes. In contrast, the fatherhood wage premium emerges when total income is considered. Basic salaries are similar for men with and without children. In other words, the gender pay gaps vary widely depending on the source of income considered. These pay gaps are largely driven by parenthood but work according to different mechanisms for fathers (who enjoy a large pay premium from total income) and mothers (who earn much higher basic incomes than nonmothers in academia). Nevertheless, it appears that young graduates are far from experiencing pay equality or a family friendly working environment. Although income from all sources increases over time, the patterns of those increases are similar for men and women, and there is no statistically significant change in the adjusted gender pay gap over time. The other patterns observed for income from employment contracts in academia also hold for income defined more broadly. Interest- ingly, women are more likely to be better rewarded for productivity when all sources of income are considered. The gender pay gap is also narrower among women aged 40 + than among women under age 33. Among medical and health science graduates, women on average have total incomes that are 18% higher than that of men. In that field, women outnumber men: in 2021 in Poland, female academic teachers in medi- cine accounted for 57% of the entire staff and for 62% of the staff under age 49. This finding aligns with studies that discover narrowed pay gaps between women and men in disciplines in which the participation of women is higher (e.g., Momani et al. 2019). The gender pay gap is particularly wide among technology and engineering graduates. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers 7 Conclusions and discussion The research described in this article sheds light on the gender pay gap among research- ers at the early stages of their academic careers in Poland. We expected to discover gender equality in the pay of academics, given that the salaries of assistant professors (entry-level jobs in academia) are regulated. We found that young male researchers earn 4–5% more from their main employment contracts in academia than young female researchers with similar demographic and institutional characteristics. It is of little consolation that this gender pay gap is relatively narrow compared to that in wages for the entire workforce of Poland performing professional, scientific and technical activities, which, according to Sta- tistics of Poland (2024) estimates, amounts to 17.7%. Moreover, when we considered that approximately one-third of scientists in Poland hold jobs in addition to their main academic jobs, presumably in both the private and the public sectors, we observed a much wider pay gap between men and women. After all of their sources of labor income are considered, the adjusted gender pay gap reaches 6–11%. Thus, it appears that earnings from outside academia are even more unequal than the basic incomes of male and female researchers. Parenthood contributes substantially to the gender wage gap in academia, though the effect differs between men and women, and depends on the source of income analyzed. Our study investigates average differences in parents’ pay and is not an event study (as in Kleven et  al., 2019 or Kleven et  al. 2023). We observed sizeable motherhood wage pen- alties (i.e. gaps income between mothers and nonmothers) of 18–20% in basic incomes. Simultaneously, we observed no statistically significant differences between the basic incomes of fathers and nonfathers (which stands in contrast to the literature, which typi- cally identifies a fatherhood wage premium). However, the picture changes when total incomes, including those from outside academia, are considered. Not only does a substan- tial fatherhood wage premium (of 33–37%) emerge, but the motherhood wage penalty also becomes much smaller, or even negative in some of the model specifications. Several plausible explanations might lie behind the different earning patterns of men and women in Polish academia. Selection could be occurring: men and women who earn only basic incomes in academia might differ in terms of their productivity or abilities from their colleagues who earn additional incomes, which might translate into wider gender pay gaps in total incomes. Moreover, fathers who earn incomes outside academia might consti- tute a more selected group—one that is more likely to attain such incomes—and that leads to the fatherhood wage premium in total incomes. It is less clear why mothers and non- mothers who receive incomes outside academia exhibit relatively narrow pay gaps (moth- erhood penalties) compared to mothers and nonmothers with basic incomes only. Again, selection might be a factor. It is unclear to what extent these gender differences are specific to academia, and to what extent they can also be found in other sectors with basic and addi- tional incomes (e.g. doctors, who have both public and private practices). Nevertheless, both for scholars without children, and for mothers and fathers academia appears to be an unequal workplace. This counters its stereotypical perception of an equal, heavily regulated environment. Additional incomes are one of the dimensions of this inequality. We also discovered that the effect of gender on income remains stable over time. Among the covariates for which we accounted—individual productivity, whether an insti- tution is public or private, and an institution’s quality—only productivity was found to be associated with the salaries earned, and, simultaneously, to correlate with the gender pay gap. Another factor that appears to matter is the field of study: while graduates with I. Magda et al. engineering and technology degrees earn the highest incomes, the gender pay gaps are also the widest among graduates of that field. Moreover, women aged 40 + , as well as women who obtained their PhDs at later ages, earn more than men, all other things equal. Both of these effects are stronger when total income is considered; simultaneously the effect of the feminization of different fields of science was negligible for the gender pay gap. This finding lies in contrast to studies that demonstrate that academics who work in female-dominated fields tend to have lower incomes (Perna 2001, 2003; Smart 1991; Umbach 2007). We expected academia to be a relatively equal workplace with respect to salaries, as it is influenced by regulated pay-setting procedures and greater pay transparency, and it offers possibilities to combine work and family lives. However, even in such a setting, gender pay inequality arises. The tendency of female researchers to earn less than male ones in the early stages of their careers contributes to the leaky pipeline, with fewer women attaining higher positions and earnings. Additional efforts should be made to attract more female talent into academia and to achieve a more gender-balanced workforce in the sector. This will not be pos- sible without tackling the problem of gender pay inequality. It is also interesting and important to determine whether and, if so, which nonmonetary factors, in addition to greater pay equality, can help women to remain in academia and progress in their careers. Diagnosing the roles of the stereotypes and biases associated with gender norms is another potential step forward. From a broader perspective, greater pay transparency, which will soon be imple- mented in European countries (in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive, approved in 2023 by the European Parliament), has the potential to narrow the gender pay gap through more effective enforcement of the equal pay principle. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10888- 024- 09661-6. Acknowledgements We thank the participants of the PAA 2023 conference, the FROGEE and CENEA 2023 conference, the LAGV 2023, STS Conf Graz 2023, IWD Katowice 2023, and ESA RN33 conferences, and the 18th Sociological Congress for their valuable comments and remarks. Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The “Literature Review” section was drafted by M. F. The section on “Women in academia” was drafted by A.K. Material prepara- tion and statistical analysis were performed by J.B. The “Introduction” and “Conclusions and discussion” sections were drafted by I.M. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This research is funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, grant number UMO-2019/33/B/ HS4/02656/. Data availability The ELA dataset was designed and created at the National Information Processing Insti- tute, https:// opi. org. pl/ en. Ministry of Science and Higher Education owns the data. Aggregate statistics are available at https:// ela. nauka. gov. pl/ en. Declarations Ethical approval No personal data has been used. All data has been anonymized prior to its access. The data subjects cannot be identified. No vulnerable/special data is used in the analysis. The PI of the project is responsible for adhering to standard ethical and legal procedures. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Caprasecca, A.: Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliomet- ric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics 79(3), 517–539 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192- 007- 2046-8 Amilon, A., Persson, I.: Scientific (wo)manpower – gender and the composition and earnings of PhDs in Sweden. Int. J. Manpow. 34(6), 658–673 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ijm- 06- 2013- 0146 Angelov, N., Johansson, P., Lindahl, E.: Parenthood and the gender gap in pay. J. Labor Econ. 34(3), 545– 579 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 684851 Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker B., Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67(1), 1–48 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 18637/ jss. v067. i01 Begeny, C.T., Ryan, M.K., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Ravetz, G. In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening. Sci. Adv. 6(26) (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ sciadv. aba78 14 Bieliński, J., Tomczyńska, A.: The ethos of science in contemporary Poland. Minerva 57(2), 151–173 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11024- 018- 9365-1 Blackaby, D., Booth, A., Frank, J.: Outside offers and the gender pay gap: Empirical evidence from the UK academic labour market. Econ. J. 115(501), F81–F107 (2005). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0013- 0133. 2005. 00973.x Blau, F.D., Kahn, L.M.: The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. J. Econ. Lit. 55(3), 789–865 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ jel. 20160 995 Bobbitt-Zeher, D.: The gender income gap and the role of education. Sociol. Educ. 80(1), 1–22 (2007). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00380 40707 08000 101 Boring, A. Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. J. Public Econ. 145, 27–41 (2017) https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jpube co. 2016. 11. 006 Brown, C., Corcoran, M.: Sex-based differences in school content and the male-female wage gap. J. Labor Econ. 15, 431–465 (1997). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 209867 Brown, L., Troutt, E.: Sex and salaries at a Canadian university: The song remains the same or the times they are a changin’? Canadian Pub. Policy 43(4), 246–260 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3138/ cpp. 2016- 047 Cairo, S., Dalum, S., Tartari, V.: Publish or procreate: The effect of motherhood on academic performance. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1(15233), 2118 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMPROC. 2023. 15233 abstr act Card, D., DellaVigna, S., Funk, P., Iriberri, N.: Are referees and editors in economics gender neutral? Q. J. Econ. 135(1), 269–327 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ qje/ qjz035 Carlin, P.S., Kidd, M.P., Rooney, P.M., Denton, B.: Academic wage structure by gender: The roles of peer review, performance, and market forces. South. Econ. J. 80, 127–146 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 4284/ 0038- 4038- 2010. 267 Ceci, S.J., Ginther, D.K., Kahn, S., Williams, W.M.: Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 15(3), 75–141 (2014). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15291 00614 541236 Chen, J.J., Crown, D.: The gender pay gap in academia: Evidence from the Ohio State University. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101(5), 1337–1352 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ajae/ aaz017 Claypool, V.H., Janssen, B.D., Kim, D., Mitchell, S.M. Determinants of salary dispersion among political science faculty: The differential effects of where you work (institutional characteristics) and what you do (negotiate and publish). PS – Political Sci. Politics 50(01), 146–156 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s1049 09651 60023 3x Cools, S., Strøm, M.: Parenthood wage penalties in a double income society. Rev. Econ. Household 14, 391–416 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11150- 014- 9244-y Cukrowska-Torzewska, E., Matysiak, A.: The motherhood wage penalty: A meta-analysis. Soc. Sci. Res. 88–89, 102416 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssres earch. 2020. 102416 Currie, J., Hill, B.: Gendered universities and the wage gap: Case study of a pay equity audit in an Austral- ian university. High. Educ. 26(1), 65–82 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ hep. 2012. 19 I. Magda et al. Etzkowitz, H., Ranga M. Gender dynamics in science and technology: From the “leaky pipeline” to the “vanish box”. Bruss. Econ. Review, special issue “Beyond the leaky pipeline – Challenges for research on gender and science” 54(2/3), 131–148 (2011). https:// dipot. ulb. ac. be/ dspace/ bitst ream/ 2013/ 108936/ 1/ ARTIC LE% 20ETZ KOWITZ- RANGA. pdf. Accessed 2 August 2023 European Commission. She Figures 2021. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2777/ 06090 Evertsson, M.: Parental leave and careers: Women’s and men’s wages after parental leave in Sweden. Adv. Life Course Res. 29, 26–40 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. alcr. 2016. 02. 002 Finkel, S.K., Olswang, S.G.: Child rearing as a career impediment to women assistant professors. RHE 19(2), 123–139 (1996). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe. 1996. 0027 Fochler, M., Felt, U., Müller, R.: Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Min- erva 54(2), 175–200 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11024- 016- 9292-y Fuller, S., Cooke, L.P.: Workplace variation in fatherhood wage premiums: do formalization and perfor- mance pay matter? Work Employ Soc. 32(4), 768–788 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09500 17018 Gerber, T.P., Cheung, S.Y.: Horizontal stratification in postsecondary education: Forms, explanations, and implications. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34, 299–318 (2008). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. soc. 34. 040507. Gibney, E. Teaching load could put female scientists at career disadvantage. Nature (2017)https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nature. 2017. 21839 Ginther, D.K., Hayes, K.J.: Gender differences in salary and promotion for faculty in the humanities 1977– 95. J. Hum. Resour. 38(1), 34–73 (2003). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3368/ jhr. xxxvi ii.1. 34 Glauber, R.: Trends in the motherhood wage penalty and fatherhood wage premium for low, middle, and high earners. Demography 55(5), 1663–1680 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13524- 018- 0712-5 Goldin, C., Pekkala Kerr, S., Olivetti, C., Barth, E.: The expanding gender earnings gap: Evidence from the LEHD-2000 census. Am. Econ. Rev. 107(5), 110–114 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. p2017 1065 Gonäs, L., Bergman, A.: Equal opportunities, segregation and gender-based wage differences: The case of a Swedish university. J. Ind. Relat. 51(5), 669–686 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00221 85609 346198 Guarino, C.M., Borden, V.M.H.: Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Res. High. Educ. 58(6), 672–694 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11162- 017- 9454-2 Harris, R., Maté-Sánchez-Val, M., Marín, M.R. The gender pay gap in UK universities 2004/5 to 2019/20. Stud. High. Educ. 1–15 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2023. 22802 05 Hesli, V., Lee, J.: Faculty research productivity: Why do some of our colleagues publish more than others? PS – Political Sci Politics 44, 393–408 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1049 09651 10002 42 Hodges, M.J., Budig, M.J.: Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings. Gend. Soc. 24(6), 717–745 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08912 43210 386729 Hunter, L.A., Leahey, E.: Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Soc. Stud. Sci. 40(3), 433–451 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03063 12709 358472 Icardi, R., Hägglund, A.E., Fernández-Salgado, M.: Fatherhood and wage inequality in Britain, Finland, and Germany. J. Marriage Fam. 84, 273–290 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12792 Kelly, K., Grant, L.: Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42(6), 869–896 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03063 12712 457111 Killewald, A.: A reconsideration of the fatherhood premium: Marriage, coresidence, biology, and fathers’ wages. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78(1), 96–116 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00031 22412 469204 Kleven, H., Landais, C., Leite-Mariante, G. The child penalty atlas. NBER Working Paper 31649. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res. (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3386/ w31649 Kleven, H., Landais, C., Søgaard, J.E. Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Denmark. AEJ: Appl. Econ. 11(4), 181–209 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ app. 20180 010 Krawczyk, M., Smyk, M.: Author’s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incen- tivized, deception-free laboratory experiment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 90, 326–335 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. euroe corev. 2016. 02. 017 Kunze, A.: The effect of children on male earnings and inequality. Rev. Econ. Household 18, 683–710 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11150- 019- 09469-8 Kwiek, M. Academic top earners. Research productivity, prestige generation, and salary patterns in Euro- pean universities. Sci. Public Policy 45(1), 1–13 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ scipol/ scx020 Kwiek, M.: Structural changes in the Polish higher education system (1990–2010): A synthetic view. Eur. J. High. Educ. 4(3), 266–280 (2014). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21568 235. 2014. 905965 The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers Kwiek, M. The public/private dynamics in Polish higher education. Demand-absorbing private sector growth and its implications. In: Kwiek, M., Maassen, P. (eds.), National Higher Education Reforms in a European Context: Comparative Reflections on Poland and Norway, pp. 127–154. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, New York (2012) Lassen, A.S., Ivandić, R.: Parenthood and academic career trajectories. AEA Papers and Proceedings. 114, 238–242 (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ pandp. 20241 118 Lindahl, J.: Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians. J. Informetr. 12(2), 518–533 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joi. 2018. 04. 002 Lundberg, S., Stearns, J.: Women in economics: Stalled progress. J. Econ. Perspect. 33(1), 3–22 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ jep. 33.1.3 Lutter, M., Schröder, M.: Is there a motherhood penalty in academia? The gendered effect of children on academic publications in German Sociology. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 36(3), 442–459 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ esr/ jcz063 Mairesse, J., Pezzoni, M., Visentin, F.: Impact of family characteristics on the gender publication gap: Evidence for physicists in France. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 44(2), 204–220 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03080 188. 2019. 16038 84 Manchester, C.F., Leslie, L.M., Kramer, A.: Stop the clock policies and career success in academia. Am. Ec. Rev. 100(2), 219–223 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. 100.2. 219 Mason, M.A., Wolfinger, N.H., Goulden, M. Do Babies Matter?: Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower. Rutgers University Press (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 36019/ 97808 13560 823 Mitchell, S.M., Hesli, V.L. Women don’t ask? Women don’t say no? Bargaining and service in the politi- cal science profession. PS – Political Sci. Politics 46(2), 355–369 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s1049 09651 30000 73 MNiSW. Polish Graduate Tracking System. VI edition [individual-level data]. National Information Pro- cessing Institute, Warsaw (2021). https:// ela. nauka. gov. pl/ en. Accessed 8 February 2021 Momani, B., Dreher, E., Williams, K.: More than a pipeline problem: Evaluating the gender pay gap in Canadian academia from 1996 to 2016. Can. J. High. Educ. 49(1), 1–21 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 7202/ 10608 21ar Monroe, K.R., Chiu, W.F. Gender equality in the academy: The pipeline problem. PS – Political Sci. Politics 43(2), 303–308 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s1049 09651 00001 7x Morgan, A.C., Way, S.F., Hoefer, M.J.D., Larremore, D.B., Galesic, M., Clauset, A. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Sci. Adv. 7(9), eabd1996 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ sciadv. abd19 Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., Handelsman, J.: Science faculty’s sub- tle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109(41), 16474–16479 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 12112 86109 Nettles, M.T., Perna, L.W., Bradburn, E.M. Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities (NCES 2000–173). U.S. Department of Educa- tion, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC (2000). https:// nces. ed. gov/ pubs2 000/ 20001 73. pdf. Accessed 2 August 2023 O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., Jackson, R.: Asked more often: Gender differ - ences in faculty workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. Am. Educ. Res. 54(6), 1154–1186 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31217 716767 Pałka, M. Rodzicielstwo i rynek pracy: child penalty w Polsce. MF Opracowania i Analizy 9. Minis- terstwo Finansów (2024). https:// www. gov. pl/ web/ finan se/ no-9- 2024-m- palka- rodzi ciels two-i- rynek- pracy- child- penal ty-w- polsce. Accessed 9 September 2024 Paweenawat, S.W., Liao, L. Parenthood penalty and gender wage gap: Recent evidence from Thailand. J. Asian Econ. 78 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. asieco. 2021. 101435 Perna, L.W.: Sex and race differences in supplemental earnings of college and university faculty. Res. High. Educ. 43, 31–58 (2002). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10130 18100 387 Perna, L.W.: Sex differences in faculty salaries: A cohort analysis. Rev. High. Ed. 24(3), 283–307 (2001). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe. 2001. 0006 Perna, L.W.: Studying faculty salary equity: A review of theoretical and methodological approaches. In: Smart, J.C. (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 18, pp. 323–388. Springer, Dordrecht (2003) R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (2020). http:// www.r- proje ct. org. Accessed 2 August 2023 Rabovsky, T.M., Lee, H. Exploring the antecedents of the gender pay gap in U.S. Higher Education. Public Adm. Rev. 78, 375–385 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ puar. 12827 I. Magda et al. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S.: Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, II Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA (2002) Salinas, P.C., Bagni, C.: Gender equality from a European perspective: Myth and reality. Neuron 96(4), 721–729 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. neuron. 2017. 10. 002 Samaniego, C., Lindner, P., Kazmi, M.A., Dirr, B.A., Kong, D.T., Jeff-Eke, E., Spitzmueller, Ch.: Higher research productivity = more pay? Gender Pay-for-Productivity Inequity across Disciplines. Scien- tometrics 128, 1395–1407 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192- 022- 04513-4 Sarsons, H.: Recognition for group work: Gender differences in academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 107(5), 141– 145 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. p2017 1126 Sato, S., Gygax, P.M., Randall, J., Schmid, M.: The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: Challenges and future directions. High. Educ. 82, 145–162 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 020- 00626-y Silander, C., Haake, U., Lindberg, L.: The different world of academia: A horizontal analysis of gender equality in Swedish higher education. High. Educ. 66(2), 173–188 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 012- 9597-1 Simonsen, M., Skipper, L.: The family gap in wages: What wombmates reveal. Labour Econ. 19(1), 102– 112 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. labeco. 2011. 08. 006 Smart, J.C.: Gender equity in academic rank and salary. Rev. High. Ed. 14(4), 511–526 (1991). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe. 1991. 0011 Statistics Poland. Structure of wages and salaries by occupations for October 2022. Statistical Office in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz – Warszawa (2024). https:// stat. gov. pl/ en/ topics/ labour- market/ worki ng- emplo yed- wages- and- salar ies- cos t- of- labour/ s tr uc tur e- of- wages- and- salar ies- by- occup ation- in- oct ob er- 2022,17,8. html. Accessed 9 September 2024 Takahashi, A.M., Takahashi, S.: Gender salary differences in economics departments in Japan. Econ. Educ. Rev. 30(6), 1306–1319 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. econe durev. 2011. 06. 002 Takahashi, A.M., Takahashi, S., Maloney, T.N.: Gender gaps in STEM in Japanese academia: The impact of research productivity, outside offers, and home life on pay. Soc. Sci. J. 55(3), 245–272 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. soscij. 2018. 02. 013 Toutkoushian, R.K.: Sex matters less for younger faculty: Evidence of disaggregate pay disparities from the 1988 and 1993 NCES surveys. Econ. Educ. Rev. 17(1), 55–71 (1998). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0272- 7757(97) 00015-0 Umbach, P.D.: Gender equity in the academic labor: An analysis of academic disciplines. Res. High. Ed. 48, 169–192 (2007). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11162- 006- 9043-2 Wagner, I., Finkielsztein, M., Czarnacka, A.: Being Polish scientists and women – between glorious past and difficult present: The “reverse dynamic of equality construction.” Eur. Educ. Res. J. 16(2–3), 141– 165 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14749 04116 688023 Wilde, E.T., Batchelder, L., Ellwood, D.T. The mommy track divides: The impact of childbearing on wages of women of differing skill levels. NBER Working Paper 16582. National Bureau of Economic Research (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3386/ w16582 Witteman, O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S., Tannenbaum, C.: Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the appli- cant or the science? A natural experiment at a National Funding Agency. Lancet 393(10171), 531–540 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0140- 6736(18) 32611-4 Wolfinger, N.H., Mason, M.A., Goulden, M.: Stay in the game: Gender, family formation and alternative trajectories in the academic life course. Soc. Forces 87(3), 1591–1621 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ sof.0. 0182 Xu, Y.: Focusing on women in STEM: A longitudinal examination of gender-based earning gap of college graduates. J. High. Educ. 86(4), 489–523 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00221 546. 2015. 11777 373 Yu, W., Hara, Y.: Motherhood penalties and fatherhood premiums: effects of parenthood on earnings growth within and across firms. Demography 58(1), 247–272 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1215/ 00703 370- 89176 Yu, W., Kuo, J.Ch.-L. Parenthood, earnings, and the relevance of family formation sequences. Soc. Sci. Res. 121 (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssres earch. 2024. 103027 Zhang, L.: Gender and racial gaps in earnings among recent college graduates. Rev. High. Ed. 32(1), 51–72 (2008). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe.0. 0035 Zając, T., Magda, I., Bożykowski, M., Chłoń-Domińczak, A., Jasiński, M. Gender pay gaps across STEM fields of study. Stud. High. Educ. 1–14 (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2024. 23306 67 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Economic Inequality Springer Journals

The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers

Download PDF
22 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-gender-pay-gap-at-the-early-stages-of-academic-careers-8Jq0nfFSs8

References (84)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2025
ISSN
1569-1721
eISSN
1573-8701
DOI
10.1007/s10888-024-09661-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The number of countries that have devoted time and attention to establishing gender equal- ity regulations in academia is increasing. However, various studies indicate that women remain underrepresented among tenured faculty and in senior positions, and that female academic staff earn less than male ones. The reasons for these gaps, in particular those specific to academia, remain unclear. This article analyzes Polish female and male PhD graduates to measure the pay gap between them and its progression over time. The arti- cle studies the sources of the pay gap, with a special focus on parenthood. It draws on a dataset that covers the entire population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees and were hired at any Polish university between 2014 and 2018. The study’s results reveal that despite equal pay regulations, a relatively narrow (3–5%) but stable adjusted gender pay gap already exists among early-career academics who do not have children, and that the gap widens considerably when income from outside academia (6–11%) is considered. Basic incomes of mothers in academia are 18–20% lower than those of nonmothers. A substantial fatherhood wage premium (33–37%) arises when all sources of income are con- sidered. Academia is not necessarily an equal workplace. Keywords Gender pay gap · Women in academia · Earnings · Careers * Iga Magda [email protected] Jacek Bieliński [email protected] Marzena Feldy [email protected] Anna Knapińska [email protected] SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland Institute for Structural Research (IBS), Warsaw, Poland National Information Processing Institute, Warsaw, Poland Vol.:(0123456789) I. Magda et al. 1 Introduction Research on the gender pay gap in academia dates back to the 1970s. Since then, numer- ous studies have been conducted at individual universities. All have found that women are underrepresented among tenured faculty and higher academic ranks, and that female faculty typically earn less than male faculty. Although many countries have devoted con- siderable time and attention to establishing gender equality policies and ensuring the equal treatment of men and women in the academic labor market (Salinas and Bagni 2017), pay differences between male and female faculty members persist (European Commission 2021). Due to the significant gender pay gap, work–family conflicts, and female academ- ics not yet seeing themselves as deeply embedded in the scientific community, women in the early stages of their careers are particularly vulnerable to leaving academia or science entirely (Wolfinger et al. 2009). Although the gender pay gap remains a critical challenge in academia, its nature and its determinants are not fully understood. Although many of the factors behind gender pay differences are shared between academia and other sectors or occupations, several are specific to academia and are little recognized. For instance, while the measurement of scientists’ productivity is possible, it is challenging in practice. Pres- tige and recognition form the basic currency of the science sector, and they are achieved first and foremost through publications in top journals and via top publishing houses (Fochler et  al. 2016; Lindahl 2018). Scholars are required to be scientifically productive, and in Anglo-Saxon systems, prestige and funds derive primarily from research activities. In Europe, by contrast, high salaries are more likely to be obtained in high-level adminis- trative roles (Kwiek 2018). Teaching activities are often considered to be of lower value than research, and it is difficult to measure teaching productivity (Boring 2017). Finally, workers in the academic sector tend to have different sources of income, which, in turn, are subject to different gender gaps. This issue is particularly important in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) context that this article explores. At the early stages of their careers, the remuneration of women and men tends to be more equitable than it is at the later stages. The process of hiring and determining the appropriate salary typically involves a rigorous assessment of an individual’s qualifica- tions; however, the influence of nonlegitimate criteria on an individual’s annual salary is likely to increase with the number of years since they were initially hired or promoted (Sato et al. 2021). Thus, the tendency for women to be offered lower initial salaries followed by more modest rises causes the gender pay gap to increase year by year, and is likely to put women at a career-long disadvantage (Amilon and Persson 2013; Claypool et  al. 2017; Momani et al. 2019; Perna 2001; Takahashi and Takahashi 2011). Most of the current evidence on gender pay differences in the academic sector comes from Western European and Anglo-Saxon countries, with their distinct institutional and educational settings, and employment and pay policies. This article focuses on Poland, a CEE country that has undergone far reaching economic and educational changes since 1989. Despite growing public interest in gender equality in the CEE region, there remains a dearth of research on the gender dimension of the academic sector, and in particular on salary differences in academia. The most current research indicates that, in Poland, women earn on average 7.9% less than men in the total economy, and as much as 17.7% less in For instance, for the US: Carlin et  al. 2013; Chen and Crown 2019; Australia: Currie and Hill 2013; Canada: Brown and Troutt 2017; Sweden: Gonäs and Bergman 2009. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers professional, scientific and technical activities (Statistics Poland 2024). Like other CEE countries, Poland has reformed its science and higher education sectors to ensure a more competitive allocation of research funds, thereby increasing the impact of the economy on science and rewarding international collaboration (Bieliński and Tomczyńska 2019). The marketization of the science sector in Poland has brought it closer to the Anglo-Saxon model, which is founded on productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness in knowledge pro- duction. This direction of change in Poland might lead to a wider gender pay gap, as men tend to invest more time in research than women, and are more likely than women to be promoted to higher positions, hold full professorships, and to have lighter teaching and administrative loads (Abramo et al. 2009; Blackaby et al. 2005; Gibney 2017; Ginther and Hayes 2003; Guarino and Borden 2017; Hesli and Lee 2011; Mitchell and Hesli 2013; O’Meara et al. 2017; Perna 2003; Takahashi et al. 2018). This article aims to shed light on the determinants of scholars’ incomes in the early stages of their academic careers in Poland, and the width of the potential gender gaps in their pay. In particular, it addresses the following research questions: (1) Is there a pay gap among recent male and female PhD graduates who work in academia?; (2) Can this gap be explained by differences in male and female researchers’ individual and workplace charac- teristics?; (3) How is the gender pay gap in academia evolving?; (4) Do differences in the amount of extra-university income men and women earn contribute to the gender pay gap?; and (5) In particular, does parenthood contribute to the gender pay gap among scholars? An essential advantage of this research is that it can draw on a unique administrative dataset that covers the entire population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees and were hired at any Polish university between 2014 and 2018. The data comes from the Polish Graduate Tracking System (ELA). The dataset contains individual data on the sala- ries and research productivity of PhD holders that are extracted from universities, and are merged with income and employment history data from the Social Insurance Institution registers. The research makes three main contributions to the literature on the gender pay gap in academia. First it focuses on the early stages of academic careers, which are crucial for the later career development of male and female faculty researchers alike. Second it provides evidence on the gender pay gap in a setting that differs from those that have been previ- ously studied: specifically, in a CEE country with a heavily reformed academic sector, a large share of women in lower-level academic positions, and a large share of scientists with multiple income sources. Third, in light of the differences in the institutional settings of academia between Poland and the Western European countries, it revisits the factors that are known to contribute to the gender pay gap in academia, while also examining new fac- tors that have rarely been studied, such as whether an institution is public or private, the degree of feminization in the field of study, and the role of additional sources of income among faculty members. We find that men who graduated with PhD diplomas and work in academia earn con- siderably more than women in the same circumstances. The average difference is 15–18% for incomes from academia and 25–26% if all sources of income are considered. This raw pay gap is only partially explained by differences in male and female researchers’ indi- vidual and workplace characteristics. The pay gap is particularly high among parents and in incomes outside of academia. This article is organized as follows. It commences by reviewing the literature on the potential determinants of gender pay differences in the academic labor market. It then I. Magda et al. describes the positions women tend to hold in academia in Poland. Next it describes the data and the methods we use, and present the results of our analyses. It later discusses our find- ings and their implications. The article concludes with our thoughts on directions for future research. 2 Determinants of the gender pay gap in academia A rich literature has developed on the gender pay gap (Blau and Kahn 2017 offer a com- prehensive review), which has identified gender sectoral and occupational segregation, and motherhood penalties among the most important factors in the gender pay gap. We intend to contribute to this strand of the literature by focusing on the gender pay gap in a single sector, academia—and specifically on the young employees and PhD graduates who work in it. Only a few existing studies of gender pay gaps have focused on subgroups of workers, such as young university graduates (Bobbitt-Zeher 2007; Goldin et al. 2017) or graduates in a particular field of study (Ceci et  al. 2014). When studying the gender pay gap, such a narrow focus has its advantages. First, such an endeavor is not limited by the need to control for sectoral segregation, a highly relevant factor in gender pay inequality. Second, several factors that are peculiar to the academic working environment could play roles in gender differences in pay. Our study is able to adjust for these factors. In particular, we measure (or proxy) potential research productivity differences between men and women that could contribute to gender pay inequality. Researchers’ productiv- ity is typically measured by the number of publications or research grants they receive. Many studies have found a male advantage in productivity (Abramo et al. 2009; Blackaby et  al. 2005; Ceci et  al. 2014; Hesli and Lee 2011), and that the differences in the num- bers of publications and grants men and women receive explain a substantial portion of the gender pay gap (Perna 2003; Takahashi et al. 2018). Other studies have found that female academics spend less time than male ones on research due to their higher teaching and/or service loads (Gibney 2017; Guarino and Borden 2017; Mitchell and Hesli 2013; O’Meara et  al. 2017; Takahashi et  al. 2018). Samaniego et  al. (2023) demonstrated that cumula- tive research productivity related more strongly to compensation for male than for female researchers—although this effect was revealed exclusively in STEM disciplines. The ques- tion arises whether the correlation between productivity and compensation also exists at the beginnings of scientific careers when the researchers have authored fewer works. Mixed evidence exists on whether women are as likely as men to have their manuscripts reviewed and their grant proposals funded (Lundberg and Stearns 2019; Krawczyk and Smyk 2016; Witteman et  al. 2019), which might impact their research productivity via a discrimination channel. While the experiment by Krawczyk and Smyk (2016) revealed that female authors were perceived as less competent than male ones and were less often believed that their papers had been published, Ceci et al. (2014) concluded that manuscript reviewing and grant funding are gender-neutral. Card et  al. (2020) found that referees of both genders impose higher standards for female authors when studying referees’ decisions on submissions to four leading economics journals and further citations of those papers. In addition, Sarsons (2017) found that women benefitted less markedly than men from their contributions to coauthored publications, particularly when men were named as coauthors in the same publications. Moss-Racusin et al. (2012), in turn, provided evidence of a gen- der bias in academia, demonstrating that compared to (identical) female applicants, male applicants are perceived to be more competent and suitable for positions, and are offered The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers higher salaries and more career mentoring. This kind of bias reflects widespread cultural stereotypes that emphasize men’s scientific competence. In consequence, the ex-ante per - ception of greater male productivity is likely to result in salary differences that might not be justified by ex-post productivity. Harris et al. (2023), using the latest data provided by British universities and controlling for a range of covariates, confirm that women earn less than men, and suggest that bias rather than differences in their research productivity is the cause. The doubts regarding the relationship between productivity and the gender pay gap justify the need for further research on this subject. We contribute to this strand of literature by utilizing the fact that a publication points system is applied in the parametric evaluation of academic institutions in Poland, which is conducted every four years. While the grading of monographs and academic journals was originally designed to serve as one of several assessment criteria in the evaluation of academic institutions, it has in recent years become an informal point of reference for valu- ing scientific work and the quality of individual scientists’ research. For an institution, the points awarded for the publications of its researchers contribute substantially to the results of its evaluation, and thus to the subsidies it receives from the central government budget. Scientists who are capable of earning more points for their institutions might be perceived to be more productive, and thus deserving of higher remuneration. We therefore operation- alize scientific productivity as the annual mean number of points awarded for publications scaled in a field of science. Differences in the characteristics of academic institutions are also likely to contribute to the gender pay gap (Monroe and Chiu 2010; Nettles et al. 2000). Most of the previous studies on this subject focus on the features of the institutions that hire researchers; no con- sensus has been established, however, on whether the characteristics of the academic insti- tutions from which PhD holders graduated contribute to the gender pay gap. For instance, the evidence on whether the width of the gender pay gap differs between public and private universities is inconclusive. Research conducted in Japan revealed identical wage differ - ences between women and men at both types of university (Takahashi et  al. 2018) and a considerable gender pay gap at public universities, despite the existence of rigid pay scales based on the experience, ages, and educational attainment of academics (Takahashi and Takahashi 2011). Simultaneously, according to Rabovsky and Lee (2018), greater reliance on public funding results in narrower wage differences between men and women, while dependence on competitive research funding is linked to wider pay gaps. Moreover, Mon- roe and Chiu (2010) discovered that while top research institutions pay scholars more than other universities (Nettles et  al. 2000; Smart 1991; Toutkoushian 1998), gender pay ine- qualities widen with an institution’s prestige. In Poland, the institutions that are consid- ered the most prestigious are the ones that are authorised to confer the academic degree of doctor habilitus (the majority of them are public) and those that obtain the highest grades in the nationwide evaluation of the scientific activity. It is worth examining whether the prestige of academic institutions and their ownership (public vs. private) impact the remu- neration offered to the early stage scientists to whom they confer research degrees and, consequently, the gender pay gap. This study adjusts the gender pay gap that we estimate for a set of characteristics of the academic institutions from which young people graduate (such as whether an institution is Each scientific journal is assigned a number of points by the Polish Ministry of Science. The higher the quality of the journal, the higher the number of points. Each researcher is encouraged to publish in journals of higher quality, and these points serve as a proxy for productivity. I. Magda et al. public or private, the scientific quality of an institution, and the academic field in which a PhD was obtained). These characteristics might determine the reputation of a university, while also serving as an indicator of a graduate’s educational attainment. Claypool et  al. (2017) found that graduating from a highly ranked PhD program has a positive effect on salary. We examine whether the patterns of the interactions of gender and the characteris- tics of the academic institutions that employ graduates reported in research on the gender pay gap are the same as those of the institutions from which the PhD holders graduated. The feminization or the masculinization of academic fields might also influence the width of the gender pay gap in these fields, or among their graduates. Academics who work in fields that employ significantly more women than men typically earn less than their peers in male-dominated fields (Perna 2001, 2003; Smart 1991; Umbach 2007). Both men and women tend to pursue different disciplines, and women are particularly under - represented in STEM fields, which offer higher salaries (Brown and Corcoran 1997; Zhang 2008). Evidence on the gender pay gap in STEM remains limited (Gerber and Cheung 2008; Silander et  al. 2013; Xu 2015; Zając et  al. 2024; Zhang 2008). In one of the few studies that addresses this issue, Momani et al. (2019) discovered that the gender pay gap is wider in the STEM disciplines than in non-STEM ones, but also that the average salary differences between female and male faculty are narrower in disciplines in which more women participate. There is also evidence that gender bias persists even in fields in which the representation of women has increased considerably (Begeny et al. 2020). The hetero- geneity of pay differences between men and women who work in and graduate from differ - ent academic fields, and the role of feminization in the gender pay gap in academia, also merit further research. This article also aims to address those areas. Our research examines the role of parenthood, which has been reported widely in the recent literature as a crucial driver of the pay gap. Women who become mothers expe- rience a so-called “motherhood penalty”, a wage gap associated with motherhood. Cuk- rowska-Torzewska and Matysiak (2020), in a meta-analysis that relies on ninety-five empirical studies on the motherhood wage penalty, found an average wage gap associated with being a mother of approximately 3.6–3.8%. The gap is explained primarily by the loss of human capital during child-related career breaks. From a broader perspective, the “child penalty” affects a number of other labor market outcomes including job acquisition, reten- tion in academia, promotion, tenure achievement (Finkel and Olswang 1996; Mason et al. 2013; Lassen and Ivandić 2024), grant rewards, paper publications (Lutter and Schröder 2020; Mairesse et al. 2019; Morgan et al. 2021), scientific collaboration (Hunter and Lea- hey 2010), and professional mobility (Wagner et al. 2017). For instance, Cairo et al. (2023) report an annual 24% reduction in scientific productivity for mothers in STEM fields rela- tive to fathers in the first five years after childbirth. Simultaneously, some studies (e.g. Fuller and Cooke 2018; Glauber 2018; Hodges and Budig 2010; Simonsen and Skipper 2012; Yu and Hara 2021) have found that men are in fact rewarded with higher incomes after becoming fathers, with the gender income gap related to parenthood widening over time (Angelov et  al. 2016). However, the relation seems to be more complex. Killewald (2013) discovered a wage premium for men who were married, residential and biological fathers (but not unmarried, nonresidential fathers, or stepfathers) while Yu and Kuo (2024) discovered pay increases exclusively for residen- tial fathers whose children were born after marriage. Event studies showed no impact of child rearing on men’s earnings (Kleven et  al. 2019; Wilde et  al. 2010). Some research- ers found fatherhood wage penalties (Cools and Strøm 2016; Evertsson 2016; Paweenawat and Liao 2022), explained primarily by men’s involvement in child rearing and paternity leave in Scandinavian countries. A different light on the association between fatherhood The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers and incomes is shed by Kunze (2020). She discusses selection effects, finding that it is not the effect of children that causes fathers to earn higher incomes, but that higher earners are more likely to become fathers (e.g. men who plan to become parents self-select into higher- track occupations). Likewise, Icardi et  al. (2022) question the role of specialization and employer discrimination in creating the positive fatherhood effects described in the litera- ture, as well as offering fresh evidence that it is mainly a result of selection into fatherhood. Academia is a domain in which the interruptions that result from having children can substantially hamper career advancement. Some studies confirm the negative impact of being a mother on publication productivity (Lutter and Schröder 2020; Mairesse et  al. 2019; Morgan et  al. 2021), promotion process (Finkel and Olswang 1996; Mason et  al. 2013), scientific collaboration (Hunter and Leahey 2010), and academic mobility (Wagner et al. 2017). For this reason, the so-called “stop-the-clock” policies, as discussed by Man- chester et al. (2010), are being implemented more frequently. They aim to extend, due to major life events, the time allotted for academic assessment, degree attainment, or grant settlement. Nevertheless, the mere fact of having children harms mothers’ salaries in aca- demia. An incremental decline in women’s incomes with each child (Mason et  al. 2013, p. 88) and clear evidence of fatherhood premiums have been identified (Kelly and Grant 2012). The differences between male and female incomes in academia may be narrowed by collective bargaining, but are likely to be wider under decentralized, individualized wage- setting schemes (Claypool et al. 2017; Gonäs and Bergman 2009). Women might be less aggressive in asking for promotions and pay raises. Moreover, they receive fewer job offers than men with comparable characteristics and are more risk-averse due to family respon- sibilities (Blackaby et  al. 2005). Women’s lower job mobility gives university employers monopsonistic power and enables them to pay women less than men (Takahashi and Taka- hashi 2011). This article differentiates between the types of income academics earn from their main employers and from external sources. Most studies on the gender pay gap in academia focus on the base salary scholars receive from the academic institutions at which they are employed. However, the earning of supplemental income—either for additional services rendered within academia or for consulting and other services undertaken outside aca- demia—is a widely accepted practice in academia, and Poland is no different. Perna (2002) discovered that compared to their male counterparts, female academics are less likely to earn supplemental incomes, and that the supplemental income they do earn is, on average, lower. However, the evidence on how these forms of additional income influence gender pay differentials in academia is severely limited. We intend to shed more light on this issue. Finally, this article offers additional evidence on the gender pay gap in academia in Poland, a CEE country. This context has rarely been studied and is ripe for further exploration. 3 Women in academia in Poland and the European Union The institutional setting of academia in Poland differs from those of Western European and Anglo-Saxon countries along several dimensions. In Poland, women constitute a relatively large share of PhD graduates (56%, compared to an average of 47% in the EU-15—so-called “old Europe”—which puts Poland in fourth place among the EU-27 countries). This female advantage also holds among academic staff: in Poland, women I. Magda et al. constitute 51% of academic staff with a PhD, compared to 46% in Western European countries. However, Poland also has high rates of attrition at subsequent academic career stages (a “leaky pipeline”). Thus, the female advantage among early-career researchers is promptly lost, with women constituting only 39% of associate professors and 25% of full professors. By comparison, the respective shares in the EU-15 countries, are, on average, 42% and 22%. Other former socialist CEE countries also have relatively high shares of female research- ers. This pattern reflects both the historically high female labor force participation rates and the Soviet legacy of gender equality as part of the official socialist agenda. Moreover, for many years, academia has been a low-paid sector; thus, the so-called “field status para- dox” plays an important role: “When the status of a field is low, women will be found in large numbers” (Etzkowitz and Ranga 2011). Distinct patterns of gendered attrition can be observed in different fields of study. In the EU-15, the shares of women among graduates at the master’s level vary between 74% in education and a mere 24% in information and communication technologies (ICT). In Poland, the respective proportions are 86% for education and 20% for ICT; however, among doctoral graduates in STEM, the share of women is 37.5% in the EU-15, com- pared to 49% in Poland. Poland has the highest share of female PhD STEM graduates in the EU. Little is known about wage progression in academia in CEE countries, particularly from a gender perspective. While the “raw” (unadjusted) gender pay gap in Poland is relatively narrow (5–8%), it is much wider when adjusted for personal and workplace characteristics (over 15%, with the CEE countries having wider adjusted gender pay differences than the Western European countries). Other features of the Polish academic institutional setting that might be relevant to our study concern the sector’s partial privatization during the transition to a market economy in the 1990s and the implementation of efficiency-seeking reforms (Kwiek 2014): “Fostering this growth were equally liberal approaches to quality assurance mechanisms, licensing, and accreditation that encouraged the nascent private sector during its first decade of its operation” (Kwiek 2012: 134–135). The number of private higher education institutions increased considerably (from 36 in 1994 to 274 in 2004), as did the number of students who attended private institutions (from 29,000 in 1994 to 546,000 in 2004). The share of all students who attended private universities reached 30% at the beginning of the 2000s. However, the number of academic teachers who worked at private universities increased only modestly, as most academic teachers continued to work for public universities, while also earning additional income from the newly established tertiary education institutions. We account for this supplementary income, as it is highly relevant in understanding the gender pay gap in Polish academia. Academic institutional settings differ across countries, including with respect to their funding and assessed quality levels (which often translate into financing). In Poland, the quality of academic institutions is assessed every four years in a nationwide evalu- ation of scientific activity. The evaluation process investigates institutions’ scientific, research, and development activities. In 2017 each institution was assigned to one of four Eurostat (online data code: sdg_05_20), accessed on March 3, 2022. In 2012, approximately 9% of all academic teachers worked at more than one university (data from POL- on, the Polish Science and Higher Education register). Among academic teachers employed at private uni- versities, the share was 38%. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers categories: A + (a national leader), A (very good), B (satisfactory, with a recommenda- tion to strengthen its scientific activity), or C (unsatisfactory). The budgetary resources allocated to institutions depend on their grades, and might influence the salaries they pay. However, the regulatory framework of pay setting is more complex. Although Polish public universities determine their employees’ salaries autonomously, they are obliged to follow the ministerial rules on the minimum basic salaries for full, associate, and assis- tant professors. Private universities are less reliant on state funding and do not have to conform to state-mandated salary scales. Thus, questions arise whether scientific institu- tions with higher salaries have wider adjusted gender pay gaps, and whether these gaps differ between public and private entities. While we are unable to study these issues directly, we investigate whether gender pay gaps are narrower among graduates of public universities. 4 Data and sample description We used data on the entire population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland. We observed their labor market outcomes in the 2015–2020 period. The data comes from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Track- ing System (MNiSW 2021), which links data from two administrative registers: the Sci- ence and Higher Education register and the Social Insurance Institution register. The data- set covers a range of characteristics, including: 1) gender, age, and year when a PhD was awarded; 2) the field of science in which a degree was awarded; 3) the academic institution that awarded a degree, whether it was public or private, and its quality grade; 4) the PhD holder’s detailed labor market status (described by the code of social security contribu- tions paid) and labor market history (employment status, type of employment contract if employed, self-employed status, unemployment status, being on sickness or maternity or parental leave); 5) the amount of social security contributions paid, which enables us to calculate the labor income earned; and 6) a set of scientific individual productivity meas- ures based on a PhD holder’s publication record. We also calculate the degree of feminiza- tion of different fields of study (the share of women among a field’s graduates) to adjust for the potential link between the share of female academics in a given field and the salaries paid to male and female researchers. Since our aim is to study the gender pay gap in the academic sector, our final dataset contains data only on PhD graduates who remained employed at Polish academic institu- tions in each consecutive year after they obtained their PhDs during the analyzed period. We exclude self-employed workers, as we lack data on their total incomes (they pay social security contributions on a minimum basis, irrespective of total income earned). The main dataset also excludes individuals employed at C-grade institutions and church institutions, due to the low number of graduates in these categories. As discussed in the literature review, parenthood appears to be the crucial factor behind gender gaps in earnings. We explore this relationship by controlling both for parenthood For the first two cohorts of PhD graduates, from 2014 and 2015, a full five-year monitoring period is available. For subsequent cohorts, the set of annual indicators decreases by one; thus, the 2018 cohort can be monitored for two years after they obtained their degrees. The results do not change if we enlarge the sample by adding C-level institutions or church institutions. The results are available upon request. I. Magda et al. Table 1 Sample size and structure, by year of graduation year of PhD number of distinct % of women % of dropouts from academia in individuals in analyzed subset 2nd year after PhD and no return to in analyzed subset academia men, women, analyzed subset analyzed subset 2014 4,799 54.14% 2.80% 2.98% 2015 5,143 54.14% 2.65% 3.08% 2016 5,011 54.50% 3.18% 2.91% 2017 4,697 54.09% 3.88% 4.34% 2018 4,923 54.61% 5.47% 6.32% sum 24,573 — — — The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecutive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, and indi- viduals employed at C-grade institutions or church institutions were excluded. The two last columns pertain to individuals who dropped out from academia in the second year after graduation and never returned and its interaction with gender. Although we cannot observe children directly in our data- base, we capture parenthood by observing whether individuals have used maternity, pater- nity, or parental leave. The final dataset contains data on 24,573 individuals (see Table  1) and 50,987 person-year observations (see Table A in the Appendix). 4.1 Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the key descriptive statistics. The number of students who graduate each year (and commence paid work in academia) is roughly equal over time, at approximately 4,697 to 5,143 individuals. We observe a stable share of women among PhD graduates in consecutive years of approximately 54–54.6%. We also calculated the share of individuals who moved to nonacademic sectors at least one year after being awarded their degrees to discover whether any gender patterns could bias our analysis. We discovered that approxi- mately 39% to 45% of PhD graduates took up and maintained employment at academic institutions in the five years after they were awarded their degrees. In each cohort, over 90% of PhD holders remained at academic institutions after the first year of employment, with no specific patterns by gender (cf. Table  1). Moreover, most (61.5–68.5%) of the PhD We might fail to attribute parenthood status to fathers and mothers who had children prior to obtaining an employment contract in academia, or any other employment contract (which is necessary to become eligible to parental and maternity leave). However, we expect that most women decided and managed to enter formal employment prior to having children (even for one month), as this offered them relatively gen- erous periods of leave during pregnancy and maternity. We are more likely to underestimate the number of fathers, as they remain much less likely to use childcare leave. We underestimate fatherhood in our data if fathers do not use a single day of leave to which they are entitled (paternity leave lasts for two weeks and is paid 100% by social security, which offers an incentive to use it). No gendered patterns are visible if we extend the definition of dropout to include also individuals who dropped out from academia temporarily and returned after some time. We additionally run an analysis that focuses on a subsample of those who are observed for the full five years. The results are robust and are available from the authors upon request. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers holders were employed at the academic institution from which they graduated eight years after being awarded their PhDs. Table B in the Appendix presents the share of parents among men and women, by year of graduation. Among men and women who graduated in 2014, 16% and 36% are parents, respectively; among the most recent cohorts, 7% of men and 16% of women are parents. These statistics confirm that women are more likely to become parents earlier than men. Simultaneously we observe a pattern of increased fertility among women up to three years after graduation, with no such a pattern for men (Fig. A1 in the Appendix). Table C in the Appendix summarizes the variables used in this analysis by time elapsed since graduation. Most of the observed individuals have degrees in the social sciences, the humanities, in engineering, or in medical and health sciences. The data also indicates the relative insignificance of private education at the PhD level, as only approximately 1.57–1.69% of the PhD graduates were awarded their degrees at private institutions (in part because most private institutions are not permitted to offer PhD-level studies or to award PhD degrees). Moreover, most PhD graduates were awarded their degrees from high-quality (A-grade) research institutions. The average rate of feminization in the fields of science in which the PhD students graduated is approximately 47–49%, which sug- gests a relatively high degree of gender equality. The proportion of women is the lowest in engineering and technology, ranging from 32 to 39%, and the highest in medical and health sciences, in which the figure reaches 54%. Finally, we compared the labor income of PhD holders in two ways: by looking at their (1) income from employment contracts in academia; and at their (2) total income (income from all types of contracts, including standard employment contracts and civil code contracts) from sources both in and beyond academia. 5 Empirical strategy To study the gender pay gap in labor income, we used hierarchical linear models. These enabled us to adjust gender differences in income for the individual-level characteristics and features of the academic institutions at which PhD degrees were awarded. Consider- ing the nested structure of the data, employing hierarchical regression accounts for het- erogeneity of regression, which is a variation of regression parameters across cluster- ing factors (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). In the models, we pooled all individual-year observations. Log mean annual income from paid employment at a scientific institution (employ - ment contracts) and log mean annual total income (all types of contracts in and beyond academia) of individuals i from institution j are the dependent variables we estimate (logIncome ), and gender is our key independent variable. We started with the model i,j that accounts for gender, parenthood, gender*parenthood interaction, time, cohort, and time*cohort interaction (Model 1). According to the Polish Science and Higher Education register, https:// polon. nauka. gov. pl/ en, accessed on June 28, 2023. Statistical analysis, data transformation, and model estimation are conducted using R Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Core Team 2020). The models are estimated using maximum likelihood and BOBYQA optimization with the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015). I. Magda et al. Fig. 1 Inflation-adjusted income and raw gender pay gap by year since PhD completion The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecu- tive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, individuals employed at C-grade institu- tions and church institutions were excluded. Model 1: logIncome =  +  ∙ time +⋯ +  ∙ time +  ∙ cohort +⋯ +  ∙ cohort i,j 0,j 1,0 2.i,j 4,0 5.i,j 5,0 2.i,j 8,0 5.i,j +  ∙ gender +  ∙ parent +  ∙ time ∙ cohort +  ∙ gender ∙ parent + r 9,0 i,j 10,0 i,j 11…20,0 2…5.i,j 2…5.i,j 21 i,j i,j i,j Next, we added individual-level predictors in subsequent models: age and age at which a PhD was awarded (Model 2); the field of science in which a PhD was awarded, its degree of feminization, and the parametric evaluation category of the institution at which it was awarded (Model  3). In Model  4, we adjusted for productivity measures, captured by the mean annual points earned for publications, as well as for the type of academic institution (public/private). We then estimated the models based on Model  4, supplemented with interactions of gender and age, age at which a PhD was awarded, the year after a PhD was obtained, para- metric evaluation category, academic productivity, type of academic institution, and field of science (Model 5–Model 11). The data we have enabled us to study the role of the institutions from which young PhD holders graduated, but not that of the institutions at which they work. This transpired to be a minor limitation of our study, as approximately 61.5–68.5% of PhD graduates who remain in academia continue working at the institution from which they graduated in eight The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers consecutive years after being awarded their PhDs. This enabled us to shed light on the role of academic institutions in shaping the gender pay gap. 6 Results 6.1 Descriptive dynamics of wages and the gender gap in basic income We commenced our analysis of the gender gap in income in Polish academia by investigat- ing the pay dynamics among young men and women who work in the sector. We did so by studying the income they derive from their employment contracts at their main academic workplaces. Figure  1 presents the changes over time in average male and female income from employment contracts in academia (left axis). A raw gender pay gap can already be observed upon labor market entry: in the first year of employment, the average difference between men’s and women’s wages amounts to 14.5% of the male wage (right axis). We observe real wage growth over time (five years after a PhD is awarded, average salaries for PhD holders are over 50% higher than in the first year—see the left panel in Fig.  1 and Table C in the Appendix). We also observe increasing income dispersion as earnings at the bottom and top decile diverge. Simultaneously we observe the average raw gender pay gap decreasing slightly in the third year, and increasing to 18.1% in the fifth year after a PhD is awarded. 6.2 Adjusted gender pay gaps in basic incomes from academia only The raw differences in the pay of men and women who work in academia become much narrower when incomes are adjusted for a set of employees’ and academic institutions’ characteristics. Across model specifications in Table  2, the adjusted gender gap in aca- demic income amounts to 3.2–4.8% for statistically significant estimates (Table  2 presents a summary of the estimates of the coefficients attached to the female dummy in the models discussed in the empirical strategy; the full set of estimates is presented in the Appendix, Table D). The gender gap in salaries shrinks (compared to the raw gender pay gap) to 4.7% when only time, and cohort dummies, as well as their interactions, are conditioned. These results prove that PhD graduates who work in entry-level jobs in academia differ with respect to their characteristics and those of their institutions, and that some of these differ - ences widen the raw pay gaps. When these characteristics are controlled for, the pay dif- ferences between “similar” men and women are much narrower—although they still exist. In other words, while the adjusted (unexplained) gender wage gap in academia is narrower than the raw differences in men’s and women’s pay would suggest, female PhD graduates still earn less than “similar” male PhD graduates—even at the entry level. As discussed in the literature, parenthood is an important driver of the observed dif- ferences in pay, including among young PhD graduates in academia; however, a pay gap of 4–5% exists even among men and women who do not have children, all other things equal. The parent variable (Table  2, column 2) demonstrates the difference in incomes between fathers and nonfathers. This difference is narrow (men who have children earn According to the Polish Science and Higher Education register, https:// polon. nauka. gov. pl/ en, accessed on June 28, 2023. I. Magda et al. Table 2 The gender pay gap in employment contracts in academia Column [1] [2] [3] Model Female Parent Female*Parent Controls Exp(B) Exp(B) Exp(B) Model1 0.953*** 0.967 0.829*** time, cohort, time*cohort Model2 0.952*** 0.971 0.831*** Model1 + age, age of being awarded PhD Model3 0.961** 0.962 0.838*** Model1 + field of study, grade, degree of feminization Model4 0.968* 0.978 0.845*** Model1 + publication record, HEI ownership Model5 0.957** 0.961 0.860*** Model4 + gender*age Model6 0.961 0.961 0.860*** Model4 + gender*age of obtaining PhD Model7 0.986 0.967 0.847*** Model4 + gender*time Model8 0.960* 0.968 0.845*** Model4 + gender*evaluation Model9 0.964*** 0.968 0.845*** Model4 + gender*productivity Model10 0.998 0.968 0.845*** Model4 + gender*HEI ownership Model11 1.002 0.964 0.850*** Model4 + gender*field of study ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 A summary of the estimates of the regression coefficients attached to the female dummy in the hierarchical linear models; dependent variable: log mean annual income from paid employment at a scientific institution (employment contracts); the full set of estimates is presented in the Appendix, Table D. The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecutive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, individuals employed at C-grade institutions and church institutions were excluded approximately 3% less than those who do not) and is statistically insignificant. This effect stands in contrast to most of the current literature, which suggests the existence of a father- hood premium. Potential explanations behind these differences are offered in the Conclu- sions section of this article. The effects of parenthood on pay primarily concern women: women who are mothers earn 18–20% less than women who do not have children (Table 2, column 2 and 3). These results hold strong across all model specifications. The estimated pay gaps associated with motherhood are much wider than the average gaps found by Cukrowska-Torzewska and Matysiak (2020), but are lower than the recent estimates by Kleven et  al. (2023), which estimate a child penalty of 32% in Poland (though these estimates are based on an event study research design). Also using an event study but a different data source, Pałka (2024) discovers a motherhood income penalty of 10% in the first year and 28% in the long term. Despite expectations of a more equal and family-friendly work environment in academia, parenthood remains associated with substantial wage penalties—which apply exclusively to women. We must, however, emphasize the methodological limitations of our study, as both mothers and fathers might be a (positively) selected group of women and men, and women and men who do not have children might not be a suitable control group (Kunze 2020). What other factors are associated with earning higher or lower income? The results in Table  D in the Appendix enabled us to investigate the determinants of pay in academia Combining the estimates from column [1] and [3] we see that mothers earn on average 20% less than fathers. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers for both men and women in depth. We discovered an age premium for PhD graduates aged 33–40 compared to graduates of younger ages. Men and women who graduated in 2018 also enjoy a wage premium compared to other cohorts, irrespective of the number of years since graduation. This likely relates to the reforms of the remuneration system in 2017–2018, which offered pay rises to young researchers in particular. The field of sci- ence also matters: pay in academia is the highest among graduates with engineering and technology degrees (15–26% higher than among graduates with social science degrees) and is the lowest among graduates with humanities and arts or medical sciences degrees (10–11% lower than among those with social science degrees). A positive association also exists between productivity (as measured by publication records) and pay (around 10%). Simultaneously, the “quality” of a graduate’s institution, whether it is public or private, and the feminization of the field of science in which a PhD was awarded appear to have little impact (1–2%) on a graduate’s academic pay. Only some of these associations differ between male and female researchers and con- tribute to gender pay gaps. For instance, while pay is the highest among PhD graduates with engineering and technology degrees, the widest adjusted gender pay gap is also observed among graduates with degrees in this field (15%, cf. Model 11). We identified no statistically significant association between women’s pay and the quality of their universi- ties or whether they were public or private. Moreover, we observed no association between researchers’ productivity, as measured by the points awarded for publications, and the gen- der pay gap. Finally, we observed that the adjusted gender pay gaps are quite stable over the analyzed period. 6.3 Gender pay gaps in total income We re-run our analysis but used a different measure of income, which accounts not only for basic pay from employment contracts in academia, but also for additional income earned in or beyond academia through either employment contracts or civil law contracts. First we observed that the raw gender pay gaps are much wider if all forms of income are considered (around 25%), rather than only basic income from employment contracts in academia (Fig.  1, right panel). This suggests that compared to women, men on average earn higher supplementary incomes, even though men are not more likely to earn additional income. Our data shows that the share of researchers who earn income from multiple sources is 27–38% among men and 27–34% among women, depending on the year of observation. The raw gender pay gap in total income earned is 7–10 percentage points wider than the gender pay gap in basic income from aca- demia only. The gender pay gap in total income is again narrower when the raw differences in pay for individual and workplace characteristics are adjusted (Table  3, detailed results are available in the Appendix, Table  E). The adjusted, unexplained pay gap amounts to 6–11% among men and women who do not have children (column 1) when all forms of income are considered (compared to a pay gap of 4–5% for main incomes from academia only). These differences in gender pay gaps become much wider for parents. Men who have children earn in total 33–37% more than men who do not have children, which makes a substantial difference compared to the insignificant gap of 3% observed in incomes from academia only. A decrease in the pay gap from all sources of income can be observed between mothers and nonmothers: the former earn between 0.2% less and 6% more than I. Magda et al. Table 3 The gender pay gap: income from academia and from external sources Column [1] [2] [3] Model Female Parent Female* Parent Controls Exp(B) Exp(B) Exp(B) Model1 0.897*** 1,332*** 0,666*** time, cohort, time*cohort Model2 0.899*** 1,364*** 0,669*** Model1 + age, age of being awarded PhD Model3 0.909*** 1,347*** 0,672*** Model1 + field of study, grade, degree of feminization Model4 0.915*** 1,364*** 0,673*** Model1 + publication record, HEI ownership Model5 0.893*** 1,350*** 0,690*** Model4 + gender*age Model6 0.928* 1,349*** 0,690*** Model4 + gender*age of obtaining PhD Model7 0.937*** 1,364*** 0,674*** Model4 + gender*time Model8 0.885*** 1,366*** 0,673*** Model4 + gender*evaluation Model9 0.914*** 1,364*** 0,674*** Model4 + gender*productivity Model10 1.142 1,363*** 0,674*** Model4 + gender*HEI ownership Model11 0.924** 1,359*** 0,676*** Model4 + gender*field of study ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 A summary of the estimates of the regression coefficients attached to the female dummy in the hierarchical linear models; dependent variable: log mean annual total income (all types of contracts in and beyond aca- demia, excluding self-employment); the full set of estimates is presented in the Appendix, Table E The data from the 6th edition of the Polish Graduate Tracking System (MNiSW 2021). The population of PhD holders who were awarded their degrees between 2014 and 2018 in Poland and remained employed at Polish academic institutions in each of consecutive five years after PhD. Self-employed workers, individuals employed at C-grade institutions and church institutions were excluded the latter. Therefore, the motherhood wage penalties in academia appear primarily to con- cern basic incomes and these penalties are much smaller for total incomes. In contrast, the fatherhood wage premium emerges when total income is considered. Basic salaries are similar for men with and without children. In other words, the gender pay gaps vary widely depending on the source of income considered. These pay gaps are largely driven by parenthood but work according to different mechanisms for fathers (who enjoy a large pay premium from total income) and mothers (who earn much higher basic incomes than nonmothers in academia). Nevertheless, it appears that young graduates are far from experiencing pay equality or a family friendly working environment. Although income from all sources increases over time, the patterns of those increases are similar for men and women, and there is no statistically significant change in the adjusted gender pay gap over time. The other patterns observed for income from employment contracts in academia also hold for income defined more broadly. Interest- ingly, women are more likely to be better rewarded for productivity when all sources of income are considered. The gender pay gap is also narrower among women aged 40 + than among women under age 33. Among medical and health science graduates, women on average have total incomes that are 18% higher than that of men. In that field, women outnumber men: in 2021 in Poland, female academic teachers in medi- cine accounted for 57% of the entire staff and for 62% of the staff under age 49. This finding aligns with studies that discover narrowed pay gaps between women and men in disciplines in which the participation of women is higher (e.g., Momani et al. 2019). The gender pay gap is particularly wide among technology and engineering graduates. The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers 7 Conclusions and discussion The research described in this article sheds light on the gender pay gap among research- ers at the early stages of their academic careers in Poland. We expected to discover gender equality in the pay of academics, given that the salaries of assistant professors (entry-level jobs in academia) are regulated. We found that young male researchers earn 4–5% more from their main employment contracts in academia than young female researchers with similar demographic and institutional characteristics. It is of little consolation that this gender pay gap is relatively narrow compared to that in wages for the entire workforce of Poland performing professional, scientific and technical activities, which, according to Sta- tistics of Poland (2024) estimates, amounts to 17.7%. Moreover, when we considered that approximately one-third of scientists in Poland hold jobs in addition to their main academic jobs, presumably in both the private and the public sectors, we observed a much wider pay gap between men and women. After all of their sources of labor income are considered, the adjusted gender pay gap reaches 6–11%. Thus, it appears that earnings from outside academia are even more unequal than the basic incomes of male and female researchers. Parenthood contributes substantially to the gender wage gap in academia, though the effect differs between men and women, and depends on the source of income analyzed. Our study investigates average differences in parents’ pay and is not an event study (as in Kleven et  al., 2019 or Kleven et  al. 2023). We observed sizeable motherhood wage pen- alties (i.e. gaps income between mothers and nonmothers) of 18–20% in basic incomes. Simultaneously, we observed no statistically significant differences between the basic incomes of fathers and nonfathers (which stands in contrast to the literature, which typi- cally identifies a fatherhood wage premium). However, the picture changes when total incomes, including those from outside academia, are considered. Not only does a substan- tial fatherhood wage premium (of 33–37%) emerge, but the motherhood wage penalty also becomes much smaller, or even negative in some of the model specifications. Several plausible explanations might lie behind the different earning patterns of men and women in Polish academia. Selection could be occurring: men and women who earn only basic incomes in academia might differ in terms of their productivity or abilities from their colleagues who earn additional incomes, which might translate into wider gender pay gaps in total incomes. Moreover, fathers who earn incomes outside academia might consti- tute a more selected group—one that is more likely to attain such incomes—and that leads to the fatherhood wage premium in total incomes. It is less clear why mothers and non- mothers who receive incomes outside academia exhibit relatively narrow pay gaps (moth- erhood penalties) compared to mothers and nonmothers with basic incomes only. Again, selection might be a factor. It is unclear to what extent these gender differences are specific to academia, and to what extent they can also be found in other sectors with basic and addi- tional incomes (e.g. doctors, who have both public and private practices). Nevertheless, both for scholars without children, and for mothers and fathers academia appears to be an unequal workplace. This counters its stereotypical perception of an equal, heavily regulated environment. Additional incomes are one of the dimensions of this inequality. We also discovered that the effect of gender on income remains stable over time. Among the covariates for which we accounted—individual productivity, whether an insti- tution is public or private, and an institution’s quality—only productivity was found to be associated with the salaries earned, and, simultaneously, to correlate with the gender pay gap. Another factor that appears to matter is the field of study: while graduates with I. Magda et al. engineering and technology degrees earn the highest incomes, the gender pay gaps are also the widest among graduates of that field. Moreover, women aged 40 + , as well as women who obtained their PhDs at later ages, earn more than men, all other things equal. Both of these effects are stronger when total income is considered; simultaneously the effect of the feminization of different fields of science was negligible for the gender pay gap. This finding lies in contrast to studies that demonstrate that academics who work in female-dominated fields tend to have lower incomes (Perna 2001, 2003; Smart 1991; Umbach 2007). We expected academia to be a relatively equal workplace with respect to salaries, as it is influenced by regulated pay-setting procedures and greater pay transparency, and it offers possibilities to combine work and family lives. However, even in such a setting, gender pay inequality arises. The tendency of female researchers to earn less than male ones in the early stages of their careers contributes to the leaky pipeline, with fewer women attaining higher positions and earnings. Additional efforts should be made to attract more female talent into academia and to achieve a more gender-balanced workforce in the sector. This will not be pos- sible without tackling the problem of gender pay inequality. It is also interesting and important to determine whether and, if so, which nonmonetary factors, in addition to greater pay equality, can help women to remain in academia and progress in their careers. Diagnosing the roles of the stereotypes and biases associated with gender norms is another potential step forward. From a broader perspective, greater pay transparency, which will soon be imple- mented in European countries (in line with the EU Pay Transparency Directive, approved in 2023 by the European Parliament), has the potential to narrow the gender pay gap through more effective enforcement of the equal pay principle. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10888- 024- 09661-6. Acknowledgements We thank the participants of the PAA 2023 conference, the FROGEE and CENEA 2023 conference, the LAGV 2023, STS Conf Graz 2023, IWD Katowice 2023, and ESA RN33 conferences, and the 18th Sociological Congress for their valuable comments and remarks. Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The “Literature Review” section was drafted by M. F. The section on “Women in academia” was drafted by A.K. Material prepara- tion and statistical analysis were performed by J.B. The “Introduction” and “Conclusions and discussion” sections were drafted by I.M. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This research is funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, grant number UMO-2019/33/B/ HS4/02656/. Data availability The ELA dataset was designed and created at the National Information Processing Insti- tute, https:// opi. org. pl/ en. Ministry of Science and Higher Education owns the data. Aggregate statistics are available at https:// ela. nauka. gov. pl/ en. Declarations Ethical approval No personal data has been used. All data has been anonymized prior to its access. The data subjects cannot be identified. No vulnerable/special data is used in the analysis. The PI of the project is responsible for adhering to standard ethical and legal procedures. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A., Caprasecca, A.: Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliomet- ric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics 79(3), 517–539 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192- 007- 2046-8 Amilon, A., Persson, I.: Scientific (wo)manpower – gender and the composition and earnings of PhDs in Sweden. Int. J. Manpow. 34(6), 658–673 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ijm- 06- 2013- 0146 Angelov, N., Johansson, P., Lindahl, E.: Parenthood and the gender gap in pay. J. Labor Econ. 34(3), 545– 579 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 684851 Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker B., Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67(1), 1–48 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 18637/ jss. v067. i01 Begeny, C.T., Ryan, M.K., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Ravetz, G. In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening. Sci. Adv. 6(26) (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ sciadv. aba78 14 Bieliński, J., Tomczyńska, A.: The ethos of science in contemporary Poland. Minerva 57(2), 151–173 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11024- 018- 9365-1 Blackaby, D., Booth, A., Frank, J.: Outside offers and the gender pay gap: Empirical evidence from the UK academic labour market. Econ. J. 115(501), F81–F107 (2005). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0013- 0133. 2005. 00973.x Blau, F.D., Kahn, L.M.: The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. J. Econ. Lit. 55(3), 789–865 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ jel. 20160 995 Bobbitt-Zeher, D.: The gender income gap and the role of education. Sociol. Educ. 80(1), 1–22 (2007). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00380 40707 08000 101 Boring, A. Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. J. Public Econ. 145, 27–41 (2017) https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jpube co. 2016. 11. 006 Brown, C., Corcoran, M.: Sex-based differences in school content and the male-female wage gap. J. Labor Econ. 15, 431–465 (1997). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 209867 Brown, L., Troutt, E.: Sex and salaries at a Canadian university: The song remains the same or the times they are a changin’? Canadian Pub. Policy 43(4), 246–260 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3138/ cpp. 2016- 047 Cairo, S., Dalum, S., Tartari, V.: Publish or procreate: The effect of motherhood on academic performance. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1(15233), 2118 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMPROC. 2023. 15233 abstr act Card, D., DellaVigna, S., Funk, P., Iriberri, N.: Are referees and editors in economics gender neutral? Q. J. Econ. 135(1), 269–327 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ qje/ qjz035 Carlin, P.S., Kidd, M.P., Rooney, P.M., Denton, B.: Academic wage structure by gender: The roles of peer review, performance, and market forces. South. Econ. J. 80, 127–146 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 4284/ 0038- 4038- 2010. 267 Ceci, S.J., Ginther, D.K., Kahn, S., Williams, W.M.: Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 15(3), 75–141 (2014). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15291 00614 541236 Chen, J.J., Crown, D.: The gender pay gap in academia: Evidence from the Ohio State University. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101(5), 1337–1352 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ajae/ aaz017 Claypool, V.H., Janssen, B.D., Kim, D., Mitchell, S.M. Determinants of salary dispersion among political science faculty: The differential effects of where you work (institutional characteristics) and what you do (negotiate and publish). PS – Political Sci. Politics 50(01), 146–156 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s1049 09651 60023 3x Cools, S., Strøm, M.: Parenthood wage penalties in a double income society. Rev. Econ. Household 14, 391–416 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11150- 014- 9244-y Cukrowska-Torzewska, E., Matysiak, A.: The motherhood wage penalty: A meta-analysis. Soc. Sci. Res. 88–89, 102416 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssres earch. 2020. 102416 Currie, J., Hill, B.: Gendered universities and the wage gap: Case study of a pay equity audit in an Austral- ian university. High. Educ. 26(1), 65–82 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ hep. 2012. 19 I. Magda et al. Etzkowitz, H., Ranga M. Gender dynamics in science and technology: From the “leaky pipeline” to the “vanish box”. Bruss. Econ. Review, special issue “Beyond the leaky pipeline – Challenges for research on gender and science” 54(2/3), 131–148 (2011). https:// dipot. ulb. ac. be/ dspace/ bitst ream/ 2013/ 108936/ 1/ ARTIC LE% 20ETZ KOWITZ- RANGA. pdf. Accessed 2 August 2023 European Commission. She Figures 2021. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 2777/ 06090 Evertsson, M.: Parental leave and careers: Women’s and men’s wages after parental leave in Sweden. Adv. Life Course Res. 29, 26–40 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. alcr. 2016. 02. 002 Finkel, S.K., Olswang, S.G.: Child rearing as a career impediment to women assistant professors. RHE 19(2), 123–139 (1996). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe. 1996. 0027 Fochler, M., Felt, U., Müller, R.: Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Min- erva 54(2), 175–200 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11024- 016- 9292-y Fuller, S., Cooke, L.P.: Workplace variation in fatherhood wage premiums: do formalization and perfor- mance pay matter? Work Employ Soc. 32(4), 768–788 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09500 17018 Gerber, T.P., Cheung, S.Y.: Horizontal stratification in postsecondary education: Forms, explanations, and implications. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34, 299–318 (2008). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. soc. 34. 040507. Gibney, E. Teaching load could put female scientists at career disadvantage. Nature (2017)https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nature. 2017. 21839 Ginther, D.K., Hayes, K.J.: Gender differences in salary and promotion for faculty in the humanities 1977– 95. J. Hum. Resour. 38(1), 34–73 (2003). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3368/ jhr. xxxvi ii.1. 34 Glauber, R.: Trends in the motherhood wage penalty and fatherhood wage premium for low, middle, and high earners. Demography 55(5), 1663–1680 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13524- 018- 0712-5 Goldin, C., Pekkala Kerr, S., Olivetti, C., Barth, E.: The expanding gender earnings gap: Evidence from the LEHD-2000 census. Am. Econ. Rev. 107(5), 110–114 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. p2017 1065 Gonäs, L., Bergman, A.: Equal opportunities, segregation and gender-based wage differences: The case of a Swedish university. J. Ind. Relat. 51(5), 669–686 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00221 85609 346198 Guarino, C.M., Borden, V.M.H.: Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Res. High. Educ. 58(6), 672–694 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11162- 017- 9454-2 Harris, R., Maté-Sánchez-Val, M., Marín, M.R. The gender pay gap in UK universities 2004/5 to 2019/20. Stud. High. Educ. 1–15 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2023. 22802 05 Hesli, V., Lee, J.: Faculty research productivity: Why do some of our colleagues publish more than others? PS – Political Sci Politics 44, 393–408 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1049 09651 10002 42 Hodges, M.J., Budig, M.J.: Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings. Gend. Soc. 24(6), 717–745 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08912 43210 386729 Hunter, L.A., Leahey, E.: Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Soc. Stud. Sci. 40(3), 433–451 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03063 12709 358472 Icardi, R., Hägglund, A.E., Fernández-Salgado, M.: Fatherhood and wage inequality in Britain, Finland, and Germany. J. Marriage Fam. 84, 273–290 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jomf. 12792 Kelly, K., Grant, L.: Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42(6), 869–896 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03063 12712 457111 Killewald, A.: A reconsideration of the fatherhood premium: Marriage, coresidence, biology, and fathers’ wages. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78(1), 96–116 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00031 22412 469204 Kleven, H., Landais, C., Leite-Mariante, G. The child penalty atlas. NBER Working Paper 31649. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res. (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3386/ w31649 Kleven, H., Landais, C., Søgaard, J.E. Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Denmark. AEJ: Appl. Econ. 11(4), 181–209 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ app. 20180 010 Krawczyk, M., Smyk, M.: Author’s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incen- tivized, deception-free laboratory experiment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 90, 326–335 (2016). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. euroe corev. 2016. 02. 017 Kunze, A.: The effect of children on male earnings and inequality. Rev. Econ. Household 18, 683–710 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11150- 019- 09469-8 Kwiek, M. Academic top earners. Research productivity, prestige generation, and salary patterns in Euro- pean universities. Sci. Public Policy 45(1), 1–13 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ scipol/ scx020 Kwiek, M.: Structural changes in the Polish higher education system (1990–2010): A synthetic view. Eur. J. High. Educ. 4(3), 266–280 (2014). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21568 235. 2014. 905965 The gender pay gap at the early stages of academic careers Kwiek, M. The public/private dynamics in Polish higher education. Demand-absorbing private sector growth and its implications. In: Kwiek, M., Maassen, P. (eds.), National Higher Education Reforms in a European Context: Comparative Reflections on Poland and Norway, pp. 127–154. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, New York (2012) Lassen, A.S., Ivandić, R.: Parenthood and academic career trajectories. AEA Papers and Proceedings. 114, 238–242 (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ pandp. 20241 118 Lindahl, J.: Predicting research excellence at the individual level: The importance of publication rate, top journal publications, and top 10% publications in the case of early career mathematicians. J. Informetr. 12(2), 518–533 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joi. 2018. 04. 002 Lundberg, S., Stearns, J.: Women in economics: Stalled progress. J. Econ. Perspect. 33(1), 3–22 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ jep. 33.1.3 Lutter, M., Schröder, M.: Is there a motherhood penalty in academia? The gendered effect of children on academic publications in German Sociology. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 36(3), 442–459 (2020). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ esr/ jcz063 Mairesse, J., Pezzoni, M., Visentin, F.: Impact of family characteristics on the gender publication gap: Evidence for physicists in France. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 44(2), 204–220 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03080 188. 2019. 16038 84 Manchester, C.F., Leslie, L.M., Kramer, A.: Stop the clock policies and career success in academia. Am. Ec. Rev. 100(2), 219–223 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. 100.2. 219 Mason, M.A., Wolfinger, N.H., Goulden, M. Do Babies Matter?: Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower. Rutgers University Press (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 36019/ 97808 13560 823 Mitchell, S.M., Hesli, V.L. Women don’t ask? Women don’t say no? Bargaining and service in the politi- cal science profession. PS – Political Sci. Politics 46(2), 355–369 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s1049 09651 30000 73 MNiSW. Polish Graduate Tracking System. VI edition [individual-level data]. National Information Pro- cessing Institute, Warsaw (2021). https:// ela. nauka. gov. pl/ en. Accessed 8 February 2021 Momani, B., Dreher, E., Williams, K.: More than a pipeline problem: Evaluating the gender pay gap in Canadian academia from 1996 to 2016. Can. J. High. Educ. 49(1), 1–21 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 7202/ 10608 21ar Monroe, K.R., Chiu, W.F. Gender equality in the academy: The pipeline problem. PS – Political Sci. Politics 43(2), 303–308 (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s1049 09651 00001 7x Morgan, A.C., Way, S.F., Hoefer, M.J.D., Larremore, D.B., Galesic, M., Clauset, A. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Sci. Adv. 7(9), eabd1996 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ sciadv. abd19 Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., Handelsman, J.: Science faculty’s sub- tle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109(41), 16474–16479 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 12112 86109 Nettles, M.T., Perna, L.W., Bradburn, E.M. Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities (NCES 2000–173). U.S. Department of Educa- tion, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC (2000). https:// nces. ed. gov/ pubs2 000/ 20001 73. pdf. Accessed 2 August 2023 O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., Jackson, R.: Asked more often: Gender differ - ences in faculty workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. Am. Educ. Res. 54(6), 1154–1186 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31217 716767 Pałka, M. Rodzicielstwo i rynek pracy: child penalty w Polsce. MF Opracowania i Analizy 9. Minis- terstwo Finansów (2024). https:// www. gov. pl/ web/ finan se/ no-9- 2024-m- palka- rodzi ciels two-i- rynek- pracy- child- penal ty-w- polsce. Accessed 9 September 2024 Paweenawat, S.W., Liao, L. Parenthood penalty and gender wage gap: Recent evidence from Thailand. J. Asian Econ. 78 (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. asieco. 2021. 101435 Perna, L.W.: Sex and race differences in supplemental earnings of college and university faculty. Res. High. Educ. 43, 31–58 (2002). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10130 18100 387 Perna, L.W.: Sex differences in faculty salaries: A cohort analysis. Rev. High. Ed. 24(3), 283–307 (2001). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe. 2001. 0006 Perna, L.W.: Studying faculty salary equity: A review of theoretical and methodological approaches. In: Smart, J.C. (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 18, pp. 323–388. Springer, Dordrecht (2003) R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (2020). http:// www.r- proje ct. org. Accessed 2 August 2023 Rabovsky, T.M., Lee, H. Exploring the antecedents of the gender pay gap in U.S. Higher Education. Public Adm. Rev. 78, 375–385 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ puar. 12827 I. Magda et al. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S.: Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, II Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA (2002) Salinas, P.C., Bagni, C.: Gender equality from a European perspective: Myth and reality. Neuron 96(4), 721–729 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. neuron. 2017. 10. 002 Samaniego, C., Lindner, P., Kazmi, M.A., Dirr, B.A., Kong, D.T., Jeff-Eke, E., Spitzmueller, Ch.: Higher research productivity = more pay? Gender Pay-for-Productivity Inequity across Disciplines. Scien- tometrics 128, 1395–1407 (2023). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11192- 022- 04513-4 Sarsons, H.: Recognition for group work: Gender differences in academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 107(5), 141– 145 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. p2017 1126 Sato, S., Gygax, P.M., Randall, J., Schmid, M.: The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: Challenges and future directions. High. Educ. 82, 145–162 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 020- 00626-y Silander, C., Haake, U., Lindberg, L.: The different world of academia: A horizontal analysis of gender equality in Swedish higher education. High. Educ. 66(2), 173–188 (2013). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 012- 9597-1 Simonsen, M., Skipper, L.: The family gap in wages: What wombmates reveal. Labour Econ. 19(1), 102– 112 (2012). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. labeco. 2011. 08. 006 Smart, J.C.: Gender equity in academic rank and salary. Rev. High. Ed. 14(4), 511–526 (1991). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe. 1991. 0011 Statistics Poland. Structure of wages and salaries by occupations for October 2022. Statistical Office in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz – Warszawa (2024). https:// stat. gov. pl/ en/ topics/ labour- market/ worki ng- emplo yed- wages- and- salar ies- cos t- of- labour/ s tr uc tur e- of- wages- and- salar ies- by- occup ation- in- oct ob er- 2022,17,8. html. Accessed 9 September 2024 Takahashi, A.M., Takahashi, S.: Gender salary differences in economics departments in Japan. Econ. Educ. Rev. 30(6), 1306–1319 (2011). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. econe durev. 2011. 06. 002 Takahashi, A.M., Takahashi, S., Maloney, T.N.: Gender gaps in STEM in Japanese academia: The impact of research productivity, outside offers, and home life on pay. Soc. Sci. J. 55(3), 245–272 (2018). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. soscij. 2018. 02. 013 Toutkoushian, R.K.: Sex matters less for younger faculty: Evidence of disaggregate pay disparities from the 1988 and 1993 NCES surveys. Econ. Educ. Rev. 17(1), 55–71 (1998). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0272- 7757(97) 00015-0 Umbach, P.D.: Gender equity in the academic labor: An analysis of academic disciplines. Res. High. Ed. 48, 169–192 (2007). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11162- 006- 9043-2 Wagner, I., Finkielsztein, M., Czarnacka, A.: Being Polish scientists and women – between glorious past and difficult present: The “reverse dynamic of equality construction.” Eur. Educ. Res. J. 16(2–3), 141– 165 (2017). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14749 04116 688023 Wilde, E.T., Batchelder, L., Ellwood, D.T. The mommy track divides: The impact of childbearing on wages of women of differing skill levels. NBER Working Paper 16582. National Bureau of Economic Research (2010). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3386/ w16582 Witteman, O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S., Tannenbaum, C.: Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the appli- cant or the science? A natural experiment at a National Funding Agency. Lancet 393(10171), 531–540 (2019). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0140- 6736(18) 32611-4 Wolfinger, N.H., Mason, M.A., Goulden, M.: Stay in the game: Gender, family formation and alternative trajectories in the academic life course. Soc. Forces 87(3), 1591–1621 (2009). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ sof.0. 0182 Xu, Y.: Focusing on women in STEM: A longitudinal examination of gender-based earning gap of college graduates. J. High. Educ. 86(4), 489–523 (2015). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00221 546. 2015. 11777 373 Yu, W., Hara, Y.: Motherhood penalties and fatherhood premiums: effects of parenthood on earnings growth within and across firms. Demography 58(1), 247–272 (2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1215/ 00703 370- 89176 Yu, W., Kuo, J.Ch.-L. Parenthood, earnings, and the relevance of family formation sequences. Soc. Sci. Res. 121 (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ssres earch. 2024. 103027 Zhang, L.: Gender and racial gaps in earnings among recent college graduates. Rev. High. Ed. 32(1), 51–72 (2008). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ rhe.0. 0035 Zając, T., Magda, I., Bożykowski, M., Chłoń-Domińczak, A., Jasiński, M. Gender pay gaps across STEM fields of study. Stud. High. Educ. 1–14 (2024). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2024. 23306 67 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

The Journal of Economic Inequality – Springer Journals

Published: Jan 27, 2025

Keywords: Gender pay gap; Women in academia; Earnings; Careers

There are no references for this article.