The Survey and Characteristics of the Sample

The survey for this project was designed to collect information from individuals who potentially benefited from VIM. The focus was on their experiences with VIM as well as various aspects of their professional development. We also collected comparable professional-development information from a group of individuals who had not attended VIM (hereinafter referred to as the “comparison group”). We began by identifying everyone listed as presenting a paper at VIM conferences through 2014 and their institutional affiliation at the time of attendance. ^{Footnote 7} Given that most presenters were in the early stages of their career, we then formed a comparison group by identifying every assistant professor, associate professor, and PhD student currently on the job market from every institution that VIM participants were affiliated with at the time of participation. Excluding VIM participants, 785 individuals received e-mails to take this survey and did not select the opt-out option. Forty-five self-reported VIM participants (a group that included presenters, discussants, organizers, and attendees of the conference) ^{Footnote 8} and 243 individuals in the comparison group responded to the survey (i.e., 30.9% of those who received e-mails and did not opt-out, non-VIM). ^{Footnote 9}

Next, we gathered information for everyone in our sample using publicly available online vitas: the individual’s current rank, rank of current institution, rank of PhD-granting institution, and number of years to obtain PhD. ^{Footnote 10} Using these data and gender as predictors, we ascertained that none of the collected characteristics significantly predicted survey participation. ^{Footnote 11}

Who Attends VIM and What Do They Experience?

As of 2014, more than 80% of women who attended VIM were currently employed in tenure-track jobs. ^{Footnote 12} Most had completed their PhDs within the past five years. The modal VIM participant reported receiving her PhD from a “Top 25” institution. When asked how they decided to apply to VIM, 76% report being encouraged by another person. Most were encouraged by an “other mentor” (other than adviser) (60%) or a peer (37%). ^{Footnote 13}

Those who attended VIM mostly reported positive experiences. Figure 1 shows participants’ perceptions of the utility of VIM. Of VIM participants, 67% described the experience as “useful” or “very useful”; the overwhelming majority identified networking opportunities as particularly useful.

Figure 1

Usefulness of VIM

Figure 1 shows rates of perceived usefulness reported by former women VIM attendees, across a range of conference aspects and activities. For each of the Professional Development questions and the Presentations question, there are 38 responses; for the Discussant Comments and the Attendee Comments questions, there are 37 responses. For all other questions, there are 39 responses.

Although we paraphrase to retain anonymity, the open-ended responses attested to networking as a critical component of the conference. The responses mentioned networking at VIM leading directly to professional opportunities that increased visibility, meeting mentors with whom they have regular contact, and meeting new co-authors. Indeed, 22% of those who found the conference useful also reported that if they could change something about it, they would add more opportunities to network with peers.

On balance, most VIM participants reported a positive experience and highlighted elements that are consistent with the goals of VIM, but how did they differ from the comparison group? Two key differences—experiences with networking and article-submission patterns—are notable and, in some cases, obtained conventional levels of statistical significance. However, we caution readers that it is not our intent to argue that these differences are necessarily caused by VIM because these data do not speak to causal patterns.

Networking

Figure 2 shows that VIM participants reported mentorship at higher rates than the comparison group, and they perceived higher levels of support from peers. Given our limited ability to draw causal inference, statistical significance may be an imperfect baseline, but we offer this information nonetheless. On all three mentorship questions, the differences in reported rates between VIM participants and comparison men were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The difference between VIM participants and comparison women was significant at p < 0.05 for the question of mentors outside of one’s own department; it approached statistical significance for the question about support from peers (p = 0.094). Thus, in terms of mentorship, VIM participants experienced more mentorship than comparable men and were distinct from comparable women in terms of extended networks of mentorship. However, they were similar to non-VIM women in terms of identifying mentors and mentors other than an advisor.

Figure 2

Networking and Mentorship

Figure 2 shows rates of survey respondents reporting perceived mentorship for three different mentor questions, as well as rates reporting that they feel “a lot” of support from peers in the discipline, categorized by VIM participation and gender within the comparison group.

Another indication of networking asked about in the survey is how often individuals are invited to give talks at other institutions—other than a job talk as part of an interview. VIM participants give invited talks at a higher rate (both annually and during the course of their career) than both comparison-group men and women. Nevertheless, the difference is largest when compared to men: VIM participants, on average, gave 0.48 more talks during the previous year (p = 0.055) and 0.60 more talks during the course of their career (p = 0.064). These differences decline when we compared only faculty; however, even among faculty, VIM participants still have given more talks, on average (i.e., difference of 0.34 for the year, 0.31 during their career). ^{Footnote 14} Although invited-talk rates for VIM and non-VIM women were similar, and non-VIM women, on average, gave more talks than men in our sample, there is no significant difference between non-VIM women and men. This suggests that gender alone cannot account for the difference.

Together, these results are consistent with the expectation that VIM participants may be better networked as a result of participation in the conference, developing networks outside of their department that they can draw on for advice and feedback regarding their research. Nevertheless, we cannot eliminate the alternative possibility that an increased number of talks is not a function of VIM but rather that VIM attendance is a function of higher disciplinary visibility.

Article Submissions

When comparing average article submissions per year, we found that VIM participants exhibited higher rates than comparison-group men and women—regardless of whether graduate students were included in or excluded from the sample. ^{Footnote 15} Faculty had higher submission rates than graduate students: VIM faculty submitted 2.23 articles per year, on average, since attending VIM. Comparison-group men faculty submitted an average of 1.96 articles per year; comparison-group women faculty submitted 1.58, on average. These differences are statistically significant only when comparing VIM to non-VIM faculty women, which indicates that VIM faculty women submitted manuscripts at rates similar to men. Men submitted more articles, on average, than comparison-group women—although the difference was statistically significant only when participants who were not currently in tenured or tenure-track faculty positions were included in the analysis (i.e., 1.77 compared to 1.35). This suggests that, in general, there is no consistently significant difference between men’s and women’s submission rates. The variance in these mean rates of submission is reasonable and we have no reason to suspect that any of these averages are driven by a small number of outliers. Furthermore, although these results are comparisons of means, the patterns remain using a regression analysis, which also controls for how much time individuals report spending on book projects.

Another consideration for productivity and career advancement is the journals that individuals target when they submit article manuscripts. Figure 3 shows the proportions of individuals who report sending manuscripts to various types of journals, based on categories presented in the survey. There is a greater tendency among VIM participants to submit to “top” outlets than among comparison-group women in particular. Indeed, consistent with the publication rates reported by Breuning and Sanders (Reference Breuning and Sanders2007) and Teele and Thelen (Reference Teele and Thelen2017), comparison-group women are least likely to submit to one of the top three journals. ^{Footnote 16}

Figure 3

Targeted Journals

Figure 3 shows reported outlets for article submission across different survey respondents and the faculty subsets. The labels “Women” and “Men” refer to comparison-group individuals. Because individuals could select multiple outlets, the bars do not sum to 100%.

Discussion and Limitations

Our results highlight differences between VIM participants and their peers who did not participate in VIM. These results have limitations that we want to underscore. First, some survey participants self-identified as having taken part in VIM. This means that our VIM group involved presenters, discussants, attendees, and organizers. Although the structure of VIM is designed to ensure that attendees and presenters have largely similar experiences, it is possible that there is variance in time spent at a VIM conference (e.g., presenters participated in all VIM activities, whereas attendees were more selective). This type of variance may affect the aspects that VIM participants in our survey found more or less useful. A survey that is limited to only VIM presenters or only VIM attendees may lead to substantively different results.

A second and potentially larger limitation is causal. We can interpret these differences in three possible ways. First, VIM makes a significant difference: VIM attendees expanded their networks and increased the quantity and quality of their productivity. Second, however, is that VIM participation is simply a proxy for another set of characteristics that differentiates VIM participants from the comparison group. Our survey results show, for example, that the majority of women who came to VIM typically were encouraged to apply by another person. This may suggest that the women who attend already have access to better networks. Furthermore, the fact that they applied to VIM could be an indication of a general level of ambition that explains their differential research productivity. Third, VIM may have some effect that is difficult to quantify, given the previously mentioned selection issue.