4.7 Article

Elitism in mathematics and inequality

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00680-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism, USC
  2. Dartmouth Faculty Startup Fund
  3. Neukom CompX Faculty Grant
  4. Walter & Constance Burke Research Initiation Award
  5. Gates Foundation [OPP1217336]
  6. NIH COBRE Program [1P20GM130454]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing the elite circles formed around Fields Medalists, the study reveals the flow of elite mathematicians between countries and linguistic-ethnic identities. It shows an increase in pluralism among major countries in the mathematics field, although Arabic, African, and East Asian identities remain under-represented at the elite level.
The Fields Medal, often referred as the Nobel Prize of mathematics, is awarded to no more than four mathematicians under the age of 40, every 4 years. In recent years, its conferral has come under scrutiny of math historians, for rewarding the existing elite rather than its original goal of elevating under-represented mathematicians. Prior studies of elitism focus on citational practices while a characterization of the structural forces that prevent access remain unclear. Here we show the flow of elite mathematicians between countries and lingo-ethnic identity, using network analysis and natural language processing on 240,000 mathematicians and their advisor-advisee relationships. We present quantitative evidence of how the Fields Medal helped integrate Japan after WWII, through analysis of the elite circle formed around Fields Medalists. We show increases in pluralism among major countries, though Arabic, African, and East Asian identities remain under-represented at the elite level. Our results demonstrate concerted efforts by academic committees, such as prize giving, can either reinforce the existing elite or reshape its definition. We anticipate our methodology of academic genealogical analysis can serve as a useful diagnostic for equity and systemic bias within academic fields.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据