Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics

This paper contributes to the literature on the effect of research evaluation in terms of preserving and reproducing diversity. Through a large-scale natural experiment encompassing two entire cohorts of Italian economists, we document how candidates for academic positions, especially top-tier positions, in economics are pushed to increasingly conform to a standardised research profile. We find evidence of gender bias in research evaluation and observe substantial variability in the chances of qualifying for an academic position, depending on candidates’ main fields, topics and methods of research. Our results also indicate that economists working on less popular research fields and/or with heterodox methods are less likely to qualify for top-tier academic positions, independently of their bibliometric indicators.