Gender and scholarship

 Started reading this paper but got no further than the abstract.

"In December 2020, Nasdaq asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to approve new diversity rules. The aim is for most Nasdaq-listed firms to have at least one director self-identifying as female and another self-identifying as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+. While Nasdaq claims these rules will benefit investors, the empirical evidence provides little support for the claim that gender or ethnic diversity in the boardroom increases shareholder value. In fact, rigorous scholarship—much of it by leading female economists—suggests that increasing board diversity can actually lead to lower share prices. Adoption of Nasdaq’s proposed rules would thus generate substantial risks for investors."

It's the parenthesis in that penultimate sentence that brought me up short - specifically, the implicit assumption that the reader might be surprised that female scholars should present evidence that board diversity might not be a good thing. While I'm not a "leading female economist", I do find that a bit insulting. And is the suggestion that less eminent female economists might be expected to be less rigorous and more biased in favour of diversity?

The author of this paper is male but I hadn't noticed that before I started reading. Had the author been female, I might possibly have thought it even more egregious. But does the gender of the author of a scholarly article matter? It's not always obvious, anyway. Does it matter more when the research relates to gender? 

In reading the academic literature on board diversity over many years, I don't think it has ever occurred to me to take note of the gender of authors of studies published in peer reviewed journals. I would certainly take note of their disciplinary area. I might take note of their academic affiliation. But my focus would be on the arguments proposed and the evidence adduced. Author characteristics matter to me much more when reading non-academic material. 

OK, have now finished reading the paper. It's not a peer-reviewed publication, it's more of an opinion piece, critiquing the Nasdaq proposal by examining the academic evidence it cites. The author points out, correctly, that Nasdaq has done a poor job, cherry picking sources and citing with a spin in favour of its proposal. The author cites some well known studies and doesn't pretend to be providing a literature review but I find it a little odd that a law professor makes no mention of the growing stream of literature from US legal scholars such as Lisa Fairfax (ooh, a female law professor!) on the topic - an example is here 

It's refreshing to see scholars (of whatever sexual orientation!) challenging the "business case" argument which I have never found convincing. As evidence to support this challenge grows, we also need to see a better articulation of other arguments for board level diversity - moral, social, political - which could also open up a broader debate about corporate power, governance and accountability. The G in ESG discourse is in danger of being neglected.