Â鶹ÒùÔº

In response to shifting gender norms and post-war social movements, many U.S. colleges and universities began admitting women in the 1950s and '60s. The coeducational movement, which started in the early 19th century, sparked innovations in education, labor, and civil rights in the United States.

In a paper titled "Undergraduate Gender Diversity and the Direction of Scientific Research," Professor Francesca Truffa and Professor Ashley Wong of Barnard College explore how the transition to coeducational campuses influenced a wave of gender-related research. The paper is in the journal American Economic Review.

Truffa and Wong analyzed thousands of papers published by academics from 76 major U.S. universities that began coeducational admissions. In examining the transition from all-male campuses to coed environments, Truffa and Wong found that gender-related research publications increased by 44% between 1960 and 1990.

In the following Q&A, Truffa explores her insights on the research and how the findings impact higher education and the workplace.

Were there any particular influences that led you to study coeducation and its impact on scientific research?

Yes, our motivation came from a broader question still largely unanswered by the literature: "What drives innovation?" Most prior work has focused on traditional explanations, like monetary or institutional incentives. While there's growing interest in diversity as a potential driver of innovation, existing studies have mostly looked at the demographic diversity of the researcher or innovator. Instead, there has been much less focus on whether the environment itself, particularly the diversity of the people around you, can shape the pursued ideas.

Coeducation provided a unique historical setting to study this: it was a major change in the academic environment that reshaped who students and faculty interacted with daily. That shift allowed us to isolate how exposure to a more diverse academic environment can influence research agendas and, ultimately, the direction of scientific progress.

What drove the significant increase in gender-related research that you identified?

Two components drive this increase. First, coeducation brought more women and researchers interested in gender topics into the academic pipeline. Second, and perhaps even more surprising, coeducation affected the research interests of incumbent researchers. Specifically, a substantial increase came from male incumbent scientists who shifted their focus toward gender-related topics.

This points to the importance of interactions with a more diverse student body and peer group. Our findings suggest that diversity doesn't only affect who gets represented in the research and innovation environment, but also what gets studied, likely through new perspectives, conversations, and experiences that shape academic curiosity and agendas.

Your research explores the impact of increased gender diversity. Are there other forms of diversity that similarly drive innovation?

Yes, this is a very interesting and important open area of research. While our study focuses on gender diversity, recent work suggests that other dimensions of diversity, such as racial and socioeconomic background, can also play a critical role in shaping research and innovation. For example, studies have shown that individuals from underrepresented groups are more likely to pursue research topics or produce products relevant to a population similar to them in terms of race or socio-economic status.

I'm currently working on a new project with Ashley Wong and Thomas Helgerman of the University of Minnesota that explores how racial diversity in U.S. medical schools affects both the direction of medical research and health outcomes. Our idea is that increasing representation can shift the focus of research toward underserved populations, which may ultimately improve equity in health care.

So, while the literature is still growing, there's strong reason to believe that diverse lived experiences more broadly help expand the scope of questions we ask and the populations we serve—not just in economics, but across many fields.

Do you see similar potential for diversity to influence innovation outside academia? If so, what advice would you give to leaders looking to implement your findings?

Absolutely. We don't believe the mechanisms we identify are specific to academia. At their core, our findings point to the importance of social interactions between individuals from different backgrounds. These interactions can lead to new ideas, generate fresh perspectives, and expand the range of questions being asked.

Although more research is needed, we expect similar patterns to emerge in other environments, such as workplace settings, startups, and research and development teams. So my advice would be to look beyond the direct benefits of representation and consider the indirect effects of being exposed to a more inclusive environment: innovation that serves a wider set of needs.

Creating a workplace culture that values and facilitates diverse collaboration isn't just about equity—it can also be a powerful driver of creativity and long-term success.

Looking ahead, what questions or areas do you hope to explore in your future research? Has this study influenced your interests or approach?

This study is part of a broader research agenda on how diversity can contribute to innovation. One of the key takeaways for me has been how access and representation can influence the direction of knowledge production—not just who participates in research, but what questions get asked and what problems are prioritized.

Building on that, I am currently working on two follow-up projects. First, together with Ashley Wong and Thomas Helgerman, I am investigating the impact of civil rights policies on scientific research—looking at how increasing access for underrepresented groups has shaped what areas of science are developed and advanced.

Second, Ashley Wong and I are conducting a follow-up study on the broad impact of women's entry into higher education. Previous studies showed that historically, male and female researchers focused on different topics of research, even within the same fields of study. For example, within economics, women are more likely to investigate topics related to health and education, while men are more likely to focus on macroeconomics and finance.

We want to understand whether coeducation may have influenced the development of fields and increased attention to topics historically investigated by female researchers—beyond gender-related research. We're also interested in understanding how this shift has affected the recognition and visibility of research produced by women.