skip to main content
10.1145/3578503.3583629acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Monitoring Gender Gaps via LinkedIn Advertising Estimates: the case study of Italy

Published:30 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Women remain underrepresented in the labour market. Although significant advancements are being made to increase female participation in the workforce, the gender gap is still far from being bridged. We contribute to the growing literature on gender inequalities in the labour market, evaluating the potential of the LinkedIn estimates to monitor the evolution of the gender gaps sustainably, complementing the official data sources. In particular, assessing the labour market patterns at a subnational level in Italy. Our findings show that the LinkedIn estimates accurately capture the gender disparities in Italy regarding sociodemographic attributes such as gender, age, geographic location, seniority, and industry category. At the same time, we assess data biases such as the digitalisation gap, which impacts the representativity of the workforce in an imbalanced manner, confirming that women are under-represented in Southern Italy. Additionally to confirming the gender disparities to the official census, LinkedIn estimates are a valuable tool to provide dynamic insights; we showed an immigration flow of highly skilled women, predominantly from the South. Digital surveillance of gender inequalities with detailed and timely data is particularly significant to enable policymakers to tailor impactful campaigns.

References

  1. Ghazala Azmat, Vicente Cuñat, and Emeric Henry. 2021. Gender Promotion Gaps: Career Aspirations and Workplace Discrimination. SSRN Electronic Journal(2021). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3525230Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Alan Benson, Danielle Li, and Kelly Shue. 2021. "Potential" and the Gender Promotion Gap. Working paper 31(2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. CNN Business. 2022. First on CNN: LinkedIn knows there are fake accounts on its site. Now it wants to help users spot them. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/25/tech/linkedin-bot-fake-accounts-new-featuresGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Luigi Buzzacchi, Antonio De Marco, and Marcello Pagnini. 2021. Agglomeration and the Italian North-South Divide. SSRN Electronic Journal(2021). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3959983Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Pamela Campa, Alessandra Casarico, and Paola Profeta. 2011. Gender culture and gender gap in employment. CESifo Economic Studies 57 (3 2011), 156–182. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifq018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. C. Cascella, J. Williams, and M. Pampaka. 2022. An Extended Regional Gender Gaps Index (eRGGI): Comparative Measurement of Gender Equality at Different Levels of Regionality. Social Indicators Research 159 (2022). Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02764-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Mattia Cattaneo, Paolo Malighetti, and Stefano Paleari. 2019. The Italian brain drain: cream and milk. Higher Education 77(2019). Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0292-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C. Plaut, Caitlin Handron, and Lauren Hudson. 2013. The Stereotypical Computer Scientist: Gendered Media Representations as a Barrier to Inclusion for Women. Sex Roles 69 (7 2013), 58–71. Issue 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0296-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Licia Bosco Damous and Colette Guillopé. 2021. Gender-based violence in higher education and research: A European perspective. Pure and Applied Chemistry 93 (2021). Issue 8. https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2021-0401Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Enrico di Bella, Filomena Maggino, Leonardo Alaimo, and Giulia Nanni. 2019. Misurare l’uguaglianza di genere. Un’analisi regionale per l’Italia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alice H Eagly, Andrea Elisabeth Abele, Elizabeth Haines, Tanja Hentschel, Madeline E Heilman, and Claudia V Peus. 2019. The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes: A Current Look at Men’s and Women’s Characterizations of Others and Themselves The Multiple Dimensions of Gender Stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jessica Ellis, Bailey K. Fosdick, and Chris Rasmussen. 2016. Women 1.5 times more likely to leave stem pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS ONE 11(2016). Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. EUROSTAT. 2018. Metropolitan Regions. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/metropolitan-regions/backgroundGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. EUROSTAT. 2021. Which EU countries had the highest GDP in 2020?Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20211220-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. EUROSTAT. 2022. Database. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/databaseGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Masoomali Fatehkia, Ridhi Kashyap, and Ingmar Weber. 2018. Using Facebook ad data to track the global digital gender gap. World Development 107(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Masoomali Fatehkia, Isabelle Tingzon, Ardie Orden, Stephanie Sy, Vedran Sekara, Manuel Garcia-Herranz, and Ingmar Weber. 2020. Mapping socioeconomic indicators using social media advertising data. EPJ Data Science 9(2020). Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00235-wGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Olle Folke, Johanna Rickne, Seiki Tanaka, and Yasuka Tateishi. 2020. Sexual harassment of women leaders. Daedalus 149(2020). Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_01781Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. David Garcia, Yonas Mitike Kassa, Angel Cuevas, Manuel Cebrian, Esteban Moro, Iyad Rahwan, and Ruben Cuevas. 2018. Analyzing gender inequality through large-scale Facebook advertising data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(2018). Issue 27. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717781115Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. LinkedIn Economic Graph. 2021. Future of Skills. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://linkedin.github.io/future-of-skills/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Francesca Greselin and Alina Jedrzejczak. 2020. Analyzing the Gender Gap in Poland and Italy, and by Regions. International Advances in Economic Research 26 (2020). Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-020-09810-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Karri Haranko, Emilio Zagheni, Kiran Garimella, and Ingmar Weber. 2018. Professional Gender Gaps Across US Cities. CoRR abs/1801.09429(2018). arXiv:1801.09429http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09429Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Catherine E. Harnois and João L. Bastos. 2018. Discrimination, Harassment, and Gendered Health Inequalities: Do Perceptions of Workplace Mistreatment Contribute to the Gender Gap in Self-reported Health?Journal of Health and Social Behavior 59 (2018). Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146518767407Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. ISTAT. 2020. Censimento permanente della popolazione e delle abitazioni. https://esploradati.censimentopopolazione.istat.it/databrowser/#/itGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. ISTAT. 2022. IStituto Nazionale di Statistice. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://www.ISTAT.it/en/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Friederike Maier Janneke Plantenga, Colette Fagan and Chantal Remery. 2010. Rationale for the Gender Equality Index for Europe. https://eige.europa.eu/publications/rationale-gender-equality-index-europeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ridhi Kashyap, Masoomali Fatehkia, Reham Al Tamime, and Ingmar Weber. 2020. Monitoring global digital gender inequality using the online populations of Facebook and Google. Demographic Research 43(2020). https://doi.org/10.4054/DEMRES.2020.43.27Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Ridhi Kashyap and Florianne C J Verkroost. 2021. Analysing global professional gender gaps using LinkedIn advertising data. EPJ Data Sci. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-021-00294-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Johanna Kimura and Steve Kearns. 2020. Reach your audience: Targeting on LinkedIn. 1–34 pages. https://business.linkedin.com/content/dam/me/business/en-us/marketing-solutions/resources/pdfs/linkedin-targeting-playbook-v3.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Agata Maida and Andrea Weber. 2020. Female Leadership and Gender Gap within Firms: Evidence from an Italian Board Reform. ILR Review 75, 2 (2020), 488–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920961995Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Paolo Di Martino, Emanuele Felice, and Michelangelo Vasta. 2020. A tale of two Italies: "access-orders" and the Italian regional divide. Scandinavian Economic History Review 68 (2020). Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.2019.1631882Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Yelena Mejova, Harsh Rajiv Gandhi, Tejas Jivanbhai Rafaliya, Mayank Rameshbhai Sitapara, Ridhi Kashyap, and Ingmar Weber. 2018. Measuring Subnational Digital Gender Inequality in India through Gender Gaps in Facebook Use. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (Menlo Park and San Jose, CA, USA) (COMPASS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 43, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209811.3212698Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. United Nations. 2020. Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ana Catarina Pinho-Gomes, Amy Vassallo, Cheryl Carcel, Sanne Peters, and Mark Woodward. 2022. Gender equality and the gender gap in life expectancy in the European Union. BMJ Global Health 7(2022). Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008278Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. LinkedIn Pressroom. 2021. About Us. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://news.linkedin.com/about-us#StatisticsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Daniele Rama, Yelena Mejova, Michele Tizzoni, Kyriaki Kalimeri, and Ingmar Weber. 2020. Facebook Ads as a Demographic Tool to Measure the Urban-Rural Divide. CoRR abs/2002.11645(2020). arXiv:2002.11645https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11645Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Filipe N. Ribeiro, Fabrício Benevenuto, and Emilio Zagheni. 2020. How Biased is the Population of Facebook Users? Comparing the Demographics of Facebook Users with Census Data to Generate Correction Factors. CoRR abs/2005.08065(2020). arXiv:2005.08065https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.08065Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Saadia Zahidi Ricardo Hausmann, Laura D. Tyson. 2006. The Global Gender Gap Report 2006. 1–152 pages. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2006.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Gabriele Ruiu, Nicoletta Fadda, Alberto Ezza, and Massimo Esposito. 2019. Exploring mobility of Italian Ph.Ds over the last decades. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis 12 (12 2019), 748–773. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20705948v12n4p748Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Elyse Shaw, Ariane Hegewisch, and Cynthia Hess. 2018. Sexual Harassment and Assault at Work: Understanding the Costs. Institute for Women’s Policy Research(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. LinkedIn Marketing Solutions. 2016. Get Started with LinkedIn Ads. Retrieved February 1, 2023 from https://business.linkedin.com/marketing-solutions/adsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Dragana Stojmenovska and Paula England. 2021. Parenthood and the Gender Gap in Workplace Authority. European Sociological Review Vol. 37, No. 4 (2021), 626–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa064Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Reham Al Tamime and Ingmar Weber. 2022. Using social media advertisement data to monitor the gender gap in STEM: opportunities and challenges.PeerJ Computer Science(2022). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.994Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Unioncamere-SiCamera. 2020. IV Rapporto Imprenditoria femminile. https://www.unioncamere.gov.it/sites/default/files/articoli/2022-04/IV_Rapporto%20IF_slides.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Florianne CJ Verkroost, Ridhi Kashyap, Kiran Garimella, Ingmar Weber, and Emilio Zagheni. 2020. Tracking global gender gaps in information technology using online data. Digital skills insights 2020 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Carolina C. Vieira and Marisa Vasconcelos. 2021. Using Facebook Ads Data to Assess Gender Balance in STEM: Evidence from Brazil. In Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (WWW ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442442.3453456Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. WEF. 2022. 2022 The global gender gap report. 1–374 pages. Issue July. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Emilio Zagheni, Ingmar Weber, and Krishna Gummadi. 2017. Leveraging Facebook’s advertising platform to monitor stocks of migrants. Population and Development Review(2017), 721–734.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Monitoring Gender Gaps via LinkedIn Advertising Estimates: the case study of Italy

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          WebSci '23: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023
          April 2023
          373 pages
          ISBN:9798400700897
          DOI:10.1145/3578503

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 30 April 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format