Category Archives: Research

Smith School Undergrads Present Research in Rome

SIF Conference Sign

From left: Fasika Delessa, Evan Haas, Aishwariya Chandrasekar, Sarina Haryanto and Professor David Kirsch

by: Megan McPherson

On April 18-19, four Smith School students in the Center for Social Value Creation’s Social Innovation Fellows program, Sarina Haryanto, Aishwariya Chandrasekar, Fasika Delessa and Evan Haas, and Professor David Kirsch attended the inaugural IESE-LUISS Business School Conference on Responsibility, Sustainability and Social Entrepreneurship in Rome. Under the guidance of Professor Kirsch, these undergraduate students presented their paper, Hybrid Organizations and Social Enterprise Ecosystems: Findings from a U.S. Survey, to a room full of established academics.

The survey that formed the basis of their research was first launched by Halcyon Incubator in Washington, D.C. Last year, Halcyon released From the Ground Up: Defining Social Enterprise Systems in the U.S., the results of a nationwide survey to social entrepreneurs that assessed cities based on four “pillars” that create a healthy framework for a social enterprise ecosystem: Funding, Quality of Life, Human Capital and Regulations & Receptivity. The findings of the report designated Washington D.C. the number one ecosystem for social entrepreneurs.

After Halcyon Incubator formed an official partnership with the Dingman Center this past fall, Dingman Center Associate Director for Social Entrepreneurship Sara Herald and Halcyon Incubator Program Manager Ryan Ross discussed a research partnership on this year’s survey. Sara reached out to David Kirsch and the Social Innovation Fellows, who as part of their program must do a practicum or consulting project in the spring semester. Sarina, Aishwariya, Fasika and Evan were eager to volunteer, and with support from their professor, started the rigorous process of researching, refining and amending the content of the original survey, as well as expanding the survey’s outreach to increase the quantity and quality of participants.

When I interviewed Sarina and Aishwariya about their research experience, Sarina reflected on the first survey, “We were wondering, how did they come up with these four pillars in the first place? That’s when literature review became really essential.” As part of the academic process, every change they made had to be documented and justified with established research to eliminate bias as much as possible. When determining new questions to add to the survey, Aishwariya commented , “It was interesting to move out of our own perspectives. We had to imagine what people looking at the report would want to see, or what people answering the surveys would want to see.”

Throughout this exploration into academia, David Kirsch, the Dingman Center’s 2017 Rudy Award winner for Faculty Member of the Year, acted as a supportive guide and mentor. “Professor Kirsch has been our champion since day one,” Sarina exclaimed, going on to tell me about the late nights he spent with them at the Smith School to collaborate on their research. Sarina and Aishwariya both described the paper as a “consummate effort” on the part of the students and their professor. The night before their presentation in Rome, they all stayed in the hotel lobby until 2 a.m. to practice, talking through the paper and responses to potential questions. In one particularly surreal moment, Professor Kirsch told the fellows, “You need to refer to me as your co-author and you need to call me David.” Sarina and Aishwariya admitted, “We had to practice!”

In Rome, the academic community proved welcoming of these young students already engaged in high-level social innovation research. The fellows had the opportunity to meet face-to-face with their academic “celebrities,” people whose work was frequently cited in their paper. They were honored that several of these academics, including keynote speaker Johanna Mair, attended their presentation. Since their own presentation comprised a short span of the two-day conference, they attended many other interesting sessions as well on topics ranging from scaling social impact to an anthropological analysis of milk.

After the conference, the students went on an extensive food and sightseeing tour of Rome with Professor Kirsch. Along the way they had the chance to visit Impact Hub Rome, where they learned of the unique cultural challenges Rome poses as a social enterprise ecosystem. For example, in Italy public funding has a negative connotation, so there are fewer government-funded foundations that generate impact. Though social enterprises in Rome are also not legally distinct from for-profit businesses, they fulfill a valuable role in supplementing the lack of publicly-funded resources.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The overall experience of the research project, conference and Rome trip had no small impact upon Sarina, Aishwariya, Fasika and Evan. Aishwariya remarked that “Before this, going into a PhD or writing a dissertation just seemed unapproachable.” Sarina agreed, adding, “Investing a lot of time and effort in research, it’s such a fulfilling process to see how we’re producing knowledge…That trip opened my eyes to academia and it’s something I look forward to doing in life.” Both of them were confident on one point: “Social Innovation Fellows has changed our lives.”

The team of students and Professor Kirsch are currently working on finalizing the paper and their findings to submit to the Journal of Business Ethics, which is releasing a special issue devoted to the conference. Over the next few months, they will continue to extrapolate trends from the survey data and examine potential correlations between cities. We look forward to sharing the results of their research in the next Social Enterprise Ecosystems report.

Funding for Sarina Haryanto, Aishwariya Chandrasekar, Fasika Delessa and Evan Haas to travel to Rome and attend the conference was provided by the Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship, the Center for Social Value Creation, Office of Global Initiatives and the Office of Undergraduate Studies.

Tagged , ,

Dingman Research Seminar Series: Where Has The Gender Gap Been Closed?

Shweta Gaonkar
PhD candidate, Management and Organization department, Robert H. Smith School of Business

The surge of women into the workforce since the 20th century seems to have peaked out in the 21st century, with the percentage of women in the workforce well below the level of men. The recent book by Sheryl Sandburg “Lean In: Women, work and the will to Lead” has come under criticism due to the institutional constraint most women face while balancing work with personal life. Many are left to wonder, have women been able to close this gender gap at all?

Waverly Ding  Assistant Professor, Management & Organization

Waverly Ding
Assistant Professor, Management & Organization

The answer to this simple question is a little more complicated than it seems. In a recent article in The Atlantic, Professor Slaughter recently attributed her move to an academic positionto accommodate her personal commitments. Does this mean that academic positions allow women to dedicate more time to family life? Have women in academic career been able to close the gender gap? A recent study by a group of Smith School of Business faculty including Waverly Ding, Assistant Professor, Management & Organization, examined these questions among scientists and engineers.

The group found that among 50,000 PhD graduates in science and engineering, about 20% of women are in industry while 33% are in academic jobs. Clearly, highly qualified women in the workforce prefer academic job to one in the industry. Does this imply that Professor Slaughter’s argument about having more leisure time in academic career as compared to a job in the industry is true? To answer this question the authors dig deeper and list out the five key explanations of why a gender gap could exist. They then examine each one carefully:

1) Dual Career: Married women who are in the workforce along with their spouse have to navigate additional hurdles related to coordinating their career with that of their spouse. Men, with full time working spouse experience a decrease in earning by 7.4% and 6.6 % in academia and industry. While for women with full time working spouse, this effect is less dramatic; 3.2% and 0.5% in academia and industry. Hence, dual career is not a good explanation for the gender gap.

2) Baby penalty: One key argument of why the gender gap exists is that women take over most of the child rearing responsibilities and having a baby could lead to a negative impact on their career. Men in academia that have children experience increase in earnings. While women face a heavy penalty of 7.1% in academia and no penalty if they are working in the industry (-5.2%). So having children during academic career is detrimental for women’s earnings, while this has quite the opposite impact on women in industry. This implies that there is some underlying factor of women being in academia that they face a heavier penalty. The authors try to investigate what are these factors with the next three explanations of gender gap.

3) Pink Ghetto: Women choose low paying jobs to dedicate more time to personal life.  The authors do not find any support for the idea that women segregate themselves into lower paying jobs.

4) Good Ol Boys effect: This is the classic idea of gender gap where men are preferred in a workforce.  Women with a doctorate degree, face more institutional hurdles like tenure system rather than gender based discrimination.

5) Tenure system: Institutional differences between academic and industrial jobs. Unlike a job in a firm, academic jobs are dependent on research productivity. For women in academia with a work experience lasting 8 or more years having children creates the maximum penalty in earnings (-9.8%) as compared to a women with similar experience in the industry (-1%)

Reference: Waverly, D., Agarwal ,R., Ohyama, A., (2014). Where is the Promised Land? Gender Gap in Earnings of Scientists and Engineers in Academia and Industry. Working Paper.

About Shweta Gaonkar3dea3db
Shweta Gaonkar is a PhD candidate at Management and Organizations department at Robert H. Smith School of Business. Her research focuses on founders’ background and its implication on the formation of inter organizational networks. Website:

About Waverly Ding 24e65a4
Waverly Ding is an Assistant Professor of Management & Organization at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. Dr. Ding earned her MBA and Ph.D. in business from the University of Chicago. Prior to joining the Smith School faculty, she was an assistant professor at Haas School of Business, the University of California at Berkeley.
Dr. Ding’s research focuses on high-tech entrepreneurship and strategy, knowledge transfer between universities and industrial firms, and the U.S. biotech industry. She has also conducted research relating to labor force in science and technology. Her work has been published in Science, American Journal of Sociology, Management Science, Journal of Industrial Economics, and Research Policy.


Tagged ,