Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields
Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/pan.2018.12
复制
发表时间：
2018-07-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dion, Michelle L.;Sumner, Jane Lawrence;Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin
累积的证据表明，在专业学术生涯的许多方面，包括工资，出版率，期刊布局，职业发展和学术服务，可辨别的性别差距。最近在政治学方面的研究也揭示了引用方面的性别差距，男性撰写的文章引用其他男性学者的工作比女性学者的工作更频繁。这项研究估计了政治科学子领域和政治科学，社会学和经济学中的方法论子领域的引文中的性别差距。研究设计捕捉跨研究领域的女学者的基本分布方面的差异。我们预计，在政治科学和社会科学学科的子领域与更多的妇女将有较小的性别引用差距，减少“马太效应”，男性的研究被视为最核心和最重要的领域。然而，如果出现“玛蒂尔达效应”，即妇女的研究被视为不那么重要，或者她们的想法被归因于男性学者，即使一个领域变得更加多样化，性别引用差距可能会持续存在。分析2007-2016年在几种期刊上发表的所有文章，我们发现女性学者比混合性别或男性作者团队更有可能引用女性同行的研究，但这些引用率取决于女性在其领域的总体分布。性别多样化程度越高的子领域和学科，引用的性别差距越小，这与“马太效应”的减少是一致的。然而，我们也观察到女性作品的引用不足，即使是在主要发表女性作者的期刊中。虽然学术界性别多样性的改善提高了妇女学术工作的知名度和影响力，但社会科学引用实践中的隐性偏见仍然存在。
Accumulated evidence identifies discernible gender gaps across many dimensions of professional academic careers including salaries, publication rates, journal placement, career progress, and academic service. Recent work in political science also reveals gender gaps in citations, with articles written by men citing work by other male scholars more often than work by female scholars. This study estimates the gender gap in citations across political science subfields and across methodological subfields within political science, sociology, and economics. The research design captures variance across research areas in terms of the underlying distribution of female scholars. We expect that subfields within political science and social science disciplines with more women will have smaller gender citation gaps, a reduction of the "Matthew effect" where men's research is viewed as the most central and important in a field. However, gender citation gaps may persist if a "Matilda effect" occurs whereby women's research is viewed as less important or their ideas are attributed to male scholars, even as a field becomes more diverse. Analysing all articles published from 2007-2016 in several journals, we find that female scholars are significantly more likely than mixed gender or male author teams to cite research by their female peers, but that these citation rates vary depending on the overall distribution of women in their field. More gender diverse subfields and disciplines produce smaller gender citation gaps, consistent with a reduction in the "Matthew effect". However, we also observe undercitation of work by women, even in journals that publish mostly female authors. While improvements in gender diversity in academia increase the visibility and impact of scholarly work by women, implicit biases in citation practices in the social sciences persist.