Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers
Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411
复制
发表时间：
2021-11-02
期刊：
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
McFarland, Daniel A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kim, Lanu;Smith, Daniel Scott;McFarland, Daniel A.
妇女和男子对研究知识的贡献往往不同。这些贡献的差异是否部分解释了学术生涯结果的差异？我们探讨这一点，看看性别是如何体现在研究语言，然后确定是否采用更多的性别研究语言影响的职业成果以外的研究人员的属性。我们确定不同形式的性别知识-性别参考（明确提到性和性别）和性别相关术语（隐含与女性或男性研究人员相关的词）-通过应用自然语言处理技术，在1980年至2010年期间在美国发表的近100万篇博士论文。然后，我们确定是否雇用性别参考和性别相关的条款影响博士学位的后续职业生涯的过程。我们发现，女性研究人员在每个领域获得学术职位的机会都低于男性;与男性相比，明确提及女性作为研究对象的奖励适度;与男性相关的研究知识提供了更多的职业机会。这些结果表明，学术界正在慢慢纠正传统的和明确的偏见，研究男性排除妇女。尽管如此，对女性学者的知识仍然存在更强烈的隐性偏见。我们讨论了人文和社会科学与自然科学，技术，工程和数学之间的相对差异，以及抵消这些领域偏见的潜在治疗方法。
Women and men often contribute differently to research knowledge. Do differences in these contributions partially explain disparities in academic career outcomes? We explore this by looking at how gender is embodied in research language, and then ascertain whether the adoption of more gendered research language affects career outcomes beyond the researcher's attributes. We identify different forms of gendered knowledge-gender referents (explicit references to sex and gender) and gender-associated terms (words that are implicitly associated with women or men researchers)-by applying natural language processing techniques to nearly one million doctoral dissertations published in the United States between 1980 and 2010. We then determine whether employing gender referents and gender-associated terms affects the course of PhDs' ensuing careers. We find women researchers have lower chances of securing academic positions than men in every field; explicit references to women as research subjects are modestly rewarded in comparison to references to men; and more career opportunities are afforded to research knowledge associated with men. These results suggest that academia is slowly correcting the traditional and explicit bias of studying men at the exclusion of women. Still, there remains a stronger implicit bias against knowledge associated with women scholars. We discuss relative differences between humanities and social sciences versus natural sciences, technology, engineering, and math, as well as potential treatments for offsetting bias in those fields.