PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.PsychologySubject: search.filters.subject.Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Willis, Malachi
    ;
    Jozkowski, Kristen N.
    The words we use reflect and influence our interpretation of the world. The role of gender within a language varies; biases based on social gender are referred to as linguistic sexism. Male firstness is the practice of persistently ordering masculine terms before feminine terms. Because academic writing is mandated to be free of bias, peer-reviewed research should not contain any form of linguistic sexism. To assess the presence of male firstness in academic writing, we examined 862 contemporary articles from 10 social science journals across three disciplines: sexuality, health, and psychology. To assess male firstness, we tallied common gendered pairs (e.g., "women and men"; "male and female") and calculated percentages indicating how often men were presented before women. We found that male firstness bias was present in each of the 10 journals. For individual journals, the percentage of gendered phrases that presented masculine terms first ranged from 57.7% to 88.8%. Sexuality and health journals demonstrated less linguistic sexism than psychology; however, there were no consistent trends between journals within each discipline. We discuss the current presence of male firstness in academic journals and the issues this bias triggers. Recommendations for reducing linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research are also discussed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production of women psychologists in Peru Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Ventura-León, J.
    ;
    Mamani-Benito, O.
    ;
    Tocto-Muñoz, S.
    ;
    Curahua-Guillen, K.
    Gender inequality has not been oblivious to science, where the under-representation of women in the academic scope is a concern. This is a problem that requires in-depth study, especially in careers with high percentages of women such as psychology and regions such as Latin America where there is a considerable proportion of female scientific psychologists. Despite this scene, the feminine production is known to present an increase; however, it is still lower than the masculine one. This shows that women are under-represented in leadership positions, hiring and applying for grants, and financing of research projects in public health and epidemiology. Likewise, review studies on female production in psychology are scarce in Peru and Latin America. The objective of this research is to characterize the production of women researchers in psychology by type of research, area of application, leadership and subject matter. For such objectives, a total of 149 papers published by 14 women researchers recorded in Peru’s National Registry of Science, Technology and Technological Innovation (RENACYT) were analyzed. Four psychologists were excluded because they did not have their scientific production declared; in addition, repeated documents and those which did not correspond to scientific documents, such as congress summaries, papers in non-indexed journals and those excluded from any database were also excluded under the PRISMA’s recommendations. The results show a greater quantity of co-authorships (60.4 %), studies with empirical designs (79.2 %), of associative objective (36.2 %), correlational strategy (21.5 %) and a greater quantity of papers in the clinical and health subfield (38.9 %) and education (38.3 %). As for the subject matter, clinical disorders (23.5 %) and cognitive processes (16.8 %) appear with greater frequency. Regarding these findings, there is scientific information evidencing that empirical designs are the most usual form of research, while the theoretical ones are the opposite; at least in Latin American. Furthermore, a ranking of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century only includes two women: Mary Ainsworth and Anna Freud, ranked 98th and 100th respectively. As for the fact of finding that more than 50 % of researchers occupy the position of co-author, previous studies show similar percentages in the health field indicating an increase from 50.3 % to 55.6 % in co-authorship. Finally, there is little scientific literature about the frequent topics studied by psychologists; therefore, these results are unprecedented; however, a search in Scopus by keywords reveals that HIV is the most studied topic in Peru; a variable located in the clinical and health subfield. Likewise, another variable that appears in the search is depression, that can be included in the topic of clinical disorders. Despite these results, the study has the following limitations: firstly, feminine scientific production can be studied from diverse sources such as review of publications in a journal, presentations at a congress, production in Scopus, which can cause difficulties in contrasting results. Secondly, there are no studies on thematic analysis, which does not allow comparison with previous research and suggests taking the findings with caution because it has a more exploratory connotation, so it is recommended to continue with this type of study. In conclusion, research psychologists carry out empirical studies framed in the analysis of the relationship between variables with a lesser predominance of theoretical and manipulative, quasi-experimental or single case studies. To a greater extent, the research is clinical and based on health. The women appear as co-authors in a large percentage of studies where the most frequent subject is clinical disorder. © 2022, Interdisciplinaria. All Rights Reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in mental health research productivity: Results from Qatar Open PDF 
    (Elsevier B. V., 2020)
    Albahari, D.
    ;
    Bashir, M.
    Objectives: Qatar's contribution to biomedical research has increased significantly in the past couple of decades, but the exact participation of women researchers remains obscure. This study aims to explore the gender gap in research production of Qatar in the field of mental health. Methods: The authors searched five databases for published articles from Qatar in the field of mental health from 2015 to 2019. The authors examined the retrieved articles for the gender gap in 1) the number of researchers. 2) the numbers of articles produced by men-only research teams vs. the research teams included women. 3) h-index. 4) foreign collaboration. 5) research design and themes. Results: The authors identified 152 published articles in the field of mental health. Men researchers outnumbered women researchers (124 vs. 81). Men had statistically significant higher h-index compared to women (14.6 ± 1.4 vs 4.6 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). Research teams that included women had produced fewer articles compared to men-only groups (41.4 %), they also had less foreign collaborators (68 % vs. 91 %, p = 0.001). They were less involved in experimental research and more involved in observational research compared to male-only research groups (15.90 % vs. 38.6 % and 47.6 % vs. 25 % respectively; p = 0.034). In articles with women authors, women were the first authors in 50.8 % of the articles, and men were the senior authors in 79.4 % of them. Conclusion: The study identifies gender gaps in some aspects of research productivity in Qatar. This data will provide a benchmark for future research in the field. © 2020 The Authors
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Aguinis, Herman
    ;
    Ji, Young Hun
    ;
    Joo, Harry
    We examined the gender productivity gap in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and other scientific fields (i.e., applied psychology, mathematical psychology), specifically among star performers. Study 1 included 3,853 researchers who published 3,161 articles in mathematics. Study 2 included 45,007 researchers who published 7,746 articles in genetics. Study 3 included 4,081 researchers who published 2,807 articles in applied psychology and 6,337 researchers who published 3,796 articles in mathematical psychology. Results showed that (a) the power law with exponential cutoff is the best-fitting distribution of research productivity across fields and gender groups and (b) there is a considerable gender productivity gap among stars in favor of men across fields. Specifically, the underrepresentation of women is more extreme as we consider more elite ranges of performance (i.e., top 10%, 5%, and 1% of performers). Conceptually, results suggest that individuals vary in research productivity predominantly because of the generative mechanism of incremental differentiation, which is the mechanism that produces power laws with exponential cutoffs. Also, results suggest that incremental differentiation occurs to a greater degree among men and certain forms of discrimination may disproportionately constrain women's output increments. Practically, results suggest that women may have to accumulate more scientific knowledge, resources, and social capital to achieve the same level of increase in total outputs as their male counterparts. Finally, we offer recommendations on interventions aimed at reducing constraints for incremental differentiation among women that could be useful for narrowing the gender productivity gap specifically among star performers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).