PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Sociology

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 32
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women in Science. Experiences of Academics in Switzerland
    (Transcript, 2025-08-12)
    De Cia Annalisa
    ;
    Hellmüller, Sara
    ;
    Mesok Khan, Elizabeth
    Women in science face particular challenges, such as structural inequalities, highly competitive work environments, and at times toxic cultures. This collection conveys the experiences of women academics in Switzerland, featuring insights from twelve scholars across various universities and disciplines. Each contributor shares their unique journey in pursuit of a professorship, illustrating the rich diversity of the Swiss scientific community. This volume offers hope for those struggling with finding their place in science, emphasizing the joys and privileges that can be found in an academic career and the passion and perseverance of those pursuing it.
  • Item type:Publication,
    What's in a number? How (and why) measuring research productivity in different ways changes the gender gap Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Nygaard, L.P.
    ;
    Bahgat, K.
    A persistent finding in studies of research productivity is the ‘gender gap’ where men seem to publish more academic research than women. However, this gap varies widely from study to study, and little has been done to explore how these claims might be sensitive to what is being measured and how. Using a dataset of publications statistics spanning five years for a Norwegian social science research institute, this paper looks at how (and why) measuring productivity in different ways provides different pictures of the gender gap. Based on the situated context of the institute, we also disaggregate the data by staff category, methodological orientation, and language background, and consider the impact of leaves of absence. We find widely varying measures of the gender gap depending on how we measure and disaggregate, and argue that different bibliometric indicators capture different aspects of research performance, including diversity of output and collaboration, which reflect different publication practices that are both gendered and situated. We suggest that looking at academic writing as a situated - and gendered - social practice offers a potential for deriving more theoretically consistent explanations for both the seeming persistence of the gender gap and the wide contextual variations. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
  • Item type:Publication,
    Identifying gender disparities in research performance: the importance of comparing apples with apples Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Nygaard, L.P.
    ;
    Aksnes, D.W.
    ;
    Piro, F.N.
    Many studies on research productivity and performance suggest that men consistently outperform women. However, women and men are spread unevenly throughout the academy both horizontally (e.g., by scientific field) and vertically (e.g., by academic position), suggesting that aggregate numbers (comparing all men with all women) may reflect the different publication practices in different corners of the academy rather than gender per se. We use Norwegian bibliometric data to examine how the “what” (which publication practices are measured) and the “who” (how the population sample is disaggregated) matter in assessing apparent gender differences among academics in Norway. We investigate four clusters of indicators related to publication volume, publication type, authorship, and impact or quality (12 indicators in total) and explore how disaggregating the population by scientific field, institutional affiliation, academic position, and age changes the gender gaps that appear at the aggregate level. For most (but not all) indicators, we find that gender differences disappear or are strongly reduced after disaggregation. This suggests a composition effect, whereby apparent gender differences in productivity can to a considerable degree be ascribed to the composition of the group examined and the different publication practices common to specific groups. We argue that aggregate figures can exaggerate some gender disparities while obscuring others. Our study illustrates the situated nature of research productivity and the importance of comparing men and women within similar academic positions or scientific fields—of comparing apples with apples—when using bibliometric indicators to identify gender disparities in research productivity. © 2022, The Author(s).
  • Item type:Publication,
    Open access publishing probabilities based on gender and authorship structures in vietnam Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Nguyen, H.T.T.
    ;
    Nguyen, M.-H.
    ;
    Le, T.-T.
    ;
    Ho, M.-T.
    ;
    Vuong, Q.-H.
    Open access (OA) publishing is beneficial for researchers to improve recognition, representation, and visibility in academia. However, few studies have been conducted for studying the association between gender and OA publishing likelihood. Therefore, the current study explores the impacts of gender-based authorship structures on OA publishing in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Bayesian analysis was performed on a dataset of 3122 publications in social sciences and humanities. We found that publications with mixed-gender authorship were most likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31–31.65%). In contrast, the likelihood of publications with the solely male or female author(s) was lower. It is also notable that if female researcher(s) held the first-author position in an article of mixed-gender authorship, the publication would be less likely to be published under Gold Access terms (26.31% compared to 31.65% of male-first-author structure). In addition, publications written by a solo female author (14.19%) or a group of female authors (10.72%) had lower OA publishing probabilities than those written by a solely male author(s) (17.14%). These findings hint at the possible advantage of gender diversity and the disadvantage of gender homophily (especially female-only authorship) on OA publishing likelihood. Moreover, they show there might be some negative impacts of gender inequality on OA publishing. As a result, the notion of gender diversity, financial and policy supports are recommended to promote the open science movement. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Rare Case of Gender Parity in Academia Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Lynn, F.B.
    ;
    Noonan, M.C.
    ;
    Sauder, M.
    ;
    Andersson, M.A.
    In academia, women trail men in nearly every major professional reward, such as earnings, publications, and funding. Bibliometric studies, however, suggest that citations are unique with regard to gender inequality: female penalties have been reported, but gender parity or even female premiums are routinely documented as well. Two questions follow from this puzzle. First, does gender matter for citations in sociology and neighboring social science disciplines? No theoretically informed study of gender and citations exists for the social science core. We begin to fill this gap by analyzing roughly 10,000 publications in economics, political science, and sociology. In contrast to many big data studies, we estimate the effect of author gender on citations alongside other author-, article-, journal-, and (sub)field-level predictors. Our results strongly suggest that when male and female authors publish articles that are comparably positioned to receive citations, their publications do in fact accrue citations at the same rate. This finding raises a second question: Why would gender matter "everywhere but here"? We hypothesize that the answer is related to the mechanisms (e.g., self-selection, biased assessments of commitment) that are activated in the context of some professional rewards but not citations. We discuss why a null gender finding should not be discarded as an anomaly but rather approached as an analytical opportunity. © 2019 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2019.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is There a Motherhood Penalty in Academia? The Gendered Effect of Children on Academic Publications in German Sociology Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Lutter, Mark
    ;
    Schröder, Martin
    Based on data that tracks curriculum vitae (CV) and publication records as well as survey information from sociologists in German academia, we examine the effects of parenthood on the publication output of male and female academics that were present in German universities or research institutes in the year 2013. Results indicate that having children leads to a significant decline in the number of publications by women on average, while not affecting the number of publications by men. However, the gendered effect of children on productivity hardly mitigates differences in publication output between men and women, as women still publish about 20 per cent less than men after controlling for the adverse effects of children on productivity. The gendered effect of childbearing depends partly on prior levels of women’s academic achievements, suggesting a mechanism of performance-driven self-selection. Lower-performing women tend to suffer a stronger motherhood penalty than better performing women, while the publication output of successful women (who have been granted academic awards) is not reduced through childbirth. The results indicate that women are better at managing the ‘double burden’ of kids and career if external, award-giving committees have bestowed prestige upon them or indicated their potential for a scientific career.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism Open PDF 
    (1995)
    Long, J. Scott
    ;
    Fox, Mary Frank
    Science is an institution with immense inequality in career attainments. Women and most minorities, as groups, have lower levels of participation, position, productivity, and recognition than do white men. Research in the sociology of science has focused on the degree to which different outcomes have resulted from universalistic and from particularistic processes. In this paper we 1) depict the career attainments of women and minorities in science, 2) consider the meaning and measurement of universalism compared to particularism, 3) analyze the causes of differential attainment with a view to assessing evidence for violations of universalism, 4) propose conditions under which particularism is likely to occur, and 5) consider methodological problems that affect this research.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Kwiek, M.
    ;
    Roszka, W.
    We examined the male-female collaboration practices of all internationally visible Polish university professors (N = 25,463) based on their Scopus-indexed publications from 2009-2018 (158,743 journal articles). We merged a national registry of 99,935 scientists (with full administrative and biographical data) with the Scopus publication database, using probabilistic and deterministic record linkage. Our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database ("The Polish Science Observatory") included all professors with at least a doctoral degree employed in 85 research-involved universities. We determined what we term an "individual publication portfolio" for every professor, and we examined the respective impacts of biological age, academic position, academic discipline, average journal prestige, and type of institution on the same-sex collaboration ratio. The gender homophily principle (publishing predominantly with scientists of the same sex) was found to apply to male scientists - but not to females. The majority of male scientists collaborate solely with males; most female scientists, in contrast, do not collaborate with females at all. Across all age groups studied, all-female collaboration is marginal, while all-male collaboration is pervasive. Gender homophily in research-intensive institutions proved stronger for males than for females. Finally, we used a multi-dimensional fractional logit regression model to estimate the impact of gender and other individual-level and institutional-level independent variables on gender homophily in research collaboration. © 2021 EDP Sciences. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Intersectional inequalities in science Open PDF 
    (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022)
    Kozlowski, Diego
    ;
    Larivière, Vincent
    ;
    Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
    ;
    Monroe-White, Thema
    The US scientific workforce is primarily composed of White men. Studies have demonstrated the systemic barriers preventing women and other minoritized populations from gaining entry to science; few, however, have taken an intersectional perspective and examined the consequences of these inequalities on scientific knowledge. We provide a large-scale bibliometric analysis of the relationship between intersectional identities, topics, and scientific impact. We find homophily between identities and topic, suggesting a relationship between diversity in the scientific workforce and expansion of the knowledge base. However, topic selection comes at a cost to minoritized individuals for whom we observe both between- and within-topic citation disadvantages. To enhance the robustness of science, research organizations should provide adequate resources to historically underfunded research areas while simultaneously providing access for minoritized individuals into high-prestige networks and topics.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship Open PDF 
    (2023)
    Jamali, Hamid R.
    ;
    Abbasi, Alireza
    Despite improvement in gender inequality in Australian science, the problem has not been fully addressed yet. To better understand the nature of gender inequality in Australian science, all gendered Australian first authored articles published between 2010 and 2020 and indexed in the Dimensions database were analysed. Field of Research (FoR) was used as the subject classification of articles and Field Citation Ratio (FCR) was used for citation comparison. Overall, the ratio of female to male first authored articles increased over the years, and this was true for all FoRs except for information and computing sciences. The ratio of single-authored articles by females was also improved over the study period. Females appeared to have a citation advantage, using Field Citation Ratio, over males in a few FoRs including mathematical sciences, chemical sciences, technology, built environment and design, studies in human society, law and legal studies, and studies in creative arts and writing. The average FCR for female first authored articles was greater than the average FCR for male first authored articles, including in a few fields such mathematical sciences where male authors outperformed females in terms of the number of articles.