Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 273-290

  Dehdarirad, Tahereh ^a   Villarroya, Anna ^a   Barrios, Maite ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Co word analysis; Gender differences; Higher education; Science; Strategic diagram

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939893426     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1327-2     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review,55(4), 119–125. doi:10.2307/2095801.
2. Bauin, S., Michelet, B., Schweighoffer, M. G., & Vermeulin, P. (1991). Using bibliometrics in strategic analysis: “Understanding chemical reactions” at the CNRS. Scientometrics,22(1), 113–137.
3. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
4. Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,37(1), 179–255. doi:10.1002/aris.1440370106.
5. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics,22(1), 155–205. doi:10.1007/BF02019280.
6. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information,22(2), 191–235. doi:10.1177/053901883022002003.
7. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS,108(8), 3157–3162. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
8. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 146–166. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002.
9. Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In P. Maehr & M. W. Steinkmap (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (pp. 217–258). Greenwich: JAI Press.
10. Courtial, J. P., Callon, M., & Sigogneau, M. (1984). Is indexing trustworthy? Classification of articles through co-word analysis. Journal of Information Science,9(2), 47–56. doi:10.1177/016555158400900201.
11. Dewandre, N. (2002). Women in science—European strategies for promoting women in science. Science,295(5553), 278–279. doi:10.1126/science.1063487.
12. European Commission (2009). The gender challenge in research funding. Assessing the European national scenes. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research.
13. European Commission (2013). She Figures 2012. Gender in research and innovation. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
14. Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
15. Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,97(3), 517–532. doi:10.1037/a0016030.
16. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science,35(1), 131–150. doi:10.1177/0306312705046630.
17. Fox, M. F., Fonseca, C., & Bao, J. (2011). Work and family conflict in academic science: Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Social Studies of Science,41(5), 715–735. doi:10.1177/0306312711417730.
18. Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2009). Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973–2001. In R. B. Freeman & D. L. Goroff (Eds.), Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An analysis of markets and employment (pp. 163–194). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30(1), 21–40. doi:10.1002/job.498.
20. He, Q. (1999). Knowledge Discovery through Co-Word Analysis. Library Trends,48(1), 133–159.
21. Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal,51(6), 1204–1222. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732995.
22. Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science,40(3), 433–451. doi:10.1177/0306312709358472.
23. Law, J., & Whittaker, J. (1992). Mapping acidification research: A test of the co-word method. Scientometrics,23(3), 417–461. doi:10.1007/BF02029807.
24. Lawrence, P. A. (2006). Men, women, and ghosts in science. PLoSBiol,4(1), e19. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040019.
25. League of European Research Universities, LERU. (2012). Women, research and universities: excellence without gender bias. Leuven, Belgium: League of European Research Universities.
26. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society,20(6), 754–780. doi:10.1177/0891243206293030.
27. Ledin, A., Bornmann, L., Gannon, F., & Wallon, G. (2007). A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports,8(11), 982–987. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401109.
28. Leta, J., & Lewison, G. (2003). The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography. Scientometrics,57(3), 339–353. doi:10.1023/A:1025000600840.
29. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2009). UC doctoral student career and life survey (University of California, Berkeley). Retrieved 10 November 2013, from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/grad%20life%20survey.html.
30. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
31. Muñoz-Leiva, F., Viedma-del-Jesús, M., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & López-Herrera, A. (2012). An application of co-word analysis and bibliometric maps for detecting the most highlighting themes in the consumer behaviour research from a longitudinal perspective. Quality & Quantity,46(4), 1077–1095. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9565-3.
32. OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
33. Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics,55(1), 27–58. doi:10.1023/A:1016046819457.
34. Rosser, S. V. (2012). More gender diversity will mean better science. The Chronicle of Higher Education. From http://chronicle.com/article/More-Gender-Diversity-Will/135310/.
35. Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education,43(4), 423–446. doi:10.1023/A:1015575616285.
36. Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature,495(7439), 22–24. doi:10.1038/495022a.
37. Sonnert, G. (1996). Gender equity in science: Still an elusive goal. Issues in Science and Technology,12(2), 53–58.
38. Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education,45(8), 891–920.
39. Sudhier, K. G., & Abhila, I. S. (2011, March 2–4). Publication productivity of social scientists in the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram: A bibliometric analysis. Paper presented at the 8th International CALIBER, Goa University, Goa.
40. Symonds, M. R., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L., & Elgar, M. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE,1(1), e127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127.
41. Taylor, S. W., Fender, B. F., & Burke, K. G. (2006). Unraveling the academic productivity of economists: The opportunity costs of teaching and service. Southern Economic Journal,72(4), 846–859. doi:10.2307/20111856.
42. Turner, W. A., Chartron, G., Laville, F., & Michelet, B. (1988). Packaging information for peer review: New co-word analysis techniques. In A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Dordrecht: Elsevier Science Publishers.
43. UNESCO. (2012). World atlas of gender equality in education. Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
44. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization,19(4), 507–524. doi:10.1177/1350508411414293.
45. Wang, Z.-Y., Li, G., Li, C.-Y., & Li, A. (2012). Research on the semantic-based co-word analysis. Scientometrics,90(3), 855–875. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0563-y.
46. Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature,387(6631), 341–343. doi:10.1038/387341a0.
47. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review,63(6), 847–870.
48. Zinovyeva, N., & Bagues, M. (2011). Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5537.