On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2015, Pages

  Ghiasi, Gita ^a   Larivière, Vincent ^b,c   Sugimoto, Cassidy R ^d  

^a Civil and Environmental Engineering   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIFFUSION; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCTION; SCIENTIST; WEB OF SCIENCE; WRITING; COOPERATION; ENGINEERING; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN RELATION; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AUTHORSHIP; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MALE; PUBLICATIONS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84956926756     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145931     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Godin B. The knowledge-based economy: Conceptual framework or buzzword? J Technol Transf. 2006; 31: 17-30. doi: 10.1007/s10961-005-5010-x
2. OECD. The Knowledge-based Economy [Internet]. Paris: OECD; 1996. Available: http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/1913021.pdf
3. Mansfield E. Contribution of r&d to economic growth in the United States. Science. 1972; 175: 477-486. doi: 10.1126/science.175.4021.477 PMID: 17755645
4. Schumpeter JA. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle [Internet]. Transaction Publishers; 1934.
5. Solow RM. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ. 1956; 70: 65-94.
6. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504: 211-213. doi: 10.1038/504211a PMID: 24350369
7. Cozzens SE. Gender issues in US science and technology policy: equality of what? Sci Eng Ethics. 2008; 14: 345-356. doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9061-x PMID: 18481198
8. Sugimoto CR, Ni C, Lariviere V. On the relationship between gender disparities in scholarly communication and country-level development. Science and Public Policy. in press;
9. Samson AES. Gender and Science, Technology, and Innovation [Internet]. Commissioned Paper for IDRC; 2006. Available: http://idrc.org/uploads/user-S/12215916821Samson.DOC
10. Cole JR, Zuckerman H. The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Adv Motiv Achiev. 1984; 2.
11. Berryman SE. Who Will Do Science? Trends, and Their Causes in Minority and Female Representation among Holders of Advanced Degrees in Science and Mathematics. A Special Report. 1983; Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245052
12. Bagilhole B, Powell A, Barnard S, Dainty A. Researching cultures in science, engineering and technology: an analysis of current and past literature. UK Resour Cent Women Sci Eng Technol. 2008; Available: http://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/files/useruploads/files/resources/report-7-bagilhole-1606-08.pdf
13. Brouns margo, Addis E. Gender and Excellence in the Making: Synthesis report on the workshop [Internet]. 2004. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/bias-brochure-final-en.pdf
14. Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Uzzi B. Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology [Internet]. Cambridge University Press; 2000.
15. Gupta N, Kemelgor C, Fuchs S, Etzkowitz H. The "Triple-Burden": A cross-cultural analysis of the consequences of discrimination for women in science. Gender and Excellence in the Making, European Commission; 2004.
16. Miller DI, Wai J. The bachelor's to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: a 30-year analysis. Dev Psychol. 2015; 6: 37. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00037
17. Anonymous. Science for all. Nature. 2013; 495: 5-5. doi: 10.1038/495005a PMID: 23472264
18. Fox MF. Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Soc Stud Sci. 2005; 35: 131-150.
19. Frietsch R, Haller I, Funken-Vrohlings M, Grupp H. Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Res Policy. 2009; 38: 590-599.
20. Kaufman RR, Chevan J. The gender gap in peer-reviewed publications by physical therapy faculty members: a productivity puzzle. Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 122-131. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20100106 PMID: 21127164
21. Larivière V, Vignola-Gagné E, Villeneuve C, Gélinas P, Gingras Y. Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics. 2011; 87: 483-498.
22. Leahey E. Gender differences in productivity research specialization as a missing link. Gend Soc. 2006; 20: 754-780.
23. Prpić K. Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics. 2002; 55: 27-58.
24. Xie Y, Shauman KA. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. Am Sociol Rev. 1998; 847-870.
25. Long JS. Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Soc Forces. 1992; 71: 159-178.
26. Symonds MR, Gemmell NJ, Braisher TL, Gorringe KL, Elgar MA. Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS One. 2006; 1: e127. PMID: 17205131
27. Borrego A, Barrios M, Villarroya A, Ollé C. Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics. 2010; 83: 93-101.
28. Peñas CS, Willett P. Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research. J Inf Sci. 2006; 32: 480-485.
29. Ding WW, Murray F, Stuart TE. Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science. 2006; 313: 665-667. PMID: 16888138
30. Murray F, Graham L. Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science. Ind Corp Change. 2007; 16: 657-689.
31. Kyvik S, Teigen M. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1996; 21: 54-71.
32. Bentley P. Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian university academics. J Sociol. 2012; 48: 85-103. doi: 10.1177/1440783311411958
33. Hunter L, Leahey E. Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. Am Sociol. 2008; 39: 290-306.
34. Ozel B, Kretschmer H, Kretschmer T. Co-authorship pair distribution patterns by gender. Scientometrics. 2014; 98: 703-723. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1145-y
35. Buré C. Gender in/and science, technology and innovation policy: An overview of current literature and findings. Strateg Comm Pap Innov Policy Sci Program Area Int Dev Res Cent IDRC Downloaded On. 2007; 24: 2012.
36. Ellison SF, Mullin WP. Diversity, Social Goods Provision, and Performance in the Firm. J Econ Manag Strategy. 2014; 23: 465-481.
37. Newman ME. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001; 98: 404-409. PMID: 11149952
38. Liu X, Bollen J, Nelson ML, Van de Sompel H. Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Inf Process Manag. 2005; 41: 1462-1480.
39. Abbasi A, Hossain L, Leydesdorff L. Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J Informetr. 2012; 6: 403-412.
40. Barabási A-L, Jeong H, Néda Z, Ravasz E, Schubert A, Vicsek T. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys Stat Mech Its Appl. 2002; 311: 590-614.
41. Börner K, Dall'Asta L, Ke W, Vespignani A. Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity. 2005; 10: 57-67.
42. Milojević S. Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2010; 61: 1410-1423.
43. Whittington KCB. Gender and Scientific Dissemination in Public and Private Science: A Multivariate and Network Approach. 2006; Available: http://www.nber.org/~sewp/BunkerWhittington-ConferenceProceeding.pdf
44. Badar K, Hite JM, Badir YF. Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics. 2013; 94: 755-775. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0764-z
45. Sugimoto CR, Ni C, West JD, Larivière V. Innovative women: an analysis of global gender disparities in patenting. STI 2014 Leiden. 2014; 611.
46. Whittington KB, Smith-Doerr L. Gender and commercial science: Women's patenting in the life sciences. J Technol Transf. 2005; 30: 355-370.
47. Silim A, Crosse C. WOMEN IN ENGINEERING. 2014; Available: http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/publications/pdf/women-in-engineering-Sept2014.pdf
48. Burke RJ, Mattis MC. Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Upping the Numbers. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2007.
49. Dryburgh H. WORK HARD, PLAY HARD Women and Professionalization in Engineering - Adapting to the Culture. Gend Soc. 1999; 13: 664-682.
50. Sagebiel F. New Initiatives in Science and Technology and Mathematics Education at the Formal Level: Masculinity cultures in engineering departments in institutions of higher education and perspectives for social change. Proceedings of the GASAT 11 International Conference, Mauritius, 6-11th July. 2003.
51. Evetts J. Managing the technology but not the organization: Women and career in engineering. Women Manag Rev. 1998; 13: 283-290.
52. Faulkner W. Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Eng Stud. 2009; 1: 169-189.
53. Glänzel W, Schubert A. Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Springer; 2005. pp. 257-276.
54. Moed HF, De Bruin RE, Van Leeuwen TN. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics. 1995; 33: 381-422.
55. Pontille D, Fraenkel B. La signature scientifique: Une sociologie pragmatique de l'attribution. CNRS Sociol. 2004; Available: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16213499
56. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. ICWSM. 2009. Available: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/viewPDFInterstitial/154Forum/1009
57. Wei W, Pfeffer J, Reminga J, Carley KM. Handling weighted, asymmetric, self-looped, and disconnected networks in ORA [Internet]. DTIC Document; 2011. Available: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA550859
58. Zweig K, Neuser W, Pipek V, Rohde M, Scholtes I. Socioinformatics - The Social Impact of Interactions between Humans and IT. Springer; 2014.
59. Yan E, Ding Y. Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2009; 60: 2107-2118.
60. Newman ME. Assortative mixing in networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2002; 89: 208701. PMID: 12443515
61. Parveen S, Sreevalsan-Nair J. Visualization of Small World Networks Using Similarity Matrices. Big Data Analytics. Springer; 2013. pp. 151-170.
62. Larivière. Femmes et sciences : les premières données mondiales valident l'inégalité | Acfas | magazine Découvrir | mars 2014. Acfas.ca. Mar 2014. Available: http://www.acfas.ca/publications/decouvrir/2014/03/femmes-sciences-premieres-donnees-mondiales-valident-l-inegalite. Accessed 26 Oct 2014.
63. Rossiter MW. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci. 1993; 23: 325-341.
64. Duijn PAC, Kashirin V, Sloot PMA. The Relative Ineffectiveness of Criminal Network Disruption. Sci Rep. 2014; 4. doi: 10.1038/srep04238
65. Velden T, Haque A, Lagoze C. A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks: mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. Scientometrics. 2010; 85: 219-242.