Scientific Eminence: Where Are the Women?

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 899-904

  Eagly, Alice H ^a   Miller, David I ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

careers; gender bias; publication metrics; scientific eminence

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGY; SCIENCE; WRITING;

ACHIEVEMENT; ATTENTION; AUTHORSHIP; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY; SCIENCE;

EID: 85002388832     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616663918     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Association of University Professors. (2015, March–April). The compensation survey (Survey report, Table 12). Academe, 101(2). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/2014%20salary%20report/table12.pdf
2. American Psychological Association. (2014, October). How is the gender composition of faculty in graduate psychology departments changing? APA Monitor: News from APA’s Center for Workforce Studies. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/datapoint.aspx
3. Annin E. L., Boring E. G., Watson R. I., (1968). Important psychologists, 1600–1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–315. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(196810)4:4%3C303::AID-JHBS2300040402%3E3.0.CO;2-B
4. Borsuk R. M., Aarssen L. W., Budden A. E., Koricheva J., Leimu R., Tregenza T., Lortie C. J., (2009). To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59, 985–989. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.10
5. Box-Steffensmeier J. M., Cunha R. C., Varbanov R. A., Hoh Y. S., Knisley M. L., Holmes M. A., (2015). Survival analysis of faculty retention and promotion in the social sciences by gender. PLoS ONE, 10, e0143093. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143093
6. Burrelli J., (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions (Publication No. NSF 08–308). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308/nsf08308.pdf
7. Ceci S. J., Ginther D. K., Kahn S., Williams W. M., (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 75–141. doi:10.1177/1529100614541236
8. Conner A. L., Cook K. S., Correll S. J., Markus H. R., Moss-Racusin C. A., Muller C. B.,.. Simard C., (2014). Obscuring gender bias with “choice.” Science, 343, 1200. doi:10.1126/science.343.6176.1200-a
9. Diener E., Oishi S., Park J., (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2, 20–32. doi:10.1037/arc0000006
10. Duch J., Zeng X. H. T., Sales-Pardo M., Radicchi F., Otis S., Woodruff T. K., Amaral L. A. N., (2012). The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051332
11. Eagly A. H., Riger S., (2014). Feminism and psychology: Critiques of methods and epistemology. American Psychologist, 69, 685–702. doi:10.1037/a0037372
12. Eagly A. H., Wood W., (2012). Social role theory. In van Lange P., Kruglanski A., Higgins E. T., (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n49
13. Fox M. F., (2010). Women and men faculty in academic science and engineering: Social-organizational indicators and implications. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 997–1012. doi:10.1177/0002764209356234
14. Geraci L., Balsis S., Busch A. J. B., (2015). Gender and the h index in psychology. Scientometrics, 105, 2023–2034. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1757-5
15. Ghiasi G., Larivière V., Sugimoto C. R., (2016, September). Gender differences in synchronous and diachronous self-citations. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Valencia, Spain.
16. Gino F., Wilmuth C. A., Brooks A. W., (2015). Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 12354–12359. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502567112
17. Ginther D. K., Kahn S., (2014). Women’s careers in academic social science: Progress, pitfalls, and plateaus. In Lanteri A., Vromen J., (Eds.), The economics of economists: Institutional setting, individual incentives, and future prospects (pp. 285–315). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139059145.015
18. Haggbloom S. J., Warnick R., Warnick J. E., Jones V. K., Yarbrough G. L., Russell T. M... Monte E., (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139
19. Handley I. M., Brown E. R., Moss-Racusin C. A., Smith J. L., (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 13201–13206. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510649112
20. Hirsch J. E., (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102
21. Knobloch-Westerwick S., Glynn C. J., Huge M., (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35, 603–625. doi:10.1177/1075547012472684
22. Koenig A. M., Eagly A. H., (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392. doi:10.1037/a0037215
23. Larivière V., Ni C., Gingras Y., Cronin B., Suigmoto C. F., (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a
24. Lee C. J., Sugimoto C. R., Zhang G., Cronin B., (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784
25. Lincoln A. E., Pincus S., Koster J. B., Leboy P. S., (2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the United States, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42, 307–320. doi:10.1177/0306312711435830
26. Marsh H. W., Bornmann L., Mutz R., Daniel H. D., O’Mara A., (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326. doi:10.3102/0034654309334143
27. Mason M. A., Wolfinger N. H., Goulden M., (2013). Do babies matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28. Meyer M., Cimpian A., Leslie S. J., (2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 235. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00235
29. Miller D. I., Eagly A. H., Linn M. C., (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 631–644. doi:10.1037/edu0000005
30. National Research Council. (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/download/12062
31. National Science Foundation. (2015). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2014 (Special Report NSF 16-300). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/data-tables.cfm
32. Nosek B. A., Graham J., Lindner N. M., Kesebir S., Hawkins C. B., Hahn C... Tenney E. R., (2010). Cumulative and career-stage citation impact of social-personality psychology programs and their members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1283–1300. doi:10.1177/0146167210378111
33. Parker K., (2015). Women more than men adjust their careers for family life. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
34. Ruscio J., (2016). Taking advantage of citation measures of scholarly impact: Hip hip h-index! Perspectives in Psychological Science, 11, 905–908.
35. Simonton D. K., (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.5
36. Simonton D. K., (2016). Useful lessons from the psychology of science? “Just the facts, ma’am!” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 888–892.
37. Smyth F. L., Nosek B. A., (2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 415. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415
38. Stout J. G., Dasgupta N., Hunsinger M., McManus M. A., (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270. doi:10.1037/a0021385
39. Swim J., Borgida E., Maruyama G., Myers D. G., (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409–429. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.409
40. United States Government Accountability Office. (2015). Women in STEM research: Better data and information sharing could improve oversight of federal grant-making and Title IX compliance (GAO Publication No. GAO-16-14). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
41. Williams W. M., Ceci S. J., (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 5360–5365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112
42. Winslow S., (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender & Society, 24, 769–793. doi:10.1177/0891243210386728
43. Wood W., Eagly A. H., (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In Olson J. M., Zanna M. P., (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). London, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7