Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers

  • Hildrun KretschmerEmail author
  • Theo Kretschmer
Article

Abstract

In the present paper four myths of gender differences in scientific performance are presented and discussed. The persistence of these myths in different forms of evaluation is influencing the women’s discriminations in research careers in combination with effects explained in other explanation models for the existence of the unseen barrier (glass ceiling) that keeps women from rising to the upper levels of the corporate ladder.

Keywords

Gender bias Evaluation Glass ceiling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of this work by one of the authors (Kretschmer H) was supported by the 7th Framework Program by the European Commission, SIS-2010-1.3.3.1. Project full title: “Academic Careers Understood through Measurement and Norms”, Project acronym: ACUMEN.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009a). Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics, 79(3), 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009b). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 84(3), 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornmann, L. (2007). Bias cut. Women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science—So how can discrimination be tackled? Nature, 445, 566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borrego, A., Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Olle, C. (2009). Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0025-y.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. Steinkam (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement 2. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dasaratha, V. R., Raghunandan, K., Logan, L. B., & Barkman, B. V. (1997). Gender differences in publications by promoted faculty. Issues in Accounting Education, 12(2), 353–365.Google Scholar
  10. Fox, M. F. (1991). Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In H. Zuckerman, J. Cole, & J. Bruer (Eds.), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics. About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 2(1), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314, 599–600. doi: 10.1126/science.1132154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ioannidis, J. P., Patsopoulos, N. A., Kavvoura, F. K., et al. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: A critical appraisal. BMC Medicine, 5, 30. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)s00505-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joy, S. (2006). What should I be doing, and where are they doing it? Scholarly productivity of academic psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 346. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916,2006.00020.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kretschmer, H., Kundra, R., Beaver, D. B., & Kretschmer, T. (2012a). Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0661-5.Google Scholar
  18. Kretschmer, H., Pudovkin, A., & Stegmann, J. (2012b). Performance evaluation. Part II: Gender effects of evaluation—Are men more productive and more cited than women? Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0658-0.Google Scholar
  19. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahbuba, D., & Rousseau, R. (2011). Matthew, Matilda and the others. in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & 12th COLLNET Meeting, 20–23 Sep 2011, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  21. Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Cheng, J. H. S. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2011). Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., González-Molina, A., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Gómez-Crisóstomo, R. (2007). Scientific output by gender in Spain (Web of Science, 2004). in 11th International conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, 25–27 June, Madrid.Google Scholar
  24. Naldi, F., Luzi, D., Valente, A., & Parenti, I. V. (2004). Scientific and technological performance by gender. In H. F. Moed, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 299–314). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Pepe, A., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2009). Collaboration in sensor network research: An in-depth longitudinal analysis of assortative mixing patterns. Scientometrics, 84(3), 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pudovkin, A., Kretschmer, H., Stegmann, J., & Garfield, E. (2012). Performance evaluation. Part I: Productivity and citedness of a German medical research institution. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0659-z.Google Scholar
  27. Puuska, H.-M. (2009). Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7.Google Scholar
  28. Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanz-Casado, E., Iribarren-Maestro, I., Garcia-Zorita, C., et al. (2009). Are productivity, impact and visibility indicators appropriate for measuring the quality of research conducted in universities? In B. Larsen & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2009—12th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (vol. 1, pp. 286–290).Google Scholar
  30. Sax, L., Hagedorn, L., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. “She Figures”, published by the European Commission in 2009.Google Scholar
  32. Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2011). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thelwall, M., Barjak, F., & Kretschmer, H. (2006). Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis. Scientometrics, 67(3), 373–383.Google Scholar
  34. Tijssen, R. J. W., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Wijk, E. (2009). Benchmarking university–industry research cooperation worldwide: Performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world’s largest universities. Research Evaluation, 18(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Villarroya, A., Barrios, M., Borrego, A., & Frias, A. (2008). PhD theses in Spain: A gender study covering the years 1990–2004. Scientometrics, 77(3), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ward, K. B., & Grant, L. (1996). Gender and academic publishing. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education, handbook of theory and research (Vol. XI). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  37. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WISELABDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.COLLNET-CenterHohen NeuendorfGermany

Personalised recommendations