Can gender studies be studied? Reply to comments on Söderlund and Madison

Abstract

We reply to the comment by Lundgren, Shildrick and Lawrence on our article on gender studies bibliometrics and argue that it does not challenge any of our main results. Their points of criticism concerned that we had not compiled exactly all scholarly gender production, that the gender studies field had changed during the period, that the definition of the research area is vague, and suggest that only gender studies scholars themselves are able to study the field. We maintain that constructive scientific critique should specify alternative methods and how they are expected to change the results and conclusions, and why that would be preferable. Without such stringency, it reduces to regressive lists of detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Dutton, E. (2012). Culture shock and multiculturalism: Reclaiming a useful model from the religious realm. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2009). Groupthink in academia. Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid. The Independent Review, 13, 585–600.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lundgren, S., Shildrick, M., & Lawrence, D. (2015). Rethinking bibliometric data concerning gender studies: A response to Söderlund and Madison. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1389–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–280). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  7. Söderlund T., & Madison, G. (2015). Characteristics of gender studies publications: A bibliometric analysis based on a Swedish population database. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1347–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. World Economic Forum. (2015). The global gender gap report. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Ed Dutton, Åke Olofsson, and John Wallert for valuable comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Therese Söderlund.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madison, G., Söderlund, T. Can gender studies be studied? Reply to comments on Söderlund and Madison. Scientometrics 108, 329–335 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1963-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bibliometric analysis
  • Gender studies
  • Citations
  • Impact factor