Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2007). Bias cut. Women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science—So how can discrimination be tackled? Nature, 445, 566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314, 599–600. doi:10.1126/science.1132154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “She Figures”, published by the European Commission in 2009.

  • Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J., & Thelwall, M. (2011). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Barjak, F., & Kretschmer, H. (2006). Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis. Scientometrics, 67(3), 373–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WISELAB, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116085, China

    Hildrun Kretschmer

  2. COLLNET-Center, Borgsdorfer Str. 5, 16540, Hohen Neuendorf, Germany

    Theo Kretschmer

Authors
  1. Hildrun Kretschmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theo Kretschmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hildrun Kretschmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kretschmer, H., Kretschmer, T. Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers. Scientometrics 97, 25–36 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1023-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1023-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation