IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6589-d571878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining

Author

Listed:
  • Amir Karami

    (School of Information Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Melek Yildiz Spinel

    (Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • C. Nicole White

    (Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Kayla Ford

    (Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

  • Suzanne Swan

    (Department of Psychology and Women’s & Gender Studies Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

Abstract

Sexual harassment has been the topic of thousands of research articles in the 20th and 21st centuries. Several review papers have been developed to synthesize the literature about sexual harassment. While traditional literature review studies provide valuable insights, these studies have some limitations including analyzing a limited number of papers, being time-consuming and labor-intensive, focusing on a few topics, and lacking temporal trend analysis. To address these limitations, this paper employs both computational and qualitative approaches to identify major research topics, explore temporal trends of sexual harassment topics over the past few decades, and point to future possible directions in sexual harassment studies. We collected 5320 research papers published between 1977 and 2020, identified and analyzed sexual harassment topics, and explored the temporal trend of topics. Our findings indicate that sexual harassment in the workplace was the most popular research theme, and sexual harassment was investigated in a wide range of spaces ranging from school to military settings. Our analysis shows that 62.5% of the topics having a significant trend had an increasing (hot) temporal trend that is expected to be studied more in the coming years. This study offers a bird’s eye view to better understand sexual harassment literature with text mining, qualitative, and temporal trend analysis methods. This research could be beneficial to researchers, educators, publishers, and policymakers by providing a broad overview of the sexual harassment field.

Suggested Citation

  • Amir Karami & Melek Yildiz Spinel & C. Nicole White & Kayla Ford & Suzanne Swan, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6589-:d:571878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6589/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6589/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amir Karami & London S. Bennett & Xiaoyun He, 2018. "Mining Public Opinion about Economic Issues: Twitter and the U.S. Presidential Election," International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), IGI Global, vol. 9(1), pages 18-28, January.
    2. Kristina A. Diekmann & Sheli D. Sillito Walker & Adam D. Galinsky & Ann E. Tenbrunsel, 2013. "Double Victimization in the Workplace: Why Observers Condemn Passive Victims of Sexual Harassment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 614-628, April.
    3. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    4. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    5. Isabelle Niedhammer & Jean-François Chastang & Hélène Sultan-Taïeb & Greet Vermeylen & Agnès Parent-Thirion, 2013. "Psychosocial work factors and sickness absence in 31 countries in Europe," Post-Print halshs-01228084, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hui Qi Low & Pantea Keikhosrokiani & Moussa Pourya Asl, 2024. "Decoding violence against women: analysing harassment in middle eastern literature with machine learning and sentiment analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Guadalupe Pastor-Moreno & Isabel Ruiz-Pérez & Luis Sordo & Jesús Henares-Montiel, 2022. "Frequency, Types, and Manifestations of Partner Sexual Violence, Non-Partner Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment: A Population Study in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-17, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    2. Gerhard Reichmann & Christian Schlögl, 2022. "On the possibilities of presenting the research performance of an institute over a long period of time: the case of the Institute of Information Science at the University of Graz in Austria," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3193-3223, June.
    3. Maor Weinberger & Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet, 2021. "Diversity of success: measuring the scholarly performance diversity of tenured professors in the Israeli academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2931-2970, April.
    4. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    5. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    6. Izaskun Alvarez-Meaza & Enara Zarrabeitia-Bilbao & Rosa Maria Rio-Belver & Gaizka Garechana-Anacabe, 2020. "Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles: Plotting a Scientific and Technological Knowledge Map," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-25, March.
    7. Jon Borregan-Alvarado & Izaskun Alvarez-Meaza & Ernesto Cilleruelo-Carrasco & Gaizka Garechana-Anacabe, 2020. "A Bibliometric Analysis in Industry 4.0 and Advanced Manufacturing: What about the Sustainable Supply Chain?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-28, September.
    8. Magnus Eriksson & Annika Billhult & Tommy Billhult & Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison, 2020. "A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1221-1235, February.
    9. Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2016. "What makes a ‘good’ title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1331-1359, June.
    10. David Jancsics & Salvador Espinosa & Jonathan Carlos, 2023. "Organizational noncompliance: an interdisciplinary review of social and organizational factors," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 1273-1301, September.
    11. Jingqi Gao & Xiang Wu & Xiaowei Luo & Shukai Guan, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Cristina Robledo-Ardila & Juan Pablo Román-Calderón, 2022. "Potential: in search for meaning, theory and avenues for future research a systematic review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 149-186, February.
    13. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    14. Masaru Kuno & Mary Prorok & Shubin Zhang & Huy Huynh & Thurston Miller, 2022. "Deciphering the US News and World Report Ranking of US Chemistry Graduate Programs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2131-2150, May.
    15. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    16. Gonzalo Wandosell & María C. Parra-Meroño & Alfredo Alcayde & Raúl Baños, 2021. "Green Packaging from Consumer and Business Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    17. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    18. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    19. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.
    20. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan, 2015. "Dynamic subfield analysis of disciplines: an examination of the trading impact and knowledge diffusion patterns of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 335-359, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6589-:d:571878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.