IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v42y2015i6p789-810..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the relationship between gender disparities in scholarly communication and country-level development indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Cassidy R. Sugimoto
  • Chaoqun Ni
  • Vincent Larivière

Abstract

Gender disparities in science remain, despite decades of policies aimed at achieving gender parity. Yet, little is known about the macro-level factors affecting such disparities. This paper examines the degree to which country-level human development indicators (HDI) and gender inequality indicators (GII) gathered by the United Nations Development Report can reveal systemic gender inequalities in scholarship. Countries ‘low’ in HDI and GII had the lowest contribution of female participation in science and highest degree of international collaboration. Research from highly developed countries was more cited, although gender disparities remained. For HDI, gross national income was a strong predictor of scientific output and impact (and, to a lesser degree, collaboration). The rate of women in the labor force was the strongest predictive variable in GII, explaining differences in output, collaboration, and impact. However, predictive variables differed by HDI/GII quartile, suggesting that monolithic policies may not be appropriate for addressing gender disparities in science.

Suggested Citation

  • Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Chaoqun Ni & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "On the relationship between gender disparities in scholarly communication and country-level development indicators," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(6), pages 789-810.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:6:p:789-810.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scv007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Shang, Yuanyuan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Cao, Zhe & Zhang, Lin, 2021. "Gender differences in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality," SocArXiv 3fapz, Center for Open Science.
    2. Tanya Araújo & Elsa Fontainha, 2018. "Are scientific memes inherited differently from gendered authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 953-972, November.
    3. Patricia E Salerno & Mónica Páez-Vacas & Juan M Guayasamin & Jennifer L Stynoski, 2019. "Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Yuanyuan Shang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Zhe Cao & Lin Zhang, 2022. "Gender differences among first authors in research focused on the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4769-4796, August.
    5. Wullum Nielsen, Mathias & Börjeson, Love, 2019. "Gender diversity in the management field: Does it matter for research outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1617-1632.
    6. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:6:p:789-810.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.