IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i7d10.1007_s11192-024-05079-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nataly Matias-Rayme

    (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid)

  • Iuliana Botezan

    (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

  • Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa

    (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid)

  • Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez

    (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)

Abstract

This study critically evaluates gender assignment methods within academic contexts, employing a comparative analysis of diverse techniques, including a SVM classifier, gender-guesser, genderize.io, and a Cultural Consensus Theory based classifier. Emphasizing the significance of transparency, data sources, and methodological considerations, the research introduces nomquamgender, a cultural consensus-based method, and applies it to Teseo, a Spanish dissertation database. The results reveal a substantial reduction in the number of individuals with unknown gender compared to traditional methods relying on INE data. The nuanced differences in gender distribution underscore the importance of methodological choices in gender studies, urging for transparent, comprehensive, and freely accessible methods to enhance the accuracy and reliability of gender assignment in academic research. After reevaluating the problem of gender imbalances in the doctoral system we can conclude that it’s still evident although the trend is clearly set for its reduction. Finaly, specific problems related to some disciplines, including STEM fields and seniority roles are found to be worth of attention in the near future.

Suggested Citation

  • Nataly Matias-Rayme & Iuliana Botezan & Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa & Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez, 2024. "Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4553-4572, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05079-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05079-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Larivière & Chaoqun Ni & Yves Gingras & Blaise Cronin & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2013. "Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 504(7479), pages 211-213, December.
    2. Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez & Iuliana Botezan & Jesús Barrasa-Rodríguez & Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa & Manuel Blázquez-Ochando, 2023. "Gender imbalance in doctoral education: an analysis of the Spanish university system (1977–2021)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2577-2599, April.
    3. Luke Holman & Devi Stuart-Fox & Cindy E Hauser, 2018. "The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Jamal El-Ouahi & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "On the lack of women researchers in the Middle East and North Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4321-4348, August.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2019. "A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 405-418, August.
    6. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    7. Ángel Borrego & Maite Barrios & Anna Villarroya & Candela Ollé, 2010. "Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: a gender perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 93-101, April.
    8. Kim, Lanu & Smith, Daniel Scott & Hofstra, Bas & McFarland, Daniel A., 2022. "Gendered knowledge in fields and academic careers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    9. Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios & Angel Borrego & Amparo Frías, 2008. "PhD theses in Spain: A gender study covering the years 1990–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(3), pages 469-483, December.
    10. Francisco Javier Ramos-Pardo & Pablo Sánchez-Antolín, 2017. "Production of educational theory doctoral theses in Spain (2001–2015)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1615-1630, September.
    11. Clemens B. Fell & Cornelius J. König, 2016. "Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 113-141, July.
    12. Jevin D West & Jennifer Jacquet & Molly M King & Shelley J Correll & Carl T Bergstrom, 2013. "The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-6, July.
    13. V. Hernández-González & A. Pano-Rodríguez & J. Reverter-Masia, 2020. "Spanish doctoral theses in physical activity and sports sciences and authors’ scientific publications (LUSTRUM 2013–2017)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 661-679, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez & Iuliana Botezan & Jesús Barrasa-Rodríguez & Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa & Manuel Blázquez-Ochando, 2023. "Gender imbalance in doctoral education: an analysis of the Spanish university system (1977–2021)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2577-2599, April.
    2. Nakajima, Kazuki & Liu, Ruodan & Shudo, Kazuyuki & Masuda, Naoki, 2023. "Quantifying gender imbalance in East Asian academia: Research career and citation practice," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    3. Roberta Ruggieri & Fabrizio Pecoraro & Daniela Luzi, 2021. "An intersectional approach to analyse gender productivity and open access: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian National Research Council," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1647-1673, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Arjun Prakash & Jeevan John Varghese & Shruti Aggarwal, 2024. "Gender of gender studies: examining regional and gender-based disparities in scholarly publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4471-4493, July.
    6. Elena Chechik, 2024. "Gender disparities in research fields in Russia: dissertation authors and their mentors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3341-3358, June.
    7. Hamid R. Jamali & Alireza Abbasi, 2023. "Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2879-2893, May.
    8. Magdalena Formanowicz & Marta Witkowska & Weronika Hryniszak & Zuzanna Jakubik & Aleksandra Cisłak, 2023. "Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2283-2299, April.
    9. Luke Holman & Claire Morandin, 2019. "Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, April.
    10. María Agostina Zulli & Francesco Giovanni Angeli & Alejandro Danon & Ana Carolina Ortega Masagué, 2021. "The leaky pipeline problem, COVID-19 & big data: The impact of the pandemic on the gender gap in research production," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4532, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    11. Matthias Kuppler, 2022. "Predicting the future impact of Computer Science researchers: Is there a gender bias?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6695-6732, November.
    12. Inés M. Fernández-Guerrero & Zoraida Callejas & David Griol & Antonio Fernández-Cano, 2020. "Longitudinal patterns in Spanish doctoral theses on scientific medical information: a tertiary study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1241-1260, August.
    13. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    14. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    15. Fengyuan Liu & Petter Holme & Matteo Chiesa & Bedoor AlShebli & Talal Rahwan, 2023. "Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 353-364, March.
    16. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    17. Jamal El-Ouahi & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "On the lack of women researchers in the Middle East and North Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4321-4348, August.
    18. Liu, Meijun & Zhang, Ning & Hu, Xiao & Jaiswal, Ajay & Xu, Jian & Chen, Hong & Ding, Ying & Bu, Yi, 2022. "Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    19. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    20. Parminder Bakshi-Hamm & Andreas Hamm, 2022. "Knowledge Production: Analysing Gender- and Country-Dependent Factors in Research Topics through Term Communities," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-37, November.

    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:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05079-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.