IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v97y2013i1d10.1007_s11192-013-1023-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hildrun Kretschmer

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Theo Kretschmer

    (COLLNET-Center)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2013. "Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 25-36, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:97:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1023-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1023-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1023-7
    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/s11192-013-1023-7?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. Hildrun Kretschmer & Ramesh Kundra & Donald deB. Beaver & Theo Kretschmer, 2012. "Gender bias in journals of gender studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 135-150, October.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    3. A. Pudovkin & H. Kretschmer & J. Stegmann & E. Garfield, 2012. "Research evaluation. Part I: productivity and citedness of a German medical research institution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 3-16, October.
    4. Robert J W Tijssen & Thed N van Leeuwen & Erik van Wijk, 2009. "Benchmarking university-industry research cooperation worldwide: performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world's largest universities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 13-24, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Alessandro Caprasecca, 2009. "The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(1), pages 137-156, October.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Alessandro Caprasecca, 2009. "Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 517-539, June.
    8. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    9. Mike Thelwall & Franz Barjak & Hildrun Kretschmer, 2006. "Web links and gender in science: An exploratory analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 373-383, June.
    10. Marsh, Herbert W. & Jayasinghe, Upali W. & Bond, Nigel W., 2011. "Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 167-180.
    11. Hildrun Kretschmer & Alexander Pudovkin & Johannes Stegmann, 2012. "Erratum to: Research evaluation. Part II: gender effects of evaluation: are men more productive and more cited than women?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 31-31, October.
    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. Marek Kosmulski, 2015. "Careers of young Polish chemists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1455-1465, February.
    2. Loarne-Lemaire, Séverine Le & Bertrand, Gaël & Razgallah, Meriam & Maalaoui, Adnane & Kallmuenzer, Andreas, 2021. "Women in innovation processes as a solution to climate change: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    3. J. Chubb & G. E. Derrick, 2020. "The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.

    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. Hajar Sotudeh & Nahid Khoshian, 2014. "Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 457-472, January.
    2. Hajar Sotudeh & Nahid Khoshian, 2014. "Gender, web presence and scientific productivity in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 717-736, June.
    3. Mancuso, Raffaele & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina & Franzoni, Chiara, 2023. "Topic choice, gendered language, and the under-funding of female scholars in mission-oriented research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    4. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni & Aksnes, Dag W. & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2021. "Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    6. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    7. James Hartley & Guillaume Cabanac, 2014. "Do men and women differ in their use of tables and graphs in academic publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1161-1172, February.
    8. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    9. Martha M Bakker & Maarten H Jacobs, 2016. "Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Amalia Más-Bleda & Isidro F. Aguillo, 2013. "Can a personal website be useful as an information source to assess individual scientists? The case of European highly cited researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 51-67, July.
    11. Abdelghani Maddi & Yves Gingras, 2021. "Gender Diversity In Research Teams And Citation Impact In Economics And Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1381-1404, December.
    12. Loarne-Lemaire, Séverine Le & Bertrand, Gaël & Razgallah, Meriam & Maalaoui, Adnane & Kallmuenzer, Andreas, 2021. "Women in innovation processes as a solution to climate change: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Paul Siu Fai Yip & Yunyu Xiao & Clifford Long Hin Wong & Terry Kit Fong Au, 2020. "Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Giulio Marini & Viviana Meschitti, 2018. "The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 989-1006, May.
    16. Georgina Santos & Stéphanie Dang Van Phu, 2019. "Gender and Academic Rank in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-46, June.
    17. Kretschmer Hildrun & Pudovkin Alexander & Stegmann Johannes, 2012. "Research evaluation. Part II: gender effects of evaluation: are men more productive and more cited than women?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 17-30, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Junwan Liu & Yinglu Song & Sai Yang, 2020. "Gender disparities in the field of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1477-1498, November.
    20. 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.

    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:97:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1023-7. 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.