IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/9n347_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Lin
  • Sivertsen, Gunnar
  • Du, Huiying
  • HUANG, Ying
  • Glänzel, Wolfgang

Abstract

This study uses mixed methods – classical citation analysis, altmetric analysis, a survey with researchers as respondents, and text analysis of the abstracts of scientific articles – to investigate gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. We find that male researchers more often value and engage in research mainly aimed at scientific progress, which is more cited. Female researchers more often value and engage in research mainly aimed at contributing to societal progress, which has more abstract views (usage). The gender differences are observed among researchers who work in the same field of research and have the same age and academic position. Our findings have implications for evaluation and funding policies and practices. A critical discussion of how societal engagement versus citation impact is valued, and how funding criteria reflect gender differences, is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:9n347_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9n347_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/60e91380f80fdb01844da613/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9n347_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beaudry, Catherine & Larivière, Vincent, 2016. "Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1790-1817.
    2. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    3. Clément Bosquet & Pierre-Philippe Combes, 2013. "Are academics who publish more also more cited? Individual determinants of publication and citation records," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 831-857, December.
    4. Stefan de Jong & Katharine Barker & Deborah Cox & Thordis Sveinsdottir & Peter Van den Besselaar, 2014. "Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 89-102.
    5. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    6. Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 385-397, August.
    7. Paul Donner & Ulrich Schmoch, 2020. "The implicit preference of bibliometrics for basic research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1411-1419, August.
    8. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    9. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    10. Linda H M van de Burgwal & Rana Hendrikse & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Aiming for impact: Differential effect of motivational drivers on effort and performance in knowledge valorisation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(5), pages 747-762.
    11. Pei-Shan Chi & Juan Gorraiz & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2019. "Comparing capture, usage and citation indicators: an altmetric analysis of journal papers in chemistry disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1461-1473, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Gunnar Sivertsen & Ingeborg Meijer, 2020. "Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 66-70.
    14. Jyoti Paswan & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2020. "Gender and research publishing analyzed through the lenses of discipline, institution types, impact and international collaboration: a case study from India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 497-515, April.
    15. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.
    16. Lisa Klautzer & Stephen Hanney & Edward Nason & Jennifer Rubin & Jonathan Grant & Steven Wooding, 2011. "Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: the application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 201-209, September.
    17. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2016. "Gender differences in research performance and its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 143-162, January.
    18. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    19. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2014. "Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 721-731, April.
    20. Maite Barrios & Anna Villarroya & Ángel Borrego, 2013. "Scientific production in psychology: a gender analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 15-23, April.
    21. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2013. "The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 158-165.
    22. Vincent Larivière & Rodrigo Costas, 2016. "How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-10, September.
    23. Gunnar Sivertsen & Birger Larsen, 2012. "Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 567-575, May.
    24. Wolfgang Glänzel & Pei-Shan Chi, 2020. "The big challenge of Scientometrics 2.0: exploring the broader impact of scientific research in public health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1011-1031, November.
    25. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    26. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    27. Boyack, Kevin W. & Patek, Michael & Ungar, Lyle H. & Yoon, Patrick & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12.
    28. Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rorstad & Fredrik Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2011. "Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(4), pages 628-636, April.
    29. Thelwall, Mike & Bailey, Carol & Tobin, Catherine & Bradshaw, Noel-Ann, 2019. "Gender differences in research areas, methods and topics: Can people and thing orientations explain the results?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 149-169.
    30. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    31. Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rorstad & Fredrik Piro & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2011. "Are female researchers less cited? A large‐scale study of Norwegian scientists," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(4), pages 628-636, April.
    32. 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.
    33. Francis Narin & Gabriel Pinski & Helen Hofer Gee, 1976. "Structure of the Biomedical Literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(1), pages 25-45, January.
    34. Magnus Gulbrandsen & Svein Kyvik, 2010. "Are the concepts basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(5), pages 343-353, June.
    35. Dag W. Aksnes & Fredrik Niclas Piro & Kristoffer Rørstad, 2019. "Gender gaps in international research collaboration: a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 747-774, August.
    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. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    2. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    3. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.
    4. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Jyoti Paswan & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2020. "Gender and research publishing analyzed through the lenses of discipline, institution types, impact and international collaboration: a case study from India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 497-515, April.
    8. Dotti, Nicola Francesco & Walczyk, Julia, 2022. "What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    9. Zhang, Ming-Ze & Wang, Tang-Rong & Lyu, Peng-Hui & Chen, Qi-Mei & Li, Ze-Xia & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2024. "Impact of gender composition of academic teams on disruptive output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    10. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1031-1041.
    11. Hans Jonker & Florian Vanlee & Walter Ysebaert, 2022. "Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7289-7306, December.
    12. Haunschild, Robin & Bornmann, Lutz, 2016. "Normalization of Mendeley reader counts for impact assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 62-73.
    13. 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.
    14. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    15. Gunnar Sivertsen & Ingeborg Meijer, 2020. "Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 66-70.
    16. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    17. Lin Zhang & Zhenyu Gou & Zhichao Fang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ying Huang, 2023. "Who tweets scientific publications? A large‐scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(13), pages 1485-1497, December.
    18. Matthias Potthoff & Fabian Zimmermann, 2017. "Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1047-1063, August.
    19. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    20. 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.

    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:osf:socarx:9n347_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.