IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diversify the syllabi: Underrepresentation of female authors in college course readings

Author

Listed:
  • Jenine K Harris
  • Merriah A Croston
  • Ellen T Hutti
  • Amy A Eyler

Abstract

Emerging evidence demonstrates that female-authored publications are not well represented in course readings in some fields, resulting in a syllabi gender gap. Lack of representation may decrease student awareness of opportunities in professional fields and disadvantage the career success of female academics. We contribute to the evidence on the syllabi gender gap by: 1) quantifying the extent to which female authors are represented in assigned course readings; 2) examining representation of female authors by gender of instructor and discipline; and 3) comparing female representation in syllabi with the workforce and with representation as authors of peer-reviewed journal articles. From a list of courses offered in 2018–2019 at Washington University in St. Louis, we selected a stratified random sample of course syllabi from four disciplines (humanities; social science; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; and other). We coded the gender of course instructors and course reading authors using the genderize application programming interface. We examined representation of female authors at the reading, course, and discipline level using descriptive statistics and data visualization. The final sample included 2435 readings from 129 unique courses. The mean percentage of female authors per reading was 34.1%; 822 (33.8%) of readings were female-led (i.e., a female first or sole author). Female authorship varied by discipline, with the highest percentage of female-led readings in social science (40%). Female instructors assigned a higher percentage of readings with female first authors and readings with higher percentages of females on authorship teams. The representation of female authors on syllabi was lower than representation of females as authors in the peer-reviewed literature or in workforce. Adding to evidence of the syllabi gender gap, we found that female authors were underrepresented as sole and first authors and as members of authorship teams. Since assigned readings promote academic scholarship and influence workforce diversity, we recommend several strategies to diversify the syllabi through increasing awareness of the gap and improving access to female-authored publications.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenine K Harris & Merriah A Croston & Ellen T Hutti & Amy A Eyler, 2020. "Diversify the syllabi: Underrepresentation of female authors in college course readings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239012
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239012&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239012?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. Sabrina J. Mayer & Justus M. K. Rathmann, 2018. "How does research productivity relate to gender? Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1663-1693, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Jory Lerback & Brooks Hanson, 2017. "Journals invite too few women to referee," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 455-457, January.
    4. 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.
    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. Robyn Price & Mark Skopec & Simon Mackenzie & Coco Nijhoff & Ruth Harrison & Gemma Seabrook & Matthew Harris, 2022. "A novel data solution to inform curriculum decolonisation: the case of the Imperial College London Masters of Public Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1021-1037, February.

    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. Torsten Skov, 2020. "Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Alexander Tekles & Katrin Auspurg & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Same-gender citations do not indicate a substantial gender homophily bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    5. Sandra Krapf & Michaela Kreyenfeld & Katharina Wolf, 2016. "Gendered Authorship and Demographic Research: An Analysis of 50 Years of Demography," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(4), pages 1169-1184, August.
    6. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    7. María José Foncubierta-Rodríguez & Fernando Martín-Alcázar & José Luis Perea-Vicente, 2023. "A typology of principal investigators based on their human capital: an exploratory analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 932-954, June.
    8. repec:osf:socarx:4z6w8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Andersen, Jens Peter & Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, 2018. "Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 950-959.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Katie Wilson & Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang & Lucy Montgomery & Cameron Neylon & Rebecca N. Handcock & Alkim Ozaygen & Aniek Roelofs, 2022. "Changing the Academic Gender Narrative through Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, July.
    13. David Downie & Austin Chinal & Ryan Fritz & Natalie Intemann & Kayla Urbanowski, 2018. "The first 6 years of JESS: categorizing authors and topics," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 371-375, September.
    14. Emre Özel, 2024. "What is Gender Bias in Grant Peer review?," Working Papers halshs-03862027, HAL.
    15. 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.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela Anna & Torrini, Roberto, 2017. "Gender effects in research evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 911-924.
    19. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2021. "Gender Disparities In International Research Collaboration: A Study Of 25,000 University Professors," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1344-1380, December.
    20. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa & Tao, Ran & Walker, James & Zhu, Millie, 2025. "The female finance penalty: Why are women less successful in academic finance than related fields?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(4).
    21. 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.

    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:plo:pone00:0239012. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.