IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v101y2014i1d10.1007_s11192-014-1327-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tahereh Dehdarirad

    (University of Barcelona)

  • Anna Villarroya

    (University of Barcelona)

  • Maite Barrios

    (University of Barcelona)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to map and analyze the structure and evolution of the scientific literature on gender differences in higher education and science, focusing on factors related to differences between 1991 and 2012. Co-word analysis was applied to identify the main concepts addressed in this research field. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to cluster the keywords and a strategic diagram was created to analyze trends. The data set comprised a corpus containing 652 articles and reviews published between 1991 and 2012, extracted from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. In order to see how the results changed over time, documents were grouped into three different periods: 1991–2001, 2002–2007, and 2008–2012. The results showed that the number of themes has increased significantly over the years and that gender differences in higher education and science have been considered by specific research disciplines, suggesting important research-field-specific variations. Overall, the study helps to identify the major research topics in this domain, as well as highlighting issues to be addressed or strengthened in further work.

Suggested Citation

  • Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2014. "Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 273-290, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1327-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1327-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1327-2
    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/s11192-014-1327-2?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. Cobo, M.J. & López-Herrera, A.G. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2011. "An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 146-166.
    2. Richard B. Freeman & Daniel Goroff, 2009. "Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number free09-1, June.
    3. Helen Shen, 2013. "Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7439), pages 22-24, March.
    4. Freeman, Richard B. & Goroff, Daniel L (ed.), 2009. "Science and Engineering Careers in the United States," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226261898, October.
    5. Susan Washburn Taylor & Blakely Fox Fender & Kimberly Gladden Burke, 2006. "Unraveling the Academic Productivity of Economists: The Opportunity Costs of Teaching and Service," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 846-859, April.
    6. Natalia Zinovyeva & Manuel F. Bagues, 2010. "Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment," Working Papers 2010-15, FEDEA.
    7. Susan Washburn Taylor & Blakely Fox Fender & Kimberly Gladden Burke, 2006. "Unraveling the Academic Productivity of Economists: The Opportunity Costs of Teaching and Service," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 846-859, April.
    8. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    9. Jacqueline Leta & Grant Lewison, 2003. "The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 339-353, July.
    10. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2009. "Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001," NBER Chapters, in: Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, pages 163-194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Zhong-Yi Wang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Ang Li, 2012. "Research on the semantic-based co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 855-875, March.
    12. Matthew RE Symonds & Neil J Gemmell & Tamsin L Braisher & Kylie L Gorringe & Mark A Elgar, 2006. "Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, December.
    13. Katarina Prpić, 2002. "Gender and productivity differentials in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(1), pages 27-58, September.
    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. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Anna Villarroya & Maite Barrios, 2015. "Research on women in science and higher education: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 795-812, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Maria De Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2015. "Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82(325), pages 162-188, January.
    5. Pleun Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2012. "Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 857-868, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    8. K. C. Garg & S. Kumar, 2014. "Scientometric profile of Indian scientific output in life sciences with a focus on the contributions of women scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1771-1783, March.
    9. Bührer, Susanne & Frietsch, Rainer, 2020. "How do public investments in gender equality initiatives and publication patterns interrelate? The case of Germany," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Grant Lewison & Valentina Markusova, 2011. "Female researchers in Russia: have they become more visible?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 139-152, October.
    12. Emre Özel, 2024. "What is Gender Bias in Grant Peer review?," Working Papers halshs-03862027, HAL.
    13. Heidi Prozesky & Nelius Boshoff, 2012. "Bibliometrics as a tool for measuring gender-specific research performance: an example from South African invasion ecology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 383-406, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    16. Bührer, Susanne & Frietsch, Rainer, 2020. "How do public investments in gender equality initiatives and publication patterns interrelate? The case of Germany," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    17. Mercedes Delgado & Fiona Murray, 2021. "Mapping the Regions, Organizations and Individuals That Drive Inclusion in the Innovation Economy," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 1, pages 67-101, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Cathelijn J F Waaijer & Hans Sonneveld & Simone E Buitendijk & Cornelis A van Bochove & Inge C M van der Weijden, 2016. "The Role of Gender in the Employment, Career Perception and Research Performance of Recent PhD Graduates from Dutch Universities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Sucharita Ghosh & Emanuele Grassi, 2020. "Overeducation and overskilling in the early careers of PhD graduates: Does international migration reduce labour market mismatch?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(4), pages 915-944, August.
    20. Fatima M Felisberti & Rebecca Sear, 2014. "Postdoctoral Researchers in the UK: A Snapshot at Factors Affecting Their Research Output," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-7, April.

    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:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1327-2. 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.