IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v98y2014i2d10.1007_s11192-013-1096-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do men and women differ in their use of tables and graphs in academic publications?

Author

Listed:
  • James Hartley

    (Keele University)

  • Guillaume Cabanac

    (University of Toulouse)

Abstract

In psychological research there is huge literature on differences between the sexes. Typically it used to be thought that women were more verbally and men more spatially oriented. These differences now seem to be waning. In this article we present three studies on sex differences in the use of tables and graphs in academic articles. These studies are based on data mining from approximately 2,000 articles published in over 200 peer-reviewed journals in the sciences and social sciences. In Study 1 we found that, in the sciences, men used 26 % more graphs and figures than women, but that there were no significant differences between them in their use of tables. In Study 2 we found no significant differences between men and women in their use of graphs and figures or tables in social science articles. In Study 3 we found no significant differences between men and women in their use of what we termed ‘data’ and ‘text’ tables in social science articles. It is possible that these findings indicate that academic writing is now becoming a genre that is equally undertaken by men and women.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1096-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1096-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1096-3
    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/s11192-013-1096-3?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. Gelman A. & Pasarica C. & Dodhia R., 2002. "Lets Practice What We Preach: Turning Tables into Graphs," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 56, pages 121-130, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Frandsen, Tove Faber & Jacobsen, Rasmus Højbjerg & Wallin, Johan A. & Brixen, Kim & Ousager, Jakob, 2015. "Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences Graduates," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 1007-1017.
    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. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. González-Álvarez, Julio & Cervera-Crespo, Teresa, 2017. "Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 232-243.
    6. M. Teresa Antonio-García & Irene López-Navarro & Jesús Rey-Rocha, 2014. "Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1747-1779, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Lorena Rivera León & Jacques Mairesse & Robin Cowan, 2017. "Gender Gaps and Scientific Productivity in Middle-Income Countries: Evidence from Mexico," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 98456, Inter-American Development Bank.
    9. Carlo Romano Marcello Alessandro Santagiustina & Matteo Iacopini, 2020. "Visualizing and comparing distributions with half-disk density strips," Papers 2006.16063, arXiv.org.
    10. José María Cavero & Belén Vela & Paloma Cáceres & Carlos Cuesta & Almudena Sierra-Alonso, 2015. "The evolution of female authorship in computing research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 85-100, April.
    11. Kretschmer, Hildrun & Beaver, Donald deB. & Ozel, Bulent & Kretschmer, Theo, 2015. "Who is collaborating with whom? Part II. Application of the methods to male and to female networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 373-384.
    12. 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.
    13. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & María Inés Moraes & Tatiana Pérez, 2021. "Women in Research in Economics in Uruguay," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 40(84), pages 763-790, October.
    14. Patrizia Ordine & Claudio Lupi, 2009. "Family Income and Students' Mobility," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 68(1), pages 1-23, April.
    15. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    16. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    17. Karen L. Webber & Manuel González Canché, 2018. "Is There a Gendered Path to Tenure? A Multi-State Approach to Examine the Academic Trajectories of U.S. Doctoral Recipients in the Sciences," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(7), pages 897-932, November.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:98:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1096-3. 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.