El Efecto Matilda en la red de coautorías Hispanoamericana en Comunicación

  1. Segado-Boj, Francisco
  2. Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan-José
  3. Quevedo-Redondo, Raquel
Journal:
Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación: Mediterranean Journal of Communication

ISSN: 1989-872X

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 12

Issue: 2

Pages: 77-95

Type: Article

DOI: 10.14198/MEDCOM.18971 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRUA editor

More publications in: Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación: Mediterranean Journal of Communication

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Literature has noted that female researchers encounter a ‘Matilda effect’ that tends to undervalue and marginalize their contributions and role in their scientific communities. This paper tests whether any such effect is present in the Hispanic American communication research community through a social network analysis of the community’s co-authorship network. The results show that, although three of the five most central positions in the network are occupied by women, significant differences in general terms move female researchers to more peripheral positions. Similarly, it has been detected that the research groups formed by the different clusters or communities detected in the network tend to be organized around a male researcher. This confirms the existence of a ‘Matilda effect’ that is also detrimental to the centrality of women in the social network of the Communication scientific communication. The article’s conclusions can only be extrapolated to intellectual (Communication) and geographical (Spain and Latin America) parameters, so that future studies will be necessary to detect such an effect in other contexts.

Bibliographic References

  • [1] Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A. & Godínez-Larios, S. (2018). Asociarse o perecer: la colaboración funcional en las ciencias sociales latinoamericanas. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 161, 3-22. https://doi.org/ftgc
  • [2] Aksnes, D. W., Piro, F. N. & Rørstad, K. (2019). Gender gaps in international research collaboration: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 120, 747–774. https://doi.org/ggz2b7
  • [3] Alonso, A., Diz, I. & Lois, M. (2016). Is gender mainstreaming helping women scientists? Evidences from research policies in Spain. Investigaciones Feministas, 7(2), 273-291. https://doi.org/ftgb
  • [4] Ávila-Toscano, J., Vargas-Delgado, L. & Oquendo-González, K. (2020). Producción científica educativa, redes de autores y enfoques temáticos: Caso Universidad del Atlántico. Educación y Humanismo, 22(39), 1-17. https://doi.org/ftf9
  • [5] Bain, O. & Cummings, W. (2000). Academe’s Glass Ceiling: Societal, Professional-Organizational, and Institutional Barriers to the Career Advancement of Academic Women. Comparative Education Review, 44(4), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1086/447631
  • [6] Batagelj, V. & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek: Program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47-57.
  • [7] Benschop, Y. & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/cmzdmz
  • [8] Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072
  • [9] Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., González-Albo, B. & Díaz-Faes, A. A. (2015). The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields. Journal of informetrics, 9(1), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.001
  • [10] Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.D. (2005). Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics, 63(2), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0214-2
  • [11] Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. & Hans-Dieter, D. (2007) Gender differences in grant peer review: A metaanalysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 226–238. https://doi.org/d4nqfc
  • [12] Carter A. J., Croft, A., Lukas, D. & Sandstrom, G.M. (2018). Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men. PLoS ONE, 13(9), 1-22. https://doi.org/cvgd
  • [13] Castaño, C. (2010). Género y TIC. Presencia, posición y políticas. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
  • [14] Coate, K. & Howson, C.K. (2014). Indicators of esteem: gender and prestige in academic work. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(4), 567-585. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.955082
  • [15] Conley, D. & Stadmark, J. (2012). Gender matters: a call to commission more women writers. Nature, 488(7413), 590. https://doi.org/f2zr2p
  • [16] Collazo, F., Luna, M. E. & Vélez, G. (2010). Surgimiento de las prácticas científicas de colaboración en la ciencia mexicana con cobertura en los índices internacionales. Redes. Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales, 19(1), 143-167. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.403
  • [17] Davenport, E. & Snyder, H. (1995). Who cites women? Whom do women cite? An exploration of gender and scholarly citation in sociology. Journal of Documentation, 51(4), 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026958
  • [18] Dias, A., Ruthes, S., Lima, L., Campra, E., Silva, M., de Sousa, M. B. & Porto, G. (2019). Network centrality analysis in management and accounting sciences. RAUSP Management Journal, 55(2), 207- 226. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-02-2019-0021
  • [19] Díaz-Campo, J. & Segado-Boj, F. (2017). Los conflictos de autoría en las revistas del Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Criterios éticos en las revistas de educación. BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, 39. https://doi.org/ftf8
  • [20] Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L. & Mitchell, S. M. L. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327. https://doi.org/gd2j76
  • [21] Faulkner, W. (2009). Doing gender in engineering workplace cultures. II. Gender in/authenticity and the in/visibility paradox. Engineering Studies, 1(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/dggzwv
  • [22] Ferber, M.A. & Brun, M. (2011). The gender gap in citations: does it persist? Feminist Economics, 17(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2010.541857
  • [23] Fernández-Quijada, D. & Masip, P. (2013). Tres décadas de investigación española en comunicación: hacia la mayoría de edad. Comunicar, 41, 15-24. https://doi.org/xzc
  • [24] Fernández-Quijada, D., Masip, P. & Bergillos, I. (2013). El precio de la internacionalidad: La dualidad en los patrones de publicación de los investigadores españoles en comunicación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 36(2). https://doi.org/ftf7
  • [25] Fell, C. B. & König, C. J. (2016). Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists. Scientometrics, 108(1), 113-141. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1967-5
  • [26] Finn, N. (2016). Pseudonymous disguises: Are pen names an escape from the gender bias in publishing?. Greencastle, IN: DePauw University.
  • [27] Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  • [28] Fryer, R. G. & Levitt, S. (2004). The causes and consequences of distinctly black names. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 5, 767–805. http://dx.doi. org/10.1162/0033553041502180
  • [29] Gallego-Morón, N. & Matus-López, M. (2020). Factores positivos en las trayectorias de las académicas e investigadoras argentinas. Cuestiones de género: de la igualdad y la diferencia, 15(1), 105-124. DOI:10.18002/cg.v0i15.6174
  • [30] Guil, A. (2008). Mujeres y ciencia: techos de cristal. Eccos Revista Científica, 10(1), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.5585/eccos.v10i1
  • [31] Haba-Osca, J., Osca-Lluch, J. & González-Sala, F. (2019). Producción científica española en literatura desde una perspectiva de género a través de Web of Science (1975-2017). Investigación bibliotecológica, 3(79), 35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2019.79.57996
  • [32] Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R. & Barabási, A. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(9), 4609–4616. https://doi.org/ggk89f
  • [33] Jones, T. M., Fanson, K. V., Lanfear, R., Symonds, M. & Higgie, M. (2014). Gender differences in conference presentations: a consequence of self-selection? PeerJ, 2:e627. https://doi.org/ftf6
  • [34] Kamada, T. & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information processing letters, 31(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(89)90102-6
  • [35] Karimi, F., Mayr, P. & Momeni, F. (2019). Analyzing the network structure and gender differences among the members of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 20(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-018-0243-0
  • [36] Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect –Role congruity effects
  • [37] Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J. & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603-625. https://doi.org/ggfnzw
  • [38] Kretschme,r H., Kundra, R., Beaver, D. D. & Kretschmer, T. (2012). Gender bias in journals of gender studies. Scientometrics, 93(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/gc6mx7
  • [39] Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/ftf5
  • [40] Lariviére, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 211, 211–213. https://doi.org/qgf
  • [41] Leaper, C. & Robnett, R. D. (2011). Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/bgvwsd
  • [42] Leifeld, P., Wankmüller, S., Berger, V. T., Ingold, K. & Steiner, C. (2017). Collaboration patterns in the German political science co-authorship network. PloS one, 12(4), e0174671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174671
  • [43] Lincoln A. E., Pincus S., Koster, J. B. & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/f35bf7
  • [44] Maliniak, D., Powers, R. & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209
  • [45] Martínez-Nicolás, M. (2020). La investigación sobre comunicación en España (1985-2015). Contexto institucional, comunidad académica y producción científica. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 75, 383-414. https://doi.org/fjbw
  • [46] Moss-Racusin C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/jkm
  • [47] Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics, 64, 016131. https://doi.org/bbp4b7
  • [48] Otte, E. & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science, 28(6), 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601
  • [49] Pell, A. N. (1996). Fixing the leaky pipeline: women scientists in academia. Journal of Animal Science, 74(11), 2843–2848. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112843x
  • [50] Porter, M. A., Onnela, J. P. & Mucha, P. J. (2009). Communities in networks. Notices of the AMS, 56(9), 1082-1097.
  • [51] Quevedo-Redondo, R. (2021). El estilo retórico femenino en la entrevista política. Una década de aplicación en Telva. Index.comunicación, 11(1), 271-295. https://doi.org/10.33732/ixc/11/01Elesti
  • [52] Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social studies of science, 23(2), 325–341.
  • [53] Sato, S., Gygax, P. M., Randall, J. & Mast, M. S. (2020). The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions. Higher Education, https://doi.org/ftf4
  • [54] Segado-Boj, F., Martín-Quevedo, J. & Prieto-Gutiérrez, J. J. (2018). Attitudes toward Open Access, Open Peer Review, and Altmetrics among Contributors to Spanish Scholarly Journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 48-70. https://doi.org/ftf3
  • [55] Segado-Boj, F., Prieto-Gutiérrez, J. J. y Díaz-Campo, J. (2021). Redes de coautorías de la investigación española y latinoamericana en Comunicación (2000-2019): cohesión interna y aislamiento transcontinental. Profesional de la Información, 30(3), e300305. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.may.05
  • [56] Stamhuis, I. H. (1995). A female contribution to early genetics: Tine Tammes and Mendel’s laws for continuous characters. Journal of the History of Biology, 28(3), 495–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059390
  • [57] Sumner, J. L. (2018). The Gender Balance Assessment Tool (GBAT): A web-based tool for estimating gender balance in syllabi and bibliographies. PS: Political Science y Politics, 51(2), 396–400. https://doi.org/cpj5
  • [58] Symonds, M. R. E., Gemmell, N. J., Braisher, T. L., Gorringe, K. L. & Elgar, M. A. (2006). Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance. PLoS ONE, 1(1). https://doi.org/bt4zft
  • [59] Tinsley, C. H., Cheldelin, S. I., Schneider, A. K. & Amanatullah, E, T. (2009). Women at the bargaining table: pitfalls and prospects. Negotiation Journal, 25(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/cfwqxz
  • [60] Udry, J. R. (1994). The Nature of Gender. Demography, 31(4), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061790
  • [61] Vacarezza, N. L. (2018). Decir el propio género. Feminidades, usos del género gramatical y nombre propio. Cad. Pagu, 52(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/ftf2
  • [62] Van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/cx2w6z
  • [63] Vásárhelyi, O. (2020). Computational and relational understanding of gender inequalities in science and technology. (Tesis Doctoral). Central European University, Budapest, Hungría.
  • [64] Walker, M. A. & Boamah, E. F. (2019). Making the invisible hyper-visible: Knowledge production and the gendered power nexus in critical urban studies. Human Geography, 12(2), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277861901200203
  • [65] Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(1), 341-343. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0
  • [66] Zhang, N. & Li, J. (2020). Do neutral names have an influence on scientists’ research impact. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol, 57, 1-12. https://doi.org/ftfz
Data source: Dialnet