El Efecto Matilda en la red de coautorías Hispanoamericana en Comunicación // Matilda Effect in the Hispanic American Communication co-authorship network

Segado-Boj, Francisco, Prieto-Gutierrez, Juan-Jose and Quevedo-redondo, Raquel El Efecto Matilda en la red de coautorías Hispanoamericana en Comunicación // Matilda Effect in the Hispanic American Communication co-authorship network. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 2021, vol. 12, n. 2, pp. 77-95. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of El Efecto Matilda en la red de coautorías Hispanoamericana en Comunicación.pdf]
Preview
 Text
El Efecto Matilda en la red de coautorías Hispanoamericana en Comunicación.pdf
Download (425kB) | Preview

English 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.

Spanish abstract

Investigaciones recientes con perspectiva de género han confirmado la pervivencia del “Efecto Matilda” en la ciencia, haciendo que las aportaciones y el papel de las mujeres sigan quedando relegados dentro de sus comunidades científicas. En este contexto, la propuesta que ocupa estas páginas se centra en comprobar si el fenómeno también se produce en la comunidad hispanoamericana de investigación en Comunicación, realizando para ello un análisis sociométrico sobre la red de coautorías. Los resultados señalan que pese a que tres de los cinco puestos más centrales de la red están ocupados por féminas, en términos generales se registran diferencias significativas que desplazan a las investigadoras a posiciones más periféricas. Del mismo modo, se ha detectado que las comunidades de investigación formadas por las distintas comunidades tienden a estar organizadas en torno a varones, confirmando así la presencia del Matilda effect en la red social de la disciplina de Comunicación. Cabe señalar que estas conclusiones se extrapolan a unos parámetros intelectuales (Comunicación) y geográficos (España y Latinoamérica) concretos, por lo que la puerta a estudios en otros ámbitos queda abierta.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Co-authorship; Matilda Effect; Gender; Latin America; Social Network Analysis; Spain; Análisis de redes; Coautoría; Efecto Matilda; España; Género; Latinoamérica
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
B. Information use and sociology of information > BJ. Communication
Depositing user: Juan José Prieto-Gutiérrez
Date deposited: 16 Jul 2021 10:47
Last modified: 16 Jul 2021 10:47
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/42268

References

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

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

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

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

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

Batagelj, V. & Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek: Program for large network analysis. Connections, 21(2), 47-57.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Castaño, C. (2010). Género y TIC. Presencia, posición y políticas. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.

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

Conley, D. & Stadmark, J. (2012). Gender matters: a call to commission more women writers. Nature, 488(7413), 590. https://doi.org/f2zr2p

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.40389

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finn, N. (2016). Pseudonymous disguises: Are pen names an escape from the gender bias in publishing?. Greencastle, IN: DePauw University.

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

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

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

Guil, A. (2008). Mujeres y ciencia: techos de cristal. Eccos Revista Científica, 10(1), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.5585/eccos.v10i1

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

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

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

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

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

Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect –Role congruity effects 90 on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/cj22g2

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

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

Kumar, S. (2015). Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/ftf5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Porter, M. A., Onnela, J. P. & Mucha, P. J. (2009). Communities in networks. Notices of the AMS, 56(9), 1082-1097.

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

Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social studies of science, 23(2), 325–341.

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

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

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.0591

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

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

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

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

Udry, J. R. (1994). The Nature of Gender. Demography, 31(4), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061790

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

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

Vásárhelyi, O. (2020). Computational and relational understanding of gender inequalities in science and technology. (Tesis Doctoral). Central European University, Budapest, Hungría.

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

Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(1), 341-343. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0

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


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS