Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 119–125. doi:10.2307/2095801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauin, S., Michelet, B., Schweighoffer, M. G., & Vermeulin, P. (1991). Using bibliometrics in strategic analysis: “Understanding chemical reactions” at the CNRS. Scientometrics, 22(1), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255. doi:10.1002/aris.1440370106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. doi:10.1007/BF02019280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. doi:10.1177/053901883022002003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. PNAS, 108(8), 3157–3162. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 5(1), 146–166. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In P. Maehr & M. W. Steinkmap (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (pp. 217–258). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtial, J. P., Callon, M., & Sigogneau, M. (1984). Is indexing trustworthy? Classification of articles through co-word analysis. Journal of Information Science, 9(2), 47–56. doi:10.1177/016555158400900201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewandre, N. (2002). Women in science—European strategies for promoting women in science. Science, 295(5553), 278–279. doi:10.1126/science.1063487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009). The gender challenge in research funding. Assessing the European national scenes. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research.

  • European Commission (2013). She Figures 2012. Gender in research and innovation. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

  • Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 517–532. doi:10.1037/a0016030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150. doi:10.1177/0306312705046630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F., Fonseca, C., & Bao, J. (2011). Work and family conflict in academic science: Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 715–735. doi:10.1177/0306312711417730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2009). Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973–2001. In R. B. Freeman & D. L. Goroff (Eds.), Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An analysis of markets and employment (pp. 163–194). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 21–40. doi:10.1002/job.498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Q. (1999). Knowledge Discovery through Co-Word Analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204–1222. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science, 40(3), 433–451. doi:10.1177/0306312709358472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Whittaker, J. (1992). Mapping acidification research: A test of the co-word method. Scientometrics, 23(3), 417–461. doi:10.1007/BF02029807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. A. (2006). Men, women, and ghosts in science. PLoSBiol, 4(1), e19. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • League of European Research Universities, LERU. (2012). Women, research and universities: excellence without gender bias. Leuven, Belgium: League of European Research Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754–780. doi:10.1177/0891243206293030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledin, A., Bornmann, L., Gannon, F., & Wallon, G. (2007). A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO Reports, 8(11), 982–987. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leta, J., & Lewison, G. (2003). The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography. Scientometrics, 57(3), 339–353. doi:10.1023/A:1025000600840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2009). UC doctoral student career and life survey (University of California, Berkeley). Retrieved 10 November 2013, from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/grad%20life%20survey.html.

  • 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 of the United States of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

  • Muñoz-Leiva, F., Viedma-del-Jesús, M., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & López-Herrera, A. (2012). An application of co-word analysis and bibliometric maps for detecting the most highlighting themes in the consumer behaviour research from a longitudinal perspective. Quality & Quantity, 46(4), 1077–1095. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9565-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 27–58. doi:10.1023/A:1016046819457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (2012). More gender diversity will mean better science. The Chronicle of Higher Education. From http://chronicle.com/article/More-Gender-Diversity-Will/135310/.

  • Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446. doi:10.1023/A:1015575616285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22–24. doi:10.1038/495022a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnert, G. (1996). Gender equity in science: Still an elusive goal. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(2), 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 891–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudhier, K. G., & Abhila, I. S. (2011, March 2–4). Publication productivity of social scientists in the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram: A bibliometric analysis. Paper presented at the 8th International CALIBER, Goa University, Goa.

  • Symonds, M. R., 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), e127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. W., Fender, B. F., & Burke, K. G. (2006). Unraveling the academic productivity of economists: The opportunity costs of teaching and service. Southern Economic Journal, 72(4), 846–859. doi:10.2307/20111856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, W. A., Chartron, G., Laville, F., & Michelet, B. (1988). Packaging information for peer review: New co-word analysis techniques. In A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Dordrecht: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2012). World atlas of gender equality in education. Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524. doi:10.1177/1350508411414293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z.-Y., Li, G., Li, C.-Y., & Li, A. (2012). Research on the semantic-based co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 90(3), 855–875. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0563-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343. doi:10.1038/387341a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinovyeva, N., & Bagues, M. (2011). Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5537.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Tahereh Dehdarirad

  2. Department of Public Economy, Political Economy and Spanish Economy, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Anna Villarroya

  3. Department of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences, University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Maite Barrios

Authors
  1. Tahereh Dehdarirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Villarroya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maite Barrios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maite Barrios.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dehdarirad, T., Villarroya, A. & Barrios, M. Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis. Scientometrics 101, 273–290 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1327-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1327-2

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation