Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations

Multiple studies report that male scholars cite publications of male authors more often than their female colleagues do—and vice versa. This gender homophily in citations points to a fragmentation of science along gender boundaries. However, it is not yet clear whether it is actually (perceived) gender characteristics or structural conditions related to gender that are causing the heightened citation frequency of same-sex authors. A bibliometric study on the two leading German communication science journals Publizistik and Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft was employed to further analyze the causes of the phenomenon. As scholars tend to primarily cite sources from their own area of research, differences among male and female scholars regarding their engagement in certain research fields become relevant. It was thus hypothesized that the research subject might mediate the relationship between the citing and cited authors’ genders. A first analysis based on n = 917 papers published in the period from 1970 to 2009 confirmed the expected gender-differences regarding research-activity in certain fields. Subsequently, structural equation modeling was employed to test the suggested mediation model. Results show the expected mediation to be a complementary one indicating that gender homophily in citations is partly due to topical boundaries. While there are alternative explanations for the remaining direct effect, it may suggest that a fragmentation of science along gender boundaries is indeed an issue that communication science must face.

[1]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[2]  D. L. Swanson,et al.  Fragmentation, the Field, and the Future. , 1993 .

[3]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine , 2016 .

[4]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[5]  D. Y. Wohn,et al.  Micro Agenda Setters: The Effect of Social Media on Young Adults’ Exposure to and Attitude Toward News , 2016 .

[6]  Jin X. Goh,et al.  Some Evidence for a Gender Gap in Personality and Social Psychology , 2016 .

[7]  Craig Calhoun,et al.  Communication as a social science (and more) , 2012 .

[8]  S. Baldi.  Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations : A network-analytic model , 1998 .

[9]  Cornelius J. König,et al.  Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists , 2016, Scientometrics.

[10]  M. Potthoff,et al.  Die meistbeachteten Autoren und Werke der Kommunikationswissenschaft , 2013 .

[11]  James Hartley,et al.  Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook , 2008 .

[13]  M. Rossiter.  The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science , 1993 .

[14]  Lana F. Rakow.  Rethinking Gender Research in Communication , 1986 .

[15]  Donald Owen Case,et al.  How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Matthias R. Hastall,et al.  Zur Lage der Kommunikationswissenschaft und ihrer Fachgesellschaft. Ergebnisse der DGPuK-Mitgliederbefragung 2003 , 2003 .

[17]  Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick,et al.  The Matilda Effect—Role Congruity Effects on Scholarly Communication , 2013, Commun. Res..

[18]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[19]  Patrick Ian Armstrong,et al.  Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  M. Ferber,et al.  CITATIONS AND NETWORKING , 1988 .

[21]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science , 2013, Nature.

[22]  Fredrik Niclas Piro,et al.  Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  R. Jackson,et al.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1988, International journal of dermatology.

[24]  Tapabrata Maiti,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.) , 2006 .

[25]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Searching for converging research using field to field citations , 2010, Scientometrics.

[26]  C. Strippel,et al.  Internationalisierung und Journalisierung der deutschen Kommunikationswissenschaft , 2014 .

[27]  Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick,et al.  The Matilda Effect in Science Communication , 2013 .

[28]  Ulla K. Bunz,et al.  Publish or Perish: A Limited Author Analysis of ICA and NCA Journals , 2005 .

[29]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Gender bias in journals of gender studies , 2012, Scientometrics.

[30]  Catherine Lutz,et al.  the erasure of women's writing in sociocultural anthropology , 1990 .

[31]  R. Horton,et al.  Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity , 2008 .

[32]  D. Swanson.  Undiscovered Public Knowledge , 1986 .

[33]  Laura A. Wackwitz,et al.  Women in Mass Communication , 2022 .

[34]  Leslie D. Dinauer,et al.  Gender and Institutional Affiliation as Determinants of Publishing in Human Communication Research , 1999 .

[35]  H. P. Dalen,et al.  How Influential Are Demography Journals , 1999 .

[36]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Psychological aspects of natural language. use: our words, our selves. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[37]  Edd C. Applegate,et al.  Scholarship Rates of Women within AEJMC Divisions, Interest Groups, and Commissions (1994–2003) , 2005 .

[38]  D. Cases,et al.  How can we investigate citation behavior?: a study of reasons for citing literature in communication , 2000 .

[39]  Becky Francis,et al.  An Analysis of Undergraduate Writing Styles in the Context of Gender and Achievement , 2001 .

[40]  V. Larivière.  Global gender disparities in science , 2013 .

[41]  Stephen Cole,et al.  Why sociology doesn't make progress like the natural sciences , 1994 .

[42]  Michel Dupagne,et al.  A Content Analysis of Women's Published Mass Communication Research, 1965–1989 , 1993 .

[43]  J. Pooley.  The Four Cultures: Media Studies at the Crossroads , 2016 .

[44]  Katarina Prpic,et al.  Gender and productivity differentials in science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[45]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis , 2010 .

[46]  Barbara F. Walter,et al.  The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations , 2013, International Organization.

[47]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  An indicator of cross-disciplinary research , 1985, Scientometrics.

[48]  Bonnie McElhinny,et al.  Gender, publication and citation in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology: The construction of a scholarly canon , 2003, Language in Society.

[49]  S. Mitchell,et al.  Gendered Citation Patterns in International Relations Journals , 2013 .

[50]  Elisabeth Davenport,et al.  Who Cites women? Whom do women cite?: an Exploration of Gender and scholarly citation in Sociology , 1995, J. Documentation.

[51]  Malin Håkanson,et al.  The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly , 2005 .

[52]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Gender differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system , 2009, Scientometrics.

[53]  James Hartley,et al.  Using New Technology to Assess the Academic Writing Styles of Male and Female Pairs and Individuals , 2003 .

[54]  Jonathan,et al.  THE PRODUCTIVITY PUZZLE : PERSISTENCE AND CHANGE IN PATTERNS OF PUBLICATION OF MEN AND WOMEN SCIENTISTS , 2004 .

[55]  Brenda Dervin,et al.  MORE THAN MISUNDERSTANDING, LESS THAN WAR: "ADMINISTRATIVE" AND "CRITICAL" THEORIES, FIELD COHESION, AND (IM)POSSIBLE DIALOGUE by , 2005 .

[56]  Jörg Matthes.  Framing Politics , 2012 .

[57]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[58]  Emese Domahidi,et al.  Extended Abstract Internationalization and Journalization of German Communication Science? An analysis of scientific articles and citations from 50 years of Publizistik and Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft , 2014 .

[59]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.