The Matilda Effect—Role Congruity Effects on Scholarly Communication

Using role congruity theory as the basis for the study, an analysis of 1,020 articles published 1991-2005 in Communication Research and Journal of Communication, as well as the ISI citations these articles received and the citations these articles included, was conducted. In line with a hypothesized “Matilda effect” (underrecognition of female scientists), articles authored by female communication scientists received fewer citations than articles authored by males. Hypotheses on moderating impacts of research topic, author productivity, and citing author’s sex, as well as on change in the effect’s extent across time were derived from the theoretical framework. Networking conceptualizations led to an additional hypothesis. Five of six hypotheses were supported.

[1]  N. J. Burnett.  The productivity puzzle: A 10% solution , 1992 .

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

[3]  C. Schultz.  The productivity puzzle. , 1989, Journal of the California Dental Association.

[4]  Youngju Kim,et al.  Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis , 2011, Scientometrics.

[5]  H. Ibarra.  Personal Networks of Women and Minorities in Management: A Conceptual Framework , 1993 .

[6]  J. Hyde,et al.  The Gender Similarities Hypothesis , 2005 .

[7]  L. Lievrouw.  The Invisible College Reconsidered , 1989 .

[8]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Pamela J. Cooper.  Twenty Years of Research by and about Women in Major Communication Journals: 1967-1986. , 1989 .

[10]  H. Ibarra.  Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. , 1992 .

[11]  Robert L. Helmreich,et al.  Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. , 1980 .

[12]  Don W. Stacks,et al.  Active prolific female scholars in communication: An analysis of research productivity, II , 1992 .

[13]  J. S. Long,et al.  Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity , 1992 .

[14]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[15]  S. Clark,et al.  Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty: A Case of Accumulative Disadvantage?. , 1986 .

[16]  J. R. Cole,et al.  Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. , 1967, American sociological review.

[17]  Nancy F. Burroughs.  Top Published Authors in Communication Studies 1915-1985. , 1989 .

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

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

[22]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals , 2009, Scientometrics.

[23]  Linda Serra Hagedorn,et al.  Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of Gender and Family-Related Factors , 2002 .

[24]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

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

[26]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  A Bibliometric Analysis of Communication Journals from 2002 to 2005 , 2008 .

[27]  R. Merton.  Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. , 1957 .

[28]  J. Bentley,et al.  Gender Differences in the Careers of Academic Scientists and Engineers: A Literature Review. Special Report. , 2003 .

[29]  S. Karau,et al.  Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. , 2002, Psychological review.

[30]  G. Holden,et al.  Bibliometrics , 2005, Social work in health care.

[31]  C. Wennerås,et al.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.

[32]  Peter Willett,et al.  Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research , 2006, J. Inf. Sci..

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

[34]  D. J. Myers,et al.  Feminist Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in Women and Men, 1974-1998 , 2004 .

[35]  W. Paisley.  Bibliometrics, Scholarly Communication, and Communication Research , 1989 .

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

[37]  Mary Frank Fox,et al.  Women and Men Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering: Social-Organizational Indicators and Implications , 2010 .

[38]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Athena Unbound: Acknowledgements , 2000 .

[39]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Motivated Stereotyping of Women: She’s Fine if She Praised Me but Incompetent if She Criticized Me , 2000 .

[40]  R. Over,et al.  The scholarly impact of articles published by men and women in psychology journals , 1990, Scientometrics.

[41]  Susan A. Basow,et al.  Gender Patterns in College Students' Choices of Their Best and Worst Professors , 2006 .

[42]  M. Maehr.  Advances in Motivation and Achievement , 1991 .

[43]  A. Eagly.  Sex differences in social behavior : a social-role interpretation , 1987 .

[44]  Susan E. Cozzens.  Gender Issues in US Science and Technology Policy: Equality of What? , 2008, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[45]  B. C. Griffith.  Understanding Science , 1989 .

[46]  Sam Wilson,et al.  What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology , 2008, Scientometrics.

[47]  Hetty van Emmerik,et al.  Gender differences in the creation of different types of social capital: A multilevel study , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[48]  Alyssa N. Bryant.  Changes in Attitudes Toward Women's Roles: Predicting Gender-Role Traditionalism Among College Students , 2003 .

[49]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Rankings and Trends in Citation Patterns of Communication Journals , 2010 .

[50]  H. Zuckerman,et al.  The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community , 1991 .

[51]  Brian D. Cameron,et al.  Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data: Uses, Abuses, and Implications , 2005 .

[52]  Leslie A. Baxter,et al.  Disciplining the feminine , 1994 .

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

[54]  A. Diamond,et al.  What is a Citation Worth ? , 2001 .

[55]  Jane L. Lehr,et al.  Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology , 2001 .

[56]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology , 2000 .

[57]  Robert K. Toutkoushian,et al.  Using Citations to Measure Sex Discrimination in Faculty Salaries , 2017 .

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