Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article explores the relationships between supervisor–supervisee gender difference and the scientific impact of doctoral dissertations. We use the China Doctoral Dissertations Full-text Database and pay special attention to the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences in China in our empirical study. By establishing regression models, we find that the ranks of the scientific impact regarding doctoral dissertations are female–female (first), female–male (second), male–male (third) and male–female (fourth) pairs (sequence: student gender and then supervisor gender). The finding has many interesting implications for science policy and gender inequality.

Keywords

Apprenticeship China citation impact doctoral dissertations gender difference humanities and social sciences

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asplund

Welle

CG.

Advancing science: how bias holds us back. Neuron 2018; 99(4): 635–639.

Arnania-Kepuladze

Gender stereotypes and gender feature of job motivation: differences or similarity?

Probl Perspect Manag 2010; 8(2): 84–93.

Carli

Alawa

Lee

et al. Stereotypes about gender and science: women ≠ scientists. Psychol Women Quart 2016; 40(2): 244–260.

Larivière

Gingras

et al. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature News 2013; 504(7479): 211.

Banchefsky

Westfall

Park

et al. But you don’t look like a scientist!: women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles 2016; 75(3–4): 95–109.

Abramo

D’Angelo

Caprasecca

Gender differences in research productivity: a bibliometric analysis of the Italian academic system. Scientometrics 2009; 79(3): 517–539.

Aguinis

Joo

Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. J Appl Psychol 2018; 103(12): 1283–1306.

Ceci

SJ.

Women in academic science: experimental findings from hiring studies. Educ Psychologist 2018; 53(1): 22–41.

Elsevier. Gender in the global research landscape: analysis of research performance through a gender lens across 20 years, 12 geographies, and 27 subject areas. New York: Elsevier, 2017.

10.

Flexman

Parmar

Lorello

GR.

Representation of female authors in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of articles between 1954 and 2017. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 2019; 66(5): 495–502.

11.

Fox

MF.

Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Soc Stud Sci 2005; 35(1): 131–150.

12.

Frietsch

Haller

Funken-Vrohlings

et al. Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Res Policy 2009; 38(4): 590–599.

13.

Ginther

Kahn

Comment on ‘Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines’. Science 2015; 349(6246): 391–391.

14.

Maske

Durden

Gaynor

PE.

Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry 2003; 41(4): 555–564.

15.

Prpić

Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics 2002; 55(1): 27–58.

16.

Reuben

Sapienza

Zingales

How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceed Natl Acad Sci 2014; 111(12): 4403–4408.

17.

Schrouff

Pischedda

Genon

et al. Gender bias in (neuro)science: facts, consequences, and solutions. Eur J Neurosci 2019; 50(7): 3094–3100.

18.

Nature. The #MeToo campaign is gaining ground in China.

19.

Sino-US . Leading Chinese academic suspended after harassment complaints from women students, http://www.sino-us.com/10/17495996837.html

20.

The Telegraph. Chinese professor sacked after sexual assault claim, as China’s #Metoo struggles to be heard, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/09/chinese-professor-sacked-sexual-assault-claim-chinas-metoo-struggles/

21.

Brown

Samuels

Beyond the gender citation gap: comments on Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell. Polit Anal 2018; 26(3): 328–330.

22.

Scharber

Pazurek

Ouyang

Illuminating the (in)visibility of female scholars: a gendered analysis of publishing rates within educational technology journals from 2004 to 2015. Gender and Education 2019; 31(1): 33–61.

23.

Ding

WW.

Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science 2006; 313(5787): 665–667.

24.

Shen

Webster

Shoda

et al. Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high profile journals. Sci Commun Educ, 2018, http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/275362

25.

Pohlhaus

Jiang

Wagner

et al. Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med 2011; 86(6): 759.

26.

Witteman

Hendricks

Straus

et al. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet 2019; 393(10171): 531–540.

27.

Lundine

Bourgeault

Clark

et al. The gendered system of academic publishing. Lancet 2018; 391(10132): 1754–1756.

28.

Nittrouer

Hebl

Ashburn-Nardo

et al. Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2018; 115(1): 104–108.

29.

Ford

Brick

Blaufuss

et al. Gender inequity in speaking opportunities at the American geophysical union fall meeting. Nat Commun 2018; 9(1): 1358.

30.

Murray

Siler

Lariviere

et al. Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/400515v1.full.pdf

31.

Mullan

Thank you to our diverse (but not diverse enough) reviewers. Lancet Global Health 2018; 6(10): e1056–e1057.

32.

Hassan

Gender biases and discrimination while hiring. Artha J Soc Sci 2019; 18(1): 13–21.

33.

Ramos

Bruno

Gender effects on decision hiring and promotion leaders. Revista Ibero-americana De Estratégia 2019; 18(1): 71.

34.

Bosquet

Combes

García-Peñalosa

Gender and promotions: evidence from academic economists in France*. Scand J Econ 2019; 121(3): 1020–1053.

35.

Ginther

Hayes

KJ.

Gender differences in salary and promotion in the humanities. Am Econ Rev 1999; 89(2): 397–402.

36.

Uhly

Visser

Zippel

KS.

Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Stud Higher Educ 2017; 42(4): 760–782.

37.

Dion

Sumner

Mitchell

SM.

Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. Politic Anal 2018; 26(3): 312–327.

38.

Murdie

We need a new international norm: eradicating the gender citation gap. Polit Anal 2018; 26(3): 345–347.

39.

Thelwall

Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries. J Inform 2018; 12(4): 1031–1041.

40.

Thelwall

Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English-speaking nations. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech 2019.

41.

Caplar

Tacchella

Birrer

Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nat Astron 2017; 1(6): 0141.

42.

Andersen

Nielsen

MW.

Google Scholar and Web of Science: examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines. J Inform 2018; 12(3): 950–959.

43.

Sotudeh

Dehdarirad

Freer

Gender differences in scientific productivity and visibility in core neurosurgery journals: citations and social media metrics. Res Eval 2018; 27: 262–269, https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-article/doi/10.1093/reseval/rvy003/4917684

44.

Thelwall

Nevill

No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research. Scientometrics 2019; 121(3): 1793–1801.

45.

Nielsen

MW.

Gender and citation impact in management research. J Informet 2017; 11(4): 1213–1228.

46.

Cook

MC.

The role of the academic supervisor for undergraduate dissertations in science and science-related subjects. Stud Higher Educ 1980; 5(2): 173–185.

47.

Raddon

AE.

A changing environment: narratives of learning about research. Int J Res Develop 2011; 2: 11.

48.

Liu

Tang

Kong

et al. Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis. Scientometrics 2018; 116(1): 161–180.

49.

Lin

Vogel

et al. What are the major impact factors on research performance of young doctorate holders in science in China: a USTC survey. High Educ 2011; 62(4): 483–502.

50.

Nettles

Millett

CM.

Three magic letters: getting to PhD. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press, 2006.

51.

Tuesta

Delgado

Mugnaini

et al. Analysis of an advisor–advisee relationship: an exploratory study of the area of exact and earth sciences in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(5): e0129065.

52.

Gaule

Piacentini

An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science. Inst Labor Econ 2017; 47: 805–813.

53.

Landivar

LC.

Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Educ Rev 2013; 29(6): 911–922.

54.

Milkman

Akinola

Chugh

Temporal distance and discrimination: an audit study in academia. Psychol Sci 2012; 23(7): 710–717.

55.

Moss-Racusin

van der Toorn

Dovidio

et al. Scientific diversity interventions. Science 2014; 343(6171): 615–616.

56.

National Science Foundation. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd

57.

Tang

Walsh

Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics 2010; 84(3): 763–784.

58.

Dong

et al. Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact. J Inform 2019; 13(3): 817–829.

59.

Wooldridge

JM.

Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Toronto, ON, Canada: Nelson Education, 2016.

60.

Ceci

Ginther

Kahn

et al. Women in academic science: a changing landscape. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2014; 15(3): 75–141.

61.

Paxton

Figdor

Tiberius

Quantifying the gender gap: an empirical study of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy. Hypatia 2012; 27(4): 949–957.

62.

Ductor

Goyal

Prummer

. Gender & collaboration. Working Paper 2018, https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/camcamdae/1820.htm

63.

Kyvik

Teigen

Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci Tech Hum Value 1996; 21(1): 54–71.

64.

Potthoff

Zimmermann

Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations. Scientometrics 2017; 112(2): 1047–1063.

65.

Wang

M-T

Degol

JL.

Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev 2017; 29(1): 119–140.

66.

Karimi

Wagner

Lemmerich

et al. Inferring gender from names on the web: a comparative evaluation of gender detection methods. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on World Wide Web – WWW ‘16 Companion. Montreal, QC, Canada: ACM Press, 2016, pp.53–54, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2872518.2889385

On the relationship between supervisor–supervisee gender difference and scientific impact of doctoral dissertations: Evidence from Humanities and Social Sciences in China

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References