Author demographics are of key epistemic importance in science—shaping the approaches to and contents of research—especially in social scientific knowledge production, yet we know very little about who produces social scientific publications. We fielded an original demographic survey of nearly 20,000 sociology, economics, and communication authors in the Web of Science from 2016–2020. Our results include not only details about gender and race/ethnicity but also the first descriptive statistics on social science authors’ sexuality, disability, parental education, and employment characteristics. We find authorship in the social sciences looks very different from other measures of disciplinary membership like who holds PhDs or faculty positions. For example, half of the authors in each discipline’s journals say that they are not a member of the discipline in which they published. Moreover, social science authors are considerably less diverse than other measures of disciplinary membership. In sociology, women constitute a majority of PhDs, faculty, and American Sociological Association members; by contrast, men make up a majority of sociology’s authors. Additionally, we include a wide array of descriptive statistics across a range of demographic characteristics, which will be of interest to inequality scholars, science scholars, and social scientists engaged in diversifying their disciplines.
BacevicJana. Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Positioning: Towards an Intersectional Political Economy. Current Sociology. 2021; 71(6): 1122–1140. doi:10.1177/00113921211057609
3.
BourdieuPierreWacquantLoïc J. D.1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BridgesTristan. 2019. “The Costs of Exclusionary Practices in Masculinities Studies.” Men and Masculinities22(1):16–33. doi:10.1177/1097184X18805547.
5.
Campbellsuzanne hetzelGreinerPhilipGrossmanSheilaKrisAlisonMinersLaurenceSheaJoyce2013. “Personal Transformation and Curricula Change.” in Transforming Ourselves, Transforming the World: Justice in Jesuit Higher Education, edited by CombsM. B.SchmidtP. R.. New York: Fordham University Press.
6.
CechErin A.RothwellWilliam R.2018. “LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education.” Journal of Engineering Education107(4):583–610. doi:10.1002/jee.20239.
7.
CechErin A.WaidzunasTom J.2011. “Navigating the Heteronormativity of Engineering: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Students.” Engineering Studies3(1):1–24. doi:10.1080/19378629.2010.545065.
8.
CollinsPatricia Hill. 1986. “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems33(6):S14–32. doi:10.1525/sp.1986.33.6.03a00020.
9.
ComptonD’LaneMeadowTeySchiltKristen, eds. 2018. Other, Please Specify. Oakland: University of California Press.
10.
DolmageJay T.Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2017.
11.
DuctorLorenzoGoyalSanjeevPrummerAnja. Gender and Collaboration. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2021; 105(6): 1–40. doi:10.1162/rest_a_01113
12.
FoxMary Frank. 2005. “Gender, Family Characteristics, and Publication Productivity among Scientists.” Social Studies of Science35(1):131–150. doi:10.1177/0306312705046630.
13.
FreemanRichard B.HuangWei. 2015. “Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Coauthorship within the United States.” Journal of Labor Economics33(S1):S289–318. doi:10.1086/678973.
14.
GaskinsLeo ChanMcClainCraig R.2021. “Visible Name Changes Promote Inequity for Transgender Researchers.” PLOS Biology19(3):e3001104. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001104.
15.
GoJulian. Race, Empire, and Epistemic Exclusion: Or the Structures of Sociological Thought. Sociological Theory. 2020; 38(2): 79–100. doi:10.1177/0735275120926213
16.
HarawayDonna Jeanne. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies14(3):575–599.
17.
Heath-StoutLaura E. 2020. “Who Writes about Archaeology? An Intersectional Study of Authorship in Archaeological Journals.” American Antiquity85(3):407–426. doi:10.1017/aaq.2020.28.
18.
Heath-StoutLaura E. The Invisibly Disabled Archaeologist. International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 2022; 27: 17–32. doi:10.1007/s10761-022-00653-8
19.
HofstraBasKulkarniVivek V.Munoz-Najar GalvezSebastianHeBryanJurafskyDanMcFarlandDaniel A.. The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020; 117(17): 9284–9291. doi:10.1073/pnas.1915378117
20.
HunterLauraLeaheyErin. 2008. “Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors.” The American Sociologist39(4):290–306. doi:10.1007/s12108-008-9042-1.
KingMolly M.FredericksonMegan E.. The Pandemic Penalty: The Gendered Effects of COVID-19 on Scientific Productivity. Socius. 2021; 7: 1–24. doi:10.1177/23780231211006977
23.
KozlowskiDiegoMurrayDakota S.BellAlexisHulseyWillLarivièreVincentMonroe-WhiteThemaSugimotoCassidy R.2022. “Avoiding Bias When Inferring Race Using Name-Based Approaches.” PLOS ONE17(3):e0264270. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264270.
24.
KwonEunrangYunJinhyukKangJeong-han. 2023. “The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Gendered Research Productivity and Its Correlates.” Journal of Informetrics17(1):101380. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2023.101380.
25.
LeaheyErinLee CrockettJasonHunterLaura Ann. 2008. “Gendered Academic Careers: Specializing for Success?” Social Forces86(3):1273–1309. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0018.
26.
LeaheyErinLeeJinaFunkRussell J.. What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?American Sociological Review. 2023; 88(3): 562–597. doi:10.1177/00031224231168074
27.
LockhartJeffrey W.KingMolly M.MunschChristin. 2023. “Name-Based Demographic Inference and the Unequal Distribution of Misrecognition.” Nature Human Behaviour7(2023):1084–1095. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01587-9.
28.
MertonRobert K. Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge. American Journal of Sociology. 1972; 78(1): 9–47.
29.
MihaljevićHelenaTullneyMarcoSantamaríaLucíaSteinfeldtChristian. 2019. “Reflections on Gender Analyses of Bibliographic Corpora.” Frontiers in Big Data2. doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00029.
30.
MisraJoyaLundquistJennifer HickesTemplerAbby. 2012. “Gender, Work Time, and Care Responsibilities Among Faculty1.” Sociological Forum27(2):300–323. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x.
31.
MittlemanJoel. 2022. “Intersecting the Academic Gender Gap: The Education of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual America.” American Sociological Review87(2):303–335.
32.
MorganAllison C.LaBergeNicholasLarremoreDaniel B.GalesicMirtaBrandJennie E.AaronClauset.2022. “Socioeconomic Roots of Academic Faculty.” Nature Human Behaviour6(12):1625–1633. doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4.
33.
MorrisAldon. 2017. The Scholar Denied: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
NelsonJoeyAllisonMattheisYoderJeremy B.2022. “Nondisclosure of Queer Identities Is Associated with Reduced Scholarly Publication Rates.” PLOS ONE17(3):e0263728. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263728.
35.
NielsenMathias Wullum. 2017. “Gender and Citation Impact in Management Research.” Journal of Informetrics11(4):1213–1228. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.09.005.
36.
PainElisabethSangKate. 2017. “Survey Highlights the Challenges Disabled Academics Face—and What Can Be Done to Address Them.” Science May 15. doi:10.1126/science.caredit.a1700039
37.
RoscignoVincent J.LeeElizabeth M.HurstAllison L.BradyDavidKingColby R.JackAnthony AbrahamDelaneyKevin J.McDermottMonicaMuñozJoséJohnsonWendiFrancisRobert D.WarnockDebbieVitulloMargaret Weigers. Mobility and Inequality in the Professoriate: How and Why First-Generation and Working-Class Backgrounds Matter. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. 2023; 9: 1–30. doi:10.1177/23780231231181859
38.
SabharwalMeghna. 2013. “Comparing Research Productivity Across Disciplines and Career Stages.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice15(2):141–163. doi:10.1080/13876988.2013.785149.
39.
SmithDorothy E.1974. “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology.” Sociological Inquiry44(1):7–13. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1974.tb00718.x.
40.
SmithDorothy E.1989. “Feminist Reflections on Political Economy.” Studies in Political Economy30(1):37–59. doi:10.1080/19187033.1989.11675506.
41.
Smith-DoerrLaurelAlegriaSharla N.SaccoTimothy. 2017. “How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society3:139–153. doi:10.17351/ests2017.142.
42.
SweetPaige L.Who Knows? Reflexivity in Feminist Standpoint Theory and Bourdieu. Gender & Society. 2020; 34(6): 922–950. doi:10.1177/0891243220966600
WarrenJohn Robert. 2019. “How Much Do You Have to Publish to Get a Job in a Top Sociology Department? Or to Get Tenure? Trends over a Generation.” Sociological Science6:172–196. doi:10.15195/v6.a7.
45.
WestJevin D.JacquetJenniferKingMolly M.CorrellShelley J.BergstromCarl T.2013. “The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship.” PLoS ONE8(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.
46.
WilliamsElizabeth A.EthanA. KolekSaundersDaniel B.AliciaRemalyWellsRyan S.2018. “Mirror on the Field: Gender, Authorship, and Research Methods in Higher Education’s Leading Journals.” The Journal of Higher Education89(1):28–53. doi:10.1080/00221546.2017.1330599.
47.
ZhangSamHunter WapmanK.LarremoreDaniel B.ClausetAaron. 2022. “Labor Advantages Drive the Greater Productivity of Faculty at Elite Universities.” Science Advances8(46):eabq7056. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq7056.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
