“…Male authors dominate the majority of research topics, and all-male authorship (single-authored papers or all-male teams) remains the most prevalent form of authorship of journal articles, as shown in Figure 2. The number of single-author females and all-female teams remained fairly consistent over the thirty-six years, but the percentage of mixed (male and female) teams grew substantially, from 12 percent of the articles in 1991 to 41 percent in 2017. Figure 2: Article Authorship in Management and Organization Studies (MOS) Journals, 1991 and 2017 (Auschra, Bartosch, and Lohmeyer 2022)…”
Section: Who Counts As Scholarsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Such self-reflection within management, though rare, provides a template for my specific examination within business ethics. Auschra, Bartosch, and Lohmeyer (2022) examined the gendered distribution of authorship in the leading management and organization studies (MOS) journals 14 . Women have been underrepresented across the leading MOS journals, with variance across journals and across fields or specializations.…”
Section: Who Counts As Scholarsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2: Article Authorship in Management and Organization Studies (MOS) Journals, 1991 and 2017(Auschra, Bartosch, and Lohmeyer 2022) …”
The discipline of business ethics has been slow to include Big Tech as a worthwhile object of examination. My goal in this presidential address is to make the case that the discipline of business ethics is overlooking novel harms and marginalized stakeholders in emerging and impactful technology industries. Furthermore, although the discipline is improving, the persistent narrowness of our field inhibits our ability to identify and examine novel issues in these important industries. I use standpoint theory to suggest one reason why we remain narrow in what we think counts in business ethics as valid objects of concern: because we are similarly narrow in who counts as a business ethicist. As scholars, we are a lens that we train on the world to identify who counts as a scholar, what we study, and who matters.
“…Male authors dominate the majority of research topics, and all-male authorship (single-authored papers or all-male teams) remains the most prevalent form of authorship of journal articles, as shown in Figure 2. The number of single-author females and all-female teams remained fairly consistent over the thirty-six years, but the percentage of mixed (male and female) teams grew substantially, from 12 percent of the articles in 1991 to 41 percent in 2017. Figure 2: Article Authorship in Management and Organization Studies (MOS) Journals, 1991 and 2017 (Auschra, Bartosch, and Lohmeyer 2022)…”
Section: Who Counts As Scholarsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Such self-reflection within management, though rare, provides a template for my specific examination within business ethics. Auschra, Bartosch, and Lohmeyer (2022) examined the gendered distribution of authorship in the leading management and organization studies (MOS) journals 14 . Women have been underrepresented across the leading MOS journals, with variance across journals and across fields or specializations.…”
Section: Who Counts As Scholarsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 2: Article Authorship in Management and Organization Studies (MOS) Journals, 1991 and 2017(Auschra, Bartosch, and Lohmeyer 2022) …”
The discipline of business ethics has been slow to include Big Tech as a worthwhile object of examination. My goal in this presidential address is to make the case that the discipline of business ethics is overlooking novel harms and marginalized stakeholders in emerging and impactful technology industries. Furthermore, although the discipline is improving, the persistent narrowness of our field inhibits our ability to identify and examine novel issues in these important industries. I use standpoint theory to suggest one reason why we remain narrow in what we think counts in business ethics as valid objects of concern: because we are similarly narrow in who counts as a business ethicist. As scholars, we are a lens that we train on the world to identify who counts as a scholar, what we study, and who matters.
“…For example, studies removing the top 10 per cent most prolific scientists from their analyses found that this eliminates gender gaps in productivity [ 15 , 16 ]. Others find that scientists’ choice of research topics can explain some discrepancies in citations, as in some disciplines where more popular topics tend to be disproportionally investigated by men, thus generating greater attention and recognition from peers [ 17 , 18 ]. The literature also shows that disparities in productivity can be traced to shorter career length and higher drop-out rates from science among women [ 12 , 19 ], the effects of motherhood on career progression and publication trajectories [ 10 ], receiving less research funding [ 20 ], and being under-represented in many fields [ 21 , 22 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, other work has found that once rank was taken into consideration, there were no significant gender differences in publications [ 21 ], and that while women were underrepresented within the top 10 per cent of scientists, there were no significant gender differences in productivity in the remaining 90 per cent [ 15 , 16 ]. Research in management also revealed that more popular topics were mostly researched by men [ 18 ]. Overall, the gender bias in scientific publishing appears to be more salient in fields in which women are underrepresented [ 12 ], while studies that address specific disciplines, subfields, or research topics reveal inconsistent patterns [ 26 ].…”
Gender disparities in science have become a salient concern for policy makers and researchers. Previous studies have documented a gender gap in research productivity and recognition in the sciences, and different reasons for this gap have been proposed. In this study, we examine four academic fields with different proportions of men and women in their population. We address the following questions: What is the relationship between the gendered make-up of a field and the productivity and recognition of men and women scientists in that academic field? What is the relationship between the publication patterns of men and women in different academic fields and their productivity and recognition? We find that gendered patterns of productivity and recognition favour men in man-dominated subfields (Mathematical Physics and Software Engineering), while women were more productive and highly cited in one woman-dominated subfield (Nursing), though not in another (Psychology). Nursing, a woman-gendered field, provides an interesting counterpoint to the most usual findings regarding gender disparities in academia. Our findings highlight the need to disaggregate academic fields and to bring to the forefront other disciplines that remain under investigated in analyses of gender gaps to potentially elucidate conflicting findings in the literature.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
