M11U2A1 Methodology

March 30, 2019April 5, 2019 ~ roberta345 ~ Leave a comment

Activity 1: Proposal Methodology

Task

Describe the research methodology that you propose to use for your research
Describe your rationale for selecting this methodology
Include the following components in your description:
participants in the proposed research
permissions that will be required
data collection method (e.g. observation or survey)
any instrument that you plan to use
how you plan to analyze your data
when and how you would collect data before and after testing the solution
how you will ensure validity and reliability

Methodology

I am collecting this data because I hope to learn to what extent bias enters into people’s assumptions about academic authors’ genders, which is to say, how much more people tend to assume that researchers are men rather than women. My data collection strategy is to use surveys with binary responses (male or female) to questions. It is my hope that these binary response options will force responders to record their instinctive first response which I believe will reveal their inner or subconscious biases. In this way, this data collection method will prove to be fairly objective. I am collecting responses on the assumed gender of a list of fictitious researchers. Each survey will contain two types of lists: one list where it will be impossible to know each researcher’s gender based on the way their name is provided, which is surname and first initial or initials, and another where the gender will be more or less obvious because the person’s full name will be provided. The responses for these two lists will be compared.

In my opinion, it would be best to collect data from young adults and even from minors because these persons may represent the future trends of our gender assumptions based on ambiguous name referencing. Unfortunately, I have not found any previously existing data to use that specifically targets the phenomenon of gender mis-assignment based on ambiguous name referencing in academia.

Respondents will be told that the survey contains names of a list of researchers. They will be asked to decide on the gender of each researcher in the list, based on their name. I will not use real researchers’ names or quote reference titles to avoid influencing respondents’ opinions based on such extraneous data (in the case they may have heard of the researcher and are familiar with them). In my opinion, a sample size of at least one hundred useable surveys would be a good start for the collection of data on this topic. Each survey will have one hundred responses: fifty responses where it would be impossible to know the researcher’s gender and fifty responses where a gender-specific or gender-neutral forename is used. Respondents will tick the relevant column, either “male” or “female” according to what they assume the researcher’s gender is. Furthermore, every respondent’s sheet will have one list where the “male” column comes first and another where the “female” column comes first, and vice versa. Although I would like to use gender-specific and gender-neutral forenames with the same frequency as they are shown to occur in the U.K. population (viz. 48% female, 45% male, 7% unisex), I do not want to skew my results by having unequal numbers of males and females in my list. As such, I will adjust the figures so that the same number of male and female forenames is used (both at 48%) and less unisex names are used (reduced to 4%). In this way, I hope to ensure the reliability of the data.

I have also included a column where respondents can justify their response (if they so choose) by providing the gender and or forename of someone they know with the forename or with the initial, and which makes them think of that gender when they see the letter or the forename. For example, although “Charlie” is considered a boy’s name, someone may know a girl named “Charlie” which causes them to think of a female when they see the name Charlie or the first initial C. However, I will only ask respondents to look over their sheet and add these notes after they have completed the survey because I do not want their mental radar to be tuned in to the fact that the study is all about gender bias before filling in their gender choices.

For the contents of my lists I have chosen the most common surnames and forenames in the U.K. as obtained through public data sources. The one hundred surnames chosen are selected without regard to including all letters of the English alphabet. However, to choose the forenames, I listed the surnames by decreasing frequency, then assigned sequential letters of the alphabet, using Q and X only once for each gender. The English alphabet has twenty-six letters. This worked out that the alphabet was used four times (except for Q and X which were used twice only). From there, I assigned the most common forenames for each respective letter of the alphabet. I used this technique to create my list because I wanted to ensure the entire alphabet was used, ensuring forenames would be quite diverse, but still familiar enough with respondents. I also wanted to use the entire alphabet in case certain letters may have connotations of a particular gender with certain respondents. E.g. J = Jay, a boy’s name; or B = short for Beatrice, a girl’s name, etc. This technique was not used in choosing the surnames because the surnames form the basis of this study – whose premise is that surnames alone contain metadata which indicate maleness. It was therefore imperative to use the one hundred most common surnames with which all respondents should be familiar. The final step in readying my lists for respondents was to sort the surnames in ascending alphabetical order. In this way, the alphabetically assigned first names now seem completely random, though varied and comprehensive, and the surnames are simply in alphabetical order as one would expect for any bibliography or reference list. I have included my survey sheets in the Appendix.

Data collection will be a one time occurrence. I intend to collect the data personally during one week at the university near where I live which is the University of Hertfordshire in Hertfordshire, England, in the United Kingdom. I may need to obtain permission from the university’s dean or administrative staff in order to conduct my research. I would like to limit my useable sample to monolingual English-speakers in order to limit the influence or interference of linguistic knowledge from other languages in respondents’ answer choices. In this way, I hope to ensure the validity of my data.

Once the data is collected, it will need to be input into a spreadsheet that will count and tally all responses. The data will be quantitative. Calculations will provide the percentage of respondents who decided each name was male or female and what the respondent’s gender was. I would like to present my results to Teach-Now and to the American Psychological Association (A.P.A.), in order to encourage them to make a slight change to the way they recommend names for resources be referenced.

Appendix

M11U2A1 Methodology - Survey Sheets 2019-03-24_Page_1

M11U2A1 Methodology - Survey Sheets 2019-03-24_Page_2

M11U2A1 Methodology - Survey Sheets 2019-03-24_Page_3

M11U2A1 Methodology - Survey Sheets 2019-03-24_Page_4

References

Atir, Stav & Ferguson, Melissa J. (2018). How Gender Determines the Way We Speak About Professionals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, pp. 7278-7283. Retrieved from https://roberta345.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/34280-atirferguson_pnas_2018.pdf ü

Burbules, Nicholas C. (2013-11-12). The Paradigmatic Differences Between Name/Date and Footnote Styles of Citation. Educational Research: Material Culture and Its Representation, vol. 8, pp. 191-199. Publisher: Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-03083-8_13

Dion, Michelle L.; Lawrence Sumner, Jane & McLaughlin, Sara. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis, vol. Doi:10.7910/DVN/R7AQT1. Retrieved from http://michelledion.com/files/DSM2018PAfinal.pdf ü

Garnham, Alan; Doehren, Sam & Gygax, Pascal. (2015). True Gender Ratios and Stereotype Rating Norms. Frontal Psychology, vol. 6, (issue 1023). Published online 2015-07-22. Doi: [10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01023] Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4510832/ and https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01023/full ü

Kaatz, Anna & Carnes, Molly. (2014-06). Stuck in the Out-Group: Jennifer Can’t Grow Up, Jane’s Invisible, and Janet’s Over the Hill. Journal of Women’s Health, vol. 23, (issue 6), pp. 481-484. Doi: 10.1089/jwh.2014.4766. Published online 2014-05-20. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24844292 and http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4046346 ü

Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia; Glynn, Carroll J. & Huge, Michael. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication, vol. 35, (issue 603). First published 2013-02-06. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684 Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547012472684 and https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/addictions/Diversity-Inclusion/Matilda-effect-Science-Communication-2013-Knobloch-Westerwick-603-25.pdf ü

Savigny, Heather. (2014). Women, Know Your Limits: Cultural Sexism in Academia. Gender and Education, vol. 26, no. 7, (issue 794). Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, U.K. Retrieved from http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21459/1/G%26E%20final%20version.pdf ü

Savigny, Heather. (2017-11). Cultural Sexism is Ordinary: Writing and Re‐Writing Women in Academia. Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 24, (issue 6), pp. 643-655. First published 2017-07-05 https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12190 Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12190

Hanks, Patrick; Richard Coates & McClure, Peter. (2016-11-17). Family Names of the United Kingdom (FaNUK). The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland (Oxford University Press). University of West England (UWE) Bristol Press. Retrieved from https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/cahe/research/bristolcentreforlinguistics/researchatbcl/fanuk.aspx

Baby Name Wizard. Browse Names Beginning with a Letter of the Alphabet. Wild Sky Media, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name

Baby Names. Baby Names Starting with the Letter. Retrieved from https://www.babynames.co.uk/letter/

Express. (2016-09-01). Revealed: Most popular first names and most common surnames of last 500 years. United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/706354/Most-popular-first-names-most-common-surnames-last-500-years

So Feminine. List of the Most Common Surnames Nationwide. Au Feminin, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://surname.sofeminine.co.uk/w/surnames/most-common-surnames-in-great-britain.html

M11U1A1 Literature Review Draft

March 23, 2019March 23, 2019 ~ roberta345 ~ Leave a comment

Introduction

A fundamental aspect of any scientific domain is an accurate referencing system for resources. The question of how to reference a resource is usually perceived as something straightforward, simple and objective. Traditionally, the choice of format for referencing of resources has been decided arbitrarily by academic associations such as the American Psychological Association (A.P.A.) who then disseminate these conventions and compel mandatory adherence to them. However, the fact that every scientific domain exists within the societal context, and the realization that the format in which a resource is referenced influences and is influenced by societal biases, should lead us to reevaluate the appropriateness of the arbitrary resource referencing conventions currently in use. Changes over time in gender roles, in how women are viewed, and in the level of female participation and or recognition in scientific domains may warrant a change in how resources are referenced to better reflect this and to continue to progress these trends. As researchers it is our duty to question whether these conventional referencing formats are in fact the best for meeting the needs of contemporary society and for promoting contemporary ideals of equality, fairness and impartiality. To this end, the contribution and input of female researchers on the design and format of a future referencing system is not only imperative but will also be insightful and transformational.

For the purposes of this paper, we will concentrate only on the way in which authors’ names are referenced. One of the main principles in current resource referencing systems is the indistinguishability of female researchers or authors from male authors. For example, A.P.A. References would reference a source within a paragraph in the format Surname (Year of Publication) or (Surname, Year of Publication), e.g. Thompson (2004) or (Thompson, 2004). A source referenced in a bibliography would be referenced as follows: Surname, Initial Letter of Forename(s). (Year of Publication). Title. [etc.] For example:

Thompson, A. (2004). Gentlemanly Orthodoxy: Critical Race Feminism, Whiteness Theory, and the APA Manual. Educational Theory, vol. 54, (issue 1), p. 2.

Indistinguishability of female authors from male authors is accomplished by using surname-only references. In almost every culture, and certainly in English-speaking and European derived cultures, the way a female is distinguished from a man by name is mainly in terms of the forenames she is assigned at birth. This study is aimed at a Western audience, hence we will focus exclusively on the effect of surname-only referencing conventions for surnames and forenames of Western European origin, especially those of British origin. In other words, authors whose names are of British etymology. Furthermore, we will concentrate on proper names in this study and analysis of nicknames will be avoided as much as possible. In European and English-speaking cultures certain forenames are used for males and certain are used for females and a small number of forenames are unisex or gender neutral. For instance, according to Gender Checker (www.GenderChecker.com) 7% of the 102,000 unique forenames used in the United Kingdom in 2011 were unisex, 45% were male only, and 48% were female only.

This principle of gender indistinguishability – which is achieved by referencing only the first letter of the forename(s) – initially appears to be completely objective and therefore desirable for scientific purposes. However, we aim to demonstrate in this study that rendering females indistinguishable or invisible is actually counterproductive in terms of improving equal perception of females and in destroying existing negative societal stereotypes about them.

Hypothesis

Our hypothesis is that the use of non-gender specific, conventional, scientific referencing to make women appear to be indistinct from men does not actually eliminate – nor does it contribute to transforming – the current stereotype of male dominance or majority male participation in academics and research. Rather, this convention simply renders invisible women’s participation in academics and research.

Purpose

Thesis Topic

In this study we will endeavor to demonstrate that conventional referencing practices (viz. those that use only surnames and forename initials) do not change the public’s mental stereotypes about researchers and academics being predominantly male. In fact, these practices may further contribute to mental assumptions of maleness, possibly erroneously attributing (at the subconscious level) some publications written by females to males in the readership’s eyes.

Reasoning Behind these Assumptions of Maleness

Origins of surnames:
1. Many surnames have simply been adapted from a male’s forename and passed from father to children (patrilineally). E.g. Benson = son of Ben, Ericson = son of Eric, Peterson = son of Peter, Thomas, Arnold, Henry, William, Williams = William’s.
2. Males were considered the ‘bearers’ of the surname: “mistress of X”. For this reason, women took (and to great extent still take) the surname of their spouse. For this reason also, it is more common to call males by their surname only, and females by their first name only, since this is the only name which is likely to be consistent for the female throughout her lifetime.
3. Males were the ones who traditionally held professions and trades. Therefore, where the surname is derived from the word for a trade or occupation, the occupation would have referred to that of the male or males in the family or household. E.g. Smith, Porter, Miller, Mason, etc.
4. Men were and still are to a great extent considered the ‘head of the household’. Where the surname originated from a place name, it would be indicative of the male’s place of origin (or the female’s father’s place of origin). E.g. Brooke, Greene, Banks, Townsend = Town’s end, French, Holland, Moore, English, Scott, etc.
These concrete linguistic, historic and connotative markers automatically allude to a male presence in most surnames.

Therefore, the only way to transform the current bias in surname ownership is to make females’ presence more visible (and not indistinct to that of males).

Discussion Outline

Patterns Observed in Findings

Women and men behave similarly in terms of preferring men over women in terms of their choice of works to cite.

Source #3: Dion, Michelle L.; Lawrence Sumner, Jane & McLaughlin, Sara. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis.

Gender bias occurs at all levels of society and within every single social interaction, regardless of whether those acting or interacting are male or female. For this reason, it may be difficult to eliminate or diminish gender bias in academia.

Source #7: Savigny, Heather. (2014). Women, Know Your Limits: Cultural Sexism in Academia. Gender and Education, vol. 26, no. 7, (issue 794). Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, U.K.

Source #9: Oreskes, Naomi. (1996). Objectivity or Heroism? On the Invisibility of Women in Science. Osiris, vol. 11, pp. 87-113.

Issues Raised in Existing Literature on this Topic

Making women distinguishable from men could be counterproductive because it could facilitate discrimination against women. i.e. Writers could choose to cite men (consciously or subconsciously) rather than women due to their own prejudices.

Source #3: Dion, Michelle L.; Lawrence Sumner, Jane & McLaughlin, Sara. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis.

This study found that men are cited more frequently than women. In cases where men form the minority in terms of the numbers present a particular domain, men are cited less than women, but they are still cited more than their percentage presence in the domain would lead one to expect. These trends are perpetuated by both men and women. Even so, women cite other women at a higher rate than men cite women.

My constructive criticism for this study would be that they appear not to have enquired as to whether writers knew the gender of all the authors they were citing. This is relevant because with the current citing and referencing conventions in use gender is not immediately apparent. As such, one may need to make a concerted effort to discover the gender of each author, unless the authors themselves are already known to the writer. In other words, the initial question to ask is “did the authors know they were citing men or women when they cited them”? In this way, it could be established whether women were aware of the gender of many of the authors they were citing.

Making women distinguishable from men could be counterproductive because it could promote the tendency for men to appear more prestigious because of the way men are generally referred to versus how women are generally referred to when gender is known.

Specifically, men tend to be referred to by surname only, whereas women tend to be referred to by full name (i.e. first name and surname) or even sometimes by first name only. E.g. Clinton as opposed to Hillary. If one just says Clinton, one assumes the person referred to is President Bill Clinton. As such, during the presidential election Hillary Clinton was often referred to simply by Hillary.

Source #1: Atir, Stav & Ferguson, Melissa J. (2018). How Gender Determines the Way We Speak About Professionals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, pp. 7278-7283.

One of the main conclusions of these studies was that the way we speak about others influences and is influenced by the way we think about them. Thus, it is important to change the way we speak about people so that we may consciously decide how they will be perceived. Some may say that it would be better to simply decide to refer to all people by their surname only – as is essentially done in the A.P.A. convention. However, it may be unrealistic to try to change centuries or perhaps millennia of tradition in men’s ownership of surnames and this may lead to no adjustment in outcome. A more realistic approach might be to decide to refer to everyone by their full name and standardize that as the norm.

Studies have shown that being referred to by surname only (as men tend to be referred to) leads the audience to have a more prestigious view of the person being discussed. Hence, there is a certain circularity in the prestige accorded to people who are cited by surname only.

Source #1: Atir, Stav & Ferguson, Melissa J. (2018). How Gender Determines the Way We Speak About Professionals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, pp. 7278-7283.

Source #2: Burbules, Nicholas C. (2013-11-12). The Paradigmatic Differences Between Name/Date and Footnote Styles of Citation. Educational Research: Material Culture and Its Representation, vol. 8, pp. 191-199. Publisher: Springer, Cham.

Similarly to that stated above in a), the solution may be to standardize how people are referred to and mandate their full name be used. At very least, it could be drawn to the public’s attention that it is not as respectful to refer to women by first name only and that men are given unjustified prestige when referred to by surname only. In this way, it may encourage people of all genders being referred to by only their full name.

Making females more visible may not actually do anything to dissociate surnames from concepts of maleness.

It may be very difficult to determine what (if any) citation style would be truly objective.

Furthermore, the most objective format may not necessarily be the best format for transforming gender stereotypes.

How would gender be identified in the case of forenames of foreign (non-English language) origin? This last question will not be delved into during the course of this study.

Major Conclusions

It is important for women to contribute their thoughts and opinions to all scientific and academic structures, including citing conventions, organization of power and decisions on what is truly objective or not.

Women should be involved in the process of deciding on anything that affects them, and since everything affects them, women should be involved in all decision-making.

Every decision should be analyzed to determine whether or not it progresses, hinders or retrogresses ideals of gender equity in academia.

Source #7: Savigny, Heather. (2014). Women, Know Your Limits: Cultural Sexism in Academia. Gender and Education, vol. 26, no. 7, (issue 794). Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, U.K.

Source #8: Savigny, Heather. (2017-11). Cultural Sexism is Ordinary: Writing and Re‐Writing Women in Academia. Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 24, (issue 6), pp. 643-655.

Source #9: Oreskes, Naomi. (1996). Objectivity or Heroism? On the Invisibility of Women in Science. Osiris, vol. 11, pp. 87-113.

Summary

Gender bias in implicit in every single social interaction, regardless of the gender of those involved. In order to transform the existing order and biases, gender bias must be first identified and acknowledged. Leaving blame out of the equation could assist in the acknowledgement of such biases, especially since research shows they are perpetrated by males and females alike. Secondly, we must come up with ways in which gender bias may be combatted because if nothing is done to try to change the situation gender bias will continue to unfairly affect how people are perceived in terms of prestige and how much exposure they receive. Lastly, these ideas must be tried out to see if they will work as temporary or long-term solutions to reducing gender bias.

Although it may be difficult to decide on which referencing format to choose in order to promote ideals of gender equity and fairness, and even if referencing full names may initially be counterproductive for females, any effort is better than just leaving the existing status quo intact. To this end, women should be integrally involved in contributing to solutions at every level of decision-making and implementation of structures.

References

Important Older References

Oreskes, Naomi. (1996). Objectivity or Heroism? On the Invisibility of Women in Science. Osiris, vol. 11, pp. 87-113. Won the Margaret W. Rossiter History of Women in Science Prize in 2000. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/301928?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Thompson, Audrey. (2004). Gentlemanly Orthodoxy: Critical Race Feminism, Whiteness Theory, and the APA Manual. Educational Theory, vol. 54, (issue 1), p. 2. First published 28 June 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2004.t01-5-00abs.x Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2004.t01-5-00abs.x

van den Brink, Marieke & Lineke Stobbe, Lineke. (2009-06-22). Doing Gender in Academic Education: The Paradox of Visibility. Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 16, (issue 4), pp. 451-470. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00428.x

M10U4A3 Literature Review Outline

March 19, 2019March 19, 2019 ~ roberta345 ~ Leave a comment

Introduction

A fundamental aspect of any scientific domain is an accurate referencing system for resources. The question of how to reference a resource is usually perceived as something straightforward, simple and objective. Traditionally, the choice of format for referencing of resources has been decided arbitrarily by academic associations, such as the American Psychological Association (A.P.A.), who then disseminate these conventions and compel mandatory adherence to them. However, the fact that every scientific domain exists within the societal context, and the realization (through various studies) that the format in which a resource is referenced influences and is influenced by societal biases, should lead us to reevaluate the appropriateness of the arbitrary resource referencing conventions currently in use. Changes over time in gender roles, in how women are viewed, and in the level of female participation and or recognition in scientific domains may warrant a change in how resources are referenced to better reflect this and to continue to progress these trends. As researchers it is our duty to question whether these conventional referencing formats are in fact the best for meeting the needs of contemporary society and for promoting contemporary ideals of equality, fairness and impartiality. To this end, the contribution and input of female researchers on the design and format of a future referencing system is not only imperative but could also be both insightful and transformational.

For the purposes of this paper, we will concentrate only on the way in which authors’ names are referenced. One of the main principles in current resource referencing systems is the indistinguishability of female researchers or authors from male authors. For example, A.P.A. References would reference a source within a paragraph in the format Surname (Year of Publication) or (Surname, Year of Publication), e.g. Oreskes (1996) or (Oreskes, 1996). A source referenced in a bibliography would be referenced as follows: Surname, Initial Letter of Forename(s). (Year of Publication). Title. [etc.] For example:

Oreskes, N. (1996). Objectivity or Heroism? On the Invisibility of Women in Science. Osiris, vol. 11, pp. 87-113.

Indistinguishability of female authors from male authors is accomplished by using surname-only references. In almost every culture, and certainly in English-speaking and European derived cultures, the way a female is distinguished from a man by name is mainly in terms of the forenames she is assigned at birth. This study is aimed at a Western audience, hence we will focus exclusively on the effect of surname-only referencing conventions for surnames and forenames of Western European origin, especially those of British origin. In other words, authors whose names are of British etymology. In European and English-speaking cultures certain forenames are used for males and certain are used for females and a small number of forenames are unisex or gender neutral. According to Gender Checker (www.GenderChecker.com) 7% of the 102,000 unique forenames used in the United Kingdom in 2011 were unisex and 45% were male only, 48% were female only.

Hypothesis

The use of non-gender specific, conventional, scientific referencing to make women appear to be indistinct from men does not actually eliminate – nor does it contribute to transforming – the current stereotype of male dominance or majority male participation in academics and research. Rather, this convention simply renders invisible women’s participation in academics and research.

Purpose

Thesis Topic

To demonstrate that conventional referencing practices (viz. those that use only surnames and forename initials) do not change the public’s mental stereotypes about researchers and academics being predominantly male. In fact, these practices may further contribute to mental assumptions of maleness, possibly erroneously attributing (at the subconscious level) some publications written by females to males in the readership’s eyes.

Reasoning Behind these Assumptions of Maleness

Origins of surnames:
1. Many surnames have simply been adapted from a male’s forename and passed from father to children (patrilineally). E.g. Benson = son of Ben, Ericson = son of Eric, Peterson = son of Peter, Thomas, Arnold, Henry, William, Williams = William’s.
2. Males were considered the ‘bearers’ of the surname: “mistress of X”. For this reason, women took (and to great extent still take) the surname of their spouse. For this reason also, it is more common to call males by their surname only, and females by their first name only, since this is the only name which is likely to be consistent for the female throughout her lifetime.
3. Males were the ones who traditionally held professions and trades. Therefore, where the surname is derived from the word for a trade or occupation, the occupation would have referred to that of the male or males in the family or household. E.g. Smith, Porter, Miller, Mason, etc.
4. Men were and still are to a great extent considered the ‘head of the household’. Where the surname originated from a place name, it would be indicative of the male’s place of origin (or the female’s father’s place of origin). E.g. Brooke, Greene, Banks, Townsend = Town’s end, French, Holland, Moore, English, Scott, etc.
These concrete linguistic, historic and connotative markers automatically allude to a male presence in most surnames.
Therefore, the only way to transform the current bias in surname ownership is to make females’ presence more visible (and not indistinct to that of males).

Discussion Outline

Issues Raised in the Articles

Making women distinguishable from men could be counterproductive because it could facilitate discrimination against women. i.e. Users could choose to cite men (consciously or subconsciously) rather than women due to their own prejudices.

Source #3: Dion, Michelle L.; Lawrence Sumner, Jane & McLaughlin, Sara. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis, vol. Doi:10.7910/DVN/R7AQT1. Retrieved from http://michelledion.com/files/DSM2018PAfinal.pdf

Making women distinguishable from men could be counterproductive because it could promote the tendency for men to appear more prestigious because of the way men are referred to versus how women are referred to when gender is known.

Specifically, men tend to be referred to by surname only, whereas women tend to be referred to by full name or even sometimes by first name.

Source #1: Atir, Stav & Ferguson, Melissa J. (2018). How Gender Determines the Way We Speak About Professionals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, pp. 7278-7283. Retrieved from https://roberta345.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/34280-atirferguson_pnas_2018.pdf

Source #6: Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia; Glynn, Carroll J. & Huge, Michael. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication, vol. 35, (issue 603). First published 2013-02-06. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684 Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547012472684 and https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/addictions/Diversity-Inclusion/Matilda-effect-Science-Communication-2013-Knobloch-Westerwick-603-25.pdf

Studies have shown that being referred to by surname only (as men tend to be referred to) leads the audience to have a more prestigious view of the person being discussed. Hence, there is a certain circularity in the prestige accorded to people who are cited by surname only.

Making females more visible may not actually do anything to dissociate surnames from concepts of maleness.

It may be very difficult to determine what (if any) citation style would be truly objective.

Furthermore, the most objective format may not necessarily be the best format for transforming gender stereotypes.

How would gender be identified in the case of forenames of foreign (non-English language) origin?

This last question will not be delved into during the course of this study.

Summary

Patterns Observed in Findings

Women and men behave similarly in terms of preferring men over women in terms of their choice of works to cite.

Gender bias occurs at all levels of society and within every single social interaction, regardless of whether those acting or interacting are male or female. For this reason, it may be difficult to eliminate or diminish gender bias in academia.

Source #5: Kaatz, Anna & Carnes, Molly. (2014-06). Stuck in the Out-Group: Jennifer Can’t Grow Up, Jane’s Invisible, and Janet’s Over the Hill. Journal of Women’s Health, vol. 23, (issue 6), pp. 481-484. Doi: 10.1089/jwh.2014.4766. Published online 2014-05-20. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24844292 and http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4046346

Source #7: Savigny, Heather. (2014). Women, Know Your Limits: Cultural Sexism in Academia. Gender and Education, vol. 26, no. 7, (issue 794). Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, U.K. Retrieved from http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21459/1/G%26E%20final%20version.pdf

Major Conclusions

It is important for women to contribute their thoughts and opinions to all scientific and academic structures, including citing conventions, organization of power and decisions on what is truly objective or not.

Women should be involved in the process of deciding on anything that affects them, and since everything affects them, women should be involved in all decision-making.

Every decision should be analyzed to determine whether or not it progresses, hinders or retrogresses ideals of gender equality in academia.

Source #8: Savigny, Heather. (2017-11). Cultural Sexism is Ordinary: Writing and Re‐Writing Women in Academia. Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 24, (issue 6), pp. 643-655. First published 2017-07-05 https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12190 Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12190

References

Important Older References

Extra Bibliography

Aiston, Sarah Jane & Zi Yang, Zi. (2017-06-29). “Absent Data, Absent Women”: Gender and Higher Education Leadership. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317716298 Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1478210317716298?journalCode=pfea

Atchison, Amy L. (2017) Negating the Gender Citation Advantage in Political Science. PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 50, (issue 02), pp. 448-455. Published online 2017-03-31. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/negating-the-gender-citation-advantage-in-political-science/C0DEFE459C7A5DA7B8A128195383A9CA

Benschop, Yvonne & Brouns, Margo. (2003-03-10). Crumbling Ivory Towers: Academic Organizing and its Gender Effects. Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 10, (issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.t01-1-00011 Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0432.t01-1-00011

Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 47, 423–441.

Borsuk, R. M., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., & Lortie, C. J. (2009). To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59, 985–989.

Ceci, Stephen J.; Ginther, Donna K.; Kahn, Shulamit & Williams, Wendy M. (2014-12). Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape. Psychological Science Public Interest, vol. 15, (issue 3), pp. 75-141. Doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26172066 and http://www.umass.edu/preferen/You%20Must%20Read%20This/CeciGintherKahnWilliamsPSPI-10-2014.pdf

Gaucher, Danielle; Friesen, Justin & Kay, Aaron C. (2011-07). Evidence that Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 101, (issue 1), pp. 109-128. APA PsycNET Direct. American Psychological Association (APA). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2011-04642-001

Goltz, Sonia M.& Sotirin, Patty. (2014). From Academics to Change Agents in a Gender Equity Initiative. Organization Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, (issue 194). Retrieved from

Hoffman, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2007-06). A Professor Like Me: The Influence of Instructor Gender on College Achievement. NBER Working Paper No. 13182. Washington, D.C. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w13182

Karcher, Sebastian & Zumstein, Philipp. (2016). Citation Styles: History, Practice, and Future. Authorea. Retrieved from https://www.authorea.com/users/102264/articles/124920-citation-styles-history-practice-and-future/_show_article

Latimer, Melissa; Jackson, Kasi; Dilks, Lisa; Nolan, James & Tower, Leslie. (2014). Organizational Change and Gender Equity in Academia: Using Dialogical Change to Promote Positive Departmental Climates. Gender Transformation in the Academy, (issues 333-353). Doi: 10.1108/S1529-212620140000019015. Retrieved from

Maliniak, Daniel; Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F. (2013-10). The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations. International Organization (IO), vol. 67, (issue 4), pp. 889-922. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209 Published online 2013-08-28. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/gender-citation-gap-in-international-relations/3A769C5CFA7E24C32641CDB2FD03126A

Marx Ferree, Myra & Zippel, Kathrin. (2015-11). Gender Equality in the Age of Academic Capitalism: Cassandra and Pollyanna Interpret University Restructuring. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, vol. 22, (issue 4). Doi: 10.1093/sp/jxv039. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283583461_Gender_Equality_in_the_Age_of_Academic_Capitalism_Cassandra_and_Pollyanna_Interpret_University_Restructuring

Mehrabian, A. & Valdez, P. (1990). Basic Name Connotations and Related Sex Stereotyping. Psychological Reports, vol. 66, no. 1-2. Retrieved from

National Research Council. (2013). Seeking Solutions: Maximizing American Talent by Advancing Women of Color in Academia: Summary of a Conference. Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press.

Smart, S. & Waldfogel, J. (1996-02). A Citation-Based Test for Discrimination at Economics and Finance Journals. NBER Working Paper No. 5460. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www. nber.org/papers/w5460

Sotudeh, Hajar; Dehdarirad, Tahereh & Freer, Jonathan. (2018). Gender Differences in Scientific Productivity and Visibility in Core Neurosurgery Journals: Citations and Social Media Metrics. Research Evaluation 81. Published online 2018-03-02.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat is in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

van den Brink, Marieke & Benschop, Yvonne. (2011-07-29). Gender Practices in the Construction of Academic Excellence: Sheep with Five Legs. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411414293 Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350508411414293

West, Jevin D.; Jacquet, Jennifer; King, Molly M.; Correll, Shelley J. & Bergstrom, Carl T. (2013-07-22). The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS One, vol. 8, (issue 7): e66212. Edited by: Lilach Hadany. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718784/

Zippel, Kathrin & Marx Ferree, Myra. (2018). Organizational Interventions and the Creation of Gendered Knowledge: US Universities and NSF ADVANCE. Gender, Work & Organization. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327696468_Organizational_interventions_and_the_creation_of_gendered_knowledge_US_universities_and_NSF_ADVANCE