Research Article Critique – Quantitative

Research Article Critique – Quantitative

The selected article for the quantitative research critique of this paper is titled Historical Comparison of Gender Inequality in Scientific Careers across Countries and Disciplines, authored by Huang et al. (2020) and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The purpose of this research was threefold. The first aim was to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of the extant literature on gender equality within scientific careers by country and period. To analyze the patterns of women in science and the obstacles that affect their promotion, the authors presented a large number of publications and citations. Specifically, the researchers aimed to pinpoint emerging trends, linking the increasing female enrollment in science with the growing fractures in the gender divide in creation and performance in research.

While working on the article, the authors strived to provide a more comprehensive overview of the situation concerning gender injustice in academia by using the quantitative approach. It entails the identification of factors that can help explain the difference in gender, such as differences in publishing career age and drop-out rates that would account for the continued gender gap in terms of scientific productivity and citation rates as scores by Casad et al. (2021). The evaluation of this study will entail the definition of the study aims, the techniques that were used, major findings, and an analysis of the possibilities of further research and intervention with the view of promoting parity between male and female scientists. To achieve this, the critique will assess the quality and limitations of the chosen study and the potential for analyzing the findings of Huang et al. (2020).

Summary

Purpose

This study aimed to provide a quantitative assessment of gender segregation in science using cross-sectional, temporal, and field-level data from different countries. The authors of the given paper intended to consider new and reverse tendencies, such as women’s increased interest in science and, at the same time, the increase in gender inequality in papers and citations.

Participants/Sample

The data analyzed in the study comprised information from over 1.5 million gender-identified authors who published articles between the years 1955 and 2010. This dataset covered 83 countries and 13 academic disciplines.

Research Design

This study was quantitative and non-experimental (observational) based on bibliometric data of indexed scholarly articles and citations. The authors of the papers were traced across their entire careers to identify changes in gender disparities among them over the years.

Method of Data Collection

The authors used Web of Science, Scopus, and the Microsoft Academic Graph as bibliometric databases to collect their data. They employed name-gender inference algorithms in order to determine the gender of authors in the samples.

Method of Data Analysis

The study used quantitative and bibliometric approaches to evaluate multiple factors related to gender disparities in academic positions. This was done by comparing the total number of publications between males and females (productivity) and the total number of citations of the articles produced by males and females (impact). The authors also investigated if the former had a higher or similar annual publication rate and career-wide citation impact for the same number of publications. Moreover, the researchers sought to establish how other parameters, such as publishing career span and drop-out count, contributed to the observed gender differences in productivity and impact.

Results

The study showed that the attempt to increase the number of women active in science over the past 60 years has been concomitant with increased gender disparities in output productivity and citation impact. However, the authors identified two “gender invariants”—men and women submitted articles at a similar pace yearly and produced the same worth to their respective professions for the same overall output of articles (Casad et al., 2021). Publishing career durations and attrition rates accounted for significant portions of the raw gender gaps in productivity and citation scores.

Critical Analysis

Further Research

Despite the contribution that the study by Huang et al. (2020) has made towards identifying the multi-faceted nature of gender inequality in scientific careers, this research could be expanded in the future. First, the authors admit that some aspects of academic careers, including mentorship, teaching, and service work, which are also potentially gendered, could not be captured by their bibliometric data. Subsequent studies may consider other measures of academic accomplishment beyond funding received, including grants sought or acquired, patents produced or applied for, or executive positions achieved, to acquire a more comprehensive view of sex equality. It could also examine how these different career paths interact with factors such as discipline, type of institution, and geographic location for similar contextual considerations.

Threats to Validity

One of the threats to the external validity of the evidence presented by Huang et al. (2020) could be the use of name-gender inference algorithms to identify the gender of authors in the dataset. Although accurate methods were used to confirm the correctness of these algorithms, there may sometimes be errors in categorizing those with gender-neutral names or individuals who break the conventional gender binary. This could potentially lead to the introduction of systematic biases into the model.

Original Insight/Criticism

One of the most significant advantages of the Huang et al. (2020) study is that it offers a fresh perspective on gender differences in science. Boasting that, for the same number of published articles and overall impact, publishing rates are gender-variant, the authors question the premises that women, as a rule, are less productive or impactful than their male counterparts. These results indicate that the documented gender differences in productivity and impact may reflect more on the system differences, such as length of service and drop-out rates, rather than ability and motivation to produce research.

Implications of Findings

The paper by Huang et al. (2020) holds significant potential in addressing gender disparities in the science workforce. The researchers postulated “gender invariants,” which means that it is crucial for interventions to focus on organizational factors that produce the differences in career duration and turnover rather than confidence, flexibility, or bargaining power.

Discussion

The study by Huang et al. (2020) can be regarded as a significant contribution to the existing literature, given its extensive focus and a longitudinal perspective on gender inequality in science. In other words, in adherence to the conclusions made in regard to gender invariants, the overall number of publications is the same, and men and women publish an average of one article per year as their counterparts overall, thus stating that gender disparities on the level of research productivity and impact are far from absolute.

The results obtained are, therefore, in agreement with the Bible’s teachings on the equality of women as well as on the sanctity of life. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (New International Version, 2011, Gal. 3:28). The belief that all human beings are created equal and of equal value in the eyes of God further means that efforts must be made to eradicate systemic issues that accommodate gender inequalities in the academic world, thus ruling out the notion that intelligence differences exist between girls and boys.

The breakdown of the gender differences in terms of the factors that were investigated in the study, such as publishing years and drop-out rates, among others, gives deeper insights into the processes through which gender disparities shape the underrepresentation of women in science. The findings imply that policies and programs designed to encourage women’s career progression and eliminate social factors could possibly achieve gender equity more effectively than strategies targeting specific aspects.

References

Casad, B. J., Franks, J. E., Garasky, C. E., Kittleman, M. M., Roesler, A. C., Hall, D. Y., & Petzel, Z. W. (2021). Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 99(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24631

Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4609-4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117

The Holy Bible: New International Version (NIV). (2011). Biblica, Inc. (Original work published 1973).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Research Critique: Quantitative Gullo and Sperandio (2020), the authors of this study looked to address the gender gap in educational leadership.

Research Article Critique – Quantitative

Women leaders are more visible than men in the educational system, but they are underrepresented in higher leadership positions (Tarbutton, 2019). In the educational field, there’s not a shortage of female educators, but there is a shortage of female leaders.