Haustein, Paul-Hus, Sugimoto & Larivière (2016). Is the gender gap in science mirrored in altmetrics?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,465 views
Presentation of Work in Progress (WiP) research at Social Media & Society, 13 July 2016 https://socialmediaandsociety.org http://sched.co/7G8u http://sched.co/7G8u
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Similar to Haustein, Paul-Hus, Sugimoto & Larivière (2016). Is the gender gap in science mirrored in altmetrics?
Similar to Haustein, Paul-Hus, Sugimoto & Larivière (2016). Is the gender gap in science mirrored in altmetrics? (20)
More from Stefanie Haustein
More from Stefanie Haustein (15)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Haustein, Paul-Hus, Sugimoto & Larivière (2016). Is the gender gap in science mirrored in altmetrics?
- 1. Stefanie Haustein, Adèle Paul-Hus, Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière @stefhaustein Is the gender gap in science mirrored in altmetrics? image from: http://her.yourstory.com/india-global-gender-gap-index-1119
- 2. Gender Gap in Science Larivière, V., Ni, C.C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C.R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213. Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495(7439), 22-24.
- 3. General online population • Early Internet use heavily male-dominated (Weiser, 2000) • Increased female participation on social networking sites (Kimbrough et al., 2013) • 77% of women, 66% of men in the US use Facebook 2015 (Duggan, 2015) • 21% of women, 25% of men in the US use Twitter 2015 (Duggan, 2015) Academics online • Greater web presence of male academics (van der Weijden & Calero Medina, 2014) • Men blog at a greater rate (Shema, Bar-Ilan & Thelwall, 2012) • More scientific papers are tweeted by men (Tsou, Bowman, Ghazinejad, & Sugimoto, 2015) • Social media can flatten academics hierarchies (Veletsianos, 2016) Gender Gap Online
- 4. • Does the gender disparity observed for publications and citations extend to social media? • Does the visibility of male and female led papers differ among the following social media platforms: Research Questions • Blogs • Facebook • Twitter • Wikipedia • Mendeley • Arts • Biology • Biomedical Research • Chemistry • Clinical Medicine • Earth & Space • Engineering & Technology • Health • Humanities • Mathematics • Physics • Professional Fields • Psychology • Social Sciences • Does the gender gap in social media visibility of scholarly journal articles differ by scientific discipline?
- 5. Dataset and Methods * based on country-specific first name gender assignment; see Larivière, Ni, Gingras, Cronin, & Sugimoto (2013) 769,695 journal articles published 2013 blogs Twitter Mendeley Wikipedia Facebook gender of first authors* • Comparison of female and male first-authored papers by • social media platform • discipline
- 6. Comparing distinct gender distributions • Coverage • Mean • 99th percentile Confidence intervals based on bootstrap with replacement Comparing gender within unified distribution • Percentile ranks 𝑃𝑖 = (𝑖 − 0.44) (𝑛 + 0.12) Dataset and Methods n : number of total articles i : rank if ordered according to social media counts Gringorten, I.I. (1963). A plotting rule for extreme probability paper. Journal of Geophysical Research, 68, 813–814.
- 7. Results • Gender disparities are less pronounced on social media than for citations • Results vary by platforms, discipline and indicator • Coverage • No difference: 37 / 53% • Female dominance: 20 / 29% • Male dominance: 13 / 19% • Mean • No difference: 44 / 63% • Female dominance: 19 / 27% • Male dominance: 15 / 21% • 99th percentile • No difference: 58 / 83% • Female dominance: 0 / 0% • Male dominance: 12 / 17% Percentage of papers with at least one event Average number of events per paper 99th percentile
- 8. Results Coverage – mostly gender balanced disciplines
- 9. Results Coverage – disciplines with mixed results
- 10. Results Coverage – female and male dominated disciplines
- 11. Results Percentile rank distributions - Chemistry
- 12. Results Coverage – differences between social media platforms • Facebook • No difference: 9 / 64% • Female dominance: 2 / 14% • Male dominance: 3 / 21% • Mendeley • No difference: 7 / 50% • Female dominance: 6 / 43% • Male dominance: 1 / 7% • Blogs • No difference: 8 / 57% • Female dominance: 1 / 7% • Male dominance: 5 / 36% • Twitter • No difference: 6 / 43% • Female dominance: 4 / 29% • Male dominance: 4 / 29% • Wikipedia • No difference: 7 / 50% • Female dominance: 0 / 0% • Male dominance: 7 / 50%
- 13. Conclusions • Gender disparities are less pronounced on social media than for citations • Platform and discipline specific differences Potential of some social media platforms to overcome traditional hierarchies? Largely unknown what kind of “impact” is being measured through mentions of academic papers
- 14. image from: http://her.yourstory.com/india-global-gender-gap-index-1119 Stefanie Haustein Thank you! stefanie.haustein@umontreal.ca | @stefhaustein | crc.ebsi.umontreal.ca | slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein
Editor's Notes
- Early on, it was much more males online, while social networking sites tend to have a female bias – saw this in the keynote by Susan Halford yesterday; females posting more, reacting more Christoph Lutz Facebook and Twitter used based on Pew Research Center, 2015 Facebook used more by women and also more intensely Twitter has a slight male bias Among Twitter accounts tweeting scientific papers, 66% account holders were male, 28% female
- Coverage Mean 99th percentile Confidence intervals based on bootstrap with replacement (1,000 iterations) Various ways to compute percentile ranks, we follow method by Gringorton, as it uses an exponential distribution and the middle publication equals the median
- Most gender balanced fields
- Explain the percentiles / deciles 0* persentile
- Facebook Facebook used less in a professional context, more flattened hierarchies? Female: Clinical Medicine, Engineering & Technology Male: Biology, Chemistry, Physics Twitter More male expected, as accounts tweeting academic papers were twice as likely to be maintained by male instead of female users Gender had not effect on Uses & Gratifiction – Anabel Quan-Haase yesterday Female: Clinical Medicine, Earth & Space, Professional Fields, Social Sciences Male: Biology, Biomedical Research, Chemistry, Physics Mendeley Due to the academic use and user groups one could assume that similar gender disparities are reflected in Mendeley readership counts as they have been demonstrated to exist in the scientific community. On the other hand, if one assumes that male papers are cited more as they are indeed of higher quality, gender differences might be weaker on Mendeley due to the fact that saving to Mendeley is less selective than citing. Survey: equal gender distribution – not the general academic population, students Female: Biology, Clinical Medicine, Earth & Space, Engineering & Technology, Professional Fields, Social Sciences Male: Chemistry Blogs Function as bridge between scientific community and large interested public Female: Clinical Medicine Male: Biomedical Research, Chemistry, Health, Physics, Social Sciences Wikipedia Clear male focus Female: Male: Biology, Biomedical Research, Clinical Medicine, Earth & Space, Humanities, Physics, Psychology
- Gender gap less pronounced, however: it’s complicated! Gaps are less apparent on Facebook and Twitter Papers with female first authors are more probable to be saved on Mendeley Wikipedia is clearly male dominated « Hard science » fields more male dominated than softer sciences