Matilda effect

The Matilda effect is a bias against acknowledging the achievements of woman scientists, whose work is often attributed to their male colleagues. This effect was first described by suffragist and abolitionist Matilda Joslyn Gage (1826–98) in her essay, "Woman as Inventor". The term "Matilda effect" was coined in 1993 by science historian Margaret W. Rossiter.[1]

Matilda effect

Rossiter provides several examples of this effect. Trotula (Trota of Salerno), a 12th-century Italian woman physician, wrote books which, after her death, were attributed to male authors. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century cases illustrating the Matilda effect include those of Nettie Stevens,[2] Maria Skłodowska Curie, Lise Meitner, Marietta Blau, Rosalind Franklin, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell.

The Matilda effect is related to the Matthew effect, whereby an eminent scientist often gets more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is shared or similar.

Professor Ben Barres (born 1955), a neurobiologist at Stanford University Medical School who transitioned from female to male, has spoken of his scientific achievements having been perceived differently, depending on his sex at the time.[3]

Research

From an analysis of more than a thousand research publications from the years 1991-2005, it was shown that male scientists more often cite the publications of male authors than of female authors.[4] In 2012, two female researchers from Radboud University Nijmegen showed that in the Netherlands the sex of professorship candidates influences the evaluation made of them.[5] Similar cases are described in an Italian study [6] corroborated further by American and Spanish studies.[7][8]

Swiss researchers have indicated that mass media ask male scientists more often to contribute on shows than they do their female fellow scientists.[9]

US male scientists still receive more recognition and awards compared with women scientists, despite similar achievements. This difference is diminishing. It was more pronounced in the 1990s than in the 2000s.[10]

Examples

Examples of women subjected to the Matilda effect:

Examples of men scientists favored over women scientists for Nobel Prizes:

In the arts

See also

References

  1. Rossiter Margaret W. (1993), "The Matthew/Matilda Effect in Science", Social Studies of Science, London: Sage Publ., 23: 325–341, ISSN 0306-3127, doi:10.1177/030631293023002004
  2. Resnick, Brian (2016-07-07). "Nettie Stevens discovered XY sex chromosomes. She didn't get credit because she had two X’s.". Vox. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  3. Shankar Vedantam, (13 July 2006). Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist: Biologist Who Underwent Sex Change Describes Biases Against Women. Washington Post
  4. Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick; Carroll J. Glynn (2013), "The Matilda Effect—Role Congruity Effects on Scholarly Communication A Citation Analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication Articles", Communication Research, Sage Publ., 40 (1): 3–26, doi:10.1177/0093650211418339
  5. Marieke van den Brink; Yvonne Benschop, "Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs", Organization, 19 (4): 507–524, doi:10.1177/1350508411414293
  6. Andrea Cerroni; Zenia Simonella, "Ethos and symbolic violence among women of science: An empirical study", Social Science Information, 51 (2): 165–182, doi:10.1177/0539018412437102
  7. Peter Hegarty; Zoe Walton, "The Consequences of Predicting Scientific Impact in Psychology Using Journal Impact Factors", Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (1): 72–78, doi:10.1177/1745691611429356
  8. María Luisa Jiménez-Rodrigo1; Emilia Martínez-Morante; María del Mar García-Calvente; Carlos Álvarez-Dardet (2008), "Through gender parity in scientific publications", Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, doi:10.1136/jech.2008.074294
  9. Fabienne Crettaz von Roten (2011), "Gender Differences in Scientists’ Public Outreach and Engagement Activities", Science Communication, 33 (1): 52–75, doi:10.1177/1075547010378658
  10. Anne E. Lincoln; Stephanie Pincus; Janet Bandows Koster; Phoebe S. Leboy (2012), "The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s", Social Studies of Science, 42 (2): 307–320, doi:10.1177/0306312711435830
  11. Hagen, Joel (1996). Doing Biology. Glenview, IL: Harper Collins. pp. 37–46.
  12. 1 2 3 "6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism". Retrieved 2015-10-04.
  13. "Nettie Maria Stevens (1861-1912) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia". embryo.asu.edu. Retrieved 2015-10-04.
  14. Diamond MC, Krech D, Rosenzweig MR,"The Effects of an Enriched Environment on the Histology of the Rat Cerebral Cortex","J Comp Neurol 1964;123:111-120", retrieved 9 February 2017
  15. My Love Affair with the Brain: The Life and Science of Dr. Marian Diamond
  16. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthewii.pdf
  17. Light, Jennifer S. (1999). "When Computers Were Women" (PDF). Technology and Culture. 40 (3): 455–483.
  18. "ScienceWeek". 2013-04-14. Archived from the original on April 14, 2013. Retrieved 2015-10-10.
  19. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/65/10/10.1063/PT.3.1728
  20. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2004/jan/20/wolf-prize-goes-to-particle-theorists
  21. "CensorshipIndex". www.esthermlederberg.com. Retrieved 2015-10-10.
  22. "Esther Lederberg, pioneer in genetics, dies at 83". Stanford University. Retrieved 2015-10-10.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.