Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences

Abstract

Gender studies (GS) has been challenged on epistemological grounds. Here, we compare samples of peer-reviewed academic journal publications written by GS authors and authors from closely related disciplines in the social sciences. The material consisted of 2805 statements from 36 peer-reviewed journal articles, sampled from the Swedish Gender Studies List, which covers >12,000 publications. Each statement was coded as expressing a lack of any of three aspects of objectivity: Bias, Normativity, or Political activism, or as considering any of four realms of explanation for the behaviours or phenomena under study: Biology/genetics, Individual/group differences, Environment/culture, or Societal institutions. Statements in GS publications did to a greater extent express bias and normativity, but not political activism. They did also to a greater extent consider cultural, environmental, social, and societal realms of explanation, and to a lesser extent biological and individual differences explanations.

Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: gender studies can do better

“…The second hypothesis regarding subject matter seems to be supported. The focus on society in the Self-identified articles is consistent with the emphasis on societal systems and structures in the field (Rothstein 1999) and with previous results showing that gender perspective is predominantly concerned with societal explanations (Söderlund and Madison 2017). Furthermore, the many statements about societal issues may be related to the political equality goal of gender studies (Thurén 2002;Cronin et al 1997), consistent with claims that gender studies is overly ideological (Friedman 1997;Hoff Sommers 1995).…”

“…In conclusion, gender studies is consistent in both expressing and practising selective preferences, for example concerning methods, levels of explanation, and ways to communicate (see also Cronin et al 1997;Söderlund and Madison 2017). The present results indicate that gender studies has positioned itself more distantly from the scientific method than have the disciplines included for comparison.…”

“…Overall, these data indicate systematically lower scientific quality across several different indicators as the level of gender perspective increases. While claims to that effect have been based on anecdotal evidence or observations of gender studies publications per se, this is the first time it has been decisively assessed comparing randomly drawn samples from an entire population (but see Söderlund and Madison 2017, for a different set of indicators).…”

“…A gender perspective was associated with fewer citations and being published in journals with lower impact factor, according to a bibliometric study of about 1000 publications (Söderlund and Madison 2015). A content analysis concerning realms of explanation found that a gender perspective was associated with a higher proportion of biased statements, defined as a preference of opinion by slanted or exaggerated words or language, normative statements, defined as the use of value words, and with a focus on societal and environmental/cultural causes and explanations (Söderlund and Madison 2017). Finally, a content analysis of editorials in three gender studies journals showed that many of the editorials exhibited a feminist political agenda (Cronin et al 1997).…”

Can’t bibliometric analysts do better? How quality assessment without field expertise does not work

“…Criticisms by scholars from outside the field (e.g. Rothstein 1999 ; Popova 2005 ; Söderlund and Madison 2015 , 2017 ) are confounded with critical analyses by academic feminists who identify with the field, and who, through their criticism, demonstrate the field’s non-consensual character, its diversity and ability to develop through controversies (e.g. Friedman 1997 ; Pereira 2012 ).…”