Solo vs. Collaborative Research in the Social Sciences and Higher Education: Unraveling the Realities of Male-Female Research Publication Patterns in the Context of Gender Politics and Social Justice Issues

Abstract

This study seeks to determine if female social scientists and higher education leaders are more likely to (1) collaborate when publishing scholarly research than their male counterparts, (2) collaborate with females than males, and (3) collaborate as larger groups than their male counterparts. Concomitantly it resonates well with themes related to gender politics and social justice issues. Findings are based on an analysis of 7,352 articles drawn from 19 major professional journals in the social sciences and higher education. Authorship is divided into nine descriptors: (1) solo male, (2) solo female, (3) dual male, (4) dual female, (5) multiple males, (6) multiple females, (7) dual male-female, (8) multiple male-female, and (9) gender unknown. Results are expressed in absolute numbers, percentages, and ratios. Chi-square tests of significance of differences also are employed. Interestingly, female social scientists and higher education leaders are less likely to publish collaboratively than their male counterparts. Secondly, when publishing collaboratively, females are more likely do so with a male than a female colleague. Lastly, articles by larger groups of male social scientists and higher education leaders collaborating without female participation are rare, but rarest of all is for large groups of female social scientists and higher education leaders to collaborate without male participation. Repercussions of these findings for careerist objectives such as tenure as well as social justice concerns including intellectual exploitation conclude the study. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

Abstract

This study seeks to determine if female social scientists and higher education leaders are more likely to (1) collaborate when publishing scholarly research than their male counterparts, (2) collaborate with females than males, and (3) collaborate as larger groups than their male counterparts. Concomitantly it resonates well with themes related to gender politics and social justice issues.

Findings are based on an analysis of 7,352 articles drawn from 19 major professional journals in the social sciences and higher education. Authorship is divided into nine descriptors: (1) solo male, (2) solo female, (3) dual male, (4) dual female, (5) multiple males, (6) multiple females, (7) dual male-female, (8) multiple male-female, and (9) gender unknown. Results are expressed in absolute numbers, percentages, and ratios. Chi-square tests of significance of differences also are employed.

Interestingly, female social scientists and higher education leaders are less likely to publish collaboratively than their male counterparts. Secondly, when publishing collaboratively, females are more likely do so with a male than a female colleague. Lastly, articles by larger groups of male social scientists and higher education leaders collaborating without female participation are rare, but rarest of all is for large groups of female social scientists and higher education leaders to collaborate without male participation. Repercussions of these findings for careerist objectives such as tenure as well as social justice concerns including intellectual exploitation conclude the study.

Keywords

collaboration, gender, research, publication

Introduction

This study explores gender differences in the way males and females undertake scholarly research as reflected in professional journals. It seeks to determine if publications by females as compared to males are more likely to be collaborative, and, if so, are they more likely to reflect same gender collaborations or mixed gender collaborations. Inspiration for the study comes in part from an understanding that the scholar as lone -wolf roaming the dark corridors of the ivory tower in search of truth or bent over a microscope hoping to roll back our ignorance about the world through individual observation, experimentation, and reflection has given way. Replacing the traditionally autonomous and independent scholar is the scientific research team and joint venture research. Correspondingly, there is a growth in collaborative research publications. Numerous studies clearly demonstrate the eclipse of individually driven and published research findings and the ascendancy of collaborative research and joint-authorship. This has been true in the biomedical sciences (Epstein, 1993; Norris, 1993), counseling psychology (Gladding, 1984; Strahan, 1982; Zook, 1987), the informational sciences (Lipetz, 1999), economics (Hudson, 1996), psychology (Holaday & Yost, 1994), and social science (Endersby, 1996), among other disciplines.

This brings to the fore the question of whether collaborative research is somehow gendered. There are three major logical possibilities here: (1) scholarly publications by females are more likely to reflect collaborative research than those by males; (2) scholarly publications by males are more likely to reflect collaborative research than those by females; and (3) there is no significant difference between scholarly publications by females and males when it comes to reflecting collaborative research, i.e., scholarly publications by both males and females are equally likely to reflect collaborative research. An intimately related question concerns the gender composition of any observed patterns in collaborative research. Specifically, where scholarly publications are observed to be collaborative, are they more likely to be what Aldrich, Carter, and Ruef (2002) conceptualize as homophily, i.e., same sex partnerships, or are they more likely to constitute mixed gender partnerships? Further refining this query, where scholarly publications involve same sex teams, are they more likely to be female same sex teams or male same sex teams?

These are not simply academic questions. Rather, answers to these questions regarding collaborative scholarly research and gender could have important practical repercussions for certain vital social justice issues and related administrative concerns. Chief among these social justice issues is the problem of intellectual exploitation and abuse of intellectual property, especially by the principal investigator. A troublesome variation here is apportioning credit for a publication, including effecting an equitable decision regarding primary and subordinate authorship. Milking research findings by publishing them with little variation in several different journals, and overestimating student or junior faculty contributions by altruistic senior faculty who mentor and promote their colleagues to the point they significantly underestimate their own contributions are also engendered here (Mooney, 1991). Indeed, collaboration inevitably entails the exercise of power between and among the research partners, changing research roles, and equity issues. It may well be that developing equity in the power dimensions of collaborative research is a highly complicated fluid process, rather than a goal, existing in interactions and not the romanticized uncomplicated resultant between individuals who work together (Evans, 1999; Fox & Faver, 1984). A closely related concern when undertaking collaborative research is that control over how the findings are used may be compromised. An additional concern for many scholars is that scholarly publication is related intimately to one's success as an academic. It affects hiring, the granting of tenure and related review process, promotion, and intragenerational socio-political mobility within the university setting. The growing phenomenon of multiple authorships presents numerous challenges for those having to assess the intellectual productivity of their colleagues and grant status in the university hierarchy. Central here is the need to identify the respective contributions of the various authors and reward merit accordingly. Where universities have difficulty doing this or when they judge such multi-authored collaborative efforts as inherently of lesser value, they negatively impact one's professional status, income, rank, and promotional potential. As Crafton (2004) notes, for many faculty members collaboration can be the kiss of death, unless they also enjoy a large repertoire of solo authored scholarly achievements. Alternatively, opportunities for collaboration and team learning have been correlated with employee commitment to business organizations, including willingness to exert effort, desire to maintain membership within the organization, and general satisfaction with one's place of employment (Tseng, 2011).

Related to such social justice issues are a number of administrative concerns necessitated by collaborative research in general. Relevant here is the difficulty of dividing the labor fairly and effectively so that it capitalizes upon individual strengths and transcends idiosyncratic limitations. Correspondingly, it requires mutual respect for time constraints, availability, and reliability, including a special esprit-de-suit on the part of all participants. In addition, collaboration by its nature requires strong administrative oversight. If exploitation is always a possibility, so too is its reciprocal, i.e., the presence of team members who fail to pull their weight in a project and thereby compromise the efforts of the whole. Another problem facing would-be collaborators is the need to conform to a unitary writing style and publication protocol such that the presentation becomes a seamless piece of scholarship (see Crafton, 2004).

Admittedly, all of these potentially negative consequences of collaboration may hold for both males and females. Other negative consequences may be gender specific. For example, if females find themselves in smaller male dominated academic departments, a not unlikely scenario even today, they may suffer Hobson's choice when it comes to co-authoring research. If an "all boys network" is in operation and males either self-select to work together or otherwise discriminate against their female colleagues, female academics may have to publish solo, losing all the advantages of collaborative research. These include for example, allowing scholars from different disciplines and using diverse methods to focus on a common subject fostering unexpected insights, internal cross validation, and concomitantly building replication into the research project. Similarly, they also forfeit an important economic advantage: Collaborative research often appeals to funding agencies that increasingly look for, or require, cross insemination and diversity components. Alternatively, they may have the added social and administrative burdens of having to locate and create trusting, efficient relationships with fellow female scholars at geographically distant universities and research institutions. Or, equally disadvantageous, they may need to undertake the socio-political difficulties of cross-gender relationships with male colleagues while their male colleagues are spared such concerns (Welsh & Bremser, 2005). Indeed, even when male scholars have positive attitudes towards women research has shown that they are more likely to choose to work with male than female protégées since they can better identify with them (Ragins, 1989). Even with respect to mixed gender collaborations, traditional nurturing, passive roles of females may result in their being exploited by having to take on more of the work as well as being relegated to clerical and librarian labors of the research enterprise, as compared to their male colleagues (see, for example, Bond, 2008).

Similarly, where females pursue scholarly publication, they often suffer the added disadvantage relative to their male counterparts of having to deal with the so-called "second shift," i.e., related household and childcare responsibilities. This, in turn, limits their available time for research. A major advantage of collaborative research is it provides for a division of labor, and, theoretically, the number of hours required of each participant is reduced proportionate to the absolute number of participants. When female scholars are disinclined to undertake collaborative research for whatever reason, including gender discrimination by male colleagues, and opt for solo productions, they are disadvantaged significantly in terms of the added time they must dedicate to any research project relative to their collaborating colleagues, male or female.

A third implication of gendered collaborative research publication is that female scholars entering into collaborative ventures with male colleagues may find themselves delegated with traditional and prejudicial role obligations such as shouldering more of the secretarial dimensions, narrative, and archival aspects of the publication enterprise. Alternatively, their involvement in and contributions to the more theoretical, quantitative, and analytic processes of the research may be blocked or not taken seriously.

In sum, where females are more inclined to undertake collaborative research than their male counterparts, this portends to exacerbate existing impediments to their careerist goals as academics. Moreover, where their collaborative publications involve joint authorship with males there arise significant administrative problems and ethical dilemmas that are compounded by those of gender politics and social justice concerns. To the extent that females undertake scholarly research publications, they may need to address these and related complications more so than their male colleagues.

Review of the Literature

Spurring this study forward is a robust literature triggered by Gilligan's (1982) research on the unique moral and psychological development of women, i.e., "In a Different Voice" as well by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule's 1986 seminal work on the epistemology of women, i.e., "Women's Ways of Knowing." Much of this literature supports the position that females differ from males in their intellectual development and related emergent cognitive processes, especially with respect to how women learn and develop an understanding of the world in which they live. Women, for example, tend to value dialogue and high conceptual collaboration as they work together to devise concepts, ideas, themes, and analogies (Schräge, 1990). This is congruent with the fact that conversations for women play a strong role in the overall socialization of women. As Vera John-Steiner (1996, 2000) notes, girls often rely extensively on their "best friends" for their self-identity and self-knowledge. Shared conversation for them is thus a very comfortable medium of intellectual exchange and development (see also Rubin & Shenker, 1978). Women tend to mutually massage their ideas, proffering tentative reflections, rather than fully formed notions, and developing them in the course of their dialogue. Moreover, women often report taking pleasure in the sustained free flowing mutually trusting exploration of ideas. Correlatively, it has been observed that authority for some women rests not on power or status or certification but on commonality of experience (Belenky, et al., 1986). Additional research suggests the role of dialogue plays a significantly more important role for women undertaking research than it does for their male counterparts (Tarule, 1992). Similarly, JohnSteiner (1996, 2000) found women to be comfortable with interdependency when they address the subject of collaboration. They enjoy the enterprise of the co-construction of knowledge and the willingness to dialogue with others is palpable. Correspondingly, Hirokawa, Cathcart, Semovar, and Henman (2003) suggest females are more likely than males to emphasize relationships and to work within groups due to their nurturing role and their desire to be helpful to others. Even women who prefer working as solo researchers with a commitment to autonomy recognize the sustaining power of the nurturing collaborative model (John-Steiner, 1996, 2000).

Commitment to dialogue and a reflective community wherein knowledge is constructed through mutual interdependency, trust, respect, and collective thinking is not exclusive to women researchers, but it may be more prevalent among women. As Rehling (1996) observes, females tend to self-segregate. This, in turn, is explained at least partially by difficulties of females to develop cross-gender trusting relationships (McDowell & Smith, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; 1993). Some men have also demonstrated a commitment to an ideology of a working, caring community of scholars (John-Steiner, 1996, 2000). Correspondingly, women who prefer to collaborate in scholarly pursuit do not limit themselves to female partners. However, there may be special considerations in selecting such male co-authors, including only those who do not carry the baggage of traditional gender stereotypes. Vera John-Steiner (1996, 2000) also observes that a strong emphasis on mutuality which includes cognitive and affective elements is especially helpful to women who have experienced marginalization, worked in highly competitive environments, or who endured situations where male coworkers failed to hear their contributions or take them seriously beyond care -giving responsibilities.

Men on the other hand have been characterized as linear thinkers, emphasizing objectivity and analytical logic (Kerka, 1993). This reflects the fact that men are generally socialized for leadership roles and an authoritative style. They are also associated with individualism, being achievement oriented, competitive, and self-sufficient. Alternatively, women tend to be more subjective or inductive in their reasoning and by being forced to learn using a male vocabulary and logic may feel alienated in the learning environment (Gallos, 1992). Belenky et al. (1986) speak of women as "connected knowers," who comprehend reality by relating new information to experience in the context of relationships. Other research such as Caffarella (1992) discern the centrality of relationships, diverse and nonlinear life patterns, and intimacy and identity as three major themes that prevail in the literature on women's social and intellectual development.

The central thrust of these theoretical arguments and related empirical findings would suggest that publications by female scholars are more likely to reflect joint enterprise as compared to publications by their male counterparts. However, there is a significant body of literature much to the contrary. It supports the position that professional publications by male scholars are more likely to entail joint ventures as compared to those of their female colleagues. Prominent among this literature is a work by Sonnert and Holton (1995). Studying women in science and their career advancement Sonnert and Holton take exception to the general notion that women are more collaborative in their research style than men. Using survey data from 699 respondents supplemented by 200 face to face interviews of men and women who had received prestigious postdoctoral fellowships in the sciences Sonnert and Holton find that "women had a less collaborative working style than men.. .during and after the postdoctoral fellowship, even though their working style was more collaborative before the fellowship" (as cited in Sonnert, 1995, p. 54). Furthermore, they observe that the consequences of collaboration differ by gender: a highly collaborative style during the postdoctoral fellowship correlated with excellent career outcomes for male but inferior career outcomes for female scientists. This leads them to conclude that "collaboration at early stages may in some cases constitute a surprising "collaboration trap" for women (Sonnert & Holton, 1995). In a related finding Sonnert and Holton observe that relative to men, women scientists were (1) less careerist oriented, (2) less self- promo ting, (3) more perfectionist oriented, (4) more comprehensive, and (5) more synthetic in their work. In combination, these factors, they posit, may explain why women scientists in general were less prolific in the number of publications they generate relative to their male counterparts. It would also help to account for the fact that women were more likely to be cited in literature reviews, a possible instance of the hegemony of quality over quantity. Simply stated, women may produce fewer but more substantial articles than men. However, the awarding of promotions and tenure often is based more on the shear number of papers one has published or grant money mined than issues of quality. This, in itself may account for the so-called "trap of collaboration" and eclipse any interest or predilection for collaborative research on the part of women. Streuly and Maranto (1994) when examining scholarly productivity among accounting faculty also found that males are more likely than females to collaborate in research publications. McDowell and Smith (1992) make a similar finding with respect to publications by economics faculty. They further observe that where co-authorships did occur, they were most likely to be gender homophilic, i.e., same sex collaborations. If this is indeed true, it could reflect difficulties in establishing cross-gender relationships. This is especially problematic for female faculty in departments that are male dominated either by rank, reputation, or absolute numbers, even as the ratio of female to male faculty in the social sciences and elsewhere is increasing (Hill, Corbe tt, & St. Rose, 2010).

Still other researchers support the position that gender is unrelated to collaborative research productivity. Leahey, Crockett, and Hunter (2008) find no significant gender differences in rates of collaboration among sociologists; however, they do observe that quantitative research is more likely to be collaborative as are projects requiring data collection. It seems that the type of research required effects the likelihood of collaboration, with a propensity of women to employ qualitative methods or to triangulate qualitative and quantitative methods (Zawacki-Richter & Von Prummer, 2010). Leahey, Crockett, and Hunter (2008) also note that solo male authorship continues to be the most common form of publication in sociology. Similarly, according to Stack (2002) when it comes to scholarly productivity in the discipline of criminal justice gender is not significantly associated with either the number of articles published or their heuristic value as measured by frequency of citation in the general literature. Instead, faculty rank and year that the Ph.D. was earned were more predictive of collaborative publication. Welch and Jha (2009) focusing on the multiplicity of co-authorships find that females are less likely than males to participate in more than one collaborative activity thereby supporting the position taken by Ibarra (1992) that women enjoy fewer strong ties with other women.

Objectives of the Study

This study tests a number of interrelated hypotheses regarding collaborative research and gender in higher education and the social sciences. These include the following:

H1 Females are more likely to publish collaboratively in professional higher education journals than their male counterparts.

H2 Females are more likely to publish collaboratively in professional social science journals than their male counterparts.

H3 Where females collaborate in professional higher education journal publications they are more likely than their male counterparts to collaborate within their own gender.

H4 Where females collaborate in professional social science journal publications they are more likely than their male counterparts to collaborate within their own gender.

H5 Subject areas that tend to be female dominated are significantly more likely to evidence females collaborating solely with females than those subject areas where there is a tradition of male hegemony.

H6 Subject areas that tend to be male dominated are significantly more likely to evidence solo publications than those subject areas where there is a tradition of female hegemony.

H7 Over time there has been a significant increase in the number of collaborative research publications over solo publications.

In addition, an effort is made to determine if size of the collaborative team is somehow gendered. In particular, are dyads involving two females significantly more common than dyads involving two males or dyads of mix gender? Similarly, are larger teams of three or more females significantly more commonly found in the professional literature than those consisting of three or more males or mixed gendered authorships?

More generally, this study (1) undertakes a seminal exploration for the influence of gender on research in the higher education; (2) updates previous research on authorship and gender in the social sciences; (3) compares and contrasts the influence of gender on research in higher education and the social sciences; and (4) probes for recent trends in gender and authorship. It also seeks to provide a descriptive profile of the proportion of various higher education and social science journals produced by single authors, dual authors, multiple authors of three or more, etc.

Methodology

Data for this study are based upon a census of the authorship of articles published in major professional journals drawn from the field of higher education and five disciplines in the social sciences, including sociology, political science, psychology, criminal justice, and social work. Each journal is chosen because it represents a major professional organization, enjoys a long history of publication, is widely cited, and boasts a national scope. Moreover, they combine to offer a panorama of the method, theory, and substantive interests that characterize higher education as well as the social sciences. In addition, the journal collection includes representatives of the so-called pure sciences (e.g., The American Sociological Review; American Journal of Psychology) the applied sciences (e.g., Social Work; Journal of the Marital and Family Therapy) and the more narrative branches of the social sciences (e.g., Foreign Affairs). Yet another advantage is that our selections include journals often viewed as female dominated, such as Social Work, Women's Studies, and the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy as well as others which are often characterized as reflecting male hegemony, such as Law and Society Review and Public Affairs. A complete roster of the journals and the academic subject areas they represent is found in Table 1.

In all, the authorship of 7,352 professional journal articles gleaned from 19 professional journals are plumbed, 4 from education and 3 from each of the 5 social sciences. Moreover, article authorship from each journal is examined over an eleven-year period, extending from 1996 through 2006. Only full-length professional articles are surveyed. Editorial pieces, book reviews, debates including responses and replies, methodological notes, and opinion pieces are excluded.

Each journal is surveyed year by year in seriatim. Authorship, in turn, is divided into nine descriptors: (1) solo male, (2) solo female, (3) dual male, (4) dual female, (5) multiple (three or more) males, (6) multiple (three or more) females, (7) dual male-female authorship, (8) multiple male -female authorship, and (9) authorship unknown. Frequency distributions of each descriptor for each journal are noted annually, tallied for the eleven-year longitudinal frame, and compared. Proportional comparisons also are made in terms of the discipline of the journal. Subsequently, aggregate descriptor scores for the composite of the four higher education journals and for the composite of the three journals representing each of the social sciences also are calculated. Lastly, analysis of variance is conducted to determine the significance of any observed trends in authorship gender and related pattern of publication.

An author's gender is determined by name recognition. Where the name is not truly definitive in the traditional sense and always in the case of foreign names, Internet searches are conducted to ascertain the author's gender. A more conservative effort is made. Gender is never assumed from such sexually neutral names as Marian, Beverley, Shelley, and the like. They are always validated using Internet searches. In rare instances, gender could not be determined and these constitute a separate category, i.e., Gender Unknown.

Chi square tests are conducted to determine if males are significantly more likely than females to publish alone or to collaborate. Secondly, we sought to determine if males or females who do collaborate are significantly more likely to collaborate with members of their own sex or with members of the opposite sex. Thirdly, trends in publication patterns by males and females, including solo verses collaborative authorships over time, 1996 through 2006, are traced for any significant changes using analysis of variance. Additionally, cross discipline comparisons are made to determine if frequency patterns of male to female publications (solo versus collaborative) significantly differ between higher education and the social sciences in general and between education and any of the specified social sciences in particular, or between and among the various social sciences. Lastly, descriptive findings and related frequency comparisons are expressed in terms of absolute numbers, percentages, and ratios.

Findings and Analyses

Comparing patterns of variation in publication styles among those articles published in the different social sciences and the field of education reveals several interesting and informative findings. First, collaboration continues to be the method of choice when it comes to research publication in education and in all the social sciences studied here, with the exception of political science. Approximately 60% of all sociology, criminal justice, social work, and education articles and as much as 73% of psychology articles are the product of collaborative efforts. Collaboration appears to be the modus operandi in contemporary social science as well as higher education research and related publications. The prevalence of collaboration in professional article publications ranges from a high of 73% in psychology to a low of 55.2% in higher education. Only in the case of political science articles are the majority (70%) solo productions. These figures almost exactly replicate those of earlier research on collaboration by Endersby (1998). Importantly, it also means that the proportion of articles generated by collaborative enterprise has remained relatively constant rather than continuing to increase over the past ten years. Correspondingly, it suggests that despite the focus on the emergence of collaborative research as the favored mode of publication, its dominance may have peaked in the mid-1990s. It follows that with the singular exception of psychology, solo authorships continue to rival collaborative authorships at about the same 40% rate as it did ten years ago (see Table 2) . Thus, regardless of the focal attention given to the growing popularity of collaborative authorship in professional journals, it would be wrong to ignore the prevalence of the solo publication and its endurance in all fields studied. In addition, while males typically surpass females in solo publications, there are some important exceptions. In social work, for example, female solo publications generally outstrip those by males. Similarly, female solo publications in the Journal of Education Administration Quarterly exceed those for males. Moreover, with respect to the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, they are on par with those of their male counterparts.

It is also observed that mixed gender publications and same sex collaborations occur with about equal frequency. They constitute 52.3% and 47.7% of collaborations respectively. For example, mixed gender publications make up 55% of the total collaborations in the representative education journals and the remaining 45% represent the work of same sex teams. Further subdividing same sex publications into those by males and those by females, reveals that in all the journals surveyed, large (three or more) same sex collaborations by either males or females are consistently rare. Moreover, where collaborations do occur, whether they involve dyads or three or more they are consistently more likely to involve mixed sex groups than same sex groups. The fact that large groups of mixed gender collaborations often dominate the publication scene has a number of interesting possible explanations and implications. One such explanation is that an especially productive synergy emerges when mixed sex groups engage in a mutual research project that is lacking in same-sex female or same-sex male collaborative undertakings. Another possibility is that large groups of mixed sex groups tend to produce more gender-neutral narratives and interpretations and can thereby muster greater favor in the major scientific journals. Regardless, if collaboration in research publications has become a modal pattern, with more than half of such joint publications involving male -female cooperative authorship, it would appear that marginalization of females by their male counterparts in academic circles is also on the decline. It also would suggest that research teams targeting publication as an objective might be better off soliciting members from both sexes when organizing a research project than being gender exclusive.

As surprising as some of these observations may be, it is when we focus our lens on same sex collaborations and probe a bit deeper that our most unanticipated discovery emerges. More specifically, approximately three times as many articles involve males collaborating in same sex teams as compared to females collaborating with females, 1592 vs. 530. While our research design and related data do not allow us to conclude that males are more likely to collaborate with males than females are to collaborate with females, our findings are at least consistent with that possibility. Moreover, the proliferation of males in excess of females with respect to same sex collaboration in publication holds for both dyads and for collaborations by three or more authors. It also occurs in all subject fields studied, except social work where female teams are slightly more common than male teams. However, the extent of the dominance of male based collaborative coauthorship does range by subject field. For example, in political science male teams are ten times more frequent than female teams, while in higher education it is only about three times more common. With more articles in general being published by collaborations of males than by collaborations of females, there is support for the position that joint publication has found greater favor among males, while many females are still pressing on with the more traditional solo publications or mixed gender collaborations.

Indeed, despite occasional exceptions in a given volume or issue number, females working alone are generally more frequently evidenced in the table of contents of professional social science and education journals than females working as either small or large same sex teams. Moreover, with respect to social work, solo female productivity actually exceeds that of solo male productivity. At the same time, our data clearly support the position that male solo authorships exceed those by females in psychology, sociology, criminal justice, political science, and education, jointly and severally by a ratio of approximately three to one.

Furthermore, when females appear in publications as part of a small team of just two authors, they are more likely to publish with a male rather than a female colleague unlike males who more likely publish with a male colleague. It also means that females seeking one other colleague with whom to undertake research in anticipation of a publication may be at an advantage by choosing a male rather than a female colleague. However, the data in this area are limited. Since we do not know how many females vis-à-vis males were involved in the three or more categories we cannot claim that females in general are either more or less likely to collaborate than males.

One of the most consistent of our findings when comparing subject areas studied is that large groups made up of three or more females publishing together are extremely rare, especially relative to females publishing alone. Although more common than three or more females collaborating in a publication, large teams of three or more males co-operating to produce a publication is also somewhat rare, especially relative to males publishing alone. Instead, when it comes to multiples of three or more authors collaborating, the dominant publication pattern typically involves mixed gender authorship. Moreover, this pattern is frequently just as common if not more so than either males or females publishing alone. That teams involving large numbers of females publishing together, or even smaller dyads of two females working together rarely occur sometimes is explained by offering that females have difficulty finding other females with whom to work. This explanation fails when confronted by the reality that more females than males are earning their Ph.D.s annually in many social sciences including sociology, psychology, anthropology, and American studies (Fox, 2001, 2004). It also is contradicted by a growing feminization of such academic fields as psychology, sociology, higher education, and marriage and family therapy. For example, in 2008, more than 60% of the members of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2009) and more than 50% of the American Sociological Association (ASA, 2008) are reported to be female. Moreover, throughout the years of this study, the sex ratio of memberships in these and other relevant professional organizations tends to be about equal or at least approach equality.

These findings also contradict much of the literature suggesting that females tend to be more collaborative than males. Explaining this is more difficult than evidencing it. One conjectured possibility is that females may see themselves as marginalized in their academic professions and understandably resent it. Consequently, they may view working solely with other females as fostering even further marginalization. Males, in turn, have no parallel concern and are therefore more open to collaborating with both males and females. Correspondingly, females may also be more sensitive to the need to produce solo publications as a route to tenure and career advancement while being wary of the numerous pitfalls associated with using collaborative research for that purpose. Males, on the other hand, being more secure in their career positions and their opportunities for advancement are less troubled by such demands and limitations. This explanation is also congruent with the reality that females are more likely to publish with males than with other females. Having a male co-author is less likely to precipitate in a feeling of being marginalized or not being taken seriously by male colleagues, another major complaint among female academics. Males, in turn, are confident in their being mainstreamed and unlikely to be troubled that female colleagues fail to take them seriously. Lastly, this explanation is also in keeping with our "deviant case," i.e., that social work journals reflect a greater proclivity of females to publish solely with other females than for males to publish solely with other males. Social work in general, unlike many of the other social sciences, enjoys a long and impressive history as a female developed and led profession. It follows that females publishing in social work journals would have little concern about issues related to marginalization or being taken seriously by male colleagues. That solo female publications dominate here even above the combined figure for all same sex female publications, is also in line with traditional regard for solo publications as a route to career advancement coupled with greater opportunities for that to happen in social work.

In sum, our findings indicate that: (1) articles by males publishing alone are more likely to be found in the professional journals than those by females publishing alone; (2) partnerships of one male with another male are more frequently found in the major professional journals than partnerships of two women collaborating; and (3) in jointly authored publications females are more likely to couple with a male than another female.

Next, for sociology, criminal justice, political science, and higher education dyadic collaborations are more common than collaboration among three or more authors. However, in psychology and social work publications by dyads and those by three or more collaborators occur with about equal frequency. Still, in no instance, do collaborations by three or more authors well outstrip those by smaller dyads. Generally speaking, smaller teams in most social sciences and education are more likely to find themselves named in the table of contents of major journals than larger teams. However, there are important exceptions with respect to psychology and social work.

Superimposing the bar graphs for psychology, sociology, criminal justice, and political science clearly shows that the "cityscape profile" for solo male and female authorship, dyads of all male, all female and mixed gender is quite similar. It differs, however, for higher education and social work. With social work, the heavy producers are females along with two-female dyads and this in the main accounts for variances with the other social science journals. With higher education the variance is due to the presence of more females as solo authors which actually outstrip those by two male dyads.

Lastly, the cityscape profile for three or more collaborative productions in psychology, sociology, criminal justice and even political science are parallel. Only the one for social work evidences a slight variation, with articles by three or more females being more common than articles by three or more males. Dominating all, however, are articles produced by three or more of mixed gender.

Conclusion

After reviewing 7,352 published articles gleaned from 19 major journals over an 11 -year period, 1996-2006, and representing five of the social sciences as well as the field of higher education no evidence is found to support the hypothesis that females produce more collaboratively-based research than their male counterparts. Indeed, where joint venture articles appear in the professional literature explored here they are more likely to involve males collaborating with males than females collaborating with females. Moreover, where articles are authored by more than one person, they are most likely to involve females collaborating with at least one male rather than solely with others of their own gender. Especially rare are same gender publications where three or more females are collaborating without males. Alternatively, pairs of males engaged in same gender research are more commonly found in the literature than pairs of females. And, more articles authored by large groups of three or more males are published than articles produced by large groups of collaborating females. This suggests that males are actually more likely to collaborate among themselves than females. Males appear to have discovered the many advantages of collaborative research and are capitalizing upon them. Correspondingly, they either are less concerned about its limitations or have transcended them. These developments may be a latent consequence of the growing feminization of academia and the related integration of females with mainstream scholarly productivity and dialogue. Regrettably, we did not control for the specific number of males and females in the three or more categories. This deficiency prevents us from making more definitive remarks that either males or females in general are more likely to collaborate. Rather, we can interpret our findings only in terms of successful publication patterns and the presence or absence of collective authorship and its implications about collaboration.

Secondly, since articles by females working with males are often modal, we have reason to propose that the marginalization of females in the academic areas reviewed in this research project may have been bridged significantly. This is supported further by the fact that published females are often as successfully competitive in boasting solo publications as their male colleagues. Academic departments appear to be facilitating a culture of collaboration among its protagonists, possibly abetted by an increasing emphasis on racial and ethnic diversity, the growth of interdisciplinary curricula, the general movement towards globalization, and, of course, the Internet.

Lastly, while collaborative research and publication has gained hegemony over solo publications for both males and females in social science and in education, solo publication continues to enjoy a significant presence in the literature. Furthermore, females are contributing a greater proportion of the titles here relative to males than they did a generation ago. This is due in part to more females having success in publishing alone and to the fact that more males are publishing with females and with other males, rather than restricting themselves to solo authorship. At the same time, the movement towards collaborative research in the social sciences and education that began some thirty-plus years ago appears to have reached a plateau and abated. Given that males and females are publishing together routinely and that females are beginning to challenge male hegemony in producing solo publications, there is good reason to believe we are witnessing emergent gender equity in the academic marketplace of ideas.

Practical Implications

Given these findings, there is a need to standardize a system at the university level for evaluating the contributions of each of several authors to a given publication especially as such publication achievement contributes to advancement in rank and tenure. Equally, the growth of collaborative research provides further justification for sensitizing academics to the increasingly salient and disquieting issue of intellectual exploitation and its handmaidens of exaggerated scholarly contribution and the trivialization of publication through redundancy. On a somewhat broader level, it has important implications for intellectual property law and concerns about intellectual fraud, harassment, and equity.

Younger colleagues, in turn, especially, those more timid or reluctant to undertake independent research, may take courage in the normalization and institutionalization of collaborative research as reflected in the fact that the most prestigious journals in their respective disciplines are not shying away from publishing co-authored projects. A further practical implication of these research findings is that both males and females portend to foster diversity in methodological preferences, reasoning styles and perspectives through collaboration. However, whether this is happening is beyond the scope of this study.

Among the questions for further research raised by this study are the following:

1. Where articles involve mixed gender collaborations, what proportion are captained by females? How does it vary by discipline?

2. Are females more likely to be involved in large collaborative efforts than males?

3. Are males and females equally likely to help their neophyte colleagues to publish? Conversely, are they equally likely to intellectually exploit their junior colleagues and students?

4. Are males collaborating for the same reasons as females?

5. Does the fact that more females publish in a subject area or field affect its prestige? What is the direction of any observed affect? Similarly, what is the impact of more collaborative research in general on the prestige of given subjects or fields?

These and related questions go to the heart of the sociology of knowledge and issues central to the concept of intellectual property both on and off campus. Since they may also engender such concerns as intellectual exploitation, institutional bias, and delimited professional opportunities, they are also intimately related to the domain of social justice.

References

References

Aldrich, H. E., Carter, N., & Ruef, M. (2002). With very little help from their friends: Gender relational composition of startup teams. In William D. Bygrave et al. (Eds.). Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babsom Park, MA: Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 156-169.

American Political Science Association. (2004). Women s advancement in political science. A report of the APSA workshop on the advancement of women in academic political science in the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 14, 2007, from http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/womeninpoliticalscience.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2009). 2009 APA member profiles. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies. Retrieved August 14, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/09-member/index.aspx

American Sociological Association. (2008). ASA membership data, 1999-2007. Washington, DC: Author.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., &Tarule, N. (1986). Women s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Caffarella, S. R. (1992). Psychosocial development of women. Information Series No. 350. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ED 354 109). Retrieved September 14, 2007, from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED354386.pdf

Crafton, D. (2004). Collaborative research, doc? Cinema Journal, I, 138-142.

Epstein, R. J. (1993). Six authors in search of a citation: Villains or victims of Vancouver convention. British Medical Journal, 306, 765-767.

Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77(2), 375-392.

Evans, K. S. (1999). Negotiating roles in collaborative literacy research: Re-examining issues of power and equity. Language Arts, 77 , 128-136.

Fox, M. F. (2001). Women, science and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender and Society, 15(5), 654-666.

Fox, M. F. (2004, March) . Women in scientific fields: Doctoral education and academic careers. Paper presented at the APSA Workshop on Women's Advancement in Political Science, Washington, DC.

Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1984)· Independence and cooperation in research: The motivation and costs of collaboration. The Journal of Higher Education, 55(3) 247-350.

Gallos, J. V. (1992). Educating men and women in the 21st century. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 40, 2-8.

Gelman, S. R., & Gibelman, M. (1999). A quest for citation?: An analysis of and comment on the trend toward multiple authorship. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 203-213.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gladding, S. T. (1984). Multiple authorship in the Personnel and Guidance Journal: A 12 year study. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62(10), 628-630.

Grant, L., & Ward, K. B. (1991). Gender and publishing in sociology. Gender and Society, 5, 207223.

Grant, L., & Rong, X. L. (1987). Is there an association between gender and methods in sociological research? American Sociological Review, 52, 856-862.

Hill, C, Corbett, C, & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few?: Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

Hirowaka, R., Cathcart, R., Samovar, L., & Henman, L. (Eds.). (2003). Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Press.

Holaday, M., & Yost, T. E. (1994). Psychology and the scientist: LXVIII. Trends in multiple authorship. Psychological Reports, 74, 299-303.

Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 153-158.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422-447.

John-Steiner, V. (1996). Notebooks of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kerka, S. (1993). Women, human development and learning. Eric Tagest. Eric Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education.

Leahey, E., Crockett, J. L., & Hunter, L. A. (2008). Gendered academic careers: Specializing for success? SocialForces, 86(3), 1273-1309.

Litpetz, B. A. (1999). Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 50, 994?003.

McNamee, S. J., Willis, C. L, & Rotchford, A. M. (1990). Gender differences in the pattern of publication in leading sociology journals, 1960-1985. The American Sociologist, 21, 99-115.

Mehdizadeh, M. (1993). An analysis of authors and institutions contributing to the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1981-1993. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52, 459-466.

McDowell, J. M., & Smith, J. K. (1992). The effect of gender sorting on propensity to co-author: Implications for academic promotion. Economic Inquiry, 30, 68-82.

Mooney, C. L. (1991, May 22). Efforts to out 'trivial' scholarship with backing from many academics. Chronicle of Higher Education, Al-13, 13.

Norris, R. P. (1993). Authorship patterns in CJNR, 1970-1991. Scientometrics, 151-158.

Reikowsky, R. C, & Leahey, E. (2006, August). Research specialization and publications in sociology. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC.

Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager's dilemma. Human Resources, 42, 1-22.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939-951.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19,97-111.

Rehling, L. (1996). Writing together: Gender's effect on collaboration. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 26, 163-176.

Rubin, Z., & Shenker, S. (1978). Friendship, proximity, and self disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1-22.

Schräge, M. (1990). Shared minds. New technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House.

Sonnert, G., & Holten, G. (1995). Gender differences in science careers: The project access study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Stack, S. (2002). Gender and scholarly productivity: The case of criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 175-182.

Strahan, R. F. (1982). More on JCP publication: single versus multiple authorship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 430-431.

Streuly, C, & Maranto, C. (1994). Accounting faculty research productivity and citations: Are there gender differences? Issues in Accounting Education, 9, 219-230.

Tarule, J. (1992). Dialogue and adult learning. Liberal Education, 78, 12-19.

Thagard, P. (1997). Collaborative knowledge. Nous, 31, 241-261.

Tseng, C. (2011, Summer). Connecting business incubator development with human resource de velopment. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(2), 29-42.

Welch, E., & Jha, Y. (2009). The effects of relational social network characteristics on multifaceted collaboration of academic scientists in six fields of science and engineering. Paper presented at the Atlanta Science and Technology Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Welsh, M. J., & Bremser, W. G. (2005). Accounting faculty research collaboration: A study of relationship benefits and gender differences. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, I, 19-36.

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Von Prummer, C. (2010). Gender collaboration patterns in distance education research. The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25, 95-1 14.

Zook, A. (1997). Trend toward multiple authorship: Update and extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 77-79.