Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:01:16.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Critical Evaluation of Recent Gendered Publishing Trends in American Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dana N. Bardolph
Dana N. Bardolph*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3210 (dbardolph@umail.ucsb.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between gender identity and patterns of authorship in peer-reviewed journals as a lens for examining gendered knowledge production and the current status and visibility of men and women in American archaeology. Drawing on feminist theory and the feminist critique of science, I examine how gender imbalance and a lack of diversity continue to affect the work that archaeologists produce. The evaluation of publishing trends serves as a means to investigate knowledge valuation/validation in archaeology and lends insight into the control over archaeological narratives. Analysis of publicacion rates from 1990–2013 in a number of prestigious archaeology research journals (including American Antiquity) as well as smaller-scale regional journals reveals that strong gender differences persist in one of the major ways that data are disseminated to the American archaeological community. I suggest that these patterns are likely a result of authorial behavior, rather than editorial or reviewer bias, and conclude with a discussion of future directions for practitioners to pursue research on gender equity in the discipline.

Este artículo explora la relatión entre género y autoría en revistas sujetos a revisión por pares para examinar la productión de conocimiento y el estado actual y la visibilidad de hombres y mujeres que practican la arqueología americana. Usando la teoría feminista y la crítica feminista de la ciencia, examino cómo desigualdad de género y lafalta de diversidad continúan de afectar el trabajo de los arqueólogos americanos. La evaluatión de los datos de publicatión sirve para investigar la valoración y validación del conocimiento en la disciplina de la arqueologia, y nos ayuda a entender el control sobre las narrativas arqueológicas. Análisis de los datos de publicatión desde 1990–2013 en una serie de revistas prestigiosas (incluyendo American Antiquity), asi como revistas regionales de menor escala, revela fuertes diferencias de género en una de las principales formas en que los datos se difunden a la comunidad arqueológica. Sugiero que estos resultados son prohablemente el resulto de la conducta de los autores, en lugar de prejuicios de los editores o revisores, y concluyo con una discusión sobre direcciones futuras de investigatión sobre la tema de igualdad de género en la disciplina arqueológica.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 522 - 540
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Acker, Sandra, and Feuerverger, Grace 1996 Doing Good and Feeling Bad: The Work of Women University Teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education 26:401–422.Google Scholar
American Anthropological Association (AAA) 2013 AnthroGuide 2012–2013. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Babcock, Linda, and Laschever, Sara 2007 Women Don’t Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation—and Positive Strategies for Change. Bantam Dell, New York.Google Scholar
Barber, Sarah (editor) 2012 Life in Ruins: Work-Life Balance in Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 12(5):26–37.Google Scholar
Bardolph, Dana N., and VanDerwarker, Amber M. 2013 Sociopolitics in Southeastern Archaeology: The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa.Google Scholar
Bart, Jody (editor) 2000 Women Succeeding in the Sciences: Theories and Practices across Disciplines. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
Baxter, Jane E. 2005 Gendered Perceptions of Archaeology: A Perspective from the SAA Member Needs Assessment Survey. The SAA Archaeological Record 5(4):7–9.Google Scholar
Baxter, Jane E., Mayfield, Tracie, O’Gorman, Jodie, Peterson, Jane, and Stone, Tammy 2008 Mentoring Strategies for Women in Archaeology: A Report of the 2008 COSWA Working Group. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(4):15–18.Google Scholar
Beaudry, Mary C. 1994 Women Historical Archaeologists: Who’s Counting? Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:225–228.Google Scholar
Beaudry, Mary C., and White, Jacquelyn 1994 Cowgirls with the Blues? A Study of Women’s Publication and the Citation of Women’s Work in Historical Archaeology. In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, pp. 138–158. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
Bellas, Marcia L. 1999 Emotional Labor in Academia: The Case of Professors. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 561:96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Susan J. 1991 Towards a History of Women in Northeastern Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen D. Willows, pp. 211–216. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Alberta. Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre 1988 Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Brush, Stephen G. 1991 Women in Science and Engineering. American Scientist 79:404–419.Google Scholar
Burkholder, Jo Ellen 2006 Doing It for Ourselves: Women and Participation in the SAA Annual Meetings. The SAA Archaeological Record 6(2):27–31.Google Scholar
Chester, Hilary, Rothschild, Nan A., and Wall, Diana diZerega 1994 Women in Historical Archeology: The SHA Survey. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:213–218.Google Scholar
Claassen, Cheryl (editor) 1992 Exploring Gender through Archaeology. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Claassen, Cheryl (editor) 1994 Women in Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Claassen, Cheryl, O’Neal, Michael, Wilson, Tamara, Arnold, Elizabeth, and Lansdell, Brent 1999 Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983–1995 and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 18:85–97.Google Scholar
Clarke, Anne 1993 Cultural Resource Management (CRM) as Archaeological Housework: Confining Women to the Ghetto of Management. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by Hilary du Cros and Laurajane Smith, pp. 191–194. Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. 23. Canberra Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Google Scholar
Cleveland, William S. 1994 The Elements of Graphing Data. AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Cole, Jonathan R., and Zuckerman, Harriet 1984 The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and Changes in Patterns of Publication of Men and Women Scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement 2:217–258.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W. 2003 Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28:867–880.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W. 2005 Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies. Archaeologies 1:9–59.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W. 2007 Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Archaeology? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:285–310.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W., and Gero, Joan M. 1997 Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:411–37.Google Scholar
Creager, Angela N., Elizabeth, Lunbeck, and Londa L., Schiebinger (editors) 2001 Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Curtis, John W. 2010 Faculty Salary Equity: Still a Gender Gap? Electronic resource, http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume39_1/feature.cfm?section=2, accessed December 3,2013.Google Scholar
Cusack, Carole, and Campbell, Gary 1993 Women and Postgraduate Education: Problems and Predictions. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by Hilary du Cros and Laurajane Smith, pp. 232–238. Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. 23. Canberra Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Google Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Stig Sørensen, Marie L. 1998 Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Dincauze, Dena F. 1991 Is Gender Still an Issue? SAA Bulletin 9(1):10.Google Scholar
Dincauze, Dena F. 1992 Exploring Career Styles in Archaeology. In Rediscovering Our Past: Essays on the History of American Archaeology, edited by Jonathan E. Reyman, pp. 131–135. Avebury, Charlottesville, Virginia. Google Scholar
Donovan, Josephine 2001 Feminist Theory: The Intellectual Traditions. 3rd ed. Continuum, New York.Google Scholar
du Cros, Hilary, and Smith, Laura Jane (editors) 1993 Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique. Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. 23. Canberra Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Etkowitz, Henry, Kemelgor, Carol, Neuschatz, Michael, Uzzi, Brian, and Alonzo, Joseph 1994 The Paradox of Critical Mass for Women in Science. Science 266:51–54.Google Scholar
Finkel, Susan K., and Olswang, Steven G. 1996 Child Rearing as a Career Impediment to Women Assistant Professors. Review of Higher Education 19:123–39.Google Scholar
Frith, Hannah 2001 Young Women, Feminism, and the Future: Dialogues and Discoveries. Feminism and Psychology 11(2):147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, Barbara A., Garrow, Patrick H., and Thomas, Pat A. 1994 Women in Contract Archaeology. In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, pp. 182–201. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
Gero, Joan 1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50:342–350.Google Scholar
Gero, Joan 1991 Gender Divisions of Labor in the Construction of Archaeological Knowledge. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen D. Willows, pp. 96–102. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Google Scholar
Gero, Joan 1994 Excavation Bias and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, Joan 1996 Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by Rita P. Wright, pp. 251–280. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane 1994 Women in Zooarchaeology. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:157–171.Google Scholar
Givens, David B., and Jablonksi, Timothy 1996 AAA Survey of Departments. Electronic document, http://www.aaanet.org/resources/departments/96Survey.cfm, accessed May 29, 2013.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Patricia, and Strahan, Lynne 1982 The Half-Open Door: Sixteen Modern Australian Women Look at Professional Life and Achievement. Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Hutson, Scott R. 1998 Institutional and Gender Effects on Academic Hiring Practices. SAA Bulletin 16(4):19–21, 26.Google Scholar
Hutson, Scott R. 2002 Gendered Citation Practices in American Antiquity and Other Archaeological Journals. American Antiquity 67:331–342.Google Scholar
Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1990 Women in the Field: The Role of Women in Archaeology before 1960. In Women in Science: Righting the Record, edited by G. Kass-Simon and Patricia Fames, pp. 1–41. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn F. 1991 The Wo/man Scientist: Issues of Sex and Gender in the Pursuit of Science. In The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, edited by Harriet Zuckerman, Jonathan R. Cole, and John T. Bruer, pp. 227–236. Norton, New York. Google Scholar
Kramer, Carol, and Stark, Miriam 1988 The Status of Women in Archaeology. Anthropology Newsletter 29(9):11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larivière, Vincent, Ni, Chaoqun, Gingras, Yves, Cronin, Blaise, and Sugimoto, Cassidy R. 2013 Bibliometrics: Global Gender Disparities in Science. Nature 504:211–213.Google Scholar
Lewin, Ellen, and Leap, William (editors) 2002 Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana-Champaign. Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Fox, Mary F. 1995 Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism. Annual Review of Sociology 21:45–71.Google Scholar
Lorber, Judith 2001 Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. 2nd ed. Roxbury, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Lynott, Mark J. 1997 Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity 62:589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBryde, Isabel 1993 “In Her Right Place…?” Women in Archaeology, Past and Present. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by Hilary du Cros and Laurajane Smith, pp. xi–xv. Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. 23. Canberra Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
McGill, Robert, Tukey, John W., and Larsen, Wayne A. 1978 Variations of Box Plots. The American Statistician 32:12–16.Google Scholar
McGuire, Randall H. 2008 Archaeology as Political Action. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Powers, Ryan, and Walter, Barbara F. 2013 The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations. International Organization 67:889–922.Google Scholar
Maranto, Cheryl L., and Griffin, Andrea E.C. 2011 The Antecedents of a “Chilly Climate” for Women Faculty in Higher Education. Human Relations 64:139–159.Google Scholar
Moser, Stephanie 1996 Science, Stratigraphy and the Deep Sequence: Excavations vs. Survey and the Question of Gendered Practice in Archaeology. Antiquity 70:813–823.Google Scholar
Moser, Stephanie 2007 On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork and Its Gendered Associations. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 14:235–263.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C., and Crooks, Deborah 1994 Dual Anthropology Career Couples: Different Strategies and Success Rates. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:59–64.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C., Nelson, Sarah M., and Wylie, Alison (editors) 1994 Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology. Archaeological Papers No. 5. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Oland, Maxine 2008 Motherhood and the Future of Women in Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(4):22–24.Google Scholar
Parezo, Nancy, and Bender, Susan 1994 From Glacial to Chilly Climate: A Comparison Between Archaeology and Socio-Cultural Anthropology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:189–194.Google Scholar
Park, Shelley M. 1996 Research, Teaching, and Service: Why Shouldn’t Women’s Work Count? The Journal of Higher Education 67:46–84.Google Scholar
Rautman, Alison E. 2012 Who Gets Published in American Antiquity? The SAA Archaeological Record 12(2):25–26, 30.Google Scholar
Reyman, Jonathan E. 1994 Gender and Class in Archaeology: Then and Now. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:83–90.Google Scholar
Rizvi, Uzma Z. 2008 Looking Forward, Looking Back: A Special Issue of The SAA Archaeological Record from the Committee on the Status of Women in Archaeology (COSWA). The SAA Archaeological Record 8(4):6–7.Google Scholar
Sax, Linda J., Hagedorn, Linda Serra, Arredondo, Marisol, and Dicrisi, Frank A. III 2002 Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of Gender and Family-Related Factors. Research in Higher Education 43:423–446.Google Scholar
Sonnert, Gerhard 1995 Who Succeeds in Science? The Gender Dimension. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Sonnert, Gerhard, and Holton, Gerald 1996 Career Patterns of Women and Men in the Sciences. American Scientist 84:63–71.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L., Spielmann, Katherine A., Shears, Brenda, and Ohnersorgen, Michael 1997 The Gender Effect on Editorial Boards and in Academia. SAA Bulletin 15(4):6–9.Google Scholar
Surface-Evans, Sarah L., and Jackson, Misty 2012 Feminine Voices in Archaeology: Promoting Community, Collaboration, and Mentoring. The SAA Archaeological Record 12(1):19–22.Google Scholar
Symonds, Matthew R. E., Gemmell, Neil J., Braisher, Tamsin L., Gorringe, Kylie L., and Elgar, Mark A. 2006 Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance. PLoS ONE 1(1):1–5. el27.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaskova, Silvia 2007 Mapping a Future: Archaeology, Feminism, and Scientific Practice. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:264–284.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Ruth 2008 Trailing Spouses and Bi-Coastal Households: Dual Careers in Academic Archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(4):19–21.Google Scholar
VanPool, Christine, and VanPool, Todd L. 2012 Readings in American Archaeological Theory: Selections from American Antiquity, 1962–2011. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Victor, Katherine, and Beaudry, Mary C. 1992 Women’s Participation in American Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology: A Comparative Look at the Journals American Antiquity and Historical Archaeology . In Exploring Gender through Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Claassen, pp. 11–22. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Google Scholar
Walde, Dale, and Willows, Noreen D. (editors) 1991 The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Vol. 1989. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe E. 2003 Beyond the Margin: American Indians, First Nations, and Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68:273–285.Google Scholar
Wennerás, Christine, and Wold, Agnes 2001 Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review. In Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies, edited by Mary Wyer, Mary Barbercheck, Donna Geisman, Hatice Öriin Öztürk, and Malta Wayne, pp. 46–52. Routledge, New York. Google Scholar
West, Jevin D., Jacquet, Jennifer, King, Molly M., Correll, Shelley J., and Bergstrom, Carl T. 2013 The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS ONE 8(7): e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.Google Scholar
West, Martha S., and Curtis, John W. 2006 AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators 2006. Technical Report, American Association of University Professors, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Wilkie, Laurie, and Hayes, Katherine Howlett 2006 Engendered and Feminist Archaeologies of the Recent and Documented Pasts. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:243–264.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Leland, Jill, MaryAnn, Miceli, Stacey, Birkenbeuel, Gregory, and Vang, Erin 1992 Systat Graphics. SYSTAT, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Wren, Jonathon D., Kozak, Katarzyna Z., Johnson, Kathryn R., Deakyne, Sara J., Schilling, Lisa M., and Deilavalle, Robert P. 2007 The Write Position: A Survey of Perceived Contributions to Papers Based on Byline Position and Number of Authors. EMBO Reports 8:988–991.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 2002 COSWA Committee Article: Gender Equity, Sexual Harassment, and Professional Ethics. The SAA Archaeological Record 2(4):18–19.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 2003 Gender Matters: A Question of Ethics. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 225–238. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California. Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison 1983 Comments on the “Socio-Politics of Archaeology:” The Demystification of the Profession. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by Joan M. Gero, David M. Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey, pp. 119–130. Research Reports No. 23. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. American Antiquity 57:15–35.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 1993 Workplace Issues for Women in Archaeology. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by Hilary du Cros and Laurajane Smith, pp. 245–258. Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. 23. Canberra Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 1997 The Engendering of Archaeology: Refiguring Feminist Science Studies. Osiris 12:80–99.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 2000 Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the (Dis)unity of Science. American Antiquity 65:221–231.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 2010 Good Science, Bad Science, or Science as Usual? Feminist Critiques of Science. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism, edited by Robert W. Preucel and Stephen A. Mrozowski, 226–243. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 2011 Standpoint (Still) Matters: Research on Women, Work, and the Academy. In Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Power in Knowledge, edited by Heidi Grasswick, pp. 157–179. Springer, New York. Google Scholar
Yu, Xie, and Shauman, Kimberlee A. 1996 Sex Differences in Research Productivity: New Evidence about an Old Puzzle. American Sociological Review 63:847–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yellen, John 1994 Women, Archaeology, and NSF: An Analysis of Fiscal Year 1989 Data. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5:53–57.Google Scholar
Zeder, Melinda A. 1997a The American Archaeologist: A Profile. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Zeder, Melinda A. 1997b The American Archaeologist: Results of the 1994 SAA Census. SAA Bulletin 15(2):12–17.Google Scholar