Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T04:04:47.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Underrepresentation of Women in Prestigious Ethics Journals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Meena Krishnamurthy ,
Shen‐yi Liao ,
Monique Deveaux  and
Maggie Dalecki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to determine whether women are underrepresented in prestigious ethics journals relative to their representation in the field of ethics. Our study proceeds in three steps. Step one: we estimate the percentage of women who specialize in ethics. Step two: we estimate the percentage of articles in prestigious ethics journals that are authored by women. Step three: we examine whether there is any difference between the percentage of women who specialize in ethics and the percentage of articles in prestigious ethics journals that are authored by women. We conclude that women are underrepresented in prestigious ethics journals relative to their representation in the field of ethics.

Type
Found Cluster: Issues in the Profession
Information
Hypatia , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Fall 2017 , pp. 928 - 939
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Bright, Liam Kofi. Forthcoming.Decision theoretic model of the productivity gap. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Brooks, Thom. 2010. The view from the Journal of Moral Philosophy. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 10 (1): 16–17.Google Scholar
Feminist Philosophers. 2009. Gendered conference campaign, December 10. https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/gendered-conference-campaign/ (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Stern, Hal. 2006. The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician 60 (4): 328–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2008. Changing the ideology and culture of philosophy: Not by reason (alone). Hypatia 23 (2): 210–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2009. Preliminary report of the survey on publishing in philosophy. Presented at the American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession Session, Eastern APA, December 2009. http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerPRSPP.pdf (accessed February 28, 2017)Google Scholar
Healy, Kieran. 2015. Gender and citation in four general‐interest philosophy journals, 1993–2013. Kieran Healy Blog, February 25. https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2015/02/25/gender-and-citation-in-four-general-interest-philosophy-journals-1993-2013/ (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Hengel, Erin. 2016. Publishing while female: Gender differences in peer review scrutiny. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.erinhengel.com/research/publishing_female.pdf (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Hoenig, John M., and Heisey, Dennis M. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician 55 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Carolyn Dicey. 2016. Women in philosophy 2004–2014: Which programs do best? New Apps, May 21. http://www.newappsblog.com/2016/05/women-in-philosophy-2004-2014-which-programs-do-best.html#more (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, Meena. 2014. Thoughts on the gender ratios of papers published in Ethics and the Journal of Moral Philosophy. Philosopher, August 25. https://politicalphilosopher.net/2014/08/25/thoughts-on-the-gender-ratios-of-papers-published-in-ethics-and-the-journal-of-moral-philosophy/ (accessed April 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, Meena. Forthcoming.Proportional representation of women in elite ethics journals: To quota or not to quota? Public Affairs Quarterly.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. 2015. Editorial practices at Philosophy & Public Affairs. The Leiter report, March 23. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/03/editorial-practices-at-philosophy-public-affairs.html (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Norlock, Kathryn. 2014. Gender ratios of papers published in Ethics and the Journal of Moral Philosophy. New Apps, August 19. http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/08/gender-ratios-of-papers-published-in-ethics-and-the-journal-of-moral-philosophy.html (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Paxton, Molly, Figdor, Carrie, and Tiberius, Valerie. 2012. Quantifying the gender gap: An empirical study of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy. Hypatia 27 (4): 949–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Henry S. 2010. The triply anonymous review process at Ethics. APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 10 (1): 17–20.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry S. 2016. Editorial: Changes at the journal. Ethics 127 (1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 2010. The marginalization of feminist epistemology and what that reveals about epistemology “proper.” In Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science: Power in knowledge, ed. Grasswick, Heidi. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, Eric. 2015. Percentage of women at APA meetings, 1955, 1975, 1995, 2015. The Splintered Mind, November 17. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2015/11/percentage-of-women-at-apa-meetings.html (accessed February 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, Eric, and Dicey Jennings, Carolyn. Forthcoming.Women in philosophy: Quantitative analyses of specialization, prevalence, visibility, and generational change. Public Affairs Quarterly.Google Scholar