RESEARCH ARTICLE - Specialized Research AI at MIT

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Gender, science, and academic rank:
Key issues and approaches

Mary Frank Fox

School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0345, USA

a n o p e n a c c e s s

j o u r n a l

Keywords: collaboration, practices of evaluation, gender, promotion, rank, science

Citation: Fox, M. F. (2020). Gender,
science, and academic rank: Key
issues and approaches. Quantitative
Science Studies, 1(3), 1001–1006.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057

Corresponding Author:
Mary Frank Fox
mary.fox@pubpolicy.gatech.edu

Handling Editors:
Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols, and
Staša Milojević

ABSTRACT

In the social study of science, gender is a critical research site because relations of gender are
hierarchical and inequality is a central feature of science. The focus here is on a key dimension
of gender and scientific careers: academic rank, particularly that of full professor. This article
concentrates on quantitative and qualitative approaches that have occurred in two focal
problem areas related to gender, science, and rank: collaboration patterns and evaluative
practices. The approaches encompass analyses of large and small groups and comparative
cases, with surveys, bibliometrics, experiments, and interviews. This breadth of approaches
reflects a search for explanations of the pervasive and persistent relationships between gender
and academic rank. The analyses presented here point to the complexities of gender disparities
in collaboration. These appear in team compositions, divisions of labor and power dynamics,
integration into departmental units, and international coauthorship. The analyses also reveal
ways that limited clarity in evaluation bears on gender disparities. Continuing understandings
of gender, science, and rank will result in multi level analyses: those at organizational levels
along with those of individual scientists.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
3
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
9
9
6
1
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
5
7
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

INTRODUCTION: KEY ISSUES

In the study of science, gender is a strategic research site. This is because relations of gender are fun-
damentally hierarchical and inequality is a central social feature of science. Categories of femininity
and masculinity constitute systems of stratification, reflected in economies, religions, social structures,
and behaviors built around women’s and men’s statuses (Lorber, 1994; Ridgeway, 2009). Scientific
fields are powerful and influential domains (Hackett, 2008; Marginson & van der Wende, 2007) that
are marked by vast disparities in research funding, equipment and materials available, and recogni-
tion and rewards (Stephan, 2012). Gender hierarchies are pervasive in science: in positions, network
ties, performance, salaries, prizes, and other areas (Fox, Whittington, & Linkova, 2017; Larivière, Ni,
et al., 2013). In sum, scientific fields are powerful and hierarchical, and inequalities of women and
men are pervasive within them. Scientific fields, in turn, reflect, reproduce, and legitimize inequalities
of women and men in societies (Fox, 2001, 2006). For these reasons, gender is a strategic analytical
site in the study of science.

My focus here is on academic rank, specifically, as a key dimension of gender and scientific ca-
reers. I concentrate on approaches (quantitative, qualitative) taken within two focal problem areas
that address the relationship between gender and academic rank: collaboration and evaluative prac-
tices for promotion (which appear in a subsequent section).

The MIT Press

Gender, science, and academic rank

What is the rationale for this focus on academic rank? First, academia is an important sector
because basic (as well as applied) research occurs in higher education; and academia trains students
and awards educational degrees. Second, in academia, faculty positions and ranks are more stan-
dardized than are positions within industry or government, making it possible to assess ranks across
different settings. Third, academic rank is consequential. Rank confers advantages of lead roles in
teams, integration into scientific communities, capacities for organizational decision making, and
levels of publication productivity attained (Abramo, D’Angelo, & DiCosta, 2009; Fox et al., 2017;
Rørstad & Aksnes, 2015). Fundamental here is that gender predicts academic rank: Women are
less likely than men to hold higher ranks, and the gender disparity is especially apparent at the rank
of full professor (Fox et al., 2017). After allowing 10 or more years from receipt of a doctoral degree,
men are more likely than women to attain the rank of full professor in the United States (National
Science Foundation, 2015, Table 3.1). Gender disparities in timing and prospects of promotion to full
professor appear in mathematics (Shaw & Stanton, 2012), computing (Fox & Kline, 2016), and other
scientific fields (National Science Foundation, 2008).

2. APPROACHES

A question, then, is: What accounts for the slower and lower advancement of women to full aca-
demic rank? Addressing this question goes to focal areas of inquiry and approaches taken to them.
My aim is to identify and explain these areas and their (quantitative, qualitative) approaches, broadly.
The aim is not to analyze one set of methodological techniques compared to another. The latter is an
extensive subject that occupies entire, classic volumes (for example, Morgan & Winship, 2015;
Whyte, 1984), and is beyond the scope of this article.

Quantitative and qualitative approaches involve observations and meanings derived from them.
Quantitative approaches tend to focus on frequencies, amounts, and levels (or intensities), and the
relationships between variables as they influence each other, and in turn, plausible outcomes in
one or more (dependent) variable(s) (Borrego, Douglas, & Amelink, 2009). The emphasis is on sys-
tematic measures, inferences, and explanations. Quantitative approaches are useful in under-
standing relatively large numbers of cases or events, with surveys, experiments, bibliometric,
and other means. Qualitative approaches tend to focus on textual data from interviews, conver-
sations, narratives, focus groups, life histories, and other sources (Yilmaz, 2013). The emphasis is
on describing a “reality” that makes sense of a context, setting, or process (such as decision
making) (Borrego et al., 2009; Yilmaz, 2013). These approaches are useful in depicting the
details of smaller numbers of persons, places, or events, including case studies of groups and
organizations. The qualitative methods are also useful in exploring outliers and explaining pro-
cesses that underlie dichotomies (such as advantaged–disadvantaged or successful–unsuccessful)
that exist between groups of people (Tarrow, 2010).

3. TWO FOCAL AREAS OF INQUIRY

In understanding what accounts for the lower and slower promotion of women to full professor, two
focal areas of inquiry are (a) collaborative patterns (including international research collaboration)
and (b) evaluative practices in promotion. These are focal—not exhaustive—areas that illustrate a
range of approaches.

In scientific fields, collaboration is the norm. Scientific research occurs predominantly in teams
with peers, post-doctoral fellows, and students (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007). Collaboration pro-
vides ideas, skills, expertise, and equipment that potentially enhance publication productivity, as
documented in survey and bibliometric analyses (Bozeman & Youtie, 2017).

Quantitative Science Studies

1002

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
3
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
9
9
6
1
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
5
7
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Gender, science, and academic rank

Important is that large-scale, quantitative designs indicate that women are as likely as men to
collaborate (coauthor their papers) in science (Abramo, D’Angelo, & Murgia, 2013; Bozeman &
Gaughan, 2011). This is in keeping with collaboration as the predominant mode of scientific research.
However, gender disparities in collaboration appear in (a) team compositions, (b) divisions of labor
and power dynamics, (c) integration into departmental units, and (d) international coauthorship. First,
survey responses among 1,200 U.S. faculty in doctoral-granting departments in five scientific fields
point to patterns of gender and team composition, with consequences for publication productivity
(Fox & Mohapatra, 2007). Specifically, being a male faculty member together with having higher
numbers of male students accompanies higher levels of publication productivity. This may relate to
styles of research, an issue addressed in Sonnert and Holton’s classic (1995) study of career paths,
based on interviews with a matched sample of women and men scientists. In this study, each of the
women and men had been awarded prestigious postdoctoral fellowships, and subsequently they
were more and less successful in academic careers. The interviews revealed that, compared to
men, women were more likely to exercise care, caution, and attention to detail in their research
and publications—with consequences for potential rates of publication.

Second are divisions of labor operating in research teams. In an analysis of 85,000 articles pub-
lished from 2008 to 2013 in PLOS journals that require reports on contributions of authors (analysis
of data, design of experiments, contributions of materials/tools/analysis, performing experi-
ments, writing the paper), Macaluso, Larivière, et al. (2016) find that gender shapes collaborative
roles and authorship. Women are significantly more likely than men to be performing the exper-
iments. This holds with controls for professional age (measured as date of first publication). Men
are more likely to make other contributions. Notably, the hierarchical position of senior author is
associated with non-experimental roles.

Related to this is a qualitative study of collaboration, rank, and power dynamics, based on
analysis of 177 open-ended responses in a survey and 60 semi-structured interviews with academic
scientists in U.S. universities (Gaughan & Bozeman, 2016). The findings point to power and
influence concentrated in the most senior scientists, and to gender narratives and dynamics that
are reported exclusively by women.

Third is a study of women faculty members’ reported chances for promotion from associate to full
professor, including the ways that these chances relate to collaboration (Fox & Xiao, 2013). Data for
this study come from a unique web-based survey of the universe of women associate professors in
computing within U.S. institutions that are members of the Computing Research Association and
within affiliated institutions in Canada. The reported chances, at focus, are not equivalent to actual
promotion, but perceived chances have implications for whether faculty members will, in fact, put
themselves forward for promotion to full professor. Promotion to this level (compared to that from
assistant to associate) is not on a fixed timetable, and is more elective and subject to perceived pros-
pects. Among the work activities, practices, and orientations assessed, the strongest predictor of
excellent/good chances was having collaborated with faculty in the home unit on publications or
proposals in the prior three years. Collaboration with faculty outside the home department did not
predict positive chances. Faculty who collaborate with those in the home department may be more
integrated into the prevailing research styles and standards of the department. The home department
is the initial level at which the recommendations for promotion occur, and this sets the stage for
subsequent levels of recommendations at higher levels in the institution.

Fourth is the issue of international, compared to national, research collaboration. International re-
search collaboration is on the rise, especially in countries actively seeking transitions to knowledge-
intensive economies with strong scientific and technological capacities (National Science Board,
2012). Gender shapes patterns of international research collaboration. Women are less likely than

Quantitative Science Studies

1003

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
3
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
9
9
6
1
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
5
7
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Gender, science, and academic rank

men to coauthor articles with others outside their home nation, as documented in large-scale biblio-
metric approaches (Abramo et al., 2013; Larivière et al., 2013).

Interviews with 100 scientists in 38 U.S. research universities help to uncover processes or
mechanisms that challenge women’s participation in international research collaboration
(Zippel, 2017). Women are located, disproportionately, in institutions with inadequate resources
to support international research collaboration, and when/if they acquire funding for this collab-
oration, they face the ambivalence of home institutions that regard the collaboration as a “travel
perk.” Cultural challenges occur in women being accepted into their international destinations,
and family commitments can also constrain travel (Zippel, 2017).

Survey approaches to gender and international research collaboration bring together the assets
of relatively large numbers of cases and systematic measures of experiences and conditions related
to the collaboration. These appear in survey-based studies that show positive effects on women’s
international research collaboration of having an academic domestic partner (Uhly, Visser, &
Zippel, 2017), and having numbers of projects and broad professional networks (Ynalvez &
Shrum, 2009). Such conditions that support (or hinder) international research collaboration have
implications for understandings of gender, rank, and academic careers. This is because knowledge
is increasingly global and advancement to full professor may involve evidence of “international
stature.” At the same time, the meanings and expectations of international research collaboration
vary by nations. The European Commission has emphasized the flow of researchers between in-
stitutions, fields, and countries, as well as global research collaboration. However, this does not
entail a single policy or set of expectations (and rewards) for international research collaboration
that operates across European nations (European Commission, 2009).

The second focal area of inquiry is that of evaluative practices in academic science. Evaluative
practices are organizational “levers of advancement.” These practices are among the most funda-
mental processes in organizations, reflecting priorities of units and institutions. The clarity of criteria
for tenure and promotion is especially salient for women, who are more likely than men to say that
they do not understand “what counts” in assessment (Britton, 2010; Fox, 2015; Roth & Sonnert,
2011). The criteria are especially murky—less clear and transparent—for promotion to full professor
(Britton, 2010; Fox, 2015; Misra, Lundquist, et al., 2011). This is consequential because experimental
studies have shown that, when the criteria of evaluation are loosely defined and a matter of judg-
ment, biased assessments (based on gender, race, and social characteristics) are more likely to occur
(Long & Fox, 1995).

Also telling are results about clarity of evaluation in a survey of over a thousand tenured
and tenure-track faculty in six scientific fields within nine U.S. research universities (Fox,
2015). Among men faculty, both formal (rank, seniority) and informal (frequency of speaking
with faculty, collegial climate) factors predict clarity of evaluation. Among women, only the
informal factors are predictive. Overall, the informal indicators are stronger. What this means
is that time in the institution and exposure to outcomes of evaluative processes do not neces-
sarily increase very clear criteria of evaluation. Other informal factors are more important.
Noteworthy is that informal factors of departmental climate and patterns of speaking about
research are resistant to policies and interventions. This is because faculty members exercise
autonomy in choosing persons with whom they speak about research, and social circles of
inclusion and exclusion are difficult to modify (Fox, 2015).

4. BROADER IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The focal inquiries of collaboration and evaluative practices point to complex hierarchical arrange-
ments related to gender and rank. Institutions such as family and households, and cultures broadly,

Quantitative Science Studies

1004

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
3
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
9
9
6
1
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
5
7
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Gender, science, and academic rank

also shape outcomes of gender and rank; and race, ethnicity, and sexual identities intersect with
meanings of gender as well. These are significant topics that require separate treatment.

The approaches identified encompass analyses of large and small groups and comparative cases,
with means including surveys, bibliometrics, experiments, and interviews (with both more and less
structured sets of questions). This breadth in approaches relates, potentially, to the search for expla-
nations of pervasive and persistent relationships between gender and full academic rank. The hier-
archies of gender and rank pervade institutions, departments, laboratories and teams, and social
relations within them. They also persist. Despite increases in the numbers of women receiving de-
grees in scientific fields over the past four decades, and the passage of years for them to mature in
professional time, the proportion of women in the United States who are full professors has not kept
pace with the growth of women doctoral-holders (Fox et al., 2017). This holds when taking into
account “demographic inertia”—the point that representation of women at given ranks is subject
to existing age and gender distributions that affect proportional representations of newer doctoral-
holders, including women (Shaw & Stanton, 2012).

In 1983, the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report (Berryman, 1983) depicting the representa-
tion of women and minorities with a pipeline metaphor of straight links between educational stages
and occupational outcomes. The model emphasized unidirectional progressions, individual pref-
erences and choices, and deficits that result in “leakage” from the pipeline. The pathways model, in
contrast, has evolved, and emphasizes dynamic processes in the settings in which women (and
other groups) are educated and employed and complex outcomes that are not necessarily orderly
progressions from one stage to another (Branch, 2016; Fox & Kline, 2016; Xie & Shaumann, 2003).

In broader implications, these conceptual frameworks are also are part of continuing inquiries
and approaches in the study of scientific careers, and the search for explanations of relationships
between gender and academic rank. Toward this, promising approaches are multi-level analyses.
This means, for example, organizational analyses, along with those of individual scientists. With
this approach, an organizational analysis may include indicators (quantitative, qualitative) of the
operations of academic institutions and departments, their priorities, cultures, conflicts, decision-
making, and relations with external environments. Individual analyses include indicators (quan-
titative, qualitative) of scientists’ perceptions, experiences, networks, roles, performance, and
other areas. Such multi-level analyses are important because they go to links that exist between
institutions, departments, research groups, and individuals—producing complex outcomes of
gender, rank, and academic careers.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The author has no competing interests.

FUNDING INFORMATION

No funding was received for this research.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Not applicable.

REFERENCES

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & DiCosta, F. (2009). Research collabora-
tion and productivity: Is there a correlation? Higher Education, 57,
155–171.

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differ-
ences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4),
811–822.

Quantitative Science Studies

1005

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
3
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
9
9
6
1
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
5
7
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Gender, science, and academic rank

Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who will do science?: Minority and female
attainment of science and mathematics degrees: Trends and
causes. New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.

Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering educa-
tion. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.

Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women
differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative
motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy,
40(10), 1393–1402.

Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2017). The strength in numbers: The new
science of team science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Branch, E. H. (2016). Pathways, potholes, and the persistence of
women in science: Reconsidering the pipeline. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.

Britton, D. M. (2010). Engendering the university through policy
and practice: Barriers to promotion to full professor for women
in the science, engineering, and math disciplines. In Gender
Change in Academia (pp. 15–26). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.

European Commission. (2009). Drivers of international collabora-
tion in research. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for research,
Publications Office of the European Union.

Fox, M. F. (2001). Women, science, and academia: Graduate edu-

cation and careers. Gender & Society, 15(5), 654–666.

Fox, M. F. (2006). Gender, hierarchy, and science. In Handbook of
the sociology of gender (pp. 441–457). Boston, MA: Springer.
Fox, M. F. (2015). Gender and clarity of evaluation among academic
scientists in research universities. Science, Technology, & Human
Values, 40(4), 487–515.

Fox, M. F., & Kline, K. (2016). Women faculty in computing: A key
case of women in science. In E. H. Branch (Ed.), Pathways, pot-
holes, and persistence of women in science (pp. 41–55).
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational charac-
teristics of work and publication productivity among academic
scientists in doctoral-granting departments. Journal of Higher
Education, 78(5), 542–571.

Fox, M. F., Whittington, K. B., & Linkova, M. (2017). Gender, (in)
equity, and the scientific workforce. In U. Felt, R. Fouche, C. Miller,
& L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies (4th ed.) (pp. 701–731), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fox, M. F., & Xiao, W. (2013). Perceived chances for promotion
among women associate professors in computing: Individual, de-
partmental, and entrepreneurial factors. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 38(2), 135–152.

Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2016). Using the prisms of gender
and rank to interpret research collaboration power dynamics.
Social Studies of Science, 46(4), 536–558.

Hackett, E. (2008). Power and politics. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska,
M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies (3rd ed.) (pp. 429–432), Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013).
Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature News,
504(7479), 211.

Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and

particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 45–71.

Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Macaluso, B., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, T., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016).
Is science built on the shoulders of women? A study of gender
differences in contributorship. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1136–1142.
Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and
higher education, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8. OECD
Publishing.

Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011).
The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97(1), 22–26.
Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal

inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators.

Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2008). Science resources sta-
tistics (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty posi-
tions (NSF 08–308). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science and engineering. Special Report NSF
15-311. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender
shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23(2), 145–160.
Rørstad, K., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Publication rate expressed by
age, gender and academic position—A large-scale analysis of
Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 317–33.
Roth, W., & Sonnert, G. (2011). The costs and benefits of ‘red tape’:
Anti-bureaucratic structure and gender inequity in a science re-
search organization. Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 385–409.
Shaw, A. K., & Stanton, D. E. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline: separat-
ing demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in ac-
ademia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
279(1743), 3736–3741.

Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. J. (1995). Who succeeds in science? The
gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Tarrow, S. (2010) Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. In
H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.) Rethinking social inquiry. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Uhly, K. M., Visser, L. M., & Zippel, K. S. (2017). Gendered patterns
in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in
Higher Education, 42(4), 760–782.

Whyte, W. F. (1984). Learning from the field: A guide from experi-

ence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wuchty, S., Jones, B., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of
teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
Xie, Y., & Shaumann, K. (2003). Women in science: Career pro-
cesses and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative re-
search traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodolog-
ical differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325.
Ynalvez, M. A., & Shrum, W. M. (2009). International graduate sci-
ence training and scientific collaboration. International Sociology,
24(6), 870–901.

Zippel, K. (2017). Women in global science: Advancing academic
careers through international collaboration. Redwood, CA:
Stanford University Press.

Quantitative Science Studies

1006

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
q
s
s
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
3
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
9
9
6
1
q
s
s
_
a
_
0
0
0
5
7
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3 RESEARCH ARTICLE image

Download pdf