View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

World Society, Women Authors, and the Expansion of Feminist, Gender, Sex, and Sexuality (FGSS) Research in Comparative Education, 1957-2010

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: World Society, Women Authors, and the Expansion of Feminist, Gender, Sex, and Sexuality (FGSS) Research in Comparative Education, 1957-2010
Language: English
Authors: Patricia Bromley, Daniel Scott Smith
Source: Comparative Education Review. 2024 68(3):443-468.
Availability: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Comparative Education, Females, Authors, Feminism, Sex, Sexual Identity, Sexuality, Literature Reviews, Educational Research
DOI: 10.1086/731725
ISSN: 0010-4086
1545-701X
Abstract: The status of women in academia, including comparative education, has grown rapidly. We build on the extensive literature on women's work in the academy by investigating the macrohistorical cultural processes that promote expanded emphasis on feminist, gender, sex, and sexuality (FGSS) topics in comparative education. We use computational methods to investigate the expansion of published knowledge about FGSS in the content of "Comparative Education Review" and "Comparative Education" over the period 1957-2010. Findings reveal a significant rise in FGSS emphasis starting in the 1970s, peaking in the 1980s, and then declining. The study supports the hypothesis that women authors initially drove this increase, but over time, the distinction between male and female authors regarding FGSS emphasis shrinks. The results are interpreted through the lens of neoinstitutional theory, suggesting that as the status of women expanded in liberal world culture, women authors, and FGSS research gained legitimacy, supporting the general increase of FGSS research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1439753
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwESaaJby58AvEkve_1_skYPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKuD0asWwly2VYjCSAIBEICBmxlFy97wx0OM3R9opxuJqZDu70nCqcmrkjfqau288ePE-ZKlx2U_J1tiIDmhHpPfxbUjqkCSC8mH4ty5XYCXPGVCy2iOeRds9Vq8Sow2Wj83UcDF_piFgtoMpLE6JFl8kkZVDwsEhqQvRYofcExJzcQUZl_4hWW8YxE0zFARNSVF0BPeXFQEHQd0vuSohzKiWWoXQRsN75ZKpNUt
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179710471;cer01aug.24;2024Sep20.03:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179710471-1">World Society, Women Authors, and the Expansion of Feminist, Gender, Sex, and Sexuality (FGSS) Research in Comparative Education, 1957–2010 </title> <p>The status of women in academia, including comparative education, has grown rapidly. We build on the extensive literature on women's work in the academy by investigating the macrohistorical cultural processes that promote expanded emphasis on feminist, gender, sex, and sexuality (FGSS) topics in comparative education. We use computational methods to investigate the expansion of published knowledge about FGSS in the content of Comparative Education Review and Comparative Education over the period 1957–2010. Findings reveal a significant rise in FGSS emphasis starting in the 1970s, peaking in the 1980s, and then declining. The study supports the hypothesis that women authors initially drove this increase, but over time, the distinction between male and female authors regarding FGSS emphasis shrinks. The results are interpreted through the lens of neoinstitutional theory, suggesting that as the status of women expanded in liberal world culture, women authors, and FGSS research gained legitimacy, supporting the general increase of FGSS research.</p> <p>The place of women in the university as both creators and subjects of academic knowledge, including in comparative education, has grown rapidly. Over a century ago, it was virtually unheard of for women to access university libraries, let alone become faculty members producing knowledge (Woolf [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref1">95</reflink>]). Since the 1980s, women have begun to complete more education than men in many countries around the world (McDaniel [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref2">59</reflink>]), and fields with a historical overrepresentation of men, such as engineering and natural sciences, see rising enrollments for women (Ramirez and Kwak [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref3">75</reflink>]). Certainly, many difficulties remain. Gender segregation patterns across fields of study persist (Bradley [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Charles and Bradley [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]; England and Li [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]). Women hold fewer tenured faculty positions, especially among full professors (AAUP [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]), are underrepresented in scientific publications, and are paid less than men (Bello and Galindo-Ruedam [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]). These challenges remain particularly acute for minoritized women. Nonetheless, in the face of many obstacles, women have contributed greatly to the production of knowledge (Creese and Creese [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref9">24</reflink>]; Hines [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref10">45</reflink>]). Women's work in the academy has not only contributed to the development of "normal" science and other traditional disciplines. It has also been transformational with the worldwide institutionalization of feminist, gender, sex, and sexuality (FGSS) topics within a full range of academic disciplines (Schiebinger [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref11">81</reflink>]; Wotipka and Ramirez [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref12">96</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref13">50</reflink>]) and as a global interdisciplinary field in its own right.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>] We build on the extensive literature on women's work in the academy by investigating how the changing global context of the last half-century, particularly the rise of women in the academy, has promoted FGSS research.</p> <p>Our primary contribution is to deepen understanding of global and historical social processes involved in the production of academic knowledge about FGSS topics in the field of comparative education. Drawing arguments from world society research on the expanding views of women, gender, and sexuality in the rise of the knowledge society, we use regression analyses to investigate the role of change over time and the growth of woman first authorship in expanding FGSS studies.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>] Prior studies have shown the central role of world culture in understanding women's gains in political arenas around the world (e.g., Ramirez et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref16">76</reflink>]; Berkovitch [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>]; Paxton et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref18">73</reflink>]) as well as increasing emphases on women and women's rights in high school curricula (Nakagawa and Wotipka [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref19">67</reflink>]; Russell et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref20">80</reflink>]), the liberalization of same-sex marriage laws (Frank and McEneaney [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref21">35</reflink>]), and the general profusion of individual claims to a profusion of roles and identities in the post–World War II era (Frank and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]). Using a world cultural lens (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref23">63</reflink>]) we consider the role of macrohistorical and global influences on the expansion of FGSS research in academia, centering on women authors as a primary mechanism for the initial expansion. We argue that the historical rise of world culture and its support for expanded understandings of gender, sex, and sexuality provides a foundation for the expansion of FGSS topics as a domain of academic knowledge production.</p> <p>The presence of FGSS research in <emph>Comparative Education Review</emph> (<emph>CER</emph>) and <emph>Comparative Education</emph> (<emph>CE</emph>) provides valuable context for this work, because they are prominent, international, and peer-reviewed journals, making them a compelling setting to consider the production of academic knowledge in the high-status arenas that were historically off-limits to women (Anderson et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]). Additionally, comparative education is a global field of academic knowledge, and these journals are channels through which new theories and facts not only become legitimated but also broadly diffused and institutionalized throughout the case and comparative country studies they publish (Strang and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref25">85</reflink>]; Drori and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>] In addition, the journals have been published continuously for many decades (<emph>CER</emph> since 1957 and <emph>CE</emph> since 1964), providing the necessary historical frame in which to observe changing patterns in academic knowledge. We analyze the full population of 2,517 articles published in these two journals from their creation up to 2010, the last year in which the full corpus is publicly available for research use. We measure FGSS emphases using a computational method called <emph>topic modeling</emph>. The measure broadly encompasses the substantive content of research articles studying identities, roles, and norms of women, girls, men, boys, as well as actors of queer, plural, and nonbinary genders. As a robustness check, we complement the computational analyses with a traditional hand-coded content analysis of a smaller sample of 923 articles published in <emph>CER</emph> from its creation up to 2016 (when data collection took place) that examines a count of how often each article uses the word <emph>gender</emph>. We draw on qualitative examples to illustrate our findings.</p> <p>Our research extends existing knowledge in several ways. Most centrally, it contributes to understanding the consequences of women's work in academia by focusing on the subfield of comparative education. Most research focuses on the share of women in various positions in academia, such as students or faculty, overall or in specific fields such as science and engineering. In contrast, our study shows that the presence of women as knowledge producers shapes what knowledge gets created—specifically, research on FGSS. In addition, beyond the role of women authors, our analyses shed light on the diffuse mechanisms that support expansion of academic FGSS knowledge. Women authors are important early on, but as FGSS research becomes more common, all authors are more likely to include it in their research. Moreover, secular trends that unfold over time also matter. For much of the post–World War II era, world cultural trends supported the advancement of women in wider society, as shown in studies of political representation (Ramirez et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref28">76</reflink>]; Berkovitch [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]; Paxton et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref30">73</reflink>]) and treaty protections (Wotipka and Ramirez [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref31">96</reflink>]) and depictions of women and women's rights in curricula (Nakagawa and Wotipka [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref32">67</reflink>]; Russell et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref33">80</reflink>]). But in recent decades these gains may be receding.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-2">World Society, FGSS Trends, and Higher Education</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179710471-3">Hypothesis 1: Change over Time</hd> <p>World society theory argues that, in the last half of the twentieth century, ideologies rooted in Western liberal traditions globalized and became dominant, promoting multiple social, political, and economic transformations in many countries worldwide in line with liberal doctrines of progress and justice as rooted in individuals (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref34">63</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>] Individual development was envisioned as not only a moral imperative but also a functional one; in liberal theory, freely choosing individuals provide the optimal functioning for market economies and democratic societies. This emergent world culture championed liberal, and especially Anglo-American, conceptions of individual rights and capabilities as the best path to social, political, and economic advancement (Meyer [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref36">62</reflink>]; and see, e.g., Sen [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref37">83</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]</p> <p>Liberal world culture promoted the status of women, as well as other historically marginalized groups, on the twin grounds of justice and progress. For example, the criminal regulation of criminal regulation of rape, adultery, child sexual abuse, and sodomy shifted greatly toward the protection of vulnerable individuals around the world between 1945 and 2005 (Frank et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>]). And indicators of women's rights generally show increases over time worldwide, especially since World War II (Sundström et al. [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref40">88</reflink>]). A first stage of the women's rights movement focused on political participation; the right to vote became institutionalized as a defining feature of national citizenship for women in nearly every country in the world (Ramirez et al, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref41">76</reflink>]). Globally, a core international human rights instrument focused on women, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), entered into force in 1981. CEDAW subsequently became one of the most widely ratified human rights treaties (Wotipka and Ramirez [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref42">96</reflink>]), and it has had a strong positive effect on women's political rights, although it has little influence on economic and social rights (Cole [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]). A second expansion of women's rights, centered more on issues of social and economic development, became a central issue on the world stage toward the later decades of the twentieth century (Berkovitch [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]). This focus is reflected in the establishment of the United Nations Decade for Women, which ran from 1975 to 1985 and emphasized issues such as pay equity, gender violence, land holding, and other human rights. During this time, international organizations—key carriers of world culture—also expanded their focus on women and girls (Berkovitch and Bradley [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>The growing role for women and other marginalized groups in society (e.g., LGTBQ+, BIPOC) was also anchored in and extended into higher education.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>] By the 1980s, on average, women's share of higher education was approaching parity worldwide (Bradley and Ramirez [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]). In the United States, the percentage of women PhD recipients increased from roughly 10 percent in 1968 to close to 50 percent by 2018 (APS and IPEDS [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]). In 2017, 47 percent of PhDs were awarded to women across OECD countries (OECD [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref49">70</reflink>]). There have even been inroads in women's share of fields traditionally dominated by men, such as science and engineering (Ceci et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]; Ramirez and Kwak [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref51">75</reflink>]). Still more, the gap in scholarly output between men and women has reduced (Kwiek [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>]; West et al. [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref53">94</reflink>]). On a related note, recent UNESCO statistics show that around the world female tertiary enrollment is now over 40 percent and academic staff, including university faculty, who are female is approaching 30 percent.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]</p> <p>University curriculum also expanded (Frank and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]; Patridge et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref56">72</reflink>]). New types of departments, degree programs, and courses of study emerged to reflect the rationalizing principles of liberal world society (Frank and Gabler [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref57">36</reflink>]; Frank and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]). Rojas, for example, describes the rise of Black studies programs out of the Black Power movement in the United States ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref59">78</reflink>]). Similarly, histories of women's studies describe how increases in the proportion of women students at all levels and of women faculty and administrators, as well as a demand from students starting in the civil rights era, supported the explosion of women's studies programs and courses (Chamberlain [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]; Boxer [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The ascendency of liberal world culture ushered in an expanded higher education system that reflected principles of individual rights and capabilities, decentering prior authoritative epistemologies and epistemic hierarchies (Cullen et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]; Frank and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]). This large-scale transformation of world society created a changed context that legitimates a wider range of identities and roles, including for people of diverse gender and sexual identities, as academically and scientifically appropriate subjects of study. We speculate that these changes led to an increased prevalence of academic work on FGSS topics over time (Nielsen et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref64">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Importantly, however, historical changes may not be linear. For example, there may have been a particular global celebration of women around the period of the UN Decade for Women, discussed above, and through the 1980s with the signing of CEDAW. Although women are not the only focus of FGSS scholarship, which encompasses a broader range of issues, historically they are the first, and they remain an important dimension of this field. More recently, studies suggest the rate at which gender inequality is declining has slowed (Dorius and Firebaugh [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref65">27</reflink>]; England et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]), and in some cases there is even aggressive pushback against women's rights and LGTB+ rights around the world (Lerch et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref67">56</reflink>]; Velasco [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref68">92</reflink>]). Based on this discussion, we posit:</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-4">Hypothesis 1.</hd> <p>The production of FGSS knowledge in comparative education will increase over time, perhaps peaking during the UN Decade for Women.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-5">Hypothesis 2: Woman Authorship</hd> <p>One feature of the global cultural shift described above is the growth in women researchers and scientists. For example, an analysis of over 8 million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities (the entire JSTOR database) finds that women represented only 9 percent of first authors of articles published in the 1960s, but by the 2000s this increased to 31 percent (West et al. [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref69">94</reflink>]). In the field of education, in the period 1990–2011 nearly 47 percent of authors are women (West et al. [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref70">94</reflink>]). We observe a similar trend in comparative education. Figure 1 shows that prior to the 1980s few first authors self-identify as women in a sample of <emph>CER</emph> articles where author gender was determined using the self-selected pronouns in author biographies.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>] Woman authorship increases in the 1990s and 2000s and reaches parity by 2016. In an alternative measurement approach, figure 2 shows the trends for the entire corpus of <emph>CER</emph> and <emph>CE</emph> up to 2010 using a probabilistic model to predict author gender based on name. Notably, the computational methods reveal highly similar patterns to author self-reports and mirror the general social science literature.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Women first authors in a sample of Comparative Education Review articles, 1957–2016 (n = 879). We observe author gender identity by the pronouns (she/her = woman) printed in biographical statements. Source.—Authors' data based on a hand-coded sample of 879 articles from Comparative Education Review.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Women first authors in the population of Comparative Education and Comparative Education Review articles, 1957–2010 (n = 2,517). Author gender is a prediction using computational methods based on first name. It does not reflect authors' self-reported gender identity. Source.—All articles are available in JSTOR.</p> <p>Studies show that women tend to work and publish more in the fields of education, sociology, arts, and social sciences, while men focus on math, engineering, and natural sciences (Charles and Bradley [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]; Gerber and Cheung [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref73">40</reflink>]). Even within fields, women tend to contribute different content (Key and Sumner [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref74">49</reflink>]). For example, in economics, women tend to study development and health economics more than pricing and economic fluctuation (Chari and Goldsmith-Pinkham [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]). In mathematics, women tend to study statistics and optimization, while men tend to study probability and number theory (Leahey [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref76">53</reflink>]; Brisbin and Whitcher [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]). Importantly, empirical research shows that women researchers tend to expand the scope of published academic knowledge by incorporating more breadth and greater interdisciplinarity in topics (Leahey [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref78">54</reflink>]; Rhoten and Pfirman [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref79">77</reflink>]). They also tend to incorporate gender and sex as analytic foci in scientific research more often than men (Nielsen et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref80">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>For example, research tracing the history of women's studies has shown the particularly important role of women in launching this academic field (Solomon [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref81">84</reflink>]; Martin [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref82">58</reflink>]; Boxer [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]). To feminist theorists and epistemologists, the relationship between the gender identity of the scientist and the science they pursue is understood by way of incorporating the diverse, nonhegemonic viewpoints and experiences unique to women as well as researchers with other identities historically excluded from science (Harding [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]). Women bring unique lenses that lead to discovering new parts of the social world to study (Gumport [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]). In the context of this empirical and theoretical literature that establishes a connection between a researcher's gender identity and experience and the topics they choose to study, we expect:</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-6">Hypothesis 2.</hd> <p>Women authors especially drive the production of FGSS knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-7">Hypothesis 3: Diffusion of FGSS Research across All Authors</hd> <p>For some, it may be obvious to expect that women authors produce more FGSS knowledge. But we predict a more nuanced pattern of change. In the contemporary world, women researchers make up a growing share of knowledge producers, and FGSS is an increasingly legitimated topic of research. The effects of the expanded legitimacy of FGSS as a research topic may interact with author identity—perhaps becoming a more viable topic of study for all authors. Research in sociology and organization theory has documented how practices that are widely accepted in the environment diffuse broadly (Strang and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref86">85</reflink>]; Strang and Soule [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref87">86</reflink>]; Dobbin et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref88">26</reflink>]). In parallel, we argue that novel ideas or topics of study may become more widely used by different groups as they become more present in the environment.</p> <p>Our argument draws inspiration from the "diffuse" institutional effects that have been documented in other domains. For example, Cole ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]) shows that there are direct effects of human rights treaty ratification on countries that sign treaties, but even countries that do not formally endorse the treaties tend to comply more over time. Similarly, Bromley and Sharkey ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref90">15</reflink>]) show that firms reduce their toxic emissions when they are rated by an external agency, but even unrated firms reduce their emissions if more firms in their industry are rated. To extend this logic to our study, women authors may be the most prolific producers of knowledge about FGSS early on, as the FGSS field is becoming established. But over time, due to diffuse changes in the societal context that broadly legitimates FGSS as a topic of study, nonwomen authors may increasingly produce related knowledge. This leads to our third and final argument before turning to discuss data and method:</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-8">Hypothesis 3.</hd> <p>Nonwomen authors <emph>increasingly</emph> produce knowledge about FGSS relative to women authors.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-9">Data and Method</hd> <p>We are interested in understanding change over time in the extent of FGSS research content published in comparative education by women authors. Given this goal we face several substantial challenges related to measuring FGSS content in articles and author gender. We use computational methods that inductively reveal topics based on clusters of words that are used together in articles to study the entire population of research articles in <emph>Comparative Education</emph> and <emph>Comparative Education Review</emph>.</p> <p>Drawbacks of this approach are that the substantive meaning of the measure of FGSS in each article is difficult to interpret, and we must rely on a probabilistic attribution of author gender identity that does not reflect authors' self-identification. In addition, our analyses end in 2010 because we rely on ITHACA's research service Constellate to access the full text data of all articles published in <emph>CER</emph> and <emph>CE</emph> by JSTOR. Availability of these data through JSTOR is delayed. While the more recent articles are available through <emph>CE</emph> and <emph>CER</emph>, scraping them and parsing their PDFs would be against use agreements. To consider the extent to which these weaknesses might shape our results, as a robustness check (discussed below) we conduct a secondary analysis consisting of traditional human content analysis of a smaller, systematically collected set of articles from <emph>CER</emph> that uses alternative measurement strategies for FGSS emphasis and author gender and was available up to the year of data collection (2016). Despite the distinct approaches to measurement of our dependent and independent variables, the findings between our main analyses and secondary analyses are strikingly similar, increasing our confidence that they capture meaningful social patterns.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-10">Primary Dependent Variable: FGSS Emphases in Articles</hd> <p>To construct our dependent variable, we apply Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling, an inductive (i.e., "unsupervised") approach, to identify whether and to what extent research articles engage with topics related to FGSS research. LDA analyzes the distribution of words observed across all articles and identifies groups of words that co-occur. Therefore, instead of observing a topic by counting a set of predefined words (a deductive approach), the inductive LDA approach reveals sets of words, or topics, that the articles' authors themselves tend to use together.</p> <p>To do so, LDA first computes how frequently each word occurs with every other word in the text corpus (Blei et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>]; McFarland et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref92">60</reflink>]). The algorithm then finds the most salient set of terms for a a prespecified number of constellations of interrelated words, or "topics."[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>] With this output, we determine whether FGSS exists as a topic by evaluating the terms in each topic—again, because topics were inductively discovered, FGSS may not exist at all, depending on whether authors actually researched the topic.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref94">12</reflink>] Second, LDA provides a data set with each article represented as a set of scores across all discovered topics, each weighted to indicate its relative salience in the article. These weights sum up to one. Based on the emergence of the FGSS topic in the corpus, we move forward with analyzing each article's emphasis on FGSS, which is continuously measured as 0 (no engagement) to 1 (singular engagement). In other words, the FGSS score should be interpreted as the extent to which an article focuses on the FGSS topic relative to other possible content topics. It is a measure of amount rather than a more qualitative assessment of how FGSS is discussed.</p> <p>In figure 3, we visualize a word cloud containing the indicator keywords associated with the FGSS topic that we inductively discovered in the population of all research articles published in all education journals hosted by JSTOR.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>] The keywords' relative sizes are proportional to how salient or probable the word is to the topic; larger font sizes correspond to greater salience. The FGSS topic contains terms associated with sex identity, including <emph>sex</emph>, <emph>male</emph>, and <emph>female</emph>. It contains terms related to gender identity and roles, including <emph>gender</emph>, <emph>men</emph>, <emph>women</emph>, <emph>feminine</emph>, <emph>masculine</emph>, <emph>girl</emph>, <emph>boy</emph>, and <emph>husband</emph>. It contains terms relevant to sexuality, such as <emph>heterosexual</emph>, <emph>homosexual</emph>, <emph>gay</emph>, <emph>lesbian</emph>, and <emph>queer</emph>. And it is composed of terms related to feminist politics and feminism, including <emph>feminist</emph>, <emph>equality</emph>, and <emph>equity</emph>. Importantly, it also includes terms that indicate how sex, sexuality, and gender have historically operated and organized human endeavor: <emph>participation</emph>, <emph>status</emph>, <emph>role</emph>, <emph>tradition</emph>, <emph>pattern</emph>, <emph>society</emph>, <emph>career</emph>, <emph>expectation</emph>, <emph>differentiation</emph>, <emph>discrimination</emph>, <emph>bias</emph>, <emph>stereotype</emph>, <emph>harassment</emph>, and <emph>domination</emph>. Finally, it shows evidence of the gender and sex binary with the bigrams "boi_girl" and "male_femal," which indicate that authors tended to use these together, perhaps in a comparative-analytic framework. Explicit references to trans<sups>*</sups> terms, including the bigram "gender_queer," are not captured in this word cloud, indicating these terms' comparative infrequency in the corpus of education research. The absence of these trans<sups>*</sups> terms from the most frequent keywords is not a product of our operationalization or a priori definition of FGSS but rather a feature of the FGSS research in education itself.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Word cloud of top terms in FGSS topic</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-11">Primary Independent Variable: Author Gender Identity</hd> <p>We seek to explain if authors' gender is associated with variation in the attention given to FGSS in research articles. However, article metadata does not include authors' self-reported gender identities. This is a real limitation, especially prevalent in archival data. In lieu of self-reported gender identity, we infer the gender signals commonly embedded in the first author's pen name using genderize.io, which is a machine learning classifier trained on a large, polyglot corpus of names with labeled genders.</p> <p>We infer a gender label of "woman," "man," or "unknown" and a probability estimate corresponding to that label for each first author's name in our corpus. For example, the first names <emph>Daniele</emph> and <emph>Yechen</emph> have the label "man" and a.95 and.99 probability of being first names of men, respectively. The first names <emph>Jieun</emph> and <emph>Nooran</emph> have the label "woman" and a.99 and.83 probability of being woman first names, respectively. In contrast, <emph>Taylor</emph> and <emph>Avery</emph> have probabilities of.46–.45 of being women first names. We reclassified all first names as "unknown" when their respective probabilities were.35–.65, a conservatively broad range indicating relative gender neutrality of authors' pen names. We also classified all first authors writing under just a first initial as "unknown."</p> <p>In our analyses, then, we focus on first authors writing under first names that conventionally have a high probability of being linked to women ( <ephtml> <math display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>P</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>name</mi><mo>=</mo><mi>woman</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo>≥</mo><mn>.65</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ). Since the first-author position typically signals the role of lead researcher in comparative education our analyses center on women first authors. Finally, to aid in valid interpretation and to avoid misgendering, our use of "women authors" in the analysis indicates authors who varyingly choose to write under conventionally woman first names; it indicates neither their own lived nor preferred or expressed gender identities, public or otherwise.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-12">Analysis Method</hd> <p>In our primary analysis, we use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, as the outcome of FGSS emphases in articles is a continuous measure.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>] Our dependent variable is the topic model score for FGSS emphasis described above. Our core independent variables are article publication date (in roughly 5-year windows) to capture our first hypothesis over change over time and an indicator of author gender (based on the probabilistic measure described above) to capture our second hypothesis related to the role of women authors. We interact the time and author gender variables to examine our third hypothesis about the changing role of women over time. We also include controls for the journal (<emph>CER</emph> versus <emph>CE</emph>) and article length (in words).</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-13">Robustness Checks: Secondary Analyses</hd> <p>We complement our primary analysis with extensive robustness checks in a hand coding of a sample of 923 <emph>CER</emph> articles (with 879 containing no missing data and included in reported data here). We conduct this check for several reasons. The full methodological details of this check are available in the supplementary online material. First, we were concerned about error in our probabilistic measure of author gender based on name, so we use an alternate measure based on authors' pronouns reported in their biographies. Second, we wanted to extend the analysis beyond 2010 (the available data for the computational analysis). We hand code the sample up to the year data collection began (in 2016). Third, we wished to consider additional variables that were not available in the full sample of articles. Fourth, we wanted to explore if the changes we observe in our FGSS indicator failed to capture a more recent rise of the concept of gender as a focus of study. We rely on a simple count of the number of times the word <emph>gender</emph> appears in articles. This is a narrower proxy for seeking to capture the field of FGSS research relative to our inductively developed and broader measure above, but it also allows us to consider changes specifically in the subset of FGSS scholarship using "gender" language.</p> <p>Gender is an appropriate keyword indicator for the larger FGSS topic and therefore a conservative yet sound dependent variable for the robustness check. It is conservative because it does not measure other subtopics within FGSS, such as queerness. It is sound because its use is polysemic throughout the period, variably and evolvingly indicating sex in earlier discourses, gender, and, in contemporary discourse, also nonbinary gender.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-14">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179710471-15">Primary Analyses of All Articles Using Computational Methods</hd> <p>Figure 4 shows results from our primary analyses predicting FGSS emphases in articles from <emph>CER</emph> and <emph>CE</emph>. Article length is unrelated to FGSS emphases, and the average <emph>CE</emph> article emphasizes FGSS slightly more than the average <emph>CER</emph> article, a point to which we return in the conclusion.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref97">15</reflink>] Our first hypothesis predicted an increase in FGSS emphases over time alongside the valorization of individuals promoted by liberal world society. We posited that there could be a particular celebration of FGSS research roughly around the UN Decade for Women. Consistent with hypothesis 1, the findings show a small increase starting in the 1970s relative to articles published earlier, followed by a spike in the 1980s,[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>] and then steady decline. Reflecting this pattern, the articles with the five highest scores on our indicator of FGSS emphasis were all published between 1970 and 1990:</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. OLS regression predicting score on FGSS topic in Comparative Education and Comparative Education Review articles (n = 2,517). (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>) Dots represent the coefficient estimates and horizontal lines capture the 95% confidence intervals. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>) Points to the right of zero (indicated by a dashed vertical line) indicate a positive association with FGSS emphases. (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>) If the horizontal lines do not cross the vertical line at zero, then the coefficient is considered statistically significant. (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>) The reference category for Comparative Education is Comparative Education Review. (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref103">5</reflink>) The reference category for time periods is 1957–69. (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref104">6</reflink>) The reference category for author gender is men authors.</p> <p>1. Kelly, Gail. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref105">48</reflink>]. "Setting State Policy on Women's Education in the Third World: Perspectives from Comparative Research." <emph>Comparative Education</emph> 23 (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>): 95–102.</p> <ulist> <item>2. Finn, Jeremy, Janet Reis, and Loretta Dulberg. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref107">33</reflink>]. "Sex Differences in Educational Attainment: The Process." <emph>Comparative Education Review</emph> 24 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>, pt. 2): S33–S52.</item> <item>3. Lee, Valerie, and Marlaine Lockheed. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref109">55</reflink>]. "The Effects of Single-Sex Schooling on Achievement and Attitudes in Nigeria." <emph>Comparative Education Review</emph> 34 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>): 209–31.</item> <item>4. Sutherland, Margaret. [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref111">89</reflink>]. "Sex Differences in Education: An Overview." <emph>Comparative Education</emph> 23 (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref112">1</reflink>): 5–9.</item> <item>5. Meleis, Afaf, Nagat El-Sanabary, and Diane Beeson. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref113">61</reflink>]. "Women, Modernization, and Education in Kuwait." <emph>Comparative Education Review</emph> 23 (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref114">1</reflink>): 115–24.</item> </ulist> <p>In line with hypothesis 2, figure 4 also shows that women first authors are substantially more likely to write about FGSS topics than men or authors of unknown gender. In <emph>CER</emph>, articles with a woman first author appear in the first few years of the journal's founding. In 1958, two women wrote separate single authored articles: short essays in the common style of the time. In one, Kathryn Heath ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref115">5</reflink>]) published "Is Comparative Education a Discipline?" Her article does not, however, contain any references to gender, women, girls, or sex. In the second, Florence Belsky published "Religion and Education in Israel." Belsky includes a brief comment on the status of women. Early in the article she reports, "In the Proclamation of Independence, the new State promised to "uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of religion, race, or sex; and ... guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture" ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref116">5</reflink>], 23). In the conclusion, she returns to the issue of gender, reporting, "While Oriental Jewish women are released from the onus of polygamy and child marriage, Western Jewish women find themselves inferior to men before the law" (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref117">27</reflink>).</p> <p>Our third hypothesis predicted that men and other authors will be increasingly likely to write about FGSS topics over time, relative to women. We posited this association based on neoinstitutional literature that shows as a model or phenomenon becomes more commonplace or institutionalized in the environment, it tends to be adopted by a wider range of actors (e.g., Bromley and Sharkey [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref118">15</reflink>]). In this case, we argue that an expansion of FGSS research supported by liberal cultural models works to normalize its presence in the academy. As it becomes a more legitimated and commonplace topic of study, it becomes a focus for all authors. Consistent with this argument, figure 5 shows a steep increase in men authors writing about FGSS topics starting in the 2000s. For some, it may not be a surprise that women authors write more about FGSS topics; if so, it may then be unexpected that this is no longer a distinctive feature of women's scholarship.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Predicted FGSS topic score over time by author gender in Comparative Education and Comparative Education Review (n = 2,517). The estimates are produced using the full set of variables shown in fig. 4 plus an interaction between the full set of categories for time and author gender.</p> <p>Our analyses focus on the amount that articles emphasize FGSS rather than an in-depth assessment of the changing nature of content within this field. However, detailed qualitative studies of the issue would be valuable in future research. Preliminarily, we scanned article titles over time to see if we observed shifts in the content within those focused on FGSS. A main observation, aligned with an earlier analysis of all academic articles (Haig [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref119">43</reflink>]), is that titles focus on sex earlier on and that later there is a shift to emphasizing gender. One concern, then, is that the declining trend we document above may be driven by the algorithmic construction of our measure, if it weighted language related to sex more heavily than gender. We consider this issue and others in our secondary sample analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-16">Secondary Analyses of CER Sample Using Hand Coding</hd> <p>We conducted a hand coding of a secondary sample of articles to further interrogate our key findings. Figure 6 shows a descriptive chart of the average number of times the word <emph>gend<sups>*</sups></emph> appears in articles over time by first author gender (as identified in the pronouns used in their biography).[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref120">17</reflink>] In our sample, <emph>gender</emph> is an infrequent term in articles through the 1970s. As one of the earliest examples, a 1976 study titled "Teachers' Attitudes and the School Context: The Case of Upper-Secondary Teachers in Norway" mentions gender in a footnote, stating no significant relationship was found between reform-mindedness and a teacher's gender—though women were slightly more "diffuse" in their role orientation (Lauglo [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref121">52</reflink>], 70). Starting in the 1980s, there is an expansion of published knowledge mentioning gender, such that roughly half of articles include at least one reference by the 1990s. The timing of this rise coincides with the broader trend of FGSS emphases revealed in our main analyses. A notable difference from the broader topic of FGSS is that the increase in "gender" discussions in articles peaks later, with the most mentions occurring in the early 2000s rather than in the 1980s and 1990s. But for both a broad measure of FGSS emphases and more specific counts of the word <emph>gender</emph>, we see a drop in the most recent years.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Counts of the word gender in Comparative Education Review articles by author gender, 1957–2016 (n = 879). The points are descriptively plotted from the sample.</p> <p>Parallel to our main findings for hypothesis 2, women mention gender more than men or other authors early on. Overall, in the 202 articles first authored by women, gender appears 7.4 times per article; that number is just 1.7 in the 676 articles first authored by men or authors of unknown gender identity. But this difference disappears in recent years, following hypothesis 3. Over time the use of the language of gender in scholarship becomes less the exclusive purview of women authors. As additional checks, we considered many other specifications of our analyses, including additional variables (e.g., geographic location, university affiliation) and alternate measures of our dependent variables (keywords such as <emph>woma/en, girl</emph>, and <emph>sex</emph>) and core independent variables (e.g., proportion of women authors). These are reported in the supplementary online material.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-17">Discussion and Conclusion</hd> <p>In the last half-century, in tandem with an expansive, liberal world-cultural valorization of individuals and identity, increasingly diverse scientists were incorporated and empowered to participate in academic knowledge production. We find statistical evidence to support arguments that the incorporation of women authors promotes diversity in the content of knowledge about FGSS topics in the field's early phases. We argue that women, as empowered actors and epistemic subjects in this world culture, are the primary agents of change, especially early on. Over time, however, the difference between FGSS emphases in articles written by women authors and men authors or other authors declines. Our argument, rooted in neoinstitutional theory, is that as FGSS research becomes legitimated as a field of study, all authors are more likely to include mention of it in their research. We contribute a deeper knowledge to debates about how world culture operates, combining a macrolevel understanding of culture with a more microlevel analysis of actors in constructing and diffusing that culture.</p> <p>The broad notions of valorized diversity and individual development that we surface here in describing these world-level transformations during the twentieth century are consistent with many gender and feminist theories; in fact, these theories themselves contributed to the cultural transformation we identify. Feminist theories of women's empowerment entail political, economic, psychological, and educational aspects and it is particularly supported by the activities of global nongovernmental organizations (Stromquist [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref122">87</reflink>]). Importantly, women's empowerment also entails the agency of women themselves in attaining power that had been historically denied them (Mosedale [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref123">65</reflink>]). However, like these feminist perspectives, sociological institutionalism does not predict, nor do we presently argue, that global cultural norms and scripts about growing individual empowerment and rights necessarily means daily experiences or realities always reflect this higher status. In fact, gender research and theory shows that at times just the opposite occurs, despite such scripts and the historic inroads women have made. For example, even as women gain higher status positions and greater wealth, they still suffer immense barriers that indeed fly in the face of these global norms, including bias in admissions, hiring and promotion, pay gaps, unequal family responsibilities, harassment and discrimination.[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref124">18</reflink>] In institutionalist terms, loose coupling between global discourses and on the ground realities is endemic, largely because discourses that follow external globally legitimated cultural pressures are highly disconnected from local pressures (Schofer et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref125">82</reflink>]). That is, formal policies are routinely adopted for the symbolic value they hold in a wider cultural system, rather than for their local feasibility or utility: there are often great gaps between formal statements and on the ground realities. Instead, entire political, cultural, theoretical, empirical, and policy fields have emerged to understand, quantify, and eliminate this gap and to make the link between cultural principle and lived reality more tightly coupled. Thus, with the institutional perspective, we identify a macrocultural framework that makes such research and policy activity a broadly legitimated global cultural field. Feminist theories of women's empowerment, from the institutionalist perspective as well as from their own vantage, are not separate from this cultural shift but both express and drive it.</p> <p>Our findings suggest several additional areas for future research. First, our arguments could usefully be extended to other fields to consider whether other disciplines operate in similar ways. Comparative education is perhaps a relatively inclusive field vis-à-vis alternatives such as economics or computer science, where the proportion of women authors remains far lower. But we suspect a general process where, across fields, the inclusion of new voices builds new fields or topics of study in the long term under globally supportive conditions. Second, our study mainly focused on the amount that FGSS is emphasized but does not look at how it is discussed. One possible analysis of "how" FGSS research is discussed could borrow from recent critiques in education (Cabrera [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref126">16</reflink>]; Lin [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref127">57</reflink>]) to examine the extent to which articles move away from a deficit-based conceptualization of sex, sexuality, and gender (e.g., differences in test scores) and embrace more inclusive alternatives. Third, we focus on author gender identity as a path for shaping the development of new knowledge, but there are many possible identities jointly at play and other possible effects of diversifying the professoriate. For example, we could imagine identities such as race, ethnicity, or immigration status shaping what authors choose to study. Unfortunately, we do not have data on these dimensions. The geographic diversity of authors is another ongoing area of interest for the field of comparative education (e.g., Post [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref128">74</reflink>]), although our supplementary analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in the amount of emphasis on gender in publications there may be qualitative distinctions in how authors discuss topics.</p> <p>Broadly speaking, statistical modeling using "gender" as a variable (as we do here) is unable to deeply problematize gender-based categories as cultural, theoretical, and empirical constructs; in this effort, ethnographic and qualitative research will always be needed. Alternatively, advanced computational methods such as using word embeddings to examine changes in how FGSS-related words are used over time or looking for possible correlations between FGSS emphases and other topics would also be useful in discovering how FGSS gets studied.</p> <p>These findings carry practical implications for journal editors, reviewers, and other academic gatekeepers. One observation is that the two journals in our study significantly differed in their FGSS emphases. We did not examine the reasons for the difference in our research, but it may be useful for journals to investigate their processes and share best practices. Further, our study indicates that the legitimacy of various research topics is socially constructed (partly at the global level) and varies over time; interrogating the grounds on which "legitimate" research is presumed to rest can help open the door for a broader range of academic knowledge to enter top journals.</p> <p>Overall, our research is focused on the ways in which liberal world culture has supported women as producers of knowledge and has expanded FGSS academic knowledge. However, gender and sex discrimination in many forms have also persisted throughout the post–World War II period and endure today. For example, in a study of postgenocide Rwanda, Russell ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref129">79</reflink>]) shows how gender biases persist despite great steps toward inclusion. Neoinstitutional research helps account for <emph>decoupling</emph>, or a gap between discursive trends and on the ground lived experience (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref130">63</reflink>]). At the same time, new research suggests that the liberal world order is experiencing an unprecedented cultural backlash reflected in trends like declining levels of democracy, growing restrictions on civil society, and increases in authoritarianism, nationalism, and populism (Norris and Inglehart [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref131">69</reflink>]). These trends reinforce traditional hierarchies and epistemologies, spurring reversals in some of the liberalizing trends (discursive and in practice) around gender, sex, and sexuality. For example, Russia decriminalized most cases of domestic violence in 2017, Hungary has banned gender studies from universities, restrictions on abortions are on the rise in many countries, and in the United States and elsewhere, anti-LGTBQ+ networks and policies are on the rise (Lerch et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref132">56</reflink>]; Velasco [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref133">92</reflink>]). Similarly, Graff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref134">41</reflink>], 541) argue that, "in transnational terms, the Right has become a significant player in gender politics. It resists the denaturalizing, deconstructive analysis of gender and sex in critical, feminist, and queer scholarship." Although our study does not extend up to the present moment, our finding of a decline in FGSS scholarship in the 2000s may reflect an early erosion of liberal world culture.</p> <p>Possibly, a decline in FGSS research is part of a reaction to the liberal world order, with its replacement yet to be articulated. Certainly, the hegemonic globalization of liberal culture has limited some forms of equity and inclusion, even as it promoted other gains. While we cannot predict the future, our research suggests that if the foundations of world culture are transformed, the nature of knowledge production and definitions of legitimated knowledge and knowledge producers will also be transformed. At the extreme, the globalization and institutionalization of antiscience populism, evidenced in the growing antivaccination and anticlimate science movements, would undercut the legitimacy of the systematic pursuit of knowledge and the heightened status of scientists, of any gender.</p> <hd id="AN0179710471-18">Positionality Statement</hd> <p>Our approach to research is influenced by our positions as empirical social scientists, and our choice of topic is likely also shaped by our personal identities. The first author holds expertise in 17 hand-coded content analyses, and the second in computational text analysis; both have advanced training in quantitative analyses and neoinstitutional theory. Our approach assumes there is meaning in the knowledge produced by quantification and analysis of central tendencies across time through statistical methods and in using empirical data to weigh evidence around theoretical arguments. In this work, we study FGSS research as outsiders (etic perspective), seeking to understand it within its broader social and cultural context, rather than directly contributing to it as central members and participants.</p> <ref id="AN0179710471-19"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Patricia Bromley is an associate professor of education, environmental social science, and (by courtesy) sociology at Stanford University. She studies the expansive effects of the rise and globalization of a liberal world culture as well as contemporary challenges to liberal models, such as growing restrictions on civil society organizations. Daniel Scott Smith is a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University, where he studies topics in the sociology of education and science using computational techniques.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> We are grateful for comments from audiences at the Comparative and International Education Society Conference in 2020 and Stanford's Workshop in Comparative Sociology. We are also indebted to John W. Meyer, Francisco Ramirez, and Christine Min Wotipka for generous feedback.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> As we discuss later, these terms have histories of variable usage and polysemy that reflect a process of evolving institutionalization in the field of FGSS. We group them as our inductive empirical analyses reveal these terms frequently co-occur in academic discourse.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Measuring author gender identity is a complex task, especially going back long periods in time. We undertake this in two ways, which are discussed in the data and method section. In our approaches we do not in advance limit gender to a binary.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Consistent with neoinstitutional scholarship, by "legitimated" we mean that central actors in the global arena, such as core international organizations and many education and development "experts," promote a particular model. We do not mean that a particular model is in fact "legitimate" as a normative matter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref17" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> At times, the globalization of liberally oriented policies occurred coercively, but diffusion also occurred through social processes such as mimicking peers and copying what is perceived as legitimate (Dobbin et al. [26]). On a related note, neoinstitutional theory envisions actors as interpenetrated with, and constructed by, their environments. As a result, sharp distinctions between levels, such as local and global, or actors, such as individual and organizational, are implausible (see Meyer [[62]] for a sophisticated discussion). Diffusion commonly takes place via copying peers or expert advice because actors are in part constituted by their environments.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref38" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> The field of comparative education has long debated the role of neoinstitutional theory in explaining global education trends (e.g., Tarlau [[90]]; see Schofer et al. [[82]] for a discussion of common misperceptions). We take an analytic stance, viewing world society arguments as empirically testable propositions that plausibly account for part of the variation in the outcome. Our approach does not rule out the simultaneous existence of other explanations (e.g., functional views), and it does not deny the value of alternative research questions and approaches that are best answered using other lenses (e.g., micro-interpretive analyses of lived experience). We thank the editors of <emph>CER</emph> for encouraging us to include this clarification.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref46" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hornig ([46]); Etaugh ([31]); Mischau ([64]); Ferree and Zippel ([32]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref54" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> See UNESCO Institute for Statistics, <ulink href="http://uis.unesco.org/">http://uis.unesco.org/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although it would be possible for authors to use nonbinary pronouns by our coding, we did not find clear instances of nonbinary identification in the author pronouns. There were several cases where only names were used and no pronouns, and these results are indicated as "unknown."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Following standard best practice in topic modeling, to select the number of topics that best fit the corpus of research articles, we used four different metrics of "coherence" and selected the number of topics that had the global maximum value.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Applying this approach to a corpus of theoretical physics articles would likely not return a topic identifiable as FGSS. The emergence of topics, then, is data driven.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Our topic model is fitted to the whole population of articles published in all journals titularly related to schooling and education in JSTOR, not just <emph>CE</emph> and <emph>CER</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 209,423 articles, <emph>n</emph> = 163 journals, <emph>n</emph> = 109 years). As such, the FGSS topic we identify is representative of FGSS research across the field of education. Our empirical analyses take comparative education as a case study (<emph>n</emph> = 2,517 articles, <emph>n</emph> = 2 journals, <emph>n</emph> = 53 years). We conducted LDA topic modeling on all education journals for two reasons. First, the quality of LDA topics as measured by coherence and perplexity increases with more data. Second, we wanted whatever topics we studied within comparative education to be also present in the broader field of educational research, not narrowly specific to the subfield, because this aligns with our analytic goal of understanding whether and to what extent FGSS research institutionalizes widely.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The outcome is non-normally distributed with a large right-hand tail, but models using poisson regression for non-normal distributions produce highly similar results to those presented here. We report results of the OLS regression for ease of interpretation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> As an additional control, we examined whether <emph>CER</emph> articles included more FGSS content when CIES has a woman president, but did not find a significant association. Future qualitative work may want to explore the role of the Society's Gender and Education committee in advancing gender research, theory and practice in CIES. Unfortunately, we could not find enough material about the committee online to include it as part of our quantitative checks (e.g., data such as numbers of members over time).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The increase in mentions of gender starting in the 1970s may be also in part be due to Ester Boserup's influential <emph>Women's Role in Economic Development</emph> ([10]). Indeed, her work is cited as one of the factors that spurred the creation of the UN Decade for Women and a summary of the book was distributed to participants at the first World Conference on Women in Mexico City in 1975 (Turner and Fischer-Kowalski [91]). We are grateful that a reviewer brought this to our attention. We view this case as an illustration of the general trend shown in our analyses.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> We use a simple descriptive plot to produce fig. 6. The sparse distribution of mentions of gender and woman authorships across early time points in the secondary sample makes it implausible to produce statistical estimates as in the previous main analyses in fig. 6, which requires interactions between each time period and gender categories.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Laughlin and Bischoff ([71]); Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer ([93]); Moss-Racusin et al. ([66]); Blau and Kahn ([8]); Johnson et al. ([47]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0179710471-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> AAUP (American Association of University Professors). 2020. "Data Snapshot: Full-Time Women Faculty and Faculty of Color." https://<ulink href="http://www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshot-full-time-women-faculty-and-faculty-color#.YTQGRtNKiGK">www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshot-full-time-women-faculty-and-faculty-color#.YTQGRtNKiGK</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anderson, Emily, Catherine Vanner, Christine Min Wotipka, and Kristy Kelly. 2021. "'Participation Does Not Equal Voice': Gendered Experiences in an Academic and Professional Society." Comparative Education Review 65 (3): 534–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> APS and IPEDS. 2019. "Doctoral Degrees Earned by Women." American Physical Society. https://<ulink href="http://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/fraction-phd.cfm">www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/fraction-phd.cfm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bello, Michela, and Fernando Galindo-Ruedam. 2020. "Charting the Digital Transformation of Science: Findings from the 2018 OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors (ISSA2)." Report no. 2020/03, OECD, Paris.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Belsky, Florence. 1958. "Religion and Education in Israel." Comparative Education Review 2 (1): 22–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkovitch, Nitza. 1999. From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women's Rights and International Organizations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkovitch, Nitza, and Karen Bradley. 1999. "The Globalization of Women's Status: Consensus/Dissensus in the World Polity." Sociological Perspectives 42 (3): 481–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn. 2017. "The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations." Journal of Economic Literature 55 (3): 789–865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blei, David M., Andrew Y. Ng, Michael I. Jordan, and John Lafferty. 2003. "Latent Dirichlet Allocation." Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (4/5): 993–1022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boserup, Ester. 1970. "Woman's Role in Economic Development." London: Allen & Unwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boxer, Marilyn J. 2002. "Women's Studies as Women's History." Women's Studies Quarterly 30 (3/4): 42–51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley, Karen. 2000. "The Incorporation of Women into Higher Education: Paradoxical Outcomes?" Sociology of Education 73 (1): 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley, Karen, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1996. "World Polity and Gender Parity: Women's Share of Higher Education, 1965–1985." Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 11 (1): 63–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brisbin, Abra, and Ursula Whitcher. 2015. "Women's Representation in Mathematics Subfields: Evidence from the arXiv." https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07824.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bromley, Patricia, and Amanda J Sharkey. 2015. "Casting Call: The Expansion of Actorhood in U.S. Firms, 1960-2010." Academy of Management Proceedings 2015 (1): 15743. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.15743abstract.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabrera, Nolan L. 2019. "Critical Race Theory v. Deficit Models." Equity & Excellence in Education 52 (1): 47–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ceci, Stephen J., Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams. 2014. "Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15 (3): 75–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamberlain, Mariam K. 1989. Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chari, Anusha, and Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham. 2017. "Gender Representation in Economics across Topics and Time: Evidence from the NBER Summer Institute." NBER Working Paper no. 23953, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charles, Maria, and Karen Bradley. 2002. "Equal but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education." American Sociological Review 67 (4): 573–99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charles, Maria, and Karen Bradley. 2009. "Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries." American Journal of Sociology 114 (4): 924–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole, Wade M. 2012. "A Civil Religion for World Society: The Direct and Diffuse Effects of Human Rights Treaties, 1981–2007." Sociological Forum 27 (4): 937–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole, Wade M. 2013. "Government Respect for Gendered Rights: The Effect of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on Women's Rights Outcomes, 1981–2004." International Studies Quarterly 57 (2): 233–49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creese, Mary R., and Thomas Creese. 1998. Ladies in the Laboratory? American and British Women in Science, 1800–1900: A Survey of Their Contributions to Research. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cullen, Pauline, Myra Marx Ferree, and Mieke Verloo. 2019. "Introduction to Special Issue: Gender, Knowledge Production and Knowledge Work." Gender, Work & Organization 26 (6): 765–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobbin, Frank, Beth Simmons, and Geoffrey Garrett. 2007. "The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning?" Annual Review of Sociology 33:449–72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorius, Shawn F., and Glenn Firebaugh. 2010. "Trends in Global Gender Inequality." Social Forces 88 (5): 1941–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drori, Gili S., and John W. Meyer. 2006. "Global Scientization: An Environment for Expanded Organization." In Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, ed. Gili S. Drori, John W. Meyer, and Hokyu Hwang. London: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> England, Paula, Andrew Levine, and Emma Mishel. 2020. "Progress toward Gender Equality in the United States Has Slowed or Stalled." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (13): 6990–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> England, Paula, and Su Li. 2006. "Desegregation Stalled: The Changing Gender Composition of College Majors, 1971–2002." Gender & Society 20 (5): 657–77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etaugh, Claire. 1984. "Women Faculty and Administrators in Higher Education: Changes in Their Status since 1972." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors 48 (1): 21–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferree, Myra Marx, and Kathrin Zippel. 2015. "Gender Equality in the Age of Academic Capitalism: Cassandra and Pollyanna Interpret University Restructuring." Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 22 (4): 561–84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn, Jeremy, Janet Reis, and Loretta Dulberg. 1980. "Sex Differences in Educational Attainment: The Process." Comparative Education Review 24 (2, pt. 2): S33–S52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, David J., Bayliss J. Camp, and Seven A. Boutcher. 2010. "Worldwide Trends in the Criminal Regulation of Sex, 1945 to 2005." American Sociological Review 75 (6): 867–93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, David J., and Elizabeth H. Mceneaney. 1999. "The Individualization of Society and the Liberalization of State Policies on Same-Sex Sexual Relations, 1984–1995." Social Forces 77 (3): 911–43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, David J., and Jay Gabler. 2006. Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 20th Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, David J., and John W. Meyer. 2002. "The Profusion of Individual Roles and Identities in the Postwar Period." Sociological Theory 20 (1): 86–105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, David J., and John W. Meyer. 2007. "University Expansion and the Knowledge Society." Theory and Society 36 (4): 287–311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, David J., and John W. Meyer. 2020. The University and the Global Knowledge Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerber, Theodore P., and Sin Yi Cheung. 2008. "Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications." Annual Review of Sociology 34 (1): 299–318.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graff, Agnieszka, Ratna Kapur, and Suzanna Danuta Walters. 2019. "Introduction: Gender and the Rise of the Global Right." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 44 (3): 541–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gumport, Patricia. 2002. Academic Pathfinders: Knowledge Creation and Feminist Scholarship. Westport, CT: Greenwood.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haig, David. 2004. "The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001." Archives of Sexual Behavior 33 (2): 87–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, Sandra G. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hines, Michael. 2022. The Untold Story of Madeline Morgan and the Fight for Black History in Schools. Boston: Beacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornig, Lilli S. 1980. "Untenured and Tenuous: The Status of Women Faculty." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 448 (1): 115–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, Paula A., Sheila E. Widnall, and Frazier F. Benya, eds. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Consensus study report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, Gail. 1987. "Setting State Policy on Women's Education in the Third World: Perspectives from Comparative Research." Comparative Education 23 (1): 95–102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Key, Ellen M., and Jane Lawrence Sumner. 2019. "You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications." PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (4): 663–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Lanu, Daniel Scott Smith, Bas Hofstra, and Daniel A McFarland. 2022. "Gendered Knowledge in Fields and Academic Careers." Research Policy 51 (1): 104411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwiek, Marek. 2015. "Inequality in Academic Knowledge Production: The Role of Research Top Performers across Europe." In The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries, ed. E. Primeri and E. Reale. Rotterdam: Sense.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauglo, Jon. 1976. "Teachers ' Attitudes and the School Context: The Case of Upper-Secondary Teachers in Norway." Comparative Education Review 20 (1): 61–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leahey, Erin. 2005. "Alphas and Asterisks: The Development of Statistical Significance Testing Standards in Sociology." Social Forces 84 (1): 1–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leahey, Erin. 2007. "Not by Productivity Alone: How Visibility and Specialization Contribute to Academic Earnings." American Sociological Review 72 (4): 533–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Valerie, and Marlaine Lockheed. 1990. "The Effects of Single-Sex Schooling on Achievement and Attitudes in Nigeria." Comparative Education Review 34 (2): 209–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerch, Julia, Evan Schofer, David J. Frank, Wes Longhofer, Francisco O. Ramirez, Christine Min Wotipka, and Kris Velasco. 2022. "Women's Participation and Challenges to the Liberal Script: A Global Perspective." International Sociology 37 (3): 305–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, Angel M. Y. 2020. "From Deficit-Based Teaching to Asset-Based Teaching in Higher Education in BANA Countries: Cutting through 'Either-Or' Binaries with a Heteroglossic Plurilingual Lens." Language, Culture and Curriculum 33 (2): 203–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, Jane. 2000. Coming of Age in Academe: Rekindling Women's Hopes and Reforming the Academy. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDaniel, Anne. 2010. "Cross National Gender Gaps in Educational Expectations: The Influence of National Level Gender Ideology and Educational Systems." Comparative Education Review 54 (1): 27–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFarland, Daniel A., Daniel Ramage, Jason Chuang, Jeffrey Heer, Christopher D. Manning, and Daniel Jurafsky. 2013. "Differentiating Language Usage through Topic Models." Poetics 41 (6): 607–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2013.06.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meleis, Afaf, Nagat El-Sanabary, and Diane Beeson. 1979. "Women, Modernization, and Education in Kuwait." Comparative Education Review 23 (1): 115–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, John W. 2010. "World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor." Annual Review of Sociology 36 (1): 1–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. "World Society and the Nation-State." American Journal of Sociology 103 (1): 144–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mischau, Anina. 2001. "Women in Higher Education in Europe—a Statistical Overview." International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 21:20–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosedale, Sarah. 2005. "Assessing Women's Empowerment: Towards a Conceptual Framework." Journal of International Development 17 (2): 243–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. "Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (41): 16474–79. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakagawa, Mana, and Christine Min Wotipka. 2016. "The Worldwide Incorporation of Women and Women's Rights Discourse in Social Science Textbooks, 1970–2008." Comparative Education Review 60 (3): 501–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, Mathias, Jens Peter Andersen, Londa Schiebinger, and Jesper W. Schneider. 2017. "One and a Half Million Medical Papers Reveal a Link between Author Gender and Attention to Gender and Sex Analysis." Nature Human Behaviour 1 (11): 791–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2019. Education at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Laughlin, Elizabeth M., and Lisa G. Bischoff. 2005. "Balancing Parenthood and Academia: Work/Family Stress as Influenced by Gender and Tenure Status." Journal of Family Issues 26 (1): 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04265942.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patridge, Eric V., Ramon Barthelemy, and Susan R. Rankin. 2014. "Factors Impacting the Academic Climate for LGBQ Stem Faculty." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 20 (1): 75–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Jennifer L. Green. 2006. "The International Women's Movement and Women's Political Representation, 1893-2003." American Sociological Review 71 (6): 898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Post, David. 2013. "November 2013: The Handover Issue!" Comparative Education Review 57 (4): 603–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez, Francisco O., and Naejin Kwak. 2015. "Women's Enrollments in STEM in Higher Education: Cross-National Trends, 1970–2010." In Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective, ed. W. Pearson, L. M. Frehill, and C. L. McNeely. New York: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez, Francisco O., Yasemin Soysal, and Suzanne Shanahan. 1997. "The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990." American Sociological Review 62 (5): 735–45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhoten, Diana, and Stephanie Pfirman. 2007. "Women in Interdisciplinary Science: Exploring Preferences and Consequences." Research Policy 36 (1): 56–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rojas, Fabio. 2010. From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, Susan Garnett. 2016. "Global Gender Discourses in Education: Evidence from Post-genocide Rwanda." Comparative Education 52 (4): 492–515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, Susan Garnett, Julia Lerch, and Christine Min Wotipka. 2018. "The Making of a Human Rights Issue: A Cross-National Analysis of Gender-Based Violence in Textbooks, 1950–2011." Gender & Society 32 (5): 713–38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiebinger, Londa L. 2008. Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503626997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schofer, Evan, Ann Hironaka, David J. Frank, and Wes Longhofer. 2012. "Sociological Institutionalism and World Society." In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sen, Amartya. 2005. "Human Rights and Capabilities." Journal of Human Development 6 (2): 151–66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solomon, Barbara Miller. 1996. In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strang, David, and John W. Meyer. 1993. "Institutional Conditions for Diffusion." Theory and Society 22 (4): 487–511.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strang, David, and Sarah A. Soule. 1998. "Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills." Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1): 265–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stromquist, Nelly P. 2015. "Women's Empowerment and Education: Linking Knowledge to Transformative Action." European Journal of Education 50 (3): 307–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sundström, Aksel, Pamela Paxton, Yi-Ting Wang, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2017. "Women's Political Empowerment: A New Global Index, 1900–2012." World Development 94:321–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutherland, Margaret. 1987. "Sex Differences in Education: An Overview." Comparative Education 23 (1): 5–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarlau, Rebecca. 2019. Occupying Schools, Occupying Land: How the Landless Workers Movement Transformed Brazilian Education. London: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, Benjamin L., and Marina Fischer-Kowalski. 2010. "Ester Boserup: An Interdisciplinary Visionary Relevant for Sustainability." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (51): 21963–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Velasco, Kristopher. 2023. "Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World." American Journal of Sociology 128 (5): 1381–429.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weichselbaumer, Doris, and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer. 2005. "A Meta-analysis of the International Gender Wage Gap." Journal of Economic Surveys 19 (3): 479–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00256.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, Jevin D., Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M. King, Shelley J. Correll, and Carl T. Bergstrom. 2013. "The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship." PLOS One 8 (7): e66212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolf, Virginia. (1929) 1935. A Room of One's Own. London: Hogarth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wotipka, Christine Min, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 2008. "World Society and Human Rights: An Event History Analysis of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women." In The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy, ed. Beth A. Simmons, Frank Dobbin, and Geoffrey Garrett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Patricia Bromley and Daniel Scott Smith</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref134"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1439753
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: World Society, Women Authors, and the Expansion of Feminist, Gender, Sex, and Sexuality (FGSS) Research in Comparative Education, 1957-2010
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Patricia+Bromley%22">Patricia Bromley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+Scott+Smith%22">Daniel Scott Smith</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Comparative+Education+Review%22"><i>Comparative Education Review</i></searchLink>. 2024 68(3):443-468.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Education%22">Comparative Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feminism%22">Feminism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex%22">Sex</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Identity%22">Sexual Identity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexuality%22">Sexuality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1086/731725
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0010-4086<br />1545-701X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The status of women in academia, including comparative education, has grown rapidly. We build on the extensive literature on women's work in the academy by investigating the macrohistorical cultural processes that promote expanded emphasis on feminist, gender, sex, and sexuality (FGSS) topics in comparative education. We use computational methods to investigate the expansion of published knowledge about FGSS in the content of "Comparative Education Review" and "Comparative Education" over the period 1957-2010. Findings reveal a significant rise in FGSS emphasis starting in the 1970s, peaking in the 1980s, and then declining. The study supports the hypothesis that women authors initially drove this increase, but over time, the distinction between male and female authors regarding FGSS emphasis shrinks. The results are interpreted through the lens of neoinstitutional theory, suggesting that as the status of women expanded in liberal world culture, women authors, and FGSS research gained legitimacy, supporting the general increase of FGSS research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1439753
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1439753
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1086/731725
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 443
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Females
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Authors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feminism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sexual Identity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sexuality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: World Society, Women Authors, and the Expansion of Feminist, Gender, Sex, and Sexuality (FGSS) Research in Comparative Education, 1957-2010
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Patricia Bromley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniel Scott Smith
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0010-4086
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1545-701X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 68
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Comparative Education Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1