Feminist Philosophers

News feminist philosophers can use

The old boys network, part 2 June 19, 2013

Filed under: women in philosophy — magicalersatz @ 6:44 pm

Kieran Healy has done some further analysis of his incredibly interesting citation graph – this time specifically about gender.  And the punch-to-the-gut headline has to be this:

Eighteen items in the top 500 are written by women, or 3.6 percent of the total. By comparison, 6.2 percent of the items in the top 500 are written by David Lewis.

In all, only thirteen fifteen female authors make it onto the graph. 13 15 women for a graph spanning 20 years. Nice.

*Update*: 

Kieran Healy writes:

“I have corrected several errors in the dataset, and made some changes to make the citation counts more accurate. First, a phantom item credited to “Anonymous” and notionally appearing on a single page of Philosophical Perspectives had a relatively high citation count (it was the 119th-ranked item). It has now been deleted. Second, the raw data from the Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge citation database contains twelve cases citing “Christine Korsgaard (1998) Naming and Necessity”. These are in fact cites to Kripke (1980). Third, I have taken the three different ways Naming and Necessity is cited in the database and amalgamated them into a single cite to Kripke (1980). Finally, based on some further analysis I changed the cutoff point from the top 500 to all items with at least ten citations, so as not to arbitrarily exclude some items with the same number of citations as other included items. Now we have 526 items instead of 500. These changes are reflected in the discussion above. I thank Juan Comesana, Gary Ostertag, Laura Schroeter, and Dave Chalmers for help identifying issues in the raw data. I welcome further corrections.

These corrections and changes mean the tables change slightly and the network is rewired a little. Naming and Necessity is now the most-cited item. Item ranks have shifted slightly due to existing items being able to move up into the vacant slots opened up by deleting mistaken items or merging cites, and some new papers enter at the bottom. Two of these items are authored by women. If you quoted from this post prior to these changes, please check to see whether the numbers you cited have changed slightly.

The main upshots are that we now have nineteen items by fifteen women, out of 526 highly-cited papers in the dataset. Korsgaard has one fewer item (due to the database error), and two new items by women have entered the list at the bottom: one by Linda Zagzebski and one by JJ Thomson. The overall percentages are almost identical, however, because we now have 19/526 (~3.6%) items by women. And the 26 new items included two papers by … David Lewis! That makes for 33/526 or ~6.3% of the total.”

So 15 women instead of 13 women, but the same percentage.

 

10 Responses to “The old boys network, part 2”

  1. beta Says:

    That tears it: I am fucking publishing more.

  2. Liam Says:

    I made a rather naive attempt to see what the situation re: racial diversity was on that list. By my rather rough and ready reasoning, there were 4 non-white philosophers on that list, none of whom were women. Can anybody falsify that? I rather hope you can!

  3. magicalersatz Says:

    Liam, I count six non-white philosophers (thought it’s not always clear who to count). Either way, it’s depressing.

  4. Liam Says:

    Ah, yes, that is still depressing. Apparently “what the [high prestige journals/subfields of the analytic part of the] field is talking about” really does not include anything that women of colour have said.

  5. magicalersatz Says:

    [sigh] Yeah. . .

    I was pretty shocked that Delia Graff Fara didn’t make the top 500, to be honest.

  6. Balk Says:

    This is probably somewhere in the data, but I couldn’t quickly find it: Of the 2200 articles whose citations Kieran Healy is analyzing, how many of those were written by women?

    It would also be interesting to know whether women tend to cite women more. So what would the graph look like if it were restricted to just the fraction of those 2200 articles that were written by women?

  7. I’m also surprised “Shifting Sands” isn’t on the list somewhere. Google Scholar gives it 249 citations; I’d be a little surprised if 10 of those weren’t in the 4 journals Kieran looks at. I wonder if it’s gotten lost in the database because it’s sometimes listed under “D Fara” and sometimes under “D Graff” (and perhaps sometimes under “D Graff Fara”).

  8. Brian & magicalersatz—I know about Delia Graff Fara’s name change, and took account of that in processing the data. The “Shifting Sands” paper appears eight times in the dataset under—as you guessed—a variety of indexed names. Here’s the raw list, just to show the variants:

    Fara Delia Graff, 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    Graff-Fara D. G., 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    Graff-Fara D. G., 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    Graff-Fara D. G., 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    FARR DG, 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    Fara Delia Graff, 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    Graff-Fara D. G., 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45
    Graff-Fara D. G., 2000, PHILOS TOPICS, V28, P45

    She also has a well-cited paper in Phil Studies. Here’s the raw list of citations again:

    FARA DG, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1
    FARA DG, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1
    Graff D, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1010379409594
    Graff D, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1010379409594
    Graff D, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1010379409594
    Graff D, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1010379409594
    Graff D, 2001, PHILOS STUD, V102, P1, DOI 10.1023/A:1010379409594

    The analysis is based on individual books and papers, rather than authors. The “Top 500″ list consists of books and papers that have individually gotten ten citations or more in the four journals studied between 1993 and 2013. Since neither of these articles has ten or more citations, they—and hence Delia—didn’t make the list.

    I will also note without comment that her husband, Michael Fara, who has since left philosophy, has two papers in the dataset that were each published in 2005, well after Delia Graff Fara’s, and so with less time to accumulate notice. Together they have the same number of citations to them in our four generalist journals as Delia’s two papers do:

    Fara M, 2005, MIND, V114, P1, DOI 10.1093/mind/fz001
    Fara M, 2005, MIND, V114, P1, DOI 10.1093/mind/fz001
    Fara M, 2005, MIND, V114, P1, DOI 10.1093/mind/fz001
    Fara M, 2005, MIND, V114, P1, DOI 10.1093/mind/fz001
    Fara M, 2005, MIND, V114, P1, DOI 10.1093/mind/fz001
    Fara M, 2005, MIND, V114, P1, DOI 10.1093/mind/fz001
    FARA M, 2005, MIND, V114

    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    Fara M, 2005, NOUS, V39, P43, DOI 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00493.x
    FARA M, 2005, NOUS, V39

  9. weatherson Says:

    Thanks Kieran.

    Here’s a hypothesis suggested by these four data points. Papers in the top 4 journals have a much higher ratio of cites in top 4 journals to Google Scholar cites. Those papers of Mike’s are great, and important, but don’t seem nearly as influential as “Shifting Sands” and “Descriptions as Predicates”.

  10. […] the 1990s-era Ph.D cohort that all of the highly-cited younger men come from. One clear example, brought to my attention by Brian Weatherson, is the case of Delia Graff Fara (Ph.D ‘97). A prominent and very well-respected philosopher, […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,675 other followers