Acting as a timely supplement to the recent Healy data, a group of female philosophers has begun an analogous effort to our Gendered Conference Campaign – the Gendered Citation Campaign (they’re calling it the GCC2). It’s an effort to raise awareness about the apparent under-citation of female philosophers, and to encourage philosophers to consider gender when compiling a reference list. (Unlike the sciences, there is little pressure in philosophy to be completeist about referencing, so it’s easy to just reference to first few articles that come to mind – and that’s a strategy that’s likely to favor male authors, given what we know about implicit bias.)
The GCC2 has begun compiling information here. Three important points that should be emphasized about this information. The first is that the methodology here is not that of random representative sampling. Instead, the data gatherers decided to look, at least to begin with, only at the first issue of 2010 for journals that they easily laid their hands on. The second point is that the intent is not to suggest that the authors of papers with few or no citations of women are blameworthy. The goal, rather, is to raise awareness of the issue of gendered citation as a systematic phenomenon. And finally, one helpful thing about this information is that it gives some indication that the under-citation of women isn’t a phenomenon that’s limited to Mind, Nous, Philosophical Review, and Journal of Philosophy.
I should perhaps further add that, though we’re helping to publicize this venture, the GCC2 isn’t organized by this blog. We’ll link to any updates to this information as and when they come to us, but we’re not compiling the information ourselves.