Selective Recognition: Gendered Recognition of Different Types of Scientific Novelty

• In Event: 20817 - Stalled Gender Revolution: Precarity, Segregation, and Labor Market Attachment

Abstract

Gender disparities in scientific recognition is not uniform. It varies systematically by types of novelty and disciplines. This study introduces the concept of selective recognition to explain how gender shapes whose work is acknowledged in science and how. Analyzing 72,298 scientific papers across disciplines, I examine how recognition patterns differ for theoretical, methodological, and empirical novelty. Results reveal that men’s contributions are more readily validated as theoretical and methodological novelty, particularly in basic science fields, while women experience an empirical edge in applied fields where they receive greater recognition for empirical novelty. Integrating Status Characteristics Theory, feminist epistemology, and sociology of profession, I theorize two mechanisms explain these patterns: (1) interpretive uncertainty: the degree of subjectivity in evaluation, which is highest for theoretical work; and (2) masculine purity: the privileging of abstract, formal reasoning traditionally coded as masculine. The findings reveal how disciplinary cultures surrounding scientific evaluation shapes status inequalities beyond demographic imbalance alone. By demonstrating that gender disparities vary systematically across types of novelty and disciplines, this study suggests that addressing gender inequity requires attention to how different forms of scientific novelty are evaluated and valued within institutional contexts.

Author

• Jina Lee, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign