Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:01:34.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Differences in SIOP Research Fellows’ Publication Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Jeremiah T. McMillan ,
Kristen Shockley  and
Dorothy R. Carter
Jeremiah T. McMillan*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Kristen Shockley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
Dorothy R. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeremiah T. McMillan, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provide illuminating analyses regarding the role of gender in career advancement within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. One of their suggestions for further advancing this area of research is to examine homophily, defined as the tendency for individuals to have social ties with those who are similar to themselves, in the social networks of men and women in the field. Such research is warranted because social networks—in particular, the networks of research collaboration relationships (e.g., publications, grants) scientists develop throughout their careers—are critical to success in academia (e.g., Bozeman & Corley, 2004).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 439 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L. B., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37 (3), 709–743. doi:10.1177/0149206310365001Google Scholar
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.Google Scholar
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2), 327–343.Google Scholar
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69 (1), 131–152.Google Scholar
Gardner, D. M., Ryan, A. M., & Snoeyink, M. (2018). How are we doing? An examination of gender representation in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (3), 369–388.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (46), 16569–16572.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (3), 422–447.Google Scholar
Jin, B. (2007). The AR-index: Complementing the h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 3 (1), 6.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415Google Scholar
Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12 (4), 502–517.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342 (6157), 468–472. doi: 10.1126/science.1240474Google Scholar
Tarma Software Research. (1990–2016). Publish or Perish 4. Retrieved from https://harzing.com/pophelp/index.htmGoogle Scholar