Coauthored scholarship increased substantially across fields of science during the twentieth century, but it is unclear whether this growth reflects change in the behavior of individual scientists or publishing differences between cohorts of researchers. I examine the publication records of an interdisciplinary sample of university scientists and find evidence of both career-aging and cohort-succession processes, although cohort differences are much more pronounced than individual changes. Specifically, scientists in this sample increased the percentage of their articles with coauthors by 0.63 percentage (...) points annually. However, compared to those who received their PhDs between 1953 and 1962, scientists who entered the workforce between 1983 and 1991 coauthored approximately one third more of their early career articles. Additionally, career-aging processes in coauthorship varied by PhD cohort, with earlier trained researchers increasing more rapidly. Overall, this article highlights cohort succession as a source of change in coauthorship, and underscores the importance of accounting for generational differences in studies of scientific careers. (shrink)

Based on a national survey of Chinese scientific personnel in 2008, this paper sheds new light on the relationship between social networks and scientific performance. In this study, we used position generator to measure scientists’ ego-centered social networks. The scientists’ performance was measured by multiple indexes, including recognitions from the academic, governmental, and market sectors. The findings show that size and composition of scientists’ social networks have significant effect on their scientific performance. The notions of “information communication mechanism” and “resource (...) acquisition mechanism” are introduced to explain how network composition affects scientific performance along multiple dimensions. The policy implications of the study are also discussed. (shrink)

Since its inception, the concept of `intersectionality' — the interaction of multiple identities and experiences of exclusion and subordination — has been heralded as one of the most important contributions to feminist scholarship. Despite its popularity, there has been considerable confusion concerning what the concept actually means and how it can or should be applied in feminist inquiry. In this article, I look at the phenomenon of intersectionality's spectacular success within contemporary feminist scholarship, as well as the uncertainties and confusion (...) which it has generated. Drawing upon insights from the sociology of science, I shall show how and why intersectionality could become a feminist success story. I shall argue that, paradoxically, it is precisely the concept's alleged weaknesses — its ambiguity and open-endedness — that were the secrets to its success and, more generally, make it a good feminist theory. (shrink)

Since 1984, when Cole and Zuckerman referred to gender differences in productivity among academic scientists as a puzzle, sociologists have sought to explain these differences by incorporating primarily institutional-level factors. In addition to these factors, the author contends that an undertheorized and heretofore unmeasured concept—the extent of research specialization—can also help explain the process by which gender affects research productivity. Although some researchers have examined areas of specialization, the extent of research specialization has been completely neglected in studies of academic (...) careers. Using a probability sample of academics in two disciplines, primary data collection, and simultaneous equation modeling, the author finds that the extent of research specialization is a critical intervening variable: Women specialize less than men and thereby lose out on an important means of increasing their productivity. (shrink)

This article addresses a telling issue in academic science: the clarity of criteria for tenure and promotion reported by women and men faculty in scientific fields. Data from faculty surveyed in nine US research universities point to ways that formal and informal organizational indicators predict the clarity of evaluation reported by women and men. Unexpected patterns occur by gender. Among men, both formal and informal organizational indicators, as well as field, predict their reported clarity of evaluation. Among women, however, only (...) informal organizational indicators, namely, frequency of speaking with faculty about research and departmental climate, are significant predictors. Further, overall, informal indicators are stronger predictors of clarity than are formal indicators, and some field differences occur. These findings have implications for national and regional science policies and for the practices and policies of universities. (shrink)