Abstract
Comment to the article ‘Characteristics of gender studies publications: A bibliometric analysis based on a Swedish population database’ by Therese Söderlund and Guy Madison (Scientometrics, 2015). From the position of relevant expertise within gender studies and bibliometrics, this text offers a critique of the present study and some suggestions of alternative ways forward. It analyses (1) the object of study of the article (the terms used to denominate the field, keywords and methods to make sample selection), (2) technical issues and the question of language in relation to international citations and impact factor, and (3) the views presented in the article regarding gender studies and political ideology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Our university was among those rewarded funding from the Swedish Research Council to establish a Centre of Gender Excellence (Linköping together with Örebro University) for the period 2007-2011 (SEK 27 million in total during the five-year period).
References
The starred references relate to researchers active in Sweden
*Alm, E. (2006). “Ett emballage för inälvor och emotioner”: Föreställningar om kroppen i statliga utredningar från 1960-och 1970-talen. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University.
*Andersson, C. (2011). Hundra år av tvåsamhet: Äktenskapet i svenska statliga utredningar 1909–2009. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Bluhm, R., Jaap Jacobson, A., & Maibom, H. L. (Eds.). (2012). Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bowles, G. (1983). Is Women’s Studies an academic discipline? In G. Bowles & R. D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies (pp. 32–45). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable?. London: Verso.
Butler, J., & Spivak, G. C. (2007). Who sings the nation-state?: Language, politics, belonging. London: Seagull.
*de los Reyes, P., & Mulinari, D. (2005). Intersektionalitet—Kritiska reflektioner över (o)jämlikhetens landskap. Malmö: Liber.
*Dussauge, I., & Kaiser, A. (2012). Neuroscience and sex/gender. Neuroethics, 5(3), 211–215.
*Edenheim, S. (2005). Begärets lagar: Moderna statliga utredningar och heteronormativitetens genealogi. Lund: Lund University.
Einstein, G. (2012). Situated neuroscience: Exploring biologies of diversity. In R. Bluhm, A. J. Jacobson, & H. L. Maibom (Eds.), Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science (pp. 145–176). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fox Keller, E. (2002). Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ganetz, H. (2005). Genusvetenskapliga projektansökningar inom humaniora-samhällsvetenskap—en uppföljning av Vetenskapsrådets beredning och utfall år 2004. Vetenskapsrådets kommitté för genusforskning, Vetenskapsrådets Rapportserie 15: 2005.
Grosz, E. (2010). The untimeliness of feminist theory. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 18(1), 48–51.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
*Hübinette, T., & Lundström, C. (2011). Sweden after the recent election: The double-binding power of Swedish Whiteness through the mourning of the loss of “Old Sweden” and the passing of “Good Sweden”. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 19(1), 42–52.
Irigaray, L. (1993). An ethics of sexual difference. London: Athlone Press.
*Kaiser, A. & Dussauge, I. (2015). Feminist and queer repoliticizations of the brain. Lausanne: EspacesTemps.net.
Keskinen, S. (Ed.). (2009). Complying with colonialism: Gender, race and ethnicity in the Nordic region. Aldershot: Ashgate.
*Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. London: Routledge. (Published also in Swedish (2009): Genusforskning. Stockholm: Liber).
Poole, J., Shildrick, M., McKeever, P., Ross, H. J., Mauthner, O., De Luca, E., & Abbey, S. (2010). The obligation to say ‘Thank-You’. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation,. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2009.11.172.
Schmitz, S., & Höppner, G. (Eds.). (2014). Gendered neurocultures. Feminist and queer perspectives on current brain discourses. Vienna: Zaglossus.
*Shildrick, M. (2008). The critical turn in feminist bioethics: The case of heart transplantation. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 1(1), 28–47. doi:10.1353/ijf.0.0013.
Shildrick, M., McKeever, P., Abbey, S., Poole, J., & Ross, H. (2009). Troubling dimensions of heart transplantation. Medical Humanities, 2009(35), 35–38. doi:10.1136/jmh.2008.001073.
Söderlund, T. & Madison, G. (2015). Characteristics of gender studies publications: A bibliometric analysis based on a Swedish population database. Scientometrics.
Swedish Research Council. (2011). Evaluation of “Centres of Gender Excellence”. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.
*Zeiler, K. (2009). Deadly pluralism? Why death concept, death definition, death criterion and death test pluralism should be allowed, even though it evokes some problems. Bioethics, 23, 450–459.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lundgren, S., Shildrick, M. & Lawrence, D. Rethinking bibliometric data concerning gender studies: a response to Söderlund and Madison. Scientometrics 105, 1389–1398 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1767-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1767-3