Kadın Çalışmalarının Yarım Yüzyılı: Bibliyometrik Bir Analiz

Çalışmamızda, Kadın Çalışmaları1 alanında akademide belirlenen kriterlere göre en üretken araştırmacılar, en üretken kurumlar, en üretken ülkeler hangileridir sorularının yanında araştırmaların hangi kurumlar tarafından fon yoluyla desteklendiği ve araştırmaların hangi konulara odaklandığı sorularına cevap aranmıştır. Bu amaçla Web of Science’ın ilgili indekslerinde kategorisi “Women’s Studies” olan bütün yayın bilgileri elde edilmiştir. Veri setinde 1975-2023 arasında 80 farklı kaynaktan 83,117 bilimsel doküman bilgisi (makale, bildiri, kitap bölümü vb.) derlenmiştir. Kadın Çalışmaları literatürü için yıllık büyüme oranı %3,52 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmanın katkısı çoğunlukla tek boyutlu ele alınan bibliyometri çalışmalarının kadın çalışmaları alanında yazarlar arası iş birliği; yazar, ülke ve kurum üretkenliği; fon sağlayıcılar; araştırma odakları ve eş kelime kümeleri analizi kategorileri ile değerlendirilmesi ve bütünsel bir şekilde ele alınmasına dayanmaktadır. Böylece uluslararası akademik yazında etkili literatürün bu özellikleri gözden geçirilerek, Türkiye’de kadın çalışmalarında akademik olarak öncelik verilmesi gereken araştırma konuları, temalar, araştırma soruları kavramsal tartışmalar ve yaklaşımlar üzerinden bir analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kadın Çalışmaları, Akademik Üretkenlik, Bibliyometri, Sosyal Ağ Analizi

Half Century of Women’s Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis

In our study, in addition to the questions of which are the most productive researchers, the most productive institutions, and the most productive countries in the field of Women’s Studies, based on the criteria determined in the academy, we sought answers to the questions of which institutions provided funds to the researches and on which topics these studies focused on. To accomplish this, we collected comprehensive publication data from the relevant indexes of the Web of Science, specifically those categorized under “Women’s Studies.” The dataset encompassed 83,117 scholarly documents (articles, papers, book chapters, etc.) sourced from 80 different outlets, spanning the period from 1975 to 2023. The annual growth rate for Women’s Studies literature was calculated as 3.52%. The contribution of the study is based on holistic evaluation of bibliometric studies, which are mostly considered in a single dimension, with the categories of collaboration among authors; author, country and institutional productivity; funders; research focus areas and co-word analysis in the field of women’s studies. Thus, by reviewing these characteristics of the influential literature in the international academic production, an analysis was carried out on the research topics, themes, research questions, conceptual discussions and approaches that should be prioritised academically in women’s studies in Turkey.

Keywords:

Women’s Studies, Academic Productivity, Bibliomet- rics, Social Network Analysis,

PDF

___

Abu-Lughod, L. (Ed.). (1998). Remaking women, feminism and modernity in the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Andersen, N. T. (2015). ‘I don’t do theory, I do concept work’. Interview with Aihwa Ong. Women, Gender & Research 1: Gender Dynamics. Chinese-Nordic Perspectives.
Archambault, É., & Larivière, V. (2010). The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. In S. A. C. O. United Nations Educational (Ed.), World social science report: Knowledge divides (pp. 251–254).
Arik, E., & Akboga, S. (2018). Women’s studies in the Muslim world: A bibliometric perspective. Publications, 6(4), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6040043
Arat, N. (1996). Women’s studies in Turkey. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 24(1/2), 400– 411. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40004541
Badar, K., Hite, J. M., & Badir, Y. F. (2013). Examining the relationship of co-authors- hip network centrality and gender on academic research performance: the case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 94, 755-775.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review ofstudies on citing behavior. Journal of documentation.
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 & Ke- gan Paul.
Butler, D. (2016) ‘Web of Science’ to be sold to private-equity firms. Nature (2016). htt- ps://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20255
Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Caplar, N., Tacchella, S., & Birrer, S. (2017). Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts. Nature astronomy, 1(6), 0141.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & So- ciety, 19(6), 829–859.
Costas, R., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2010). A bibliometric classificatory ap- proach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 61(8), 1564-1581.
Cronin, B., Martinson, A., & Davenport, E. (1997). Women’s studies: Bibliometric and content analysis of the formative years. Journal of Documentation, 53(2), 123– 138. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000007196
Curthoys, A. (2014). Gender in the social sciences: Field of study or form of inequity?. Australian Feminist Studies, 29(80), 115-120.
Çakır, S. (2011). Osmanlı kadın hareketi. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Çakır, S. (2021). Kadın Tarihi Araştırmaları Türkiye Bibliyografyası . İstanbul Üni- versitesi Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi , (22) , 95-132 . Retrieved from https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iujws/issue/64161/971937
Dahlerup, D. (2015). The development of women’s studies/ gender studies in Scandina- vian social science. https://koensforskning.soc.ku.dk/dokumenter/women_in_ public_life/
Donovan, J. (2012). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions. New York: Continuum. Erhan, Ç., & Gümüş, Ş. (2020). Opportunities and risks in higher education in the
postpandemic period. Reflections on the Pandemic, 179.
Filardo, G., Da Graca, B., Sass, D. M., Pollock, B. D., Smith, E. B., & Martinez, M. A.-M. (2016). Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: Observational study (1994-2014). bmj, 352.
Ghaffari, M., Aliahmadi, A., Khalkhali, A., Zakeri, A., Daim, T. U., & Yalcin, H. (2023). Topic-based technology mapping using patent data analysis: A case study of vehicle tires. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 193, 122576.
Ginsberg, A.E. (2008). Triumphs, controversies, and change: Women’s studies 1970s to the twenty-first century. In A. E. Ginsberg (Ed.), The evolution of American women’s studies: Triumphs, controversies, and change (pp. 9-37); New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Graff, A., & Korolczuk, E. (2021). Anti-Gender Politics in the Populist Moment (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978100313352
64 KADIN ÇALIŞMALARININ YARIM YÜZYILI: BIBLIYOMETRIK BIR ANALIZ
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Harding, S. G. (1993). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
Hassan, R., Chhabra, M., Shahza, A., Fox, D., & Hasan, S. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of journal of international women’s studies for period of 2002-2019: Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of In- ternational Women’s Studies, 22(1), 1-37. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=4011499
Hoppen, N. H., & Vanz, S. A. (2022). The development of Brazilian women’s and gender studies: A bibliometric diagnosis. Scientometrics, 128(1), 227–261. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-022-04545-w
Kataeva, Z., Durrani, N., Izekenova, Z., & Rakhimzhanova, A. (2023). Evolution of gender research in the social sciences in post-Soviet countries: A Bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 128(3), 1639–1666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 022-04619-9
Keskin Aksay, N. (2022). Kadın, aile ve toplum ilişkisinde AK Parti’nin yaklaşım ve po- litikaları. İçinde N. Miş, B. Duran, & A. Babacan (Ed.), Ak Parti ve Türkiye’nin Dönüşümü (Vol. 2, pp. 269–309). Ankara: Seta Kitapları.
Keskin Aksay, N. (2019). Constructing Islam, gender and class: Everyday experien- ces of veiled Muslim women in the public sphere of Istanbul. In S. Dwyer, R. Franks & R. Green (Eds.), With(out) trace: Interdisciplinary investigations into time, space and the body (pp. 189-200). BRILL.
Kimmel, M. S., Hearn, J., & Connell, R. W. (2005). Handbook of studies on men & masculinities. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233833
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Soci- us, 3, 2378023117738903.
Koç, O. (2020). A bibliometric overview of web of science research on violence against women. Istanbul University Journal of Women’s Studies, 0(21), 19-35. https:// doi.org/10.26650/iukad.2020.22.002
Kováts, E. (2018) Questioning Consensuses: Right-Wing Populism, Anti-Populism, and the Threat of ‘Gender Ideology’. Sociological Research Online, 23(2): 528–538.
Köttig, Michaela, Bitzan, R. ve Petö, A. (2017) Gender and Far Right Politics in Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kováts, E. (2017) The Emergence of Powerful Anti-Gender Movements in Europe and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy. Köttig, M., Bitzan, R. & Petö, A. haz. Gender and Far Right Politics in Europe içinde. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan: 175-190.
Krikos, L. A., & Ingold, C. (2004). Women’s studies: A recommended bibliography. Lib- raries Unlimited.
Krikos, L. A. (1994). Women’s studies periodical indexes: An in-depth comparison. Seri- als Review, 20(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.1994.10764210
Kümbetoğlu, B. (2005). “Niteliksel Araştırmada Farklı Yaklaşımlara Bir Örnek: Fe- minist Yaklaşım ve Feminist Yöntem”, Sosyolojide ve Antropolojide Niteliksel Yöntem ve Araştırma, İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınevi.
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics:
Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211-213.
Lorber, J. (2000). Gender. E. F. Borgatta & R. J. V. Montgomery (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Sociology (pp. 1057-1066). Macmillan Reference USA.
Lundgren, S., Shildrick, M., & Lawrence, D. (2015). Rethinking bibliometric data con- cerning gender studies: A response to Söderlund and Madison. Scientometri- cs, 105(3), 1389–1398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1767-3.
Lutz, H., Vivar, M.T.H., & Supik, L. (Eds.). (2011). Framing Intersectionality: Deba- tes on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315582924
Lykke, N. (2001). Institutionalization—between successor-discipline and transdiscipli- nary challenge notes on conceptual frameworks. In N. Lykke, C. Michel, & M.P. de la Bellacasa (Eds.), Women’s studies— from institutional innovations to new job qualifications (pp. 18–24). ATHENA Panel Report, University of Southern Denmark.
Mack, T. (1991). A model methodology for selecting women’s studies core journals. Lib- rary & Information Science Research, 13(2), 131–145.
Mahmood, S. (2012). Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject. Prin- ceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in internatio- nal relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889-922.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. In Wo- men, Science, and Technology (pp. 3-14). Routledge.
Mushtaq, R., Dastane, O., Rafiq, M., & Başar, B. D. (2023). Women financial inclusion research: a bibliometric and network analysis. International Journal of Social Economics (ahead-of-print).
Van Noorden, R. (2017) Web of Science owner buys up booming peer-review plat- form. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22094
Obaid, O. I. (2023). Analysis of H-index and Papers Citation in Computer Science Field using K-Means Clustering Algorithm. Iraqi Journal For Computer Science and Mathematics, 4(2), 1-9.
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
Pine, F. (1996). Gender. A. Barnard & J. Spencer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology (pp. 385–398). Routledge.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documenta- tion, 25(4), 348–349.
Salisbury, Lutishoor. (2009). Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Review of Con- tent and Searching Capabilities. The Charleston Advisor. 11.
Scott, J. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. The American Histori- cal Review, 91(5), 1053-1075.
Sehlikoglu, S. (2018). Revisited: Muslim women’s agency and feminist anthropology of the Middle East. Contemporary Islam, 11(3), 73-92.
66 KADIN ÇALIŞMALARININ YARIM YÜZYILI: BIBLIYOMETRIK BIR ANALIZ
Sonakalan, G. (2020). Mülakat/Dr. Öğr. Ü. Nursem Keskin Aksay. KADEM Kadın Çalışmaları Dergisi, 9-22. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kademkad/is- sue/60303/879987.
Song, Y., Sun, X., & Duan, W. (2023). Co-Word Analysis of First-Authored Publications Written by Top Cited Scholars of Social Work. Research on Social Work Practi- ce, 10497315221148661.
Söderlund, T., & Madison, G. (2015). Characteristics of gender studies publications: A Bibliometric analysis based on a Swedish population database. Scientometri- cs, 105(3), 1347–1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1702-7
Şentürk, R., Açıkgenç, A., Küçükural, Ö., Yamamoto, Q. N., Keskin Aksay, N., Özalkan, S., Asadov, A., Naeem, D., Belkız, E., Faytre, L., Taiai, M., Noorata, M., Kırkar- lar, O., (2020). Marxism and feminism. In R. Şentürk vd., Comparative Theo- ries and Methods: Between Uniplexity and Multiplexity (pp.249-288). Istanbul: Ibn Haldun University Press.
Tekeli, Ş. (2016). Feminizmi düşünmek. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus doub- le-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12708-12713.
Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191-220.
Tsay, M., & Li, C. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of the journal literature on women’s stu- dies. Scientometrics, 113(2), 705–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2493-9
Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (2010). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. In Women, scien- ce, and technology (pp. 64-70). Routledge.
West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. Plos One, 8(7), e66212.
Wienke, C. (1998). Negotiating the male body: Men, masculinity, and cultural ideals. Journal of Men’s Studies, 6(3), 255-282.
Woodward, K., & Woodward, S. (2015). Gender studies and interdisciplinarity. Palgra- ve Communications, [15018]. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.18
Wu, Y., Chen, J., Fang, H., & Wan, Y. (2020). Intimate partner violence: A bibliomet- ric review of literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5607. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155607
Yalçın, H., & Şeker, M. (2020). The effects of COVID-19 pandemic on academic resear- ches and publications. Reflections on the Pandemic, 217.
Yıldırım, İ. E., & Ergüt, Ö. (2016). Researches on the subject of “violence against wo- men”: a bibliometric analysis since 2000. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 38(2), 311- 333. https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.281417
Yun, B., Lee, J. Y., & Ahn, S. (2020). The intellectual structure of women’s studies: A bibliometric study of its research topics and influential publications. Asian Women, 36(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14431/aw.2020.6.36.2.1
Zainab, A. N. (2008). Growth and pattern of women’s studies in Malaysia as reflected by generated literature. Libres: Library and Information Science Research Ele- ctronic Journal, 18(2), 1-17.