Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T04:31:09.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Dynamics and the Evolution of Disciplines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2023

Kekoa Wong  and
Hannah Rubin Open the ORCID record for Hannah Rubin [Opens in a new window]
Kekoa Wong
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
Hannah Rubin*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
Corresponding author: Hannah Rubin; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider the long-term evolution of science and show how a “contagion of disrespect”—an increasing dismissal of research in subfields associated with marginalized groups—can arise due to the dynamics of collaboration and reputation (versus, e.g., preconceived notions of the field’s worth). This has implications both for how we understand the history of science and for how we attempt to promote diverse scientific inquiry.

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 91 , Issue 5 , December 2024 , pp. 1179 - 1188
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chakraborty, Roshni and Chandra, Joydeep. 2016. “Link Dynamics in Scientific Collaboration Networks”. Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMSNETS.2016.7440004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldon, David F., James Peugh, Michelle A. Maher, Josipa Roksa, and Tofel-Grehl, Colby. 2017. “Time-to-Credit Gender Inequities of First-Year PhD Students in the Biological Sciences”. CBE–Life Sciences Education 16 (1):ar4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0237 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferber, Marianne A. and Teiman, Michelle. 1980. “Are Women Economists at a Disadvantage in Publishing Journal Articles?” Eastern Economic Journal 6 (3/4):189–193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40324755 Google Scholar
Kimmerer, Robin. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
Levanon, Asaf, England, Paula, and Allison, Paul. 2009. “Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 US Census Data”. Social Forces 88 (2):865–891. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, Jennifer S. 1999. “When Computers Were Women”. Technology and Culture 40 (3):455–483. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25147356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorch, Marjorie and Hellal, Paula. 2010. “Darwin’s ‘Natural Science of Babies’ ”. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 19 (2):140–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647040903504823 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, Larry et al. 2012. “Listening and Learning from Traditional Knowledge and Western Science: A Dialogue on Contemporary Challenges of Forest Health and Wildfire”. Journal of Forestry 110 (4):187–193. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John M. and Kiholm Smith, Janet. 1992. “The Effect of Gender-Sorting on Propensity to Coauthor: Implications for Academic Promotion”. Economic Inquiry 30 (1):68–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1992.tb01536.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Mark E. J. 2006. “Modularity and Community Structure in Networks”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (23):8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Alexander Michael, Fortunato, Santo, Pan, Raj K., Kaski, Kimmo, Penner, Orion, Rungi, Armando, Riccaboni, Massimo, Eugene Stanley, H., and Pammolli, Fabio. 2014. “Reputation and Impact in Academic Careers”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (43):15316–15321. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323111111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, Margaret W. 1993. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science”. Social Studies of Science 23 (2):325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Hannah and O’Connor, Cailin. 2018. “Discrimination and Collaboration in Science”. Philosophy of Science 85 (3):380–402. https://doi.org/10.1086/697744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Mike, Rubin, Hannah, and O’Connor, Cailin. 2022. “Promoting Diverse Collaborations”. In The Dynamics of Science: Computational Frontiers in History and Philosophy of Science, edited by Ramsey, Grant and De Block, Andreas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv31djr2f Google Scholar
Stage, Sarah and Bramble Vincenti, Virginia. 1997. Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Xiaoling, Kaur, Jasleen, Milojevic, Staša, Flammini, Alessandro, and Menczer, Filippo. 2013. “Social Dynamics of Science”. Scientific Reports 3 (1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01069 Google Scholar
von Oertzen, Christine. 2013. “Science in the Cradle: Milicent Shinn and her Home-Based Network of Baby Observers, 1890–1910”. Centaurus 55 (2):175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Jevin D., Jacquet, Jennifer, King, Molly M., Correll, Shelley J., and Bergstrom, Carl T.. 2013. “The role of gender in scholarly authorship”. PLOS ONE 8 (7):e66212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed