Gender Differences in Research Topic and Method Selection in Library and Information Science: Perspectives from Three Top Journals

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01828v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 07:48:33 GMT
• Title: Gender Differences in Research Topic and Method Selection in Library and Information Science: Perspectives from Three Top Journals
• Abstract summary: The study offers insights into the specific research design processes that contribute to gender differences in method selection.<n>The findings showed that women tend to use Interview while men prefer Theoretical approach, across a range of topics.
• Score: 8.370467804153506
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Research in the social sciences has shown that there are gender differences in the selection of research methods, with women often opting for qualitative methods while men prefer quantitative methods. However, it is important to consider that research methods are generally chosen based on the research topic. To figure out the influence of gender on research method selection, a study was conducted in the field of Library and Information Science, using a more fine-grained method classification system and an automatic classification model called CogFT, which is based on full-text cognition. The findings showed that women tend to use Interview while men prefer Theoretical approach, across a range of topics. The study offers insights into the specific research design processes that contribute to gender differences in method selection and suggests ways to promoting gender inclusivity and equality in academia by considering research method use and guidance.

Related papers

• Gender Differences in Research Topic and Method Convergence among Collaborating Scholars in Library and Information Science [3.5111161561666084]
  This study uses a relatively systematic methodology to address the difficulty of studying gender differences in academic publishing.<n>It provides insights into the convergence and diversity of research topics and methods chosen by scholars.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T07:06:18Z)
• Research Method Usage across Academic Ages in Library and Information Science: An Empirical Study (1990-2023) [7.4287545941586615]
  Academic age shapes career development, influencing research behavior, output volume, and methodological choices.<n>A corpus of 26,677 articles published 1990-2023 in 14 authoritative Library and Information Science journals was compiled.<n>Mid-career scholars exhibit the highest method diversity; late-career scholars the lowest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T03:57:28Z)
• Gender assignment in doctoral theses: revisiting Teseo with a method based on cultural consensus theory [0.0]
  This study critically evaluates gender assignment methods within academic contexts.<n>The research introduces nomquamgender, a cultural consensus-based method, and applies it to Teseo, a Spanish dissertation database.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T15:22:01Z)
• The Quest for the Right Mediator: Surveying Mechanistic Interpretability Through the Lens of Causal Mediation Analysis [51.046457649151336]
  We propose a perspective on interpretability research grounded in causal mediation analysis.<n>We describe the history and current state of interpretability taxonomized according to the types of causal units (mediators) employed.<n>We discuss the pros and cons of each mediator, providing insights as to when particular kinds of mediators and search methods are most appropriate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T17:51:42Z)
• Inferring gender from name: a large scale performance evaluation study [4.934579134540613]
  Researchers need to infer gender from readily available information, primarily from persons' names. Name-to-gender inference has generated an ever-growing domain of algorithmic approaches and software products. We conduct a large scale performance evaluation of existing approaches for name-to-gender inference. We propose two new hybrid approaches that achieve better performance than any single existing approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T13:38:45Z)
• Unveiling Gender Bias in Terms of Profession Across LLMs: Analyzing and Addressing Sociological Implications [0.0]
  The study examines existing research on gender bias in AI language models and identifies gaps in the current knowledge. The findings shed light on gendered word associations, language usage, and biased narratives present in the outputs of Large Language Models. The paper presents strategies for reducing gender bias in LLMs, including algorithmic approaches and data augmentation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-18T11:38:45Z)
• Gender Stereotype Reinforcement: Measuring the Gender Bias Conveyed by Ranking Algorithms [68.85295025020942]
  We propose the Gender Stereotype Reinforcement (GSR) measure, which quantifies the tendency of a Search Engines to support gender stereotypes. GSR is the first specifically tailored measure for Information Retrieval, capable of quantifying representational harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-02T20:45:04Z)
• A Survey on Text Classification: From Shallow to Deep Learning [83.47804123133719]
  The last decade has seen a surge of research in this area due to the unprecedented success of deep learning. This paper fills the gap by reviewing the state-of-the-art approaches from 1961 to 2021. We create a taxonomy for text classification according to the text involved and the models used for feature extraction and classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-02T00:09:03Z)
• Towards causal benchmarking of bias in face analysis algorithms [54.19499274513654]
  We develop an experimental method for measuring algorithmic bias of face analysis algorithms. Our proposed method is based on generating synthetic transects'' of matched sample images. We validate our method by comparing it to a study that employs the traditional observational method for analyzing bias in gender classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T17:10:34Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Gender Bias Classification [67.65551687580552]
  Machine learning models can inadvertently learn socially undesirable patterns when training on gender biased text. We propose a general framework that decomposes gender bias in text along several pragmatic and semantic dimensions. Using this fine-grained framework, we automatically annotate eight large scale datasets with gender information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T21:23:20Z)
• A Survey on Causal Inference [64.45536158710014]
  Causal inference is a critical research topic across many domains, such as statistics, computer science, education, public policy and economics. Various causal effect estimation methods for observational data have sprung up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-05T21:35:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.