Advertisement

Gender Differences in Intellectual Capital Research: An Exploratory Study

  • Maria Serena Chiucchi
  • Marco Giuliani
  • Simone PoliEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

The study aims to explore whether gender differences in the intellectual capital research exist. The differences are mainly investigated with reference to authorship patterns, research loyalty, productivity, trends of authorship patterns and productivity, research methodologies and research topic relevance. The investigation is carried out through an exploratory research approach. Consistent with it, data are mainly analyzed through descriptive statistics and tests of difference. The investigation takes into consideration the papers published in the Journal of Intellectual Capital from 2007 to 2016 (ten years). The total number of papers used is 340. The Journal of Intellectual Capital was chosen because it can be considered one of the leading journal of the intellectual capital research. Data used for the investigation are collected, in part, from the Scopus database and, in part, by reading the papers. The author gender was attributed manually, on the base of the author’ name. Main findings show that differences do not exist with reference to collaboration propensity and magnitude, research loyalty, average research productivity, research methodologies and research topic relevance. On the contrary, they show that a difference exists with reference to international collaboration propensity.

Keywords

Gender differences Intellectual capital research Academic publishing 

References

  1. Barrios, M., Villarroya, A., & Borrego, A. (2013). Scientific production in psychology: A gender analysis. Scientometrics, 95(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2003). One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists. Scientometrics, 57(2), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chua, C., Cao, L., Cousins, K., & Straub, D. W. (2002). Measuring researcher-production in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3(1), 145–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dumay, J. (2013). The third stage of IC: Towards a new IC future and beyond. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dumay, J. (2014). 15 years of the journal of intellectual capital and counting: A manifesto for transformational IC research. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1), 2–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumay, J., & Garanina, T. (2013). Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the third stage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ETAN Expert Working Group on Women and Science. (2000). Science policy in the European union. Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate—General for Research. http://www.cordis.lu/improving/women/documents.htm.
  8. Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research. The British Accounting Review, 44(2), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leta, J., & Lewison, G. (2003). The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography. Scientometrics, 57(3), 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.Google Scholar
  11. Lowry, P. B., Karuga, G. G., & Richardson, V. J. (2007). Assessing leading institutions, faculty, and articles in premier information systems research journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20, 142–203.Google Scholar
  12. Mauleón, E., & Bordons, M. (2006). Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of Materials Science. Scientometrics, 66(1), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Newby, G. B., Greenberg, J., & Jones, P. (2003). Open source software development and Lotka’s law: Bibliometric patterns in programming. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(2), 169–178.Google Scholar
  15. Paul-Hus, A., Bouvier, R. L., Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., Pislyakov, V., & Larivière, V. (2015). Forty years of gender disparities in Russian science: A historical bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1541–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prpić, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rowlands, I. (2005). Emerald authorship data, Lotka’s law and research productivity. Aslib Proceedings, 57(1), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2013). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2017). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2017 update. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 675–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., Booker, L., Sadeddin, K., & Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008). Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Grant, J. (2009). A scientometric analysis of the proceedings of the McMaster world congress on the management of intellectual capital and innovation for the 1996–2008 period. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Söderlund, T., & Madison, G. (2015). Characteristics of gender studies publications: A bibliometric analysis based on a Swedish population database. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1347–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. The Helsinki Group on Women and Science. (2002). National policies on women and science in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate—General for Research. http://www.cordis.lu/improving/women/policies.htm.
  25. van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Serena Chiucchi
    • 1
  • Marco Giuliani
    • 1
  • Simone Poli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations