CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Who Dominates the Discourses of the Past? Gender, Occupational Affiliation, and Multivocality in North American Archaeology Publishing

Fulkerson, Tiffany J., Tushingham, Shannon·2019·American Antiquity
DOI 10.1017/aaq.2019.35
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Equity and the dissemination of knowledge remain major challenges in science. Peer-reviewed journal publications are generally the most cited, yet certain groups dominate in archaeology. Such uniformity of voice profoundly limits not only who conveys the past but also what parts of the material record are narrated and/or go untold. This study examines multiple participation metrics in archaeology and explores the intersections of gender and occupational affiliation in peer-reviewed (high time cost) and non-peer-reviewed (reduced time cost) journals. We find that although women and compliance archaeologists remain poorly represented in regional and national peer-reviewed journals, they are much more active in unrefereed publications. We review feminist and theoretical explanations for inequities in science and argue that (1) the persistent underrepresentation of women and of compliance professionals in archaeological publishing are structurally linked processes and (2) such trends can be best understood in light of the existing structure of American archaeology and the cost-benefit realities of publishing for people in various sectors of the discipline. We suggest that nonrefereed venues offer a pathway to multivocality and help to address epistemic injustices, and we discuss methods for widening the current narrow demographic of men and academics who persist in dominating discourses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/aaq.2019.35

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women are disadvantaged compared to men in archaeology, including lower rates of lead-authorship, publication in top-tier journals, citation, grant submission, hiring at PhD granting institutions, and holding CRM permits.

    “Many indicators suggest that women are disadvantaged compared to men in the discipline, including their lower rates of lead-authorship, publication in top-tier journals, citation, grant submission, hiring at PhD granting institutions, and holding CRM permits (e.g., Bardolph 2018;Fulkerson and Tushingham 2019;Goldstein et al. 2018;Hutson 2002;Jalbert 2019;Speakman et al. 2018;Tushingham et al. 2017”

    From Unsettling Archaeology (2020) · cites this paper as Fulkerson and Tushingham 2019

    The Gender Publishing Patterns section reports substantially fewer women than men as lead authors in the peer-reviewed journals studied, and the Discussion describes particularly low representation in high-impact journals. The Sociopolitics section discusses gender disparities in citation practices and hiring, including at PhD-granting institutions. Our copy does not establish lower grant-submission or CRM-permit-holding rates for women; its data on professional registrations are not data on CRM permits. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In North America, men continue to have higher rates of employment in academia and heritage management than women.

    “In North America, for example, the rates of female PhD recipients in anthropological archaeology programs steadily rose from 41-42% in 1967 to 55-56% in 2015, though men continue to have higher rates of employment in academia and heritage management (see Fulkerson & Tushingham, 2019, p. 382-385).”

    From The African Archaeological Review Turns Forty: Some Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future (2023) · cites this paper as Fulkerson & Tushingham, 2019

  • In North America, the rates of female PhD recipients in anthropological archaeology programs steadily rose from 41-42% in 1967 to 55-56% in 2015.

    “In North America, for example, the rates of female PhD recipients in anthropological archaeology programs steadily rose from 41-42% in 1967 to 55-56% in 2015, though men continue to have higher rates of employment in academia and heritage management (see Fulkerson & Tushingham, 2019, p. 382-385).”

    From The African Archaeological Review Turns Forty: Some Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future (2023) · cites this paper as Fulkerson & Tushingham, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Zeder, 1997b, The American Archaeologist: Results of the 1994 SAA Census, SAA Bulletin, 15, 12
  2. Wylie, 2012, Feminist Philosophy of Science: Standpoint Matters, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 86, 47
  3. 10.1086/649268 · DOI
  4. 10.15195/v4.a6 · DOI
  5. 10.1371/journal.pone.0188403 · DOI
  6. 10.1525/aeq.2000.31.1.67 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s11759-010-9144-6 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s11759-010-9130-z · DOI
  9. Sebastian, 2009, Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future, 3
  10. 10.1080/1947461X.2018.1535816 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00406.x · DOI
  12. 2016, Graduate Programs in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 2016
  13. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1007/s10816-007-9033-5 · DOI
  15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00037 · DOI
  16. 10.1371/journal.pone.0202528 · DOI
  17. 10.3102/0013189X17738746 · DOI
  18. Hutson, 1998, Institutional and Gender Effects on Academic Hiring Practices, SAA Bulletin, 16, 19
  19. Harlan, 2009, Archaeology's Grey Literature and Professional Review, Grey Journal, 5, 83
  20. Gero, 1983, The Socio-politics of Archaeology, 51
  21. 10.1007/978-3-319-26348-9_9 · DOI
  22. Fawcett, 2008, Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies, 1
  23. Conkey, 1984, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1
  24. Clarke, 1993, Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, 191
  25. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102172 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Burkholder, 2006, Doing It for Ourselves: Women and Participation in the SAA Annual Meetings, SAA Archaeological Record, 6, 27
  27. 10.1080/1947461X.2018.1535814 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1126/science.caredit.a1400279 · DOI
  29. Bem, 1993, The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality
  30. Beaudry, 1994, Women in Archaeology, 138
  31. Baxter, 2005, Gender Perceptions of Archaeology: A Perspective from the SAA Member Needs Assessment Survey, SAA Archaeological Record, 5, 7
  32. 10.1080/0734578X.2015.1113101 · DOI
  33. Babcock, 2007, Women Don't Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation—and Positive Strategies for Change
  34. Anderson, 2018, New Perspectives in Cultural Resource Management, 197
  35. 10.1126/science.260.5106.409 · DOI
  36. 10.7183/0002-7316.79.3.522 · DOI
  37. 10.2307/2694833 · DOI
  38. 10.1080/1947461X.2018.1535791 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Zeder, 1997a, The American Archaeologist: A Profile
  40. Surface-Evans, 2012, Feminine Voices in Archaeology: Promoting Community, Collaboration, and Mentoring, SAA Archaeological Record, 12, 19
  41. Baxter, 2008, Mentoring Strategies for Women in Archaeology: A Report of the 2008 COSWA Working Group, SAA Archaeological Record, 8, 15
  42. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, 2004, Publishing the Past: Gender and Patterns of Authorship in Academic and Public Archaeology Journals, Graduate Journal of Social Science, 1, 117
  43. 10.2307/2694570 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/an.1988.29.9.1.5 · DOI
  45. Stark, 1997, The Gender Effect on Editorial Boards and in Academia, SAA Bulletin, 15, 6
  46. 10.2307/280492 · DOI
  47. Wylie, 1994, Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, 65
  48. 10.1038/sj.embor.7401109 · DOI
  49. Hodder, 2004, Archaeology beyond Dialogue, 23
  50. Lipe, 2009, Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future, 41
  51. Rautman, 2012, Who Gets Published in American Antiquity?, SAA Archaeological Record, 12, 25
  52. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.411 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Kehoe, 1992, Exploring Gender through Archaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone Conference, 23
  54. Victor, 1992, Exploring Gender through Archaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone Conference, 11
  55. Claassen, 1999, Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meeting of SEAC from 1983–1995 and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology, Southeastern Archaeology, 18, 85
  56. Beaudry, 1994, Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, 225
  57. 10.1017/aaq.2017.73 · DOI
  58. 10.1086/345322 · DOI
  59. Yellen, 1983, The Socio-politics of Archaeology, 59
  60. 10.1080/1947461X.2018.1535813 · DOI · Paper page
  61. McGuire, 1992, A Marxist Archaeology
  62. Fulkerson, 2019, Why Don't We Write More? Essays on Writing and Publishing Anthropological Research, 181

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fulkerson, T. J., & Tushingham, S.
ORCID
Fulkerson, Tiffany J.
Venue
American Antiquity
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2019-07
Volume
84
Issue
3
Pages
379-399
ISSN
  • 0002-7316
  • 2325-5064
DOI
10.1017/aaq.2019.35
Cited by
55
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified, 23 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review