 Robert K. Merton |  Margaret W. Rossiter |
Referring to a biblical phrase found in the New Testament book of Matthew, Robert K. Merton speaks to a halo effect on successful scientists, and a reciprocal barrier to scientific initiates. Margaret W. Rossiter argues Merton puts too much emphasis on the positive side of the equation, the haves, while neglecting an understanding of those who are often overlooked, the have-nots.
The so-called Matthew effect describes a social and psychological base for a reward and communications system based on the biblical quote, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." A kind of hierarchy forms in the scientific community. The worth of a scientific career is peer-adjudged based on metrics such as the quantity of publications, citations of one’s papers by others, and the value placed on the school or laboratory a scientist is associated with. In a sort of reciprocal measurement, works by scientists of rank are peer-adjudged higher based on the perceived rank of the author or co-author.
The opposite is also true in that works of lesser known scientists that may be of equal, or even higher quality, as compared with works created by ranking scientists are overlooked by many involved in peer review. Merton points out that recognized scientists understand this happens so they often try to place others in a more prominent co-author position in a paper, or even leave out their own names altogether. They do this in order to help newer associates gain rank. Despite the good intention, it is often true that the lesser ranked co-authors are overlooked, and the ranked author acknowledged. Even when the ranked author chooses to not be listed as a co-author, when it is known that the others are associated with the scientist of rank, the halo effect still encourages peers to give credit to the well-known name because the others are known to be linked to them.
Rossiter renamed the negative portion of the Matthew effect as the Matilda effect after Matilda Joslyn Gage. She did this because of the experience Gage had that reflects the effect. It is Rossiter’s contention that Merton spent too much of his explanation of the Matthew effect on ranked scientists, how the halo effect works, and how the haves attempt to help the have-nots. Rossiter prefers to speak to the negative impact on the have-nots, especially women contributors.
Pointing to a number of historical examples in which women were either primary author, or a significant co-author and simultaneously ignored, Rossiter demonstrates how women have a double hurtle to overcome. Along with the barriers identified by Merton, women have the additional challenge of overcoming sexism. In fact, in several places in his paper Merton refers to the work of Harriet Zuckerman who created the data his paper is based on. Rossiter chides Merton for not identifying Zuckerman as a co-author which he later agreed he should have done.
Rossiter also points out that Merton may have been making a supportive case of the Matthew effect as functional, and suggested lesser-known scientists might learn how to take advantage of the system.
Rossiter does admit there are some women scientists who have been noted by peers as a ranking member of the scientific society, but she argues these to be exceptions. She also points out how the women of note had to achieve recognition by more overwhelming accomplishment to rise in the scientific annals than their male counterparts. The negative impact seems even higher on collaborating women when they are married to the ‘main’ (male) author. For example it can be noted that Zuckerman was a student of Merton and they eventually married.
The Matthew statement taken from the Bible does not match in context with the Matthew effect based on the phrase. Despite that, the positive lift given to some, and the artificial barriers imposed on others, seem supported by the arguments of both Merton and Rossiter.
The so-called Matthew effect describes a social and psychological base for a reward and communications system based on the biblical quote, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." A kind of hierarchy forms in the scientific community. The worth of a scientific career is peer-adjudged based on metrics such as the quantity of publications, citations of one’s papers by others, and the value placed on the school or laboratory a scientist is associated with. In a sort of reciprocal measurement, works by scientists of rank are peer-adjudged higher based on the perceived rank of the author or co-author.
The opposite is also true in that works of lesser known scientists that may be of equal, or even higher quality, as compared with works created by ranking scientists are overlooked by many involved in peer review. Merton points out that recognized scientists understand this happens so they often try to place others in a more prominent co-author position in a paper, or even leave out their own names altogether. They do this in order to help newer associates gain rank. Despite the good intention, it is often true that the lesser ranked co-authors are overlooked, and the ranked author acknowledged. Even when the ranked author chooses to not be listed as a co-author, when it is known that the others are associated with the scientist of rank, the halo effect still encourages peers to give credit to the well-known name because the others are known to be linked to them.
Rossiter renamed the negative portion of the Matthew effect as the Matilda effect after Matilda Joslyn Gage. She did this because of the experience Gage had that reflects the effect. It is Rossiter’s contention that Merton spent too much of his explanation of the Matthew effect on ranked scientists, how the halo effect works, and how the haves attempt to help the have-nots. Rossiter prefers to speak to the negative impact on the have-nots, especially women contributors.
Pointing to a number of historical examples in which women were either primary author, or a significant co-author and simultaneously ignored, Rossiter demonstrates how women have a double hurtle to overcome. Along with the barriers identified by Merton, women have the additional challenge of overcoming sexism. In fact, in several places in his paper Merton refers to the work of Harriet Zuckerman who created the data his paper is based on. Rossiter chides Merton for not identifying Zuckerman as a co-author which he later agreed he should have done.
Rossiter also points out that Merton may have been making a supportive case of the Matthew effect as functional, and suggested lesser-known scientists might learn how to take advantage of the system.
Rossiter does admit there are some women scientists who have been noted by peers as a ranking member of the scientific society, but she argues these to be exceptions. She also points out how the women of note had to achieve recognition by more overwhelming accomplishment to rise in the scientific annals than their male counterparts. The negative impact seems even higher on collaborating women when they are married to the ‘main’ (male) author. For example it can be noted that Zuckerman was a student of Merton and they eventually married.
The Matthew statement taken from the Bible does not match in context with the Matthew effect based on the phrase. Despite that, the positive lift given to some, and the artificial barriers imposed on others, seem supported by the arguments of both Merton and Rossiter.
|
| ||||
RSS Feed