The Paradox of Gender Equality: Bibliometric Analysis Based on Web of Science (WoS) Data (1994-2025)

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2 , 191 - 205 , 31.03.2026

Fatma Merve Durdağ

https://doi.org/10.16951/trendbusecon.1725640

https://izlik.org/JA57LB29MY

Öz

Gender equality has become an increasingly important issue in terms of social development and welfare. However, some paradoxes related to gender equality complicate progress in this area. The aim of this study is to understand the gender equality paradox and to determine the most influential articles, most productive researchers, prominent journals, countries and universities on the gender equality paradox by conducting a bibliometric analysis of the research conducted in this field. A search for “gender equality and paradox” was conducted in English from the Web of Science database and the data was analyzed. The VOSviewer (1.6.19) program was used in the bibliometric analysis of the data. After a general evaluation of 150 articles published in the WoS database between 1994 and 2025, bibliometric mapping was performed in the field of gender equality using the VOSviewer program using citation analysis, co-citation analysis and common word analysis methods. The research findings show that Van Rejimersdal, Eva A. and Boerman, Sophie C. are the most cited authors and the prominent university is Missouri University. When an evaluation is made in terms of countries, it is seen that the USA, England and Sweden are active in terms of the number of publications. The majority of the studies focus on raising awareness about gender equality, changing gender roles, gender equality in the labor market and combating gender-based discrimination.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gender equality , Gender equality paradox , Gender Studies

Etik Beyan

Since this is a bibliometric study, ethical approval and participant consent were not required.

Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Paradoksu: Web of Science (WoS) Verilerine Dayalı Bibliyometrik Analiz (1994-2025)

https://izlik.org/JA57LB29MY

Öz

Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği, toplumsal gelişim ve refah açısından giderek daha fazla önem kazanan bir konu haline gelmiştir. Ancak, cinsiyet eşitliği ile ilgili yaşanan bazı paradokslar, bu alandaki ilerlemeyi karmaşık hale getirmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği paradoksunu anlamak ve bu alanda yapılan araştırmaların bibliyometrik analizini gerçekleştirerek, cinsiyet eşitliği paradoksu üzerine en etkili makaleleri, en üretken araştırmacıları, öne çıkan dergileri, ülkeleri ve üniversiteleri belirlemektir. Web of Science veri tabanından İngilizce olarak “toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ve paradoks” araması yapılmış ve veriler analiz edilmiştir. Verilerin bibliyometrik analizinde VOSviewer (1.6.19) programından yararlanılmıştır. 1994-2025 yılları arasında WoS veri tabanında yayımlanan 150 makale üzerinden yapılan genel bir değerlendirme sonrası, VOSviewer programı kullanılarak atıf analizi, ortak atıf analizi ve ortak kelime analizi yöntemleriyle cinsiyet eşitliği alanında bibliyometrik haritalama yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları Van Rejimersdal, Eva A. ve Boerman, Sophie C. en çok atıf alınan yazarlar olduğunu ve öne çıkan üniversitenin Missouri University olduğunu göstermektedir. Ülkeler açısından bir değerlendirme yapıldığında ABD, İngiltere ve İsveç’in yayın sayıları itibariyle yayınlarda aktif oldukları görülmektedir. Çalışmaların büyük kısmı, cinsiyet eşitliği ile ilgili farkındalık yaratma, toplumsal cinsiyet rollerinin değişimi, iş gücü piyasasında cinsiyet eşitliği ve toplumsal cinsiyet temelli ayrımcılıkla mücadele konularında yoğunlaşmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği paradoksu , Toplumsal cinsiyet çalışmaları , Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği

Etik Beyan

Bibliyometrik çalışma olduğu için etik kurul ve katılımcı onamına gerek duyulmamıştır.

Kaynakça

• Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5–14. [CrossRef]
• Anaya, E.R., (2023). Exploring the paradox of gender preferred leadership in Kenya: a GLOBE study on gender egalitarianism and women in leadership. Gender in Management, 38(7), 855–876. [CrossRef]
• Balducci, M., Larose, M.-P., Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2024). The gender-equality paradox in intra individual academic strengths: A cross-temporal analysis. Psychological Science, 35(11), 1246–1259. [CrossRef]
• Benatar, D. (2012). The second sexism: discrimination against men and boys. Wiley-Blackwell, (ISBN: 978-0470674512). 304-314.
• Betz, D. E., Ramsey, L. R., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). Gender stereotype threat among women and girls. In M. K. Ryan & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 428–450). SAGE.
• Blackstone, A. (2003). Gender Roles and Society. Pp 335-338 in Human Ecology: An Encyclopedia of Children, Families, Communities, and Environments, edited by Julia R. Miller, Richard M. Lerner, and Lawrence B. Schiamberg. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN I-57607-852-3
• Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(49), 31063–31069. [CrossRef]
• Butler, J., Gambetti, Z., & Sabsay, L. (2016). Vulnerability in Resistance. Duke University Press.
• Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676. [CrossRef]
• Cheryan, S., & Markus, H. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022–1052. [CrossRef]
• Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2005). Understanding affirbaldmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585—611. [CrossRef]
• Cutcher, L., Riach, R., & Tyler, M. (2022). Splintering Organizational Subjectivities: Older Workers and the Dynamics of Recognition, Vulnerability and Resistance. Organization Studies, 43(6), 973–992. [CrossRef]
• De Beauvoir, S. (1953). The second sex. Knopf
• Deshpande, A. (2019). Double Jeopardy? Stigma of Identity and Affirmative Action. The Review of Black Political Economy, 46(1), 38-64. [CrossRef] 
• Dobbin, F., Sutton, j. R., Meyer, J. W and Scott, W. R. (1993) Equal opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 396–427. [CrossRef]
• Dökmen, Z. (2010). Toplumsal cinsiyet: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. Remzi Kitabevi
• Edelman, L. B., & Petterson, S. M. (1999). Symbols and substance in organizational response to civil rights law. In K. T. Leicht (ed.), Research in Social Stratifi cation and Mobility, 17, 107–135. Elsevier.
• England, P., Levine, A., & Mishel, E. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(13), 6990–6997. [CrossRef]
• Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. [CrossRef]
• Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362, Article eaas9899. [CrossRef]
• Fershtman, D., & Pavan, A. (2021). Soft Affirmative Action and Minority Recruitment. American Economic Review: Insights, 3(1), 1–18. [CrossRef]
• Franken, E., Sharafizad, F., & Brown, K. (2024). Gender, vulnerabilities, and how the other becomes the otherer in academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 31(4), 1342–1365[CrossRef]
• Gelpí, R. A., Tang, Y., Jackson, E. C., & Cunningham, W. A. (2025). Social coordination perpetuates stereotypic expectations and behaviors across generations in deep multiagent reinforcement learning. PNAS Nexus, 4(3), pgaf076. [CrossRef]
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. [CrossRef]  
• Hirsh, C. E., & Kornrich, S. (2008). The context of discrimination: workplace conditions, institutional environments, and sex and race discrimination charges. AJS; American Journal of Sociology, 113(5), 1394–1432. [CrossRef]
• Je, J. S., Yang, E. C. L., Khoo, C., & Lockstone-Binney, L. (2025). The effectiveness of gender equality initiatives in hospitality organizations: Exploring the perceptions of organizational actors using critical realism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 128, Article 104150. [CrossRef] 
• Kiausiene, I., Streimikiene, D. (2011). On gender stereotyping and employment asymmetries. Economics & Sociology, 4(2), 84-97. [CrossRef]
• Kucharska, W., & Szeluga-Romańska, M. (2025). How can the double bias of mistakes block organizational intelligence? Gender and position analysis. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 40(4), 531–554. [CrossRef]
• Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15(2), 130–146. [CrossRef].
• Lin, C.‑B., Qi, Z., Chen, Y.‑W., & Sun, Y. (2025). Board gender diversity and organization capital. Finance Research Letters, 79(C), 107-254. [CrossRef]
• Lorber, J. (2018). 15. Paradoxes of Gender Redux: Multiple Genders and the Persistence of the Binary. In J. Messerschmidt, J. Messerschmidt, M. Messner, R. Connell, P. Martin & P. Martin (Ed.), Gender Reckonings: New Social Theory and Research (pp. 297-313). New York University Press. [CrossRef] 
• Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J. (2019). Sex differences in personality are larger in more gender equal countries. International Journal of Psychology, 54(6), 705–711. [CrossRef]
• Machado, C., Reyes, G., & Riehl, E. (2023). The direct and spillover effects of large-scale affirmative action at an elite Brazilian university. Journal of Political Economy, 131(9), 2451–2502. [CrossRef]
• Mann, A.L., & DiPrete, T.A. (2016). The Consequences of the National Math and Science Performance Environment for Gender Differences in STEM Aspiration. Sociological Science, 3, 568-603. [CrossRef]
• Matsuda, Y., Harsel, S., Furusawa, S., Kım, H.S., & Quarles J. (2001). Democratic values and mutual perceptions of human rights in four Pacific Rimnations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4), 405-421. [CrossRef]
• Mihail, D. M. (2006). Women in management: gender stereotypes and students’ attitudes in Greece. Short Paper, Women in Management Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 21(8), 681-689. [CrossRef]
• Noon, M. (2010). The shackled runner: Time to rethink positive discrimination? Work, Employment and Society, 24(4), 728–739. [CrossRef]  
• Parrillo, V. (2005). Contemporary Social Problems (Sixth Edition). U.S.: Pearson Education, Inc. Boston.
• Richardson, S. S., Reiches, M. W., Bruch, J., Boulicault, M., Noll, N. E., & Shattuck-Heidorn, H. (2020). Is There a Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)? Commentary on the Study by Stoet and Geary (2018). Psychological Science, 31(3), 338-341. [CrossRef]
• Santos Silva, M., & Klasen, S. (2021). Gender inequality as a barrier to economic growth: A review of the theoretical literature. Review of Economics of the Household, 19(3), 581–614. [CrossRef]
• Soares, A. M. J., Sampaio, R. M. B., & Sampaio, L. M. B. (2022). Affirmative action in higher education and academic-professional outcomes: A literature review and evidence synthesis for public policy. Open Science Framework. [CrossRef]
• Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1400. [CrossRef]
• Stoet G, Geary DC (2019) A simplified approach to measuring national gender inequality. PLoS ONE 14(1), e0205349. [CrossRef]
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593. [CrossRef]  
• Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using in group experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. [CrossRef]  
• Sunam, R., Pariyar, B., & Shrestha, K. K. (2022). Does affirmative action undermine meritocracy? “Meritocratic inclusion” of the marginalized in Nepal’s bureaucracy. Development Policy Review, 40(1), e12554. [CrossRef]
• Tashfeen, R., Saleem, I., Ashfaq, M., Noreen, U., & Shafiq, M. (2023). How do women on board reduce a firm’s risks to ensure sustainable performance during a crisis? Sustainability, 15(14), 11145. [CrossRef] 
• Türk Dil Kurumu. (2025, September 3). http://www.tdk.gov.tr
• UNESCO. (2019). Digital technologies: an ally for gender equality?, [CrossRef]
• UNESCO. (2019). I’d blush if I could: Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. EQUALS Skills Coalition and UNESCO. [CrossRef]
• United Nations (1975). World conference of the international women’s year 19 June-2 July 1975. Mexico City, Mexico, available at: [CrossRef]
• Van den Brink, M., & Stobbe, L. (2014). The support paradox: Overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 163–174. [CrossRef]
• Van Nunen, K., Li, J., Reniers, G., & Ponnet, K. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Safety Science, 108, 248-258. [CrossRef]
• Veldman, J., Van Laar, C., Meeussen, L., & Lo Bue, S. (2020). Daily Coping with Social Identity Threat in Outgroup-Dominated Contexts: Self-Group Distancing Among Female Soldiers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 118–130. [CrossRef]
• Worku Teshome, S. (2024). A systematic review of the nature and use of affirmative action in higher education. Italıan Journal of Educatıonal Research, (33), 047–057. [CrossRef]