Southeastern Archaeology
ISSN: 0734-578X (Print) 2168-4723 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysea20
Sociopolitics in Southeastern Archaeology: The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship
Dana N. Bardolph & Amber M. Vanderwarker
To cite this article: Dana N. Bardolph & Amber M. Vanderwarker (2016) Sociopolitics in Southeastern Archaeology: The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship, Southeastern Archaeology, 35:3, 175-193, DOI: 10.1080/0734578X.2015.1113101 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2015.1113101
Published online: 07 Feb 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 942
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysea20 SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY: THE ROLE OF GENDER IN SCHOLARLY AUTHORSHIP
DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
We explore the relationship between gender, authorship, and editorship in conference presentations and publi- cations as a lens to examine current disciplinary sociopolitics and the relative contributions of men and women to southeastern archaeological research. We also report on the results of a survey on publishing trends in southeast- ern archaeology that we circulated to the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) membership in March . The evaluation of publishing trends serves as a means to investigate academic merit and visibility, along with the production and validation of knowledge in southeastern archaeology. We document a strong gender imbal- ance in publication rates across a range of publication venues, including regional journals, state archaeology jour- nals, and edited volumes, despite growing numbers of women presenting research at SEAC meetings. We discuss possible reasons for these gender disparities based on survey response data from members of the SEAC community. Despite a current culture and context of women’s advancement in southeastern archaeology, many challenges and obstacles remain.
KEYWORDS: Gender equity, Southeastern archaeology, Publication, Sociopolitics, Women in science
There has been a recent resurgence of interest in the and grand synthesizers, and women were often rele- many ways in which gender politics (and often out- gated to what some have perceived as less-desirable right discrimination) affect the archaeological com- subfields, including as laboratory specialists (e.g., munity (e.g., Bardolph ; Baxter ; Claassen ; Clarke ; Gero , ; Burkholder ; Hutson ; Levy ; Gifford-Gonzales ; Moser ). Meyers et al. ; Sullivan ; Wright ), In this paper, we consider gendered trends in as well as the broader academy (e.g., Ceci et al. conference presentations and publications to ; Clancy et al. ; Clauset et al. ; Fox explore another source of unevenness affecting and Colatrella ; Hutchinson and Jenkins the southeastern archaeological community ; Larivière et al. ; Sax et al. ; (sensu Bardolph ). Specifically, we analyze Symonds et al. ; West and Curtis ; West gendered patterns of participation at the South- et al. ; Wolverton et al. ). While women eastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) as in the United States have made great strides in well as publication in regional and state archaeol- establishing parity with their male counterparts in ogy journals and edited volumes pertaining to educational attainment, discrepancies remain with southeastern archaeology from to .It respect to academic hiring practices, promotion, has been over years since Claassen et al. grant-funding success, fieldwork opportunities, () treated this same topic; thus, this issue is and other general advancement opportunities for ripe for reappraisal. Our findings indicate a con- women in archaeology and other disciplines nation- tinued discrepancy between the representation of wide. These issues certainly impact the southeastern men’s work and women’s work in the broader archaeological community, which has both a repu- southeastern literature. We go a step beyond doc- tation of being a “male-dominated group” (Claas- umenting gendered trends in presentation and sen et al. :) and a long history where publication, however, and report on the results women’s contributions largely have gone under- of a survey on publishing trends in southeastern recognized (White et al. ). The underrepresen- archaeology that we circulated to the SEAC mem- tation of women’s contributions is embedded bership in March . The purpose of our paper within a larger history of American archaeology is thus twofold: () we explore differential patterns in which men emerged as leading field investigators of men and women’s spoken and published work,
© Southeastern Archaeological Conference DOI: ./X.. Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER to consider who has dominant control over situation that has not changed since the s current southeastern archaeological narratives; (Curtis ). With respect to scholarly pro- and () we discuss possible reasons for the discre- ductivity, recent studies have shown that women pancies noted, based on response data from account for less than percent of all authors of members of the practicing southeastern archaeolo- scientific publications worldwide (Larivière et al. gical community. Overall, we conclude that ; West et al. ). Bardolph’s() analy- despite a current culture and context of women’s sis of over , peer-reviewed journal articles advancement in southeastern archaeology, many and reports from archaeology journals (broad challenges and obstacles remain. and regional in scope, including Southeastern Archaeology) from to , revealed that only percent of papers have women as the ABRIEF HISTORY OF SOCIOPOLITICAL RESEARCH lead author (for similar rates documented in Over the past few decades, a large body of litera- earlier studies, see Beaudry and White []; ture has been devoted to exploring the ways in Claassen et al. []; Victor and Beaudry which gender politics affect archaeological prac- []). Bibliometric studies of citation practices tice (e.g., Beaudry and White ; Claassen (Hutson ; Larivière et al. ; Maliniak , ; Conkey ; du Cros and Smith et al. ; McElhinney et al. ) have shown ; Gero , ; Hutson ; Moser that in most scientific fields, articles written by ; Nelson et al. ; Stark et al. ; women are consistently cited less frequently than Tomaskova ; Victor and Beaudry ; articles written by men. Examining Southeastern Wright ; Zeder ; for recent summaries, Archaeology specifically, Hutson (:) see Bardolph []; Moser []). As Wylie revealed that men cite women significantly less (:) observed, studies on the demography, than women cite women (a trend witnessed in funding sources, training, and employment pat- other archaeology journals; see also Beaudry and terns of male and female archaeologists constitute White []). “some of the most fine-grained and empirically In this paper, we extend the analysis of south- rich work” conducted on disciplinary culture and eastern literature beyond the journal Southeastern sociopolitics. Feminist researchers in archaeology, Archaeology to include conference presentations, particularly in the s and s, documented a other regional and state-level archaeology journals number of troubling trends with respect to in which southeastern archaeologists typically women’s participation in the discipline. They publish, and chapters in edited volumes encom- found that while women appeared to be gaining passing southeastern research, to critically gender equity on a number of fronts, including examine the presence and visibility of women’s admission to and completion of graduate pro- work. We also report on the results of our grams (Zeder :), women were not being survey on publishing trends circulated to the hired in academia in proportion to their represen- SEAC membership in March . We consider tation among Ph.D. recipients (Hutson ; publication to be a useful lens for examining Stark et al. ), and overall, women continued gender equity in southeastern archaeology for a to be hampered by lower funding success, lower few reasons—publishing is significant for scho- levels of job satisfaction and security, and lower larly visibility, along with getting jobs, tenure, levels of scholarly productivity. grants, promotion, and awards, but it also These issues are not unique to archaeology; reveals the social milieu of knowledge production. recent studies document similar discrepancies Publication also reflects the output of a large within the broader academy. Within the United subset of the practicing southeastern archaeologi- States, after decades of high female enrollment in cal community, namely, academics. Indeed, aca- most Ph.D. fields, practices of academic insti- demics comprise nearly percent of SEAC tutions continue to systematically favor men members (Table ). Granted, not every southeast- (Ceci and Williams ; Clauset et al. ). ern archaeologist is a member of SEAC, but as the Indeed, women occupy only percent of full-time largest regional conference in the United States, faculty positions in all academic disciplines and with nearly , members (individual, life, hold less than one-quarter of full professorships joint, and student) working in a variety of settings, (West and Curtis ), take more time to get pro- including colleges and universities, government moted than men (Misra et al. ), and still earn agencies, museums, and the private sector, we only cents to every dollar earned by men, a believe that SEAC is a good proxy for evaluating
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY
TABLE CURRENT EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS FOR two regional journals (Southeastern Archaeology SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGISTS (BASED ON SEAC and Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology), MEMBERSHIP DATA COLLECTED IN ). state archaeology journals from midwestern and southeastern states, and edited volumes that N % have a primary focus on southeastern archaeologi- Academia . cal research. Spanning the years –, our Cultural Resource Management . data encompass over , conference presenta- Government . tions, articles, reports, and book chapters. Follow- Museum . ing methods outlined in Bardolph ( ),we Nonarchaeology private sector . collected data on the gender of the lead author for each conference paper and publication docu- Archaeology nonprofit organization . mented in this study (contributing authors and Other . authors of book reviews, comments, and obitu- Unknown . aries were omitted from this study), as well as all Total individuals who served as editors, either of jour- nals or books. We determined the gender of indi- viduals based on first name; if names were the makeup of the practicing community. We ambiguous, we classified them based on familiarity acknowledge that there are myriad other equity with the individual in question or from depart- issues facing those working in Cultural Resource mental or personal webpages. We recognize that Management (CRM), government, preservation, we are actually identifying the presumed sex of and business sectors, whose differing job require- these individuals and not necessarily their ments, expectations, and reward structures may genders—it is possible that a few authors may not place an emphasis on publishing as a have been incorrectly categorized because their measure of success. We place our emphasis on names do not accurately reflect their genders. We publication data based on what they reveal assume those potential instances to be limited, about research climate and the social relations of however, and unlikely to affect the overall trends knowledge production—those who publish shape that we discuss in this paper. the theoretical landscape of our discipline, put We note that there are likely many publications forth topics that archaeologists see as interesting in our sample with multiple authors with mixed or important, present ideas that shape future gender representation. We focus our data collec- research, spur debates, and lead to paradigm tion on lead authors for two reasons, with some shifts. Thus, we argue that publication data basic assumptions: () the lead author represents provide critical insight into current sociopolitics the individual responsible for doing most of the in the southeastern archaeological community, research and writing for a given study; and () while recognizing a need for further studies the position of lead author is the most prestigious focused on other subsets of practicing archaeolo- in terms of how studies are perceived by fellow gists. We also acknowledge that gender is only practitioners, as well as how publications are eval- one of many intersectional factors that shape disci- uated for job opportunities, tenure, and pro- plinary culture and research climate. While con- motion. We also recognize that there are many siderations of race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality practicing archaeologists who work as private would make for a fully robust evaluation of contract-based consultants whose main contri- gender equity in southeastern archaeology, we butions are only accessible via gray literature. leave those issues aside as they are less accessible Thus, our assessment of gendered publication from publication data alone. rates is biased primarily (although not exclusively) towards southeastern archaeologists who are aca- demics and regularly publish in the broader aca- THE PUBLICATION DATA demic literature. Our two primary datasets include: () the publi- cation data; and () the survey response data. We begin our discussion by focusing first on pub- SEAC MEETING PARTICIPATION AND PUBLICATION lication data. Our publication dataset includes We set the stage for evaluating gendered publish- information collected on gender, authorship, and ing trends by examining the makeup of the south- editorship from SEAC conference proceedings, eastern archaeological community. SEAC
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER membership serves as a good baseline for estab- lishing who is currently conducting southeastern research. Membership rates have remained fairly constant since , close to percent male and percent female (Supplemental Document ; see also Levy []). Of these members, we were curious to examine who was actively dissemi- nating their research through presentations at SEAC, so we quantified the number of men and women that served as lead authors on conference papers or posters from to the present meeting. In an earlier study, Claassen et al. () examined SEAC meeting data from to ; of a total of conferences papers and posters presented over years (they sampled every other year in their study), percent were lead-authored by men and percent were lead-authored by women. Data from to reveal that of a total of nearly , confer- ence papers, percent were lead-authored by men and percent were lead-authored by women. The proportion of women presenting at SEAC meetings, while still less than men, has stea- dily risen, since Claassen et al.’s() examin- ation and throughout our study period since (Supplemental Document ). Thus, the gender gap may be slowly narrowing in terms of FIGURE . Box plots of female-to-male ratios of SEAC mem- who is presenting research at the regional confer- bership, participation in SEAC meeting, and publication in ence. However, Claassen et al. ( ) reported Southeastern Archaeology (–). that more men and fewer women were presenting papers than would be expected given their mem- bership ratios. To examine this trend in our women and men). We also include a perfect study sample, we compare female-to-male (F:M) parity line in our box plots, where the F:M ratio ratios of society members to presenters from equals .. Data points that fall on the perfect to using a box plot (Figure ). parity line indicate an equal number of men and Although the use of box plots is increasingly women represented in a particular category common in archaeology, a description of this (SEAC membership, conference presentations, type of visual aid nevertheless bears repeating. publications, etc.) in a given year. Box plots display distributions of data using A comparison of SEAC member data to confer- several key features (Cleveland ; McGill ence presentation data reveals that lower numbers et al. ; Wilkinson et al. ). The hinges of of women are presenting at SEAC meetings com- the box represent the middle percent of the pared to their representation in the society, data, while lines, or whiskers, extending from the although this difference is not statistically signifi- box on either end represent the remaining top cant (see Figure ). The narrow hinge spread in and bottom percent of the distribution (outliers the box plot of membership ratios (i.e., the par- are depicted as asterisks). Notched box plots allow ticularly constricted hourglass in the box) indi- for significance testing; if the notched areas of any cates little variation year-to-year in the number two boxes do not overlap, then the two distri- of female members in the society, compared to butions are statistically different at the . level. lower presentation rates at the annual meetings To calculate F:M ratios, we divided the number by women. All of the data represented in the box of females by the number of males for a given cat- plots fall below the perfect parity line, indicating egory per year (e.g., female and male members of that between and , there was not a SEAC, or the number of articles and reports pub- single year in which women were represented in lished in Southeastern Archaeology written by the society or presenting conference papers or
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY posters in an equal proportion to men. We also with rising numbers of women actively conduct- examine the proportion of women involved in ing and presenting research on southeastern organizing symposia, as well as those serving dis- archaeology, we might expect a proportional cussant roles (see Figure ; see also Baires and rise in female publications (often starting at the Henry []). A comparison of F:M ratios of graduate level, as it is increasingly necessary for symposia organizers with discussants between young scholars to have publications before enter- and reveals two interesting trends: () ing the competitive academic job market). An women organized symposia and served as discus- evaluation of publishing trends in the society’s sants at a much lower rate than men, with the journal does not support our expectation of a majority of data points in both categories falling relative increase in female-authored publications. well below the perfect parity line; and ()if Publications in Southeastern Archaeology women were involved in those roles, significantly remain heavily male-dominated, and although more women served as organizers than they did there is variation throughout the study period, as discussants. As Claassen et al. (:) have the majority of volumes since have been noted, symposium data can reveal a lot about the skewed toward male lead-authors (Table ). sociopolitics of knowledge dissemination and vali- Despite growing numbers of women participating dation in archaeology. Symposia discussants are in the SEAC meetings, women do not appear to invited because they are perceived experts or auth- be making the push from presenting to publishing orities on a given topic; thus, this aspect of SEAC as often as men. Indeed, a comparison of F:M meetings remains male-dominated, even when ratios reveals that women publish in the society themes of symposia deemed worthy of exploring journal at significantly lower rates than they are constructed by women. present at the meetings, which, as discussed We also compare conference presentation rates above, already stands at a lower rate in pro- to publication rates in the society’s journal, portion to their society membership (see Southeastern Archaeology, as this journal rep- Figure ). resents a major outlet for the dissemination of We also considered the issue of repeat authors, southeastern research. Conference papers often and quantified the number of men and women serve as stepping-stones for publications, and who published two or more articles in
TABLE FEMALE AND MALE PUBLISHING TRENDS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY (–) AND MIDCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY (–). Southeastern Archaeology Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Female Male Female Male n % n % n % n % .... .... .... .... ... . .... .... .... .... .... .... ... . .... .... Total . .. .
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER
Southeastern Archaeology from to . publication venue for female archaeologists, who Of a total of articles and reports published are poorly represented in the larger regional jour- within that timeframe, percent were published nals. Published by smaller society organizations, by repeat male authors (i.e., the same individuals we assume that state-level archaeology journals publishing multiple times), in contrast to generally have less competitive acceptance rates percent that were published by repeat female than larger regional journals, and that opportu- authors. This difference in repeated publications nities to publish in them may be more available between genders is statistically significant (χ = to nonacademic archaeologists (e.g., CRM archae- .; α <.); in the case of Southeastern Archae- ologists), although data are needed to substantiate ology, men are more likely to be prolific authors this claim. than women. We compiled mean F:M ratios of publications between and by leading state journal OTHER PUBLICATION VENUES for states in the greater southeastern/midwes- tern region (see Table ). Although these ratios We broaden our analysis beyond Southeastern do not capture the variation from year to year Archaeology to consider other venues in which for each journal, they generate cumulative southeastern and midwestern researchers typically trends. An F:M ratio of . would indicate that publish, including Midcontinental Journal of men and women were represented in equal rates Archaeology (MCJA) (Table ) and state archaeol- across the study sample; none of the state journals ogy journals (Table ). An examination of gen- approach that measure of parity. dered publishing trends in MCJA from to Overall, there were very few years between reveals that, with the exception of and in which women and men published an and , most volumes are heavily skewed equal number of studies in either regional or state towards male publications, including two years journals, with the majority of volumes falling well in which no articles or reports were lead-authored below parity (Supplemental Document ). To by women (see Table ). We also consider data explore another potential publishing outlet, we from state archaeology journals (see Table ). consider authorship (and editorship) in edited Initially, we began our review of state journals volumes. We compiled data from edited hypothesizing that they would display greater volumes published from to whose parity given that they might represent an alternate topics and contributions primarily encompass southeastern archaeological research. Selected TABLE COMPOSITE VIEW OF MEAN FEMALE-TO-MALE from a broader review of academic and university PUBLICATION RATIOS FOR STATE ARCHAEOLOGY JOURNALS – presses, the edited volumes we consider come from ( ). a total of seven university presses and a large aca- Journal Mean F/M demic press (Springer Science + Business Media) ratio that published southeastern research from to (Table ). Of a total of individuals Louisiana Archaeology . that served as editors on these volumes, The Arkansas Archaeologist . percent were men and percent were women. Archaeological Society of Virginia . Of a total of book chapters, percent were Quarterly Bulletin lead-authored by men, and percent were The Missouri Archaeologist . lead-authored by women. Thus, of the volumes Tennessee Archaeology . we examined, men were represented more fre- North Carolina Archaeology . quently as both editors and as authors overall. Early Georgia . We also consider the relationship between editor- South Carolina . ship and authorship, to explore whether the Journal of Kentucky Archaeologya . gender of the volume editor had any bearing on the gender of contributing authors. A two-sample Florida Anthropologist . t-test of F:M ratios of editors and authors revealed Illinois Archaeology . that more book chapters lead-authored by women The Mississippi Archaeologist . were published in volumes that had at least one The Arkansas Archaeologist . female editor than those volumes edited solely by aPreviously the Published Proceedings of the Annual males, and this difference was highly significant Kentucky Heritage Council Archaeology Conference. (t = −.; p-value = .; df = ).
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY
TABLE SUMMARY EDITORIAL AND PUBLISHING STATISTICS FOR MEN AND WOMEN IN SOUTHEASTERN EDITED VOLUMES (– ). Press Relevant Male Female F:M ratio Male Female F:M ratio volumes, n editors, n editors, n editors authors, n authors, n authors University of . . Alabama Press University Press of . . Florida University of . . Illinois Press Louisiana State . . University Press University Press of . . Mississippi University of . . Nebraska Press University of . . Tennessee Press Springer Science + . . Business Media Total
Comparing gendered publication ratios in edited proposals nearly twice as frequently as senior volumes to journals, we found no substantive differ- females, although award rates are essentially iden- ence between the two types of publishing venues tical. To determine whether a similar submission (Supplemental Document ). Of the , journal bias is occurring in the southeastern community, articles and book chapters analyzed for this study, and to explore other potential factors for the only percent were lead-authored by women. gender discrepancies in publication, we turn to These data indicate that despite the number of the second major dataset we include in this women actively doing research in southeastern study, the SEAC member survey. archaeology, with growing numbers of women par- ticipating in the annual meetings, women continue THE SURVEY RESPONSE DATA to lag behind men in publishing their research. Having established differential productivity In order to understand some of the reasons for the rates between men and women, we next consider large gender disparities in publishing discussed in possible causes. It is important to note that the this paper, we designed a survey to better under- data on gender and authorship do not necessarily stand authorial behavior (i.e., what factors contrib- reflect discrimination (conscious or unconscious) ute to decisions about manuscript submission and on the part of editors or reviewers. Some small publication rates among southeastern archaeolo- studies by journal editors of American Antiquity gists). Our goal was to solicit feedback from (Rautman ) and Historical Archaeology SEAC members in all job settings (students, aca- (Beaudry ) reveal that women submit manu- demics, CRM, government, museum, etc.), includ- scripts (and return them if accepted pending revi- ing those who have never published research or do sions) at a much lower rate than men, despite not publish regularly. We designed a survey with nearly identical acceptance/rejection rates. A questions (some of which had subsidiary ques- similar submission bias has been noted recently tions), which covered demographic information, for National Science Foundation (NSF) archaeol- conference presentation rates, journal submission ogy research grant proposals; Society for Ameri- and publication rates, resubmission patterns, can Archaeology (SAA) annual meeting forums hypothetical publication strategies, and limiting in and have addressed the fact that factors on writing/producing manuscripts. Follow- senior (i.e., post-Ph.D.) male PIs submit NSF ing approval from the SEAC board and beta-testing
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER with members of the University of California, Santa museums, and finally retirees (Table ). Examining Barbara Anthropology Department, we dissemi- subsets of the survey population, equal pro- nated the survey to the SEAC membership via the portions of male and female graduate students online survey platform SurveyMonkey. In total, responded; of the respondents that identified we received responses, percent of the total themselves as graduate students, percent were membership in , representing a ± percent male (n = ) and percent were female (n = statistical margin of error. For the purpose of this ). Of all of the men that responded to the paper and due to space constraints, we focus on survey, percent (n = ) reported Ph.D. as responses to survey questions that demonstrated their highest education level, and of all of the clear gender differences. In some cases, we women that responded, percent (n = ) present data from a subset of the survey pool reported Ph.D. as their highest education level. (e.g., graduate students, or academics with Ph.D. Of those individuals with Ph.D.s that listed aca- s) if patterns were particularly telling for these demic positions, however (a total of individ- groups. Otherwise, we report our responses for uals), only percent were women (n = ), in the entire sample. As each respondent did not contrast to percent men (n = ). These data necessarily answer every question, we use percen- indicate that women are not being hired in aca- tages rather than counts in our displays of data. demic positions in the same proportion that they We ran chi-square (χ ) tests for the majority of are receiving advanced degrees, a trend noted in the responses and report results that were statisti- the late s by other researchers for the archae- cally significant at the . level. We recognize that ology profession at large (Hutson ; Stark there are issues of validity with self-reporting in et al. ; Zeder ), and one that appears this type of survey questionnaire; it is possible to be continuing (see Sullivan []). As full-time, that some responses were understated, exagger- tenure-track hiring has declined steadily over the ated, or approximated. However, when construct- past several years (and likely will continue to do ing the survey, we made every attempt to avoid so), there may be even less opportunity for leading questions, created opportunities for women (and men) to secure employment as pro- respondents to expand upon their replies, and fessional academic archaeologists, which may assured confidentiality in order to minimize val- have implications for future publication trends. idity issues with self-reporting as much as possible. Further interesting demographic trends emerged from our sample. With regards to marital status, while large differences did not emerge between DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS genders across the entire sample, far fewer Of the total respondents, percent of the respon- female graduate students reported being married dents were women (n = ), and percent were or partnered than their male counterparts— men (n = ). As discussed above, SEAC mem- percent of female graduate students reported bership is approximately percent male and being married/partnered, in contrast to percent female, so slightly fewer women percent of male graduate students that were responded given their membership rate. An inter- married/partnered. And while the majority of esting caveat to consider is that it is possible that graduate students do not have dependents, for those who do not publish regularly (or do not per- those that do, far fewer women reported having ceive themselves to be publishing regularly) are dependents ( percent of women listed having less likely to take a survey about publication strat- dependents vs. percent of men). This particular egies than those who do, which may be one poss- consideration of graduate student life is note- ible reason why there were fewer female worthy, in that it might reflect a broader tendency respondents. Ages of survey respondents ranged for women to wait to get married and have chil- from to years. Ninety-six percent of the dren when pursuing higher education (particularly survey population described their racial/ethnic a Ph.D.), one of many broader structural con- heritage as white (less than percent of the mem- straints of gender that have historically impacted bership identified as either American Indian or women’s careers. Latino/Chicano, with the remainder reporting as With regard to annual income, an interesting other), an equity issue that we cannot elaborate gendered pattern emerged amongst academics upon here. The majority of our respondents were with a Ph.D. While the annual income of both academics, followed by those employed in women and men peaks between $ and ,, private CRM firms, government agencies, and the $, + salary range is dominated by men
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY
TABLE CURRENT EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS AND BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGISTS (BASED ON SURVEY RESPONSE DATA FROM MARCH ). Employment setting n % Academics Private CRM firm Government Museum Retired Other Total
Female Male n % n % Annual incomea $,–, .. $,–, .. $,–, .. $,–, .. $,+ .. Not reported .. Academic positiona Adjunct/lecturer/visiting .. Assistant professor .. Associate professor .. Full professor .. Emeritus/a .. Postdoctoral researcher .. Research staff .. Other .. aThese data reported only for academics with Ph.D.s
(see Table ). This pattern is likely related to aca- males continue to dominate senior faculty pos- demic rank (see Table ); the survey response data itions (and mentoring roles), likely have a large indicate that women peak at the Associate Pro- impact on the publication trends we document in fessor rank ( percent of females vs. percent this paper. of males), whereas men peak at the Full Professor To further explore reasons for the gendered pub- rank ( percent of males vs. percent of lishing disparities, we turn to a discussion of sub- females), and this difference is statistically signifi- mission and publication rates based on responses cant (χ = .; α <.). There are also no female from our survey sample. Authorial behavior, emerita faculty members in our sample. Although rather than overt editorial or reviewer bias, may demographics appear to be shifting towards be affecting gendered publishing rates in the south- greater parity in lower academic ranks (our data eastern archaeological community. Data on sub- show a fairly even gender representation for assist- mission and acceptance/rejection rates, which ant professors, adjuncts, research staff, etc. [see generally are not collected, retained, or made Table ]), the proportions of women at the full public by journal editors, are needed to test this professor rank remain limited (a trend documen- issue. We thus asked survey respondents to ted more broadly in the academy, see Fox and report: () the number of manuscripts they sub- Colatrella []; Misra et al. []). These mitted; and () the number of manuscripts they older structuring principles of the field, in which published as lead author, both annually and
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER cumulatively since . To assess trends docu- sample, the survey data indicate that women mented in the publication dataset above, we tend to submit fewer manuscripts than men queried SEAC members about their submission (Figure ). Forty-nine percent of all female respon- to and publication in Southeastern Archaeology dents reported submitting no publications per and state archaeology journals, along with year. Approximately percent of all women in general submission tactics and trends. We the sample submit one or two manuscripts per present these data in the sections below. year, and none have submitted more than five manuscripts per year. Men, on the other hand, GENERAL ANNUAL SUBMISSION AND PUBLICATION RATES tend to submit manuscripts more regularly (see Graduate students reported low annual sub- Figure ). Only percent of all male respondents reported no submissions per year (versus mission rates overall; the majority reported submitting either no manuscripts on an annual percent of women) and percent of males basis or no more than two (Figure ). Regardless reported submitting at least one or two manu- scripts per year. This difference in submission is of gender, male and female graduate students fi χ α appear to be submitting and publishing at the highly signi cant ( = . , <. ). If men and same rate (i.e., if they submit manuscripts in the women submit, then they are likely to get pub- first place, then they do tend to get published). lished; thus, a major issue appears to lie in lower Academics with a Ph.D. peak at one to two initial submission rates by women. annual submissions and publications, with fairly comparable rates of both (Figure ). However, SUBMISSION AND PUBLICATION SINCE more women with a Ph.D. reported no annual sub- Turning to Southeastern Archaeology specifically, missions than men with a Ph.D., and no women we note an interesting finding regarding reported five plus submissions. Across the entire
FIGURE . Bar charts of annual submission/publication rates FIGURE . Bar charts of annual submission/publication rates reported by survey respondents (graduate students). reported by survey respondents (academics with a Ph.D.).
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY
percent of men), and more men reported submit- ting + publications than women ( percent of men vs. percent of women) (Supplemental Document ). Regarding the number of manu- scripts actually published since , no clear gender difference was observed until seven or more publications; in this range, women peak at seven or eight publications vs. an + publication peak for men, and this difference is statistically sig- nificant (χ = .; α <.). For the entire sample, we note this submission problem again; percent of women reported not submitting any manu- scripts since (Supplemental Document ). If women do submit manuscripts, then they peak at one or two publications vs. higher numbers (three or four, five or six, etc. publications) for men, with a statistically significant difference (χ = .; α <.). A significant difference was also noted between the seven to eight vs. + publi- cations for women and men, respectively (χ = .; α <.), a pattern also witnessed for the sub- group of academics with a Ph.D. We also surveyed members about their publi- cation in edited volumes. Fewer women reported publishing in edited volumes since than men. In our survey sample, percent of women have not published in any edited volumes since , vs. percent of men, a difference that is statistically significant (χ = .; α <.). This FIGURE . Bar charts of annual submission/publication rates reported by survey respondents (entire sample). trend is interesting in that volume editors typically invite colleagues to contribute (rather than relying on blind submissions), and women are still less submission trends: since , more female represented than men in this venue. respondents (percentage relative to total female respondents) reported submitting manuscripts to the journal than males. However, these females REVISE AND RESUBMIT TACTICS AND OTHER PUBLICATION actually reported slightly lower publication rates STRATEGIES than their male counterparts (although this differ- To gain further perspective on authorial behavior, ence is not statistically significant) (Supplemental we surveyed the membership about decisions to Document ). With regards to state archaeology revise and resubmit manuscripts. Among aca- journals, more men have submitted to state jour- demics with a Ph.D., more men than women nals since ( percent vs. percent of reported that they always revise and resubmit to women) (Supplemental Document ). As we note the same venue if asked to do so after the first with respect to general annual publications round of review (with a close to significant differ- above, it appears that if people submit to state ence), and some women reported that they rarely journals, then they are likely to get published, revised and resubmitted to the same venue, regardless of gender. The lower initial submission whereas no men reported this behavior issue is likely why more male-authored publi- (Figure ). Across the entire sample, looking cations are witnessed in state journals. Further specifically at women, for those who have had a patterns emerge when submission to and publi- manuscript rejected, more women reported only cation in any and all academic journals are con- occasionally or rarely resubmitting to a different sidered. For academics with a Ph.D., more venue, rather than always or frequently resubmit- women reported submitting no publications since ting, suggesting that more women than men than men ( percent of women vs. discard a manuscript after its rejection (see
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER
FIGURE . Bar charts of revise and resubmit tactics reported by survey respondents.
Figure ). Overall, it appears that higher numbers FIGURE . Bar charts of two hypothetical publication strat- of men are revising and resubmitting, either to the egies reported by survey respondents (entire sample). same venue if asked to, or to a different venue if rejected, than women. We also queried the membership about two general, what is your publication strategy?” hypothetical publication strategies (Figure ). There were several possible responses, including: Our first scenario asks: “You have found an inter- () publish on each site independently, followed esting pattern in your data that might be bolstered by a broader comparative article; () publish one by a secondary dataset that you have not yet ana- major article that includes all datasets; and () lyzed. In general, what is your publication strat- open-ended response for other strategies that a egy?” Our expectation was that more women respondent might employ. As with the scenario would defer publication until the secondary above, our expectation was that that men would dataset was fully analyzed. The survey results, seek to garner more publications than women, however, indicate the opposite trend; across our choosing the first response in greater proportions. entire sample, more men than women reported However, the survey results indicate that more that (hypothetically) they would defer writing women than men reported that they would until analysis of the secondary dataset was com- publish on each site independently, followed by a plete over the alternative strategy of submitting a broader comparative article (n = articles), preliminary article on the first dataset. Our rather than publish one major article that includes second hypothetical scenario asks: “You have full all datasets—this difference was statistically sig- access to datasets from three different sites. In nificant (χ = .; α <.). These results are
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY curious, because if indeed female authors are indicated that some of these administrative duties enacting the strategies that they report for these corresponded with the duties of department two scenarios (more often than male authors), chairs, senior-level positions in CRM firms, or then we would expect women to generate higher other director responsibilities. More women than numbers of publications in relation to their male men reported having a paid position that does counterparts. As we see from the data presented not prioritize publication, which likely corre- above on publication rates, however, women are sponds with the trend documented above that lagging significantly behind men in this regard. less women are tracking into the academy post- doctorate. More women than men also listed par- enting/family care and teaching/mentoring LIMITING FACTORS students as limiting factors. In contrast, more An important component of our survey addressed men than women indicated that nothing limits limiting factors that inhibit the ability to produce their ability to write or produce manuscripts. manuscripts. We first queried respondents about Data from graduate student respondents reveals time spent writing/revising manuscripts on a further interesting trends (see Table ). General weekly basis. Across the entire sample, graduate student duties are the biggest limiting percent of women reported spending zero hours factor on writing/producing manuscripts, reported writing per week vs. percent of men, a differ- by more than percent of students and encom- ence that is statistically significant (χ = ., α passing both genders. Students also reported <.). Of those individuals who do spend time anxiety (about their ability to write) as a significant writing each week, there is a proportionate distri- limiting factor—this factor was cited by three times bution over the time categories for both men and as many women than men. Female graduate stu- women (Supplemental Document ). Some inter- dents also reported having a paid position that esting trends emerged in our queries about which does not prioritize publication (as a limiting factors limit one’s ability to write or produce factor), whereas no male graduate students did. Sig- manuscripts. Some gender differences emerged nificantly more males reported parenting/family with respect to all respondents with a Ph.D. (not care as a limiting factor amongst graduate students just academics), although these differences were (χ = .; α <.); as discussed above, while not statistically significant (Table ). More men graduate students in general are less likely to have than women reported administrative work as a dependents, if they do, then men are more likely limiting factor; open-ended response data to have them than women (a trend possibly
TABLE FACTORS LIMITING THE ABILITY TO WRITE AND PUBLISH RESEARCH OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS. Limiting factors Respondents with Graduate students Entire sample Ph.D.s Female Male Female Male Female Male n % n % n % n % n % n % Administrative work .... Anxiety ...... Committee work .... Graduate student duties ...... Grant writing ..... Paid position with no priority for writing ..... Lack of mentorship .... Negative reviewer feedback .... No limiting factors .... Parenting/family care ...... Teaching/mentoring students ..... Other .... Total factors listed by respondents
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER related to women delaying reproduction while pur- Our analysis reveals a troubling discrepancy in gen- suing higher education, particularly a Ph.D.). dered publication rates. Despite growing numbers Across the entire sample, having a paid position of women presenting southeastern archaeological that does not prioritize publication impacts the research at SEAC meetings (although far fewer most individuals, regardless of gender (Table ). women are organizing symposia and serving as Multiple respondents noted in open-response discussants than men), women publish in the data that writing manuscripts is a primarily an society journal at significantly lower rates than academic undertaking—the current paradigm for they present at the meetings. Of over , articles, compliance-driven archaeology, whether con- reports, and book chapters published between ducted by government agencies or private-sector and on topics related to southeastern professionals, is not often conducive to publishing archaeology, only percent were lead-authored research, so those employed in nonacademic by women. sectors do not spend time writing or publishing. General trends in our survey data help illumi- Similar to those individuals with a Ph.D. discussed nate this discrepancy between representation and above, more men than women report administra- publication. An important consideration in evalu- tive work as a limiting factor, and more men indi- ating gendered publication rates is whether the cate that nothing limits their ability to write or female/male representation of authors is propor- produce manuscripts ( percent of men vs. tionate to the demographics of academic employ- percent of women, a difference that is statistically ment. The structure of the academy is likely a significant (χ = .; α <.). In contrast, more major factor in terms of why we see fewer publi- women than men report anxiety regarding their cations by women. Women comprise only abilities, a difference that was highly significant percent of the employed academics with a Ph.D. (χ = .; α <.). Thus, the anxiety/confidence in our survey population (despite a higher rep- issue is not restricted to graduate students; this gen- resentation of women reporting having a Ph.D.), dered trend is witnessed across the sample in and men dominate the senior academic positions various job settings. This anxiety issue could cer- (as well as the highest paid positions). Hiring of tainly be a factor in the decision to submit a manu- female southeastern archaeologists in R- insti- script for review in the first place, or the decision to tutions is proceeding at a slow pace, likely a revise and resubmit after receiving negative result of overall diminishing tenure-track job reviewer feedback. Respondents of both availability as well as larger structural factors genders also provided a variety of open-ended impeding women’s hiring. It is likely that the dif- responses elaborating among limiting factors, fering job requirements, expectations, and with the most common limiting factor being time, reward structures between academic and nonaca- as well as balancing a life outside of archaeology, demic jobs contributes to the predominance of lack of preexisting deadlines for writing manu- male-authored publications discussed here (as scripts (as opposed to other hard deadlines well as the type of academic job, as primarily imposed at work), lack of domestic partnership to undergraduate-serving institutions may present a relieve time spent doing errands, and lack of inter- greater emphasis on teaching than publication). est/motivation, among other reasons. More women than men in our survey pool reported having a paid position that does not prioritize publication as a major limiting factor SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION in their ability to write or produce manuscripts, This study provides a window into an important likely related to the fact that fewer women than sociopolitical issue in southeastern archaeology— men are ending up in the academy postdoctorate, an unequal representation of men’s work and particularly in R- institutions. For those women women’s work, with consequences for the with academic positions, the majority remain in measure of academic merit, as well as the pro- the associate, rather than full, professor category. duction and validation of knowledge. In this These trends, in which fewer women are track- paper, we have presented the results of our ana- ing into the academy postdoctorate (particularly lyses of two datasets: a publication dataset span- in R- institutions) are embedded within a deep ning over , conference presentations and historical trajectory of gender bias that has pro- published articles, reports, and book chapters, vided a barrier to success for postgraduate and a survey dataset documenting the responses women. This gender bias has been described by of practicing southeastern archaeologists. some scholars as a chilly climate (e.g., Parezo
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY and Bender ; Wylie ) that has made the and are a result of deeply rooted historical trends difference between simply completing a Ph.D. and that have excluded women’s participation in completing a Ph.D. that results in a successful science. scientific career. Certainly, many women (and This project begins to elucidate some of the men) choose to have satisfying and rewarding reasons behind women’s lag in scholarly pro- careers in archaeology in the nonacademic ductivity in the field of archaeology, but we world. However, as a result, the discourse of believe there is much more work to be done on archaeology has remained predominately con- why and how this lag occurs. Ultimately, we trolled by men. We suspect that we will not need finer-grained ethnographic work to deter- really begin to see more even gendered publication mine why women continue to submit manuscripts ratios (and more even dissemination and valua- and publish less than men, work that is open to tion of archaeological knowledge) until the questions about the social and political circum- academy becomes more diversified and further stances in which knowledge is created and promotes the hiring and advancement of received. We need to continue to identify tactics women. Until then, as noted by Sullivan and strategies for supporting the many able (:), the judgment of the work of junior women in our research community to publish faculty members (including for tenure and pro- articles and reports. One avenue we suggest motion purposes) will continue to be overseen relates to editorial tactics. Editorial structures largely by senior men, and the training and men- differ among journals, but so can editors’ decisions toring of graduate students will continue to be about how proactive to be in soliciting work from dominated by men. qualified scholars. Thomas Pluckhahn, former The problem of submission bias is another editor of Southeastern Archaeology, remarked in major factor in the uneven distribution of men’s the SEAC executive meeting that sub- published work and women’s published work. missions were down for the journal. He urged Our survey data reveal that women are submitting SEAC members to submit research for possible fewer manuscripts than men, both annually and publication, and to encourage colleagues to do within the past decade and a half to specific jour- the same. Perhaps a more active recruitment nals. Women also reported spending less time tactic for the journal (including for thematic writing than men, and revising/resubmitting issues and sections) in which capable scholars, manuscripts at slightly lower levels than men. male and female, were invited to submit their Our data indicate that if women (or men) submit work would result in more balanced submissions. manuscripts to journals, then they generally tend Edited volumes are largely the product of invited to get published; the lower numbers of female pub- groups of scholars, often with themes originating lications witnessed in our study appear to be a from organized conference symposia. The fact result of submission bias, rather than editorial or that a significantly higher proportion of women reviewer bias (although limitations in circles of are publishing in edited volumes where at least interactions among scholars may certainly be con- one editor was a woman may have some bearing tributing to these trends, discussed below). on this issue—an editor that actively invites and A variety of limiting factors appear to affect the encourages colleagues to participate may relieve ability of women (and men) to produce manu- anxiety about submission and contribute to more scripts, with the primary reason that they have gender parity (rather than relying on blind sub- employment positions that do not prioritize publi- missions, which is the common tactic of journal cation. Administrative duties, teaching, anxiety editors). about writing ability, and other factors also How decisions are made about which manu- affect people’s abilities to write and publish. scripts should be sent out for review, as well as However, certain factors are skewed more which reviewers to send them to, are relevant as towards women, including parenting/family care, well; editors might consider tracking gendered teaching/mentoring students, and anxiety regard- submission/acceptance rates, as well as reviewing ing the ability to produce manuscripts. These the gendered composition of their invited factors, along with other institutional constraints, reviewers and editorial boards. The above have historically been documented in the broader examples are just some suggestions of reflexive academy as affecting women’s scholarly pro- tactics that might promote more gender equity in ductivity (e.g., Bellas ; Finkel and Olswang published research—ultimately, we need more rig- ; Park ; Pedulla and Thébaud ) orous investigations into why women remain
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER underrepresented, in archaeology and other fields, issues that were in press at the time of the study. We acknowl- and why our understandings of the past remain edge the SEAC board members, including former presi- biased towards the studies engineered by a single dent T.R. Kidder, for their approval of the survey distribution dominant group. to the membership, and members of the University of California-Santa Barbara Department of Anthropology for beta-testing the survey before it was released. Tom Emerson CONCLUSION and Greg Wilson provided thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this paper. The text greatly benefited from the con- While it is certainly true that gender roles and structive comments of editor Betsy Reitz, T.R. Kidder, and expectations in archaeology have changed in the two anonymous reviewers for Southeastern Archaeology. past few decades since the first major inequities Finally, we give our sincere thanks to the SEAC members were exposed, our study reveals that imbalances who took our survey and provided profound insight into continue within a crucial venue in which archaeo- the issues at hand. logical data are disseminated to the southeastern archaeological research community. The rep- etition of gendered imbalances in archaeological DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT practice remains critical to the way the discipline The underlying research materials for this article is perceived, by both its practitioners and wider can be accessed at https://core.tdar.org/project/ society. Certainly, a focus on publications alone /gender-equity-in-archaeology-project, does not give a full sense of the impact and visibility under the Gender Equity in Archaeology Project ’ of women s work, in southeastern archaeology or archived in the Digital Archaeological Record fi in broader elds. There is much more work to be (tDAR, ID ). Materials can also be done to fully understand the disparities in represen- accessed at http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/vanderwar ’ ’ tation of men s work and women s work, in the kerlab/research/databases, under Archived Data- publication sphere and in other important sectors bases in the Research and Collections tab of the of archaeology. We encourage our colleagues to UC Santa Barbara Integrative Subsistence Labora- conduct other studies of gender equity issues affect- tory (ISL) website. ing southeastern archaeologists, including within other sectors of the profession. Indeed, with the steady decline in tenure-track job availability and NOTES potentially increasing numbers of Ph.D. archaeolo- gists seeking employment in the private sector, it is This trend is not just restricted to academia; survey crucial that we gain a better understanding of data from federal agencies such as the Census Bureau, the Department of Education, and the Bureau of Labor Stat- gender effects outside of the academy. However, istics reveal that women working full time/year round in the publication and survey data discussed here illu- the United States typically were paid just percent of minate an important aspect of knowledge vali- what men were paid (AAUW ). dation and valuation that affects a substantial The SEAC meeting evinced an equal proportion of portion of the southeastern research community. male and female discussants, but all other years between The response of the SEAC membership to our and were heavily skewed towards male discus- survey provides fruitful insight into the issues at sants. At the SEAC meeting, men served as invited symposia discussants, and no women served as hand, and we hope that this article inspires our fl discussants. community to be more self-re exive about how For feasibility purposes, we did not evaluate repeat pub- gender politics impact southeastern archaeology, lishers for venues other than Southeastern Archaeology. past and present. We present a composite view of state journal data because not every journal published a volume each year between ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and . We ran this same test for Southeastern Archaeology, but This project could have not been completed without the help the results were not significant; publishing trends in that of many individuals, some of whom we are unable to thank journal do not appear be attributed to the gender of the here personally. We thank Meagan Dennison, Renee editor. Walker, Sarah Baires, and Edward Henry for their invitation The full survey and results database is available on the to participate in the SEAC symposia ( and ) where Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), under the this research was initially presented. Ann Cordell, Kandace Gender Equity in Archaeology Project (tDAR ID Hollenbach, Janet Levy, and Karen Smith graciously provided , https://core.tdar.org/project//gender-equity- access to SEAC membership data, past and present. Glen in-archaeology-project).Theresultsarealsoavailableon Akridge, Jodi Barnes, Ashley Dumas, Ed Jackson, and Tom the UC Santa Barbara Integrative Subsistence Laboratory Pluckhahn provided us with tables of contents from journal (ISL) website under Archived Database in the Research and
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY
Collections tab (http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/vanderwarker Ceci, Stephen J., Donna K. Ginther, Shulamit Kahn, and lab/research/databases). Wendy M. Williams One survey respondent listed “other” as his/her gender; Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape. for the purposes of this study, we exclude that individual’s Psychological Science in the Public Interest ():–. responses. Claassen, Cheryl (editor) Academics with a Ph.D. (both men and women) reported Exploring Gender through Archaeology. Mono- that they are more likely to revise and submit to the same graphs in World Archaeology No. . Prehistory Press, venue if asked to rather than not; no respondents reported Madison. that they always resubmit to a different venue, although a Claassen, Cheryl (editor) few reported that they sometimes will. Women in Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania “Other” responses included that people would engage in Press, Philadelphia. both strategies, or that they would defer publication but Claassen, Cheryl, Michael O’Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth present results online or at conferences first to get feedback. Arnold, and Brent Landsell It bears mention that if women are publishing less, then Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A they are less likely to be invited to review other’swork, Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from – as the general criteria for reviewer invitations typically and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. South- include that the reviewer has previously published on the eastern Archaeology :–. topic/area/method discussed in the submitted manuscript. Clancy, Kathryn B.H., Robin G. Nelson, Julienne N. Rutherford, and Katie Hinde Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trai- REFERENCES CITED nees Report Harassment and Assault. PLoS ONE (): American Association of University Women (AAUW) e . doi: . /journal.pone. . The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap (Spring Clarke, Anne ). Electronic resource, http://www.aauw.org/research/ Cultural Resource Management(CRM)asArchae- fi the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/, accessed August ological Housework: Con ning Women to the Ghetto of , . Management. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Baires, Sarah E., and Edward R. Henry Critique, edited by Hilary du Cros and Laurajane – Gender Roles and Archaeologists in the Southeast: Smith, pp. . Occasional Papers in Archaeology, Working Towards Equality. Horizon and Tradition: The Vol. . Canberra Department of Prehistory, Research fi Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference School of Paci c Studies, Australian National University, ():–. Canberra. Bardolph, Dana N. Clauset, Aaron, Samuel Arbesman, and Daniel B. Larremore A Critical Evaluation of Recent Gendered Publishing Systematic Inequality and Hierarchy in Faculty Trends in American Archaeology. American Antiquity Hiring Networks. Science Advances :e . :–. doi: . /sciadv. . Baxter, Jane E. Cleveland, William S. Gendered Perceptions of Archaeology: A Perspective The Elements of Graphing Data. AT&T Bell Labora- from the SAA Member Needs Assessment Survey. The tories, Murray Hill. SAA Archaeological Record ():–. Conkey, Margaret W. Beaudry, Mary C. Questioning Theory: Is There a Gender of Theory in Women Historical Archaeologists: Who's Counting? Archaeology? Journal of Archaeological Method and – Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Theory : . Association :–. Curtis, John W. Beaudry, Mary C., and Jacquelyn White Faculty Salary Equity: Still a Gender Gap? Electronic Cowgirls with the Blues? A Study of Women’s Publi- resource, http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume _ /feature. cation and the Citation of Women’s Work in Historical cfm?section= , accessed December , . Archaeology. In Women in Archaeology, edited by Cheryl du Cros, Hilary, and Laura Jane Smith (editors) Claassen, pp. –. University of Pennsylvania Press, Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique. Philadelphia. Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. . Canberra fi Bellas, Marcia L. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Paci c Emotional Labor in Academia: The Case of Pro- Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. fessors. The Annals of the American Academy of Political Finkel, Susan K., and Steven G. Olswang and Social Science :–. Child Rearing as a Career Impediment to Women Burkholder, Jo Ellen Assistant Professors. Review of Higher Education – Doing It for Ourselves: Women and Participation in : . the SAA Annual Meetings. The SAA Archaeological Fox, Mary F., and Carol Colatrella Record ():–. Participation, Performance, and Advancement of Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams Women in Academic Science and Engineering: What is at Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Issue and Why. The Journal of Technology Transfer – Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( ): . :–.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – DANA N. BARDOLPH AND AMBER M. VANDERWARKER
Gero, Joan Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. Association :–. American Antiquity :–. Park, Shelley M. Excavation Bias and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. Research, Teaching, and Service: Why Shouldn’t Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Women’s Work Count? The Journal of Higher Education Association :–. :–. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane Pedulla, David S., and Sarah Thébaud Women in Zooarchaeology. Archeological Papers of Can We Finish the Revolution? Gender, Work-Family the American Anthropological Association :–. Ideals, and Institutional Constraint. American Sociological Hutchinson, Katrina, and Fiona Jenkins Review :–. Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change? Rautman, Alison E. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Who Gets Published in American Antiquity? The SAA Hutson, Scott R. Archaeological Record ():–, . Institutional and Gender Effects on Academic Hiring Sax, Linda J., Linda Serra Hagedorn, Marisol Arredondo, Practices. SAA Bulletin ():–, . and Frank A. Dicrisi III Gendered Citation Practices in American Antiquity Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of and Other Archaeological Journals. American Antiquity Gender and Family-Related Factors. Research in Higher :–. Education :–. Larivière, Vincent, Chaoqun Ni, Yves Gingras, Blaise Cronin, Stark, Barbara L., Katherine A. Spielmann, Brenda Shears, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto and Michael Ohnersorgen Bibliometrics: Global Gender Disparities in Science. The Gender Effect on Editorial Boards and in Acade- Nature :–. mia. SAA Bulletin ():–. Levy, Janet E. Sullivan, Lynne P. What I Believe: Doing Archaeology as a Feminist. What I Believe: Taking up the Serpents of Social Southeastern Archaeology :–. Theory and Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern McElhinney, Bonnie, Marijke Hols, Jeff Holtzkener, Susanne Archaeology :–. Unger, and Claire Hicks Symonds, Matthew R. E., Neil J. Gemmell, Tamsin L. Gender, Publication, and Citation in Sociolinguistics Braisher, Kylie L. Gorringe, and Mark A. Elgar and Linguistic Anthropology: The Construction of a Scho- Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards larly Canon. Language in Society :–. an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance. PLoS McGill, Robert, John W. Tukey, and Wayne A. Larsen ONE ():–.e. doi:./journal.pone.. Variations of Box Plots. The American Statistician Tomaskova, Silvia :–. Mapping a Future: Archaeology, Feminism, and Maliniak, Daniel, Ryan Powers, and Barbara F. Walter Scientific Practice. Journal of Archaeological Method and The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations. Theory :–. International Organization :–. Victor, Katherine, and Mary C. Beaudry Meyers, Maureen, Tony Boudreax, Stephen Carmody, Women’s Participation in American Prehistoric and Victoria Dekle, Elizabeth Horton, and Alice Wright Historic Archaeology: A Comparative Look at the Journals Preliminary Results of the SEAC Sexual Harassment American Antiquity and Historical Archaeology.In Survey. Horizon and Tradition: The Newsletter of the Exploring Gender through Archaeology, edited by Cheryl Southeastern Archaeological Conference ():–. Claassen, pp. –. Prehistory Press, Madison. Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and West, Jevin D., Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M. King, Shelley J. Stephanie Agiomavritis Correll, and Carl T. Bergstrom The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work. Academe The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS ():–. ONE (): e. doi:./journal.pone.. Moser, Stephanie West, Martha S., and John W. Curtis Science, Stratigraphy and the Deep Sequence: Exca- AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators . Tech- vations vs. Survey and the Question of Gendered Practice nical Report, American Association of University Pro- in Archaeology. Antiquity :–. fessors, Washington, D.C. On Disciplinary Culture: Archaeology as Fieldwork White, Nancy M., Lynne P. Sullivan, and Rochelle A. and Its Gendered Associations. Journal of Archaeological Marrinan Method and Theory :–. Grit-tempered Women: Early Women Archaeologists Nelson, Margaret C., Sarah M. Nelson, and Alison Wylie in the Southeastern United States. University Press of (editors) Florida, Gainesville. Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology. Archaeolo- Wilkinson, Leland, MaryAnn Jill, Stacey Miceli, Gregory gical Papers No. . American Anthropological Association, Birkenbeuel, and Erin Vang Washington, D.C. Systat Graphics. SYSTAT, Evanston. Parezo, Nancy, and Susan Bender Wolverton, Ann, Lisa Nagaoka, and Mimi Wolverton From Glacial to Chilly Climate: A Comparison Breaking In: Women’s Accounts of How Choices Between Archaeology and Socio-Cultural Anthropology. Shape STEM Careers. Stylus, Sterling, VI.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , – SOCIOPOLITICS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY
Wright, Rita P. Hilary du Cros and Laurajane Smith, pp. –. COSWA Committee Article: Gender Equity, Sexual Occasional Papers in Archaeology Vol. . Canberra Harassment, and Professional Ethics. The SAA Archaeolo- Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific gical Record ():–. Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Gender Matters: A Question of Ethics. In Ethical The Engendering of Archaeology: Refiguring Femin- Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, ist Science Studies. Osiris :–. Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. – Zeder, Melinda . Altamira, Walnut Creek, CA. The American Archaeologist: A Profile. AltaMira, Wylie, Alison Walnut Creek, CA. Workplace Issues for Women in Archaeology. In Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, edited by
NOTE ON CONTRIBUTOR
Correspondence to: Dana N. Bardolph, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Dana N. Bardolph is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She conducts archaeological research in the Southeastern United States and the Peruvian Andes. She uses multiple methods to examine prehistoric domestic foodways, to assess how cooking practices, agricultural production, and the spatial dimensions of foodways shape identity construction and social life. She also researches ethical issues in contemporary practice, including gender equity in academic representation and publication. Amber M. VanDerwarker (Ph.D. , University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) is a Professor of Anthropology at the Uni- versity of California, Santa Barbara. She has been involved in field and laboratory work in Mexico, eastern North America, and Peru. Her research encompasses a variety of methods, regions, and themes that revolve around the relationship between humans and food in the New World, especially in the periods bracketing the shift to agriculture.
Southeastern Archaeology , Vol. No. , –