Gender,Race,and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result

Abstract

There is a wealth of research that has tested faculty productivity in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals over the past 30 years, although only a modest proportion of these studies have analyzed the gender of authors publishing in CCJ journals. Moreover, only a couple of studies have assessed the race of the authors in these journals, with their focus placed on either African American productivity or the comparison of non-White and White authors. The present study examines 1,836 journal articles in 14 journals from 2016 to 2018, including the top eight CCJ journals, the top three sociology and psychology journals, and the top three gender-focused journals in the area of crime and justice. We broke author productivity in these journals down by specific demographic categories and found that White men account for the majority of authors publishing in the CCJ journals, followed by White women. We also found that the advances for women authors found in some journals are primarily due to White women authors, as the production of all minority groups in the journals remains low regardless of gender.

Keywords

criminology and criminal justice scholarship diversity in criminology and criminal justice inclusion in criminology and criminal justice race gender criminal justice

Introduction

Much attention has been given to faculty diversity and representation over the past half century, both at the national level and in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ). With regard to the demographic diversity of faculty, researchers have established that women faculty have steadily increased in the United States over the past 30 years and now mirror the numbers of their men counterparts. While the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty noted that women comprised 33.2% of full-time faculty in the United States in 1992 (Conley & Leslie, 2002), the number had risen to 36.3% in 1999 (Abraham et al., 2002) and then to 38.6% in 2004 according to a report using the same methodology (Heuer et al., 2006). By 2020, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) had found that women had surpassed men nationally, comprising 754,800 (50.7%) of full-time professors at degree-granting postsecondary institutions compared to 734,600 (49.3%) for men (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). The survey found that the gender composition of faculty is greatly impacted by rank, however, as men comprised nearly two-thirds of the full-professor positions, while women held a higher percentage of assistant professor, instructor, and lecturer positions.

Ethnic and racial minority researchers have, unfortunately, not made the strides in employment within academia that women, as a group, have enjoyed. The NCES reported that of the nearly 1.5 million full-time faculty in the United States in 2020, 74% were White, 12% were Asian, 7% were Black, and 6% were Hispanic. This disparity is only slightly impacted by gender, as 39% of the faculty were White men and 35% White women. But similar to gender, the disparity in faculty employment by race widens as rank increases. Breaking down the results by rank, 79% of full professors were White in 2020 compared to 74% of associate professors and 70% of assistant professors (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).

Most of what is known about the demographics of CCJ faculty comes from the Association of Doctoral Programs in Criminology and Criminal Justice (ADPCCJ) annual survey, which in 2021/2022 was based on a sample that was limited to 43 participating programs that offer doctoral programs in CCJ (758 full-time faculty members). This survey found that men comprised 54% of professors in these programs which was down from 63.21% found in the 2011 survey of 31 programs (ADPCCJ, 2023). The survey also found that 65.9% of doctoral students in the field are women, making it likely that the upward trend of women CCJ professors will continue in the future.

The ADPCCJ survey indicates, similar to what has been found for faculty at the national level, that racial and ethnic minority scholars have not made the same strides in CCJ faculty as women. For instance, White faculty comprised 77.7% of the faculty in doctoral universities in 2021–2022, while Black faculty accounted for only 7%, Asian faculty 6.9%, and all other racial and ethnic categories accounted for 8.4% combined. Diversity in CCJ faculty made only slight progress from the beginning of the previous decade, as the Non-Hispanic White faculty had represented 79.22% in 2011, while Black faculty represented 6.3%, Asian faculty 3.71%, and Hispanic faculty 2.72%. The current state of doctoral programs may eventually improve these statistics, as the percentage of doctoral students who were White in CCJ decreased from 70% to 61.7% over this 10-year period (ADPCCJ, 2023).

Demographic breakdowns of faculty members are only a piece of the information necessary to better understand the presence, voice, and influence of faculty of different races and genders. Reaching an equitable statistical breakdown of gender and race in the faculty population is only the first step to achieving a truly diverse and thriving CCJ faculty in the United States. While there are a number of faculty characteristics (equality in administrator positions, committees, salary, etc.) that may indicate whether university faculty is truly diverse with representation and voice for all demographics in the faculty population, this study examines one of these factors: faculty scholarship. With a criminal justice faculty that is becoming more diverse, are those publishing in CCJ also becoming more diverse? This study examines the extent to which women and ethnic and racial minorities are represented as authors in top journals in CCJ. Moreover, we will also examine the potential impact that factors such as faculty rank, number of co-authors, authorship rank order, type of methodology, and the type of institution of authors may have on the demographics of authors publishing in the journals.

Benefits of and Barriers to Faculty Diversity and Representation

There is an abundance of benefits that faculty diversity and representation arguably bring to the CCJ departments on university and college campuses. First, diversity of faculty may offset some of the negative perceptions that racial and ethnic minority groups have about the criminal justice field; a perception that has contributed to difficulties in recruiting racial and ethnic minorities into the criminal justice system (Kenny & McNamara, 1999; Zhao et al., 2005). Many have asserted that higher education provides a guide for students to follow when pursuing a career (Antonio, 2003; Sturm, 2006); thus, a department's makeup can have an impact on what racial and ethnic minority students expect to encounter in the field. Similarly, diversity and representation can also create an environment where women feel more included and are more comfortable entering a traditionally men dominated field (Milgram, 2002).

There is also much research focusing on the impact that diversity and representation in faculty can have on student learning and growth (Astone & Nunez-Wormack, 1990; Cole & Barber, 2003; Umbach, 2006). While scholars have noted the importance that racial and ethnic minority faculty mentors have on the learning of racial and ethnic minority students (Cole & Barber, 2003; Smith, 1989), diversity is also argued to create a greater depth of ideas that provide for a better learning environment for all students (Astone & Nunez-Wormack, 1990; Cole & Barber, 2003; Umbach, 2006). Diverse and representative faculty could also make it more likely that the curriculum and narrative of the department will be more diverse and that oft-overlooked areas of analysis will be included. Unfortunately, a recent examination of 359 CCJ programs found that only 12% required students to complete a diversity-themed course (Miller & Alves, 2022).

It is vital to underscore the importance of equity in faculty scholarship in any discussion of the benefits of faculty diversity and representation. Faculty scholarship is a critical cog in the path to achieving the benefits of diversity and representation because it not only allows for greater representation of racial and ethnic minority and women faculty by allowing their ideas to be disseminated to an audience, but it also is a factor in determining which faculty are promoted and ultimately has a greater influence over departments (Youn & Price, 2009). There have, unfortunately, been some dire warning signs discussed in the literature advising that simply hiring more women and racial and ethnic minority faculty members will not solve the underlying challenges in achieving representation in academia (Bernat & Holschuh, 2015), including the equal opportunity to reach one's potential in scholarship. For instance, since the editorial boards of journals can have an impact on the type of research published by the journals, it is alarming that women occupy only a small number of staff positions in CCJ journals. Lowe and Fagan (2019) observed that from 1985 through 2017, women comprised an average of only 14% of all Editor-in-Chief (EIC) positions, based on the positions from seven CCJ journals. Similarly, Taylor Greene, Gabbidon, and Wilson (2018) examined 10 top CCJ journals in 2015 and discovered that out of 377 editorial board positions, African Americans only accounted for 9 (2.4%). Their examination of these journals included an analysis of the years 2004 through 2014 and found that the highest yearly percentage of these positions that African Americans accounted for was 4.2% in 2004. Other researchers have made similar findings about the homogeneity of journal editorial positions for earlier time periods (Gabbidon et al., 2004; Young & Sulton, 1991).

Other impediments to the scholarship of women and ethnic and racial minority authors may be more indirect than the editors who influence journals. There is research addressing the impact that having children, fewer university resources, lower involvement in grants, exclusion from sharing of data sets, etc., might have on faculty scholarship (Becker, 1991; Hargens et al., 1978; Stack, 2004). It is arguable that these factors can impact a faculty member's ability to publish and detract from the influence of women and racial and ethnic minority scholars in academia.

Based on the disparities in the available demographic breakdowns of faculty and acknowledging the impediments to scholarship of ethnic and racial minority and women faculty, this study includes several hypotheses to be examined. First, it is expected that men publish more in CCJ journals than women and we also predict that White scholars publish more in these journals than non-White scholars. Indeed, we hypothesize that White scholars publish more than non-White scholars despite controls for gender. In other words, White men scholars will publish more than non-White men scholars and White women scholars will publish more than non-White women scholars. We also believe that disparities in publishing based on race and gender are more prevalent in articles using quantitative methods than in studies using other types of methodology. Next, because of the recent increase in the diversity of faculty and the diversity of CCJ PhD students entering the field, we expect that a larger percentage of women and non-White scholars at the assistant professor level will publish in journals than women and non-White scholars at other ranks. Finally, because of the greater resources offered by these institutions, we hypothesize that the gaps in publishing between race and gender will be smaller in Research 1 (R1) institutions than in other institutions.

Prior Literature on Faculty Scholarship in CCJ

The literature on faculty scholarship in CCJ can be broken into several categories based on relevance to the present study. First, there is a sizeable amount of research that ranks universities based on the scholarship of their CCJ departments (DeZee, 1980; Fabianic, 2002; Fabianic, 2012; Kleck & Barnes, 2011; Kleck & Mims, 2017; Lebron et al., 2023; Oliver et al., 2009; Sorensen, 1994; Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2002; Steiner & Schwarts, 2006; Taggart & Holmes, 1991) and/or focuses on ranking the top “stars” within CCJ journals based on their publishing frequency (Cohn & Farrington, 1994; Long et al., 2011; Orrick & Weir, 2011). Other areas of literature compare the scholarship of faculty at PhD programs with those having only master-level programs (Ahlin, 2020; Fabianc, 2002) or examine the impact of tenure on faculty scholarship (Frost et al., 2007). While these studies all shed light on determinates of faculty scholarship, they do not examine the variables most relevant to the present analysis.

The present study focuses on the gender and race of authors in faculty publications in top CCJ-related journals, and includes analysis of variables such as faculty rank, authorship rank, study methodology, and authors’ institution type. We also examine the impact of many of these same attributes on the type of collaboration engaged in by the authors of these publications. We located 19 empirical studies that have assessed the impact of either gender or race (or both) on faculty scholarship in CCJ. Six of these studies broke down the citations of CCJ scholars by demographics. For instance, Free (1999), reviewed 18 texts from 1994 to 1997 and found that the work of African American scholars is greatly underrepresented in the texts’ references. Two other studies found that even when CCJ textbooks cited African American scholars, most of them were from fields outside of CCJ, such as sociology (Gabbidon & Taylor Greene, 2001; Taylor Greene et al., 2001). Similarly, Taylor Greene and Gabbidon (2003) made this same finding when analyzing a sample of journal articles. Kim and Hawkins (2013) also examined citations in a sample of journals and found that men constituted 84.9% of the most-cited authors in journals, with 77.1% being White men, 12.6% being White women, and only 1.7% and 0.3% being non-White men and non-White women, respectively. Finally, Stack (2002) analyzed a sample of 89 faculty in master's-level criminal justice departments and found that gender was not significantly associated with the number of articles or the impact of citations of the faculty, while faculty rank and degree (PhD or not) did have an association.

Four other studies examined gender and/or race, but measured faculty scholarship through surveys of members of CCJ organizations. These studies took samples of either the American Society of Criminology (ASC; Widmayer & Rabe, 1990), ASC and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS; Potter et al., 2011; Snell et al., 2009) or several CCJ organizations (McElrath, 1992). This research concluded that men scholars publish more journal articles (Potter et al., 2011; Snell et al., 2009; Widmayer & Rabe, 1990) and books (Snell et al., 2009) than women scholars. The lone exception was McElrath (1992), who found a nonsignificant difference between men's and women's journal publishing even when controlling for journal prestige. With regard to race, Potter et al. (2011) found that White scholars published more journal articles than non-White scholars overall, and White women published more journal articles than non-White women. When examining Latina scholars specifically, they found that non-Latina scholars produced more journal articles than Latina scholars.

We located nine studies that were most similar to our approach in that they analyzed a sample of CCJ journals and categorized faculty publications in those journals by gender and/or race. Seven of these studies broke down their findings by gender only (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Eigenberg et al., 1992; Eigenberg & Walley, 2015; Fahmy & Young, 2017; Fisher et al., 1998; Tewksbury et al., 2005; Zettler et al., 2017) and omit race from their analyses. These studies have found that men make up a higher percentage of authors in journals than women (Eigenberg et al., 1992; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Fahmy & Young, 2017), with the most extreme disparity between genders coming from an older study that found that 81.5% of authors in their sample of journals were men (Eigenberg et al. 1992). In contrast, the smallest disparity (61.9%–38.1%) was found by one of the more recent analyses (Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015). These studies have also established that men are more likely to be single authors than women in samples of CCJ journals (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Eigenberg et al., 1992; Eigenberg & Walley, 2015; Tewksbury et al., 2005; Zettler et al., 2017), with the highest disparity found in sole-authored papers being 73% men and 27% women (Zettler et al., 2017).

Some of these studies have also indicated, however, that the disparities between genders change based on the sample used and analysis employed by the researchers. Indeed, Eigenberg and Whalley (2015) found that 76% of articles in Feminist Criminology and 72.3% of articles in Women in Criminal Justice were published by women. In the co-authored articles in these two journals, women were first authors in 76.8% in comparison to only 23.2% for men. Similarly, Zettler et al. (2017) found that women authors comprised 67% of sole authors and 73.7% of first authors in the Journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, while they represented only 20.3% of sole authors and 22.3% of first authors in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

This body of research has also focused on cross-gender collaboration and found it to be common within CCJ. For instance, Fisher et al. (1998) examined 10 journals from 1964 to 1996 in comparing collaboration across Sociology, Political Science, and CCJ journals, finding that cross-gender collaborations were more common in CCJ (31.9% of articles) than in Sociology and Political Science journals (20.7% combined). When cross-gender collaboration between men and women who publish in CCJ journals is compared by gender, there have been varied results. Fahmy and Young (2017) found that 89.6% of women faculty participated in cross-gender collaboration in comparison to 56.4% of men. They also found that same-gender collaboration was undertaken by 10.4% of women authors and 43.4% of men authors. Similarly, Eigenberg and Whalley (2015) found that men were more likely to collaborate with other men authors in co-authored articles (37.2%) than women were to collaborate with other women (14%). Other scholars have found that cross-gender and same-gender collaboration depends on who happens to be the first author. Research by Eigenberg et al. (1992) indicated that when men are the first authors of studies, they are equally likely to publish with other men, yet they only represent 5% of the co-authors when women are first authors. Zettler et al. (2017) had similar results in finding that women-first authors publish more frequently with women co-authors than men co-authors.

We located only two studies (Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016; Del Carmen & Bing, 2000) that analyzed samples of CCJ journals and broke down their authors by race. First, Del Carmen and Bing (2000) focused specifically on the scholarship of African American faculty and did not analyze gender or other races. They reviewed the table of contents of 27 CCJ journals from 1987 to 1998 and compared the authors listed with a master list of African American criminologists from membership directories and surveys. They found that only 11 of the 27 journals contained articles by African American authors. Moreover, in the 11 journals that did have African American authors, they represented 8% or fewer of the authors in all but one of the journals. Similarly, Chesney-Lind and Chagnon (2016) analyzed the race and ethnicity of authors in publications from 2013 within three of the top journals in the field: Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Theoretical Criminology. Similar to the Kim and Hawkins’ (2013) analysis of citations, they dichotomized race into White and non-White. They found that non-White authors only accounted for 12.3% of the 73 authors in Criminology, 6.3% of the 111 authors in Justice Quarterly, and 23.4% of the 47 authors in Theoretical Criminology. This was also the only study of scholarship in criminal justice journals to examine gender and race in the same study, although results were not specified by race and gender. In other words, the authors did not thresh out results for non-White men, non-White women, White men, or White women. Chelsey-Lind and Chagnon's (2016) results found that women accounted for 37% of authors of articles in Criminology, 39.6% of authors in Justice Quarterly, and 47.8% of the authors in Theoretical Criminology, supporting the majority of results on gender and scholarship in CCJ journals.

The present study seeks to contribute to this literature on the demographic breakdown of publications in top CCJ journals by making a number of additions to previous literature. First, as all but a few prior studies (Del Carmen & Bing, 2000; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Zettler et al., 2017) analyzed a sample of six or fewer CCJ journals, we used a large sample of 14 journals. Our sample includes the top eight CCJ journals and three top journals in sociology and/or psychology that are commonly published in by CCJ faculty. Second, we add an analysis of three top journals that focus on gender, crime, and the overall treatment of women to determine the participation of men, women, White, and non-White authors in these journals. Third, while the two previous studies that examined author scholarship in journals by race either analyzed the work of African American scholars alone or compared non-White versus White authors, we break down race more specifically so that we are able to compare publishing differences across several races and ethnicities (White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian). Fourth, no study examining author scholarship in a sample of CCJ journals has analyzed the specific gender and race of authors together; thus, we further break down the publishing percentages for White men, White women, Black men, Black women, Hispanic men, Hispanic women, Asian men, and Asian women). Fifth, we include the specific race and gender of co-authors in studies to determine if there is collaboration across the authors based on these more specific demographic groups. Sixth, we examine the relationship that the gender and race of authors have with the type of methodology used (quantitative, qualitative, literature reviews, etc.) in the articles. Seventh, we examine the relationship between the gender and race of authors and the faculty rank (full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, etc.) of authors. Finally, we control for the institution type (research 1, high-research, not-research focused, agency, and international) that employs the authors and we break down author demographics by their institution type.

Data and Methods

Sample

Data were collected on the authors of all articles published in 14 of the top CCJ-oriented journals published in the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. First, we recorded data for the top eight ranked journals in CCJ for the years 2016 through 2018. Rankings were based on the average Journal Citation Report (JCR) Impact Factor for the three-year period. Because many CCJ scholars publish in journals outside of CCJ journals (Ahlin, 2020; Kleck & Barnes, 2011; Vaughn et al., 2004), we included the three top sociological/psychology journals in which criminal justice researchers commonly publish their work. Two of these three journals were sociological, while the third was a social psychology journal.¹ These journals, along with the top three journals in the field of gender studies, crime, justice, and the treatment of women (gender-focused journals), were also included to provide a comparison to the CCJ journals.² These top three gender-focused journals were also included because some previous research in this area has investigated the impact that the specific subject matter focused on by CCJ journals may have on gender disparities in publishing (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015). Because the JCR rankings were not available for all sociology/psychology and gender-focused journals for all three years of our study, we used the average Scimago Journal Rank (SJC) to rank these journals. Supplemental Appendix A displays the journals included in the analysis, their rankings, and the percentage of articles located in each journal. All Supplemental Appendices A, B, C, and D included in this study can be viewed at the following link: http://scholar.fgcu.edu/bsever/online-appendix/

Our data collection resulted in a total of 5,369 authors of studies, including sole authors, first authors, and co-authors. We omitted 161 of these results because the articles were either book reviews (n = 44), comments or replies (n = 62), or were editorials written by the journal staff, etc. (n = 55). Our rationale for omitting these results is because the standards for their inclusion into the journals are not as strict and they are generally not given as much weight for tenure and advancement of faculty. Thus, our final sample was a total of 5,208 authors across 1,836 articles found in these journals. Please view Supplemental Appendix B for the entire excel version of this data (before some of the variables were transformed/simplified in SPSS).

The final sample of 1,836 articles included 368 single-authored articles and 1,468 multiple-authored articles. The greatest proportion of articles had two authors (30.4%), with 22.7% of the articles having three authors and 20% produced by single authors. Next, 8.4% of articles had four authors, 6.8% had five authors, and 215 (11.7%) of the 1,836 articles had six or more authors.

The top CCJ journals make up the largest share of articles and authors in this data set, accounting for 871 (47.4%) of the 1,836 articles and 2,485 (47.7%) out of the 5,208 total authors. The sociology/psychology journals represented the second largest with 506 articles (27.5%) and 1,586 total authors (30.5%). These journals were followed closely by gender-focused studies which had 459 articles (25%) and 1,137 authors (21.8%).

Table 1 shows the authorship collaboration in the journal articles broken down by journal type. The table demonstrates that multiple authorship is the standard in these journal articles, with CCJ as well as sociology/psychology journals having a higher percentage of articles that have four or more authors than the percentage of single authors. Thus, our data set is congruent with previous researchers who have found that multiple authorship is becoming prevalent in CCJ journals (Fisher et al., 1998; Sever, 2005). Gender-focused journals are the only journal type in our sample that have a considerable percentage of single-authored articles (33.6%). Indeed, although the gender-focused journals comprise only 25% of the total articles in the sample, they account for 41.7% of single-author articles. Nevertheless, multiple-author studies are still the standard in gender-focused journals, as two-thirds of the articles in these journals are collaborative.

Table 1.

Author Collaboration by Journal Type.

	Entire sample	Criminology and criminal justice (CCJ)	Sociology and psychology	Gender-focused
Authorship type	n = 1,836	n = 871	n = 506	n = 459
Single author	20.0%	15.6%	15.4%	33.6%
All multiauthor	80.0%	84.3%	84.6%	66.4%
Large collaboration (four + authors)	26.9%	26.6%	32.8%	20.9%

Table 2 illustrates that a large percentage of articles (61.1%) in the entire sample of journals are quantitative studies. Articles found in CCJ and sociology/psychology journals rely even more on quantitative approaches, with their percentages at 72.2% and 72.5%, respectively. In this regard, our CCJ journals are nearly identical to those of Tewksbury et al. (2005) who found that quantitative methods were used in 73.1% of articles found in the five CCJ journals they studied. As expected, qualitative analysis was more common in gender-focused journals.

Table 2.

Breakdowns of Journal Type by Methodology of Studies.

Methodology	All Journals	Criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) Journals	Sociology and Psychology Journals	Gender-focused Journals
Methodology	n = 1,836	n = 871	n = 506	n = 459
Quantitative	61.1%	72.2%	72.5%	27.2%
Qualitative	15.4%	5.2%	4.2%	47.3%
Mixed methods	3.2%	1.0%	3.8%	6.8%
Theoretical	7.1%	5.1%	6.5%	11.8%
Literature Review	11.2%	13.1%	11.9%	6.8%
Meta-analysis	2.0%	3.4%	1.2%	0.2%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%

Variables and Collection Method

Data were collected by all three co-authors of this study, and we created a number of descriptive variables of the authors of the journal articles. Besides the number of authors and the rank of authors in each study, these variables include author gender, author race, co-author gender, co-author race, faculty rank of author, methodology of the study, and the type of institution that houses the author. Special emphasis was placed on differentiating between the results of single-authored studies and multiple-authored studies. Moreover, several variables were collected to examine the collaboration of authors across race, gender, faculty rank, and institution type, with a focus placed on demographic combinations of authors.

The Gender of Author was broken up into four categories: woman, man, other, and unknown. Race of author, on the other hand, was broken into seven categories, including White, Black, Hispanic,³ Asian, minority/race not clear, Indian/Not Native American, and Unknown. We decided on the gender of authors based on an analysis of the authors’ first names, photographs taken from their department webpages, and other internet sources. When an author did identify a gender, we used this gender. A very small number of authors listed non-binary or another gender identity on their department webpages or on other websites, and we classified this small number in the “other” category.

While there were only a small number of authors whose gender we could not determine, race presented more challenges. We used several pieces of information to determine the race of authors, including author surname, text or descriptions on webpages, and visual analysis of photographs of each author. Surnames were more helpful for men authors than women because more women use the surname of their spouses. When we could be sure of the author's minority status, but, not their specific race, we classified them into the category “minority/race unclear.” Researchers have used similar analyses of photographs to calculate racial breakdowns in other venues, including criminal justice textbooks (Baro & Eigenberg, 1993; Burns & Ktovich, 2006; Dorworth & Henry, 1992; Love & Park, 2013; Sciarabba & Eterno, 2008; Sever & Grillo, 2016) and Law Enforcement Facebook Pages (Sever et al., 2021).

A small group of studies have also examined the cross-gender collaboration of co-authors in journals (Eigenberg et al., 1992; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Fahmy & Young, 2017; Fisher et al., 1998; Zettler et al., 2017). We categorized the cross-gender collaboration among co-authors as a single-author study, mixed-gender collaboration, all men article, and all women article. Similarly, we analyzed the cross-race collaboration of co-authors. The race of co-author was categorized by single author article, mixed-race collaboration, all White article, all non-White article, and unknown race as first author.

There were a handful of other variables of interest to this study. A few previous studies examined the correlation between the Methodology undertaken in journal articles and the gender of the author (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Tewksbury et al., 2005). Therefore, we included a variable that classified the methodology of the study undertaken by the authors. Specifically, we categorized the analyses into six categories that included quantitative, qualitative, quantitative, and qualitative/mixed methods, theoretical, literature review, and meta-analysis.

We only located one research study that broke down scholarship in CCJ journals by the race and gender of authors while including the type of agency that houses the authors (Crow & Smykla, 2015). There is other research on academic scholarly production, however, that has suggested the impact that scholars’ institutions can have on their scholarship (Ahlin, 2020; Kovar & Overdorf, 1995; Stack, 2002). In fact, it has been argued that gender disparities in scholarly production are greatly impacted by the differences in resources based on the type of institution (Stack, 2002). Therefore, we measured the type of agency that employs authors as R1: very high research activity, R2: high research activity, other U.S. universities, international universities, and agency/not a university. We used the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2018) to classify institutions by R1 and R2 universities. All other U.S. universities were placed under the classification of “other university” and universities outside the United States were classified as international universities. Because of the large number of articles collected in this study, and interruptions due to the Covid epidemic, the data collection process lasted several years (2019 through 2023). However, the data collected are for the years 2016 through 2018. Thus, we used the Wayback Machine Internet Archive to access the university classifications in 2018 (Carnegie Classifications, 2018).

Following previous research (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Tewksbury et al., 2005), we broke the authors down by their job position. While previous studies have focused on ranked professors and/or students (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Tewksbury et al., 2005), we also included other positions such as postdoctoral researchers, emeritus professors, distinguished/named professors, and researchers/fellows. The variables collected in this study and the breakdown of their updated categories in our SPSS Data Set are listed in Supplemental Appendix C.

Because of the sheer size of the data set used in this study, the majority of the data collection was broken up across three separate researchers. Therefore, a number of safeguards were put into place to assure the accuracy and reliability of results. First, before the study was undertaken, the three researchers discussed the measurement of race and gender at length and we practiced inputting the data together to assure continuity. Second, specific races of scholars were not inputted if their race was not easily determined through a clear photo identification or if surname analysis, Google search of name to determine ethnicity, etc., could not help establish their race. Because we could sometimes establish professors’ racial minority status, but, not their specific race, we created the unknown minority man and unknown minority woman categories for these professors. Third, 10% of minority scholars that were inputted were also compared against photographs on lists such as the ACJS – Minorities and Women Section on Facebook, the Academy of Criminology's Division on People of Color & Crime, and other websites that would support our findings. Although these lists are not an exhaustive list of people of color in CCJ, nor exclusive to people of color, they did help us confirm that our findings were on target for a sizeable percentage that was cross-checked.

The three researchers collecting the data in this study in this study included a White woman in her 20s, a White man in his 50s, and a White woman in her 30s. Ten percent of the data that we collected were purposely overlapped and inputted by all raters. A test of interrater reliability was then provided by creating a new data set with all of the results of this sample lined up in different columns of the data set for each different rater. Thus, the percentage of Black men authors was lined up for each rater for the sample, the percentage of Black women authors, and so on until every racial breakdown for every variable was matched for each rater. We used a one-way intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to test the level of agreement between them (Koo & Li, 2016; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) and found the average ICC to show good reliability across race decisions (0.764), and it narrowly fell below the significance threshold (p = .042) at the 95% confidence level.⁴

Findings

The primary focus of this study is on the relationship between scholarship and the race and gender of authors. Table 3 shows the results for the gender and race of all authors broken down for all 14 journals in our sample. The table shows that men and women account for nearly the same percentage of overall authors in the full sample of journals, but that women authors make up the majority of first authors and a substantial majority of single-authored articles. Looking at the race of authors, White scholars comprise over 75% of the authors listed in the table, while Asian and Hispanic scholars make up a higher percentage of authors than do Black scholars. Because there was a sizeable percentage of non-White scholars whose specific race could not be confirmed, the minority unclear category had the largest percentage of authors from any racial or ethnic minority category.

Table 3.

Gender and Race of Authors in All Journals (n = 5,208).

Gender	Total	Single author	First author		Total	Single author	First author
Gender	n = 5,208	n = 368	n = 1,468	Race	n = 5,208	n = 368	n = 1,468
Women	49.2%	61.4%	53.5%	White	76.2%	75.8%	76.2%
Men	50.5%	37.5%	46.5%	Black	2.8%	1.6%	2.9%
Other	0.2%	0.8%	0.0%	Hispanic	4.2%	4.9%	3.3%
Unknown	0.1%	0.3%	0.0%	Asian	6.0%	4.3%	7.6%
				Indian/India	1.1%	1.9%	1.1%
				Minority, unclear	7.6%	8.4%	8.2%
				Unknown	2.0%	3.0%	0.7%
Total	100%	100%	100%		100%	100%	100%

With regard to the gender of authors, the results change considerably depending on the type of journals under analysis. Table 4 demonstrates that women authors comprise the majority of first authors and an even larger percentage of total authors and single authors found in the CCJ journals. These findings support previous research examining the gender of authors in CCJ journals (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Eigenberg et al., 1992; Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Fahmy & Young, 2017; Tewksbury et al., 2005). Results specific to sociology/psychology journals and gender-focused journals can be found in supplementary findings located in Supplemental Appendix D.⁵

Table 4.

Gender and Race of Authors in Top Eight Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJ) Journals (n = 2,485).

Gender	Total	Single author	First author		Total	Single Author	First Author
Gender	n = 2,485	n = 136	n = 735	Race	n = 2,485	n = 136	n = 735
Women	39.3%	33.1%	43.7%	White	79.6%	80.1%	81.4%
Men	60.5%	66.9%	56.3%	Black	2.7%	2.2%	2.3%
Other	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	Hispanic	3.9%	2.9%	3.0%
Unknown	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	Asian	4.7%	4.4%	6.4%
				Indian/India	0.3%	0.0%	0.1%
				Minority, unclear	6.7%	5.1%	6.4%
				Unknown	2.0%	5.1%	0.4%
Total	100%	100%	100%		100%	100%	100%

The disparities in the racial breakdown of authors do not change nearly as much based on the type of journal being analyzed. For instance, White authors account for the large majority of all three categories of authorship in the CCJ journals listed in Table 4. The only previous study we located that compared the racial breakdown of authors in CCJ journals found that White scholars comprised between 76.6% and 93.7% of authors in CCJ journals depending on the journal being analyzed (Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016). We found that White authors accounted for 79.6% of total authors and over 80% of first and single authors. Outside of authors of Indian descent, Black authors had the lowest representation of all racial minority groups in CCJ journals, followed by Hispanic and Asian authors.⁶

Table 5 lists the findings of the journals when specifically breaking down gender by the race of the authors. Of the 5,208 authors, 114 had to be excluded from this analysis because either the race and/or gender of the author could not be confirmed. This table illustrates that White men and White women together comprise the large majority of authors in the entire data set of 5,094 authors, with White men accounting for the largest percentage of overall authors (41%), while White women accounted for slightly more first authors and considerably more single authors. When considering only the eight CCJ journals, White men account for just over half of the total authors and single authors and just under half of the first authors. This was lower than the percentage of citations (77.1%) White men contributed to in six CCJ journals from 1986 to 2005 in an analysis by Kim and Hawkins (2013). Table 5 also shows that White women comprised overs 30% of authors in all three categories of authorship in CCJ journals, leaving only small percentages for all other specific demographic groups. The findings in the sample of sociology/psychology journals displayed in Table 4s of Supplemental Appendix D largely mirror the findings in CCJ journals, except that White women are more competitive with the percentage of White men in these journals. Supplemental Appendix D also illustrates that the gender of authors in the gender-focused journals is substantially different than in the other disciplines.⁷

Table 5.

Specific Demographic Breakdowns of Authors (Gender by Race).

Gender/race	All journals			Criminal justice journals
	Total	Single author	First author	Total	Single author	First author
	n = 5,094	n = 356	n = 1,458	n = 2,433	n = 129	n = 732
White women	36.9%	49.2%	39.7%	30.8%	31.8%	34.4%
White men	41.0%	28.9%	37.0%	50.4%	52.7%	47.3%
Black women	1.7%	0.8%	1.6%	1.5%	0.8%	0.8%
Black men	1.2%	0.8%	1.3%	1.3%	1.6%	1.5%
Hispanic women	2.0%	3.4%	1.7%	1.2%	0.0%	1.0%
Hispanic men	2.2%	1.7%	1.6%	2.9%	3.1%	2.0%
Asian women	3.1%	1.4%	4.2%	2.3%	0.0%	3.4%
Asian men	3.0%	3.1%	3.5%	2.5%	4.7%	3.0%
Indian/India Women	0.7%	1.7%	0.8%	0.2%	0.0%	0.1%
Indian/India men	0.4%	0.2%	0.3%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%
Unknown non-White women	4.8%	6.7%	5.6%	3.5%	2.3%	4.1%
Unknown non-White men	3.0%	2.0%	2.7%	3.2%	3.1%	2.3%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Some previous studies examined the relationship between the job position of authors and scholarship in CCJ journals (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Tewksbury et al., 2005). In our sample of authors in CCJ journals, assistant professors accounted for the largest percentage of single-author (25%) and first-author (24.4%) articles, yet full professors accounted for the largest percentage of all types of authors (21.1%). This provides support for the assertion that experienced professors are commonly added on to the studies of younger scholars (Sever, 2005). These findings can be viewed in Table 5s of Supplemental Appendix D, as well as the findings for five other job positions.

Table 6 analyzes the race and gender of authors by rank and establishes that White women single and first authors (columns one and two) in CCJ journals are most likely to be at the assistant professor rank (36.6% and 21.4% of women, respectively) and least likely to be at the full professor rank (12.2% and 8.3% of women, respectfully). Non-White men and women authors generally follow this same pattern, while White men's single-authored articles are most common at the associate professor rank and White men's first authors are most common at the assistant and full professor rank. White women and non-White authors are also more likely to be students than White men authors. The fact that women and racial and ethnic minority scholars are more likely to publish at the assistant professor and student ranks certainly could be a sign that women and racial and ethnic minority authors are younger and that a change is coming to CCJ scholarship.

Table 6.

Race and Gender of First and Single Authors in Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJ) Journal Articles by Job Position.

Author faculty position	White				Non-White
	Women		Men		Women		Men
	Single	First	Single	First	Single	First	Single	First
	n = 41	n = 252	n = 68	n = 346	n = 4	n = 69	n = 23	n = 68
Assistant professor	36.6%	21.4%	17.6%	26.9%	25.0%	21.7%	26.1%	25.0%
Associate professor	12.2%	15.5%	27.9%	12.7%	25.0%	15.9%	30.4%	13.2%
Full professor	12.2%	8.3%	19.1%	23.7%	0.0%	4.3%	13.0%	20.6%
Distinguished professor	0.0%	2.0%	4.4%	3.5%	0.0%	0.0%	4.3%	7.4%
Emeritus professor	0.0%	0.4%	4.4%	1.7%	25.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Researcher/fellow	0.0%	5.6%	0.0%	2.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Post-doctoral	2.4%	4.0%	0.0%	1.7%	0.0%	5.8%	0.0%	2.9%
Student	14.6%	24.6%	8.8%	9.8%	0.0%	34.8%	4.3%	17.6%
Other	17.1%	15.9%	11.8%	14.5%	25.0%	17.4%	8.7%	11.8%
Unknown	4.9%	2.4%	5.9%	2.6%	0.0%	0.0%	13.0%	1.5%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

The next analysis in this study focuses on how authors in CCJ journals are broken down based on their institutions of employment. Table 6s of Supplemental Appendix D shows that R1 institutions account for close to half of the authors (46.6%) in the CCJ journals, with R2 at 11.9%, and other types of U.S. universities lagging far behind. These findings are similar to previous findings by Crow and Smykla (2015), who found that 54% of the authors of CCJ journals in their sample were from R1 and R2 institutions. One surprise in our sample is the higher-than-expected involvement of international authors publishing (accounting for 24.2% of authors) in CCJ journals. Since we did not locate any previous analyses in this specific area of research that have examined the scholarship of international researchers in CCJ journals, this is a research area that might be more thoroughly pursued in future research.

Table 7 breaks down the results of research institutions by the demographics of authors. The table illustrates that there is only a slight disparity between the percentage of men and women authors in CCJ journals who are located in R1 and R2 universities, with the majority of both men and women authors being at R1 and R2 universities. This finding contrasts with those of Crow and Smykla (2015), who found much larger differences between the percentage of women and men authors that are housed in research universities, although their analysis did not include the race of authors. Table 7 also shows that a higher percentage of White women and racial and ethnic minority authors are from international universities than are White men authors. This may suggest that some of the advances that women and racial minority authors are making in these journals are due to the scholarship of women and racial minority faculty from international universities.

Table 7.

Race and Gender of First and Single Authors in Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJ) Journals by Institution Type.

Author institution type	White				Non-White
	Women		Men		Women		Men
	Single	First	Single	First	Single	First	Single	First
	n = 41	n = 252	n = 68	n = 346	n = 4	n = 69	n = 23	n = 68
Research 1 University	39.0%	45.2%	45.6%	48.8%	75.0%	43.5%	52.2%	52.9%
Research 2 University	12.2%	13.5%	16.2%	15.6%	0.0%	5.8%	13.0%	7.4%
Other university	9.8%	9.5%	20.6%	9.8%	0.0%	8.7%	21.7%	8.8%
International university	29.3%	25.4%	14.7%	19.7%	0.0%	31.9%	13.0%	22.1%
Agency/not academia	9.8%	6.3%	2.9%	6.1%	25.0%	10.1%	0.0%	8.8%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

While the findings up to this point have been generated based on authors as the unit of analysis, the last two tables in our analysis shift to findings based on the journal article as the unit of analysis. First, it should be noted that a few previous studies analyzing scholarship in CCJ journal articles also examined the use of quantitative and qualitative methods, finding that quantitative methods are disproportionately used in CCJ journals and that men authors are more likely to publish quantitative studies (Crow & Smykla, 2015; Tewskbury et al., 2005). Therefore, we hypothesized that the disparities in authorship between race and gender may be influenced by the different methodological approaches used by men and women authors and White and non-White authors. Table 8 presents the demographic breakdown of CCJ studies using quantitative analysis as well as those using all other approaches. Percentages are broken down by demographics on single-author studies, first authors, and all authors. Table 8 confirms that White men comprise the majority of authors employing quantitative methods, although these percentages are only slightly higher than their overall authorship percentages in CCJ journals (50.4%) as shown in Table 5. Similarly, the percentage of White women CCJ authors in Table 8 was only slightly lower than their overall percentage in Table 5 (30.8%). The right side of Table 8, however, shows that White women authors surpass White men authors in two of the three authorship categories when the subsample of articles not using quantitative analysis is considered. Non-White women also account for a higher percentage of scholarship when only articles using all other methods (besides quantitative) are examined. This table suggests that much of the disparities in gender and race in authorship in our sample of CCJ journals are likely related to the dominance of quantitative methods in these journals.

Table 8.

Methodology Used in Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJ) Journal Articles Broken Down by Specific Demographics (Gender by Race).

Race/gender	Quantitative methods			All other methods
	All authors	Single author	First author	All authors	Single author	First author
	n = 1791	n = 89	n = 534	n = 632	n = 44	n = 198
White women	27.1%	27.0%	30.9%	41.9%	38.6%	43.9%
White men	55.7%	53.9%	53.2%	36.2%	45.5%	31.3%
Black women	0.9%	0.0%	0.2%	3.0%	2.3%	2.5%
Black men	1.2%	0.0%	1.3%	1.7%	4.5%	2.0%
Hispanic women	0.8%	0.0%	0.6%	2.2%	0.0%	2.0%
Hispanic men	2.7%	3.4%	1.9%	1.7%	2.3%	2.5%
Asian women	2.1%	0.0%	3.4%	2.7%	0.0%	3.5%
Asian men	2.8%	5.6%	3.4%	1.9%	2.3%	2.0%
Indian/Indian women	0.1%	0.0%	0.2%	0.3%	0.0%	0.0%
Indian/Indian men	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%
Unknown non-White women	3.1%	2.2%	3.0%	4.7%	2.3%	7.1%
Unknown non-White men	3.2%	7.9%	2.1%	3.3%	2.3%	3.0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

The final analysis of our study focuses on the collaboration between authors based on race and gender. Table 9 shows that 45% of the 1,836 articles in the entire data set had mixed-gender collaboration, while 17.5% and 17.4% were all men and all women articles, respectively. In the sample of CCJ journals, our findings support previous research (Fahmy & Young, 2017; Fisher et al., 1998) in that nearly half of the articles in our sample had mixed-gender collaboration. We also found that all men articles doubled all women articles in CCJ journals.⁸

Table 9.

Gender and Author Collaboration in Articles.

Author Collaboration	All journals	CCJ journals
Author Collaboration	n = 1,836	n = 871
Single author article	20.0%	15.6%
Mixed-gender collaboration	45.0%	49.5%
All men article	17.5%	23.9%
All women article	17.4%	11.0%
Total	100%	100%

There was less collaboration found in the articles across the race of authors than across genders. This is not surprising considering the smaller percentage of authors in these journals that non-White authors account for. Table 10 shows the collaboration in the journals in our sample based on the race of the author and illustrates that the sample of CCJ journals had a similar percentage 27.1% of mixed-race studies as the entire data set of journals (27.2%). All-White collaborations were slightly more common in the sample of CCJ journals (50.5%–44.0% for the entire data set). The percentage of all non-White articles was small, as expected, with only 5.7% of CCJ articles having all non-White authors.

Table 10.

Race and Author Collaboration in Articles.

	All journals	CCJ journals
Author Collaboration	n = 1,836	n = 871
Single author article	20.0%	15.6%
Mixed race collaboration	27.2%	27.1%
All White article	44.0%	50.5%
All non-White article	7.5%	5.7%
Unknown race as first author	1.3%	1.1%
Total	100%	100%

Discussion and Conclusion

This study found that disparities in the gender and race of authors continue to exist in CCJ journals. We compared CCJ journals with sociology/psychology journals and found that these disparities were slightly higher in the CCJ journals. The disparities in authorship race, although still very high, were also not quite as striking in gender-focused journals as CCJ journals. Overall, our results were consistent with more recent research (Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015) showing that women scholars are beginning to make ground on men scholars in CCJ journals, but we also found that these gains were mostly made by White women.

Authorship by racial and ethnic minority authors in top criminal justice journals remains low regardless of the gender of the author. While the ADPCCJ (2023) found that racial and ethnic minority scholars account for 22.3% of faculty members in 2021/2022, we found that they accounted for 20.4% of the total authors, 19.9% of single authors, and 18.6% of first authors publishing in eight of the top CCJ journals. Asian authors accounted for 7% of CJ faculty and we found that they accounted for 6% of overall authors in CCJ journals. The most substantial disparities we found were for the Black faculty, as they accounted for 7% of professors in PhD granting institutions (ADPCCJ, 2023), yet we could only confirm that 2.8% of the overall authors in CCJ journals were Black. What should be a critical voice on the topic of crime and criminal justice is barely being heard in the top journals in the field.

The results in this study should come with a word of caution, however, as our ability to decipher between authors of different races was not without flaws. Because we had to rely heavily on the “minority - race unclear” category (representing 7.6% of our overall findings), it is probable that specific racial and ethnic minority groups, such as Black and Hispanic authors, account for a slightly higher percentage of articles than for which this study gives them credit. Moreover, we were not able to account for authors who identify as mixed race, further bringing into question our specific categories of race.

It has also been cautioned that disparities such as those found in our study do not necessarily establish that exclusion or discrimination by reviewers, editors, and publishers is causing the disparities (Mitchell, 2000). We agree with this assertion and believe that a number of factors could contribute to these disparities, including the type of contract of each individual faculty member, the number of classes a faculty member teaches, involvement in university and community service, the capabilities of one's colleagues in his or her department, and many more. In fact, it is possible that the disparities that we have found are congruent with the percentage of articles that women and racial and ethnic minority authors are submitting to these top journals.

More research needs to be undertaken to determine why women and racial and ethnic minority researchers still are not as represented as White men researchers in the top journals in CCJ. Our results suggest that one potential reason for this disparity is the reliance on quantitative research in these journals. We found that when articles using quantitative analysis were excluded from our analysis, women represented a greater percentage of the overall authors and first authors. However, our findings also suggested that this difference was mostly due to White women authors. Even with quantitative analyses excluded, racial and ethnic minority authors only accounted for 21.7% of overall authors, 16% of single authors, and 24.6% of first authors. Black authors are better represented in nonquantitative articles, but still account for only 4.7% of total authors, 6.8% of single authors, and 4.5% of first authors.

One particular finding that creates some concern surrounds the demographic breakdown of the scholarship of full professors. We found that only 12.2% of the single authors that were White women were full professors, and only 8.3% of White women first authors were at the rank of full professor. Comparatively, 36.6% of White women single authors were assistant professors. A similar disparity existed between women and men non-White authors at the full professor rank. This finding exists despite research by Frost et al. (2007) that indicated as far back as 1999 that women have represented the majority of CCJ master's and doctoral students in PhD granting CCJ programs. Our findings suggest that either women are substantially reducing their rate of publishing in top CCJ journals (in comparison to men) when they reach the level of full professor, or that women CCJ faculty have not been as likely to advance to full professor.

More research needs to be undertaken on the rate of promotion in academia for men and women and to determine the barriers to advancement that may exist for women. In particular, there needs to be a more extensive analysis of the hurdles for women to publish in journals that have been traditionally dominated by White men authors and editors. If women faculty in CCJ are less likely to advance to full professor, a cycle may continue whereby established White men full professors have more advantages in publishing because their credentials may provide editors (who are also overwhelmingly White men) with more confidence in their scholarship. This in turn places women and racial and ethnic minority faculty in a precarious situation where they may feel pressure to collaborate with senior professors of a different race and/or gender in order to publish. In fact, some of the results not included in our tables indicated that junior faculty and graduate students who are women were more likely to publish with men at senior ranks than were men graduate students and junior faculty. Since young women professors may not have the same research interests, ideologies, etc., as white men who are mentoring them, they may be faced with conducting research that is not in line with the unique talents or diverse thoughts they bring to the table, while ultimately having to send their research to be judged by editors of a different race and/or gender.

Although there are certain attempts being made in academia to ensure the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic minority faculty, more specific strategies could be undertaken in CCJ. Our research supported prior research that found women faculty are more prolific in gender-focused CCJ journals and we also found that women and racial and ethnic minority scholars both publish at substantially higher percentages in studies using qualitative methods. Thus, more funding could be provided for gender-focused CCJ journals as well as journals that encourage qualitative approaches. Expansion of scholarships and grants for faculty undertaking race and gender-focused CCJ research might also lead to greater equity in publishing, as well as greater encouragement of collaboration of scholarship across gender and race. CCJ departments could hold workshops and other types of forums specifically to connect faculty of a different race and/or gender who have similar research interests or whose research skills could benefit one another. Finally, CCJ administrators need to be highly aware that the diversity of a department depends on more than its demographic makeup. There needs to be specific strategies in place that provide young women and racial and ethnic minority scholars with greater opportunities to publish and advance to higher positions, ultimately providing a truly more diverse and representative field of study.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjr-10.1177_07340168241239333 - Supplemental material for Gender, Race, and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjr-10.1177_07340168241239333 for Gender, Race, and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result by Brion Sever, Krystal Canales Crespo and Erica Baer in Criminal Justice Review

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-cjr-10.1177_07340168241239333 - Supplemental material for Gender, Race, and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-cjr-10.1177_07340168241239333 for Gender, Race, and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result by Brion Sever, Krystal Canales Crespo and Erica Baer in Criminal Justice Review

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-cjr-10.1177_07340168241239333 - Supplemental material for Gender, Race, and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-cjr-10.1177_07340168241239333 for Gender, Race, and Authorship in Criminological and Criminal Justice Journals: A New Look With an Old Result by Brion Sever, Krystal Canales Crespo and Erica Baer in Criminal Justice Review

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Brion Sever

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Brion Sever is currently an associate professor and coordinator of the Criminal Justice Master's Program within the Justice Studies Department at Florida Gulf Coast University. He is co-author of the book Punishment and Crime: The Limits of Punitive Crime Control, and he has published his research in over a dozen journals, including Criminology, Police Quarterly, the Journal of Criminal Justice Education, and Race and Justice. Dr. Sever has also served as an external reviewer for over 20 journals and book publishing companies, worked as a writing consultant for the Educational Testing Service, and has served as a grant writing consultant for various law enforcement departments as well as the National Institute of Justice. He received a PhD in criminology from Florida State University in 1999.

Krystal Canales Crespo is the team lead with the Child Protection Team in Pinellas County, Florida. She previously worked as a registered behavioral technician for five years. She earned a master's degree in Forensic Studies focusing on Forensic Behavioral Analysis at Florida Gulf Coast University in 2022.

Erica Baer is a clinical assistant professor in Forensic Psychology at Kean University. She has a PhD in Forensic Psychology from Alliant International University and an MS in Biostatistics from the University of Florida. Her research interests include juror decision-making, persuasion, and the application of statistics to advance psychological and related research.

References

Abraham

Steiger

Montgomery

Kuhr

Tourangeau

Montgomery

Chattopadhyay

(2002). 1999 national study of postsecondary faculty methodology report. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington D.C.

Ahlin

(2020). Broadening the productivity lens in criminology and criminal justice: An exploratory study of the research contributions of master’s degree program faculty, 2014–2018. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(1), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2019.1668033

Antonio

(2003). Diverse student bodies, diverse faculties. Academe, 89(6), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/40252553

Association of Doctoral Program in Criminology and Criminal Justice (2023). 2021–2022 survey report.

Astone

Nunez-Wormack

(1990). Pursuing diversity: Recruiting college minority students. George Washington University.

Baro

Eigenberg

(1993). Images of gender: A content analysis of photographs in introductory criminology and criminal justice textbooks. Women and Criminal Justice, 5(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v05n01_02

Becker

(1991). A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press.

Bernat

Holschuh

(2015). Senior female faculty in criminal justice and criminology: Professors and associate professors navigating pathways to success. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1025028

Burns

Katovich

(2006). Melodramatic and consentient images in introductory criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.11.009

10.

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2018). [http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu]. _Internet Archive_. https://web.archive.org/web/20190111045450/http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads.php [captured January 11, 2019]

11.

Chesney-Lind

Chagnon

(2016). Criminology, gender, and race: A case study of privilege in the academy. Feminist Criminology, 11(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116633749

12.

Cohn

Farrington

(1994). Who are the most-cited scholars in American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(94)90093-0

13.

Cole

Barber

(2003). Increasing faculty diversity: The occupational choices of high achieving minority students. Harvard University Press.

14.

Conley

Leslie

(2002). Part-time instructional faculty and staff: Who they are, what they do, and what they think. 1993 study of post-secondary faculty. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington D.C.

15.

Crow

M. S.

Smykla

J. O.

(2015). An examination of author characteristics in national and regional criminology and criminal justice journals, 2008–2010: Are female scholars changing the nature of publishing in criminology and criminal justice? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9250-x

16.

Del Carmen

Bing

(2000). Academic productivity of African Americans in criminology and criminal justice. Journals of Criminal Justice Education, 11(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250000084891

17.

DeZee

M. R.

(1980). The productivity of criminology and criminal justice faculty. Chicago, Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards.

18.

Dorworth

Henry

(1992). Optical illusions: The visual representation of Blacks and women in introductory criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3(2), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259200082651

19.

Eigenberg

Baro

Desnoyers

(1992). Women and the publication process: A content analysis of criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3(2), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259200082681

20.

Eigenberg

Whalley

(2015). Gender and publication patterns: Female authorship is increasing, but is there gender parity? Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1023882

21.

Fabianic

(2002). Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(6), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00176-9

22.

Fabianic

(2012). Publication profiles at point of promotion of criminal justice faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.610761

23.

Fahmy

Young

(2017). Gender inequality and knowledge production in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1233346

24.

Fisher

Vander Ven

Cobane

Cullen

Williams

(1998). Trends in multiple-authored articles in criminology and criminal justice: A comparative analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259800084161

25.

Free

(1999). Racial issues in contemporary criminology textbooks: The case of African Americans. Contemporary Justice Review, 1(4), 429–466.

26.

Frost

N. A.

Phillips

N. D.

Clear

T. R.

(2007). Productivity of criminal justice scholars across the career. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(3), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250701705388

27.

Gabbidon

Taylor Greene

(2001). The presence of African American scholarship in early American criminology texts (1918–1960). Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250100086131

28.

Gabbidon

Taylor Greene

Wilder

(2004). Still excluded? An update on the status of African American scholars in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(4), 384–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803260268

29.

Hargens

McCann

Reskin

(1978). Productivity and reproductivity: Fertility and professional achievement among research scientists. Social Forces, 57(1), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577631

30.

Heuer

Kuhr

Fahimi

Curtin

Hinsdale

Carley Baxter

Green

(2006). 2004 national study of postsecondary faculty methodology report. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington. D.C.

31.

Kenny

McNamara

(Eds). (1999). Police and policing: Contemporary issues. Greenwood Publishing Group.

32.

Kim

Hawkins

(2013). Who’s getting cited: Representation of women and non-White scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986–2005. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 306–321. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2013.02.30

33.

Kleck

Barnes

J. C.

(2011). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2005–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517650

34.

Kleck

Mims

(2017). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2010–2014. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(4), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1146008

35.

Koo

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

36.

Kovar

S. K.

Overdorf

(1995). Scholarly productivity as a function of graduate training, workplace, and gender. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 4(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.4.2.1

37.

Lebron

James

Pires

Cohn

(2023). An examination of article productivity and influence among criminology and criminal justice doctoral faculty, 2015–2021. Journal of Criminal Justice Education.

38.

Long

Boggess

L. N.

Jennings

W. G.

(2011). Re-assessing publication productivity among academic “stars” in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517654

39.

Love

Park

(2013). Images of gender twenty years later: A content analysis of images in introductory criminal justice and criminology textbooks. Criminology and Penology, 8(4), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113492993

40.

Lowe

C. C.

Fagan

A. A.

(2019). Gender composition of editors and editorial boards in seven top criminal justice and criminology journals from 1985 to 2017. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 30(3), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2018.1548629

41.

McElrath

(1992). Gender, career disruption, and academic rewards. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1992.11778362

42.

Milgram

(2002). Recruiting women to policing: Practical strategies that work. The Police Chief, 69(4), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad049

43.

Miller

Alves

(2022). The state of diversity in criminal justice higher education: An analysis of curricula in criminal justice bachelor’s degree programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 34(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2097718

44.

Mitchell

(2000). Criminological scholarship and race: A response to Professors Ross and Edwards. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(3), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(00)00048-9

45.

Oliver

Swindell

Marks

Balusek

(2009). Book ‘em Dano’: The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in criminal justice books. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6(1), 59–78.

46.

Orrick

Weir

(2011). The most prolific sole and lead authors in elite criminology and criminal justice journals, 2000–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517649

47.

Potter

Higgins

Gabbidon

(2011). The influence of gender, race/ethnicity, and faculty perceptions on scholarly productivity in criminology/criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517653

48.

Sciarabba

Eterno

(2008). Analyzing domestic abuse coverage in introductory criminal justice and criminology textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 15(2), 217–237.

49.

Sever

(2005). Ranking multiple authors in criminal justice scholarship: An examination of underlying issues. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051125042000333479

50.

Sever

Elg

Ellis

(2021). Law enforcement and the depiction of minorities and women on social media: A review of municipal police department Facebook pictures. Race and Justice, 11(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368718802354

51.

Sever

Grillo

(2016). Do our books reinforce criminal justice stereotypes? An analysis of the images in introductory criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1078387

52.

Shrout

Fleiss

. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420

53.

Smith

D. G.

(1989). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or alienation in the academy report 5. The George Washington University.

54.

Snell

Sorensen

Rodriguez

Kuanliang

. (2009). Gender differences in research productivity among criminal justice and criminology scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.009

55.

Sorensen

(1994). Scholarly productivity in criminal justice: Institutional affiliation of authors in the top ten criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(94)90094-9

56.

Sorensen

Pilgrim

(2002). The institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00118-0

57.

Stack

(2002). Gender and scholarly productivity: The case of criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00134-9

58.

Stack

(2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 45, 891–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-5953-z

59.

Steiner

Schwarts

(2006). The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.005

60.

Sturm

. (2006). The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29, 247–334. https://ssrn.com/abstract=901992

61.

Taggart

Holmes

(1991). Institutional productivity in criminal justice and criminology: An examination of author affiliation in selected journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(6), 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(91)90066-5

62.

Taylor Greene

Gabbidon

(2003). African American scholarship in criminological research published in the 1990s: A content analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250300085621

63.

Taylor Greene

Gabbidon

& Ebersole

(2001). A multi-faceted analysis of the presence of African Americans in juvenile delinquency texts published between 1997 and 2000. Journal of Crime and Justice, 24(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2001.9721136

64.

Taylor Greene

Gabbidon

& Wilson

(2018). Included? The status of African American scholars in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice since 2004. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 29(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2017.1372497

65.

Tewksbury

DeMichele

M. T.

Miller

J. M.

(2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250500082278

66.

Umbach

P. D.

(2006). The contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 47(3), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9391-3

67.

U.S. Department of Education (2021). National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

68.

Vaughn

del Carmen

Perfecto

Charand

(2004). Journals in criminal justice and criminal and criminology. An updated and expanded guide for authors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(1), 61–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250400085921

69.

Widmayer

Rabe

(1990). Publication productivity among American criminologists: An analysis of gender, regional, and work differences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259000082081

70.

Youn

Price

(2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 80(2), 204–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11772139

71.

Young

Sulton

. (1991). Excluded: The current status of African American scholars in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427891028001006

72.

Zettler

Cardwell

Craig

(2017). The gendering effects of co-authorship in criminology & criminal justice research. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2016.1265958

73.

Zhao

Lovrich

(2005). Predicting the employment of minority officers in U.S. Cities: OLS fixed effect panel model results for African American and Latino officers for 1993, 1996, and 2000. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.04.007

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB