↓ Skip to main content

A Gendered Approach to Science Ethics for US and UK Physicists

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
A Gendered Approach to Science Ethics for US and UK Physicists
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11948-016-9751-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Di

Abstract

Some research indicates that women professionals-when compared to men-may be more ethical in the workplace. Existing literature that discusses gender and ethics is confined to the for-profit business sector and primarily to a US context. In particular, there is little attention paid to gender and ethics in science professions in a global context. This represents a significant gap, as science is a rapidly growing and global professional sector, as well as one with ethically ambiguous areas. Adopting an international comparative perspective, this paper relies on 121 semi-structured interviews with US and UK academic physicists to examine how physicists perceive the impact of gender on science ethics. Findings indicate that some US and UK physicists believe that female scientists handle ethical issues within science in a feminine way whereas their male colleagues approach ethics in a masculine way. Some of these physicists further claim that these different approaches to science ethics lead to male and female scientists' different levels of competitiveness in academic physics. In both the US and the UK, there are "gender-blind" physicists, who do not think gender is related to professional ethics. Relying on physicists' nuanced descriptions this paper contributes to the current understanding of gender and science and engineering ethics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 5 18%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,205,317
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#80
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,370
of 401,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.