This paper presents a comparison of the preliminary results of two studies: one by Beaudry and White on the representation of women within the journal Historical Archaeology and one by Victor on the representation of women within the journal, American Antiquity. Both studies involve the tabulation of occurrence of women as officers of the sponsoring societies of the journals (the Society for Historical Archaeology, and the Society for American Archaeology), of women as members of the editorial staffs of the journals, of women as authors of articles, of women as book reviewers, and of women as cited by their colleagues.
Because women's roles as authors are varied (i.e., women are observed as sole authors, as senior authors with male junior authors, and as junior authors with a male senior author), it is difficult to quantify the representation of women by using only raw counts. To resolve this problem, Victor developed the statistical ranking scheme of the E-score. With this scheme, if the article were written by male author(s) only, it is coded with a "0", if the article had a man as senior author with a woman as junior author, it was assigned a "1", if the senior author were a woman with a junior male, the article is coded with a "2", and if the article were written by only women, then it was assigned the value of "3". To calculate the E-score, the frequencies within each category were multiplied by the coded "rank", the products summed, and the sum then divided by the number of articles (minus any articles of which the gender of the author could not be determined).
E-score = m0 + j1 + s2 + w3
n-u
Legend:
Constants:
0=All male authors, multiple or single author
1=Multiple authors,mixed genders male senior author, and at
least 1 female junior author
2=Multiple authors, mixed genders, female senior author, and at
least 1 male junior author.
3=All female authors, multiple or single author
Variables:
m=the number of articles with male author(s)
j=the number of articles with male senior author, female junior author
s=the number of articles with female senior author, male junior author
w=the number of articles with female author(s)
u=the number of articles where the gender of the author(s) is
undetermined
With the E-score, the representation of women within the journals may be expressed in a single number facilitating the comparison of women's representation over time and between the journals. If there existed equality in the representation of men and women, the E-score would be 1.5.
Page 12
The first section of the paper examines the role of women in the journal of Historical Archaeology while the second section examines the journal American Antiquity. The final section involves a brief comparison and contrast of the results from the first two sections, to determine which environment, that of historical archaeology or that of American prehistoric archaeology as represented by the two journals, has a "chillier climate" (Wylie and Backhouse 1991).
Historical Archaeology
At the January, 1991, meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Mary Beaudry and Jacqueline White delivered a paper that presented preliminary results of a study of the representation of women in the field of historical archaeology. Their research, which is still underway, involves close scrutiny of women as officers and directors of the Society for Historical Archaeology, as members of the editorial staff and review board of the Society's journal, Historical Archaeology, as authors of articles and book reviews in the journal, and as "authorities" or sources cited by authors, male or female, who publish in the journal. They also looked at the topics about which men and women wrote and published.
One of the issues Beaudry and White sought to explore in looking at women's representation in historical archaeology's major organization and journal was the notion that historical archaeology, because of its close association with the field of historic preservation (cf. Woodall and Perricone 1981), is somehow more open to and congenial for women than prehistory or other areas of archaeology. Hence a further goal of the study was simply to document women's actual representation as opposed to perceived representation‹Beaudry especially was repeatedly told in informal contexts that "there are lots of women in important positions in historical archaeology," "women's participation in historical archaeology has really increased over time," "women do historical archaeology," and even that "there are too many women in historical archaeology!"
Beaudry and White employed raw counts of numbers of women represented in the categories listed above; they did not carry out any statistical tests on their data. Even without tests for statistical significance, however, it was clear that although women's representation has improved in almost all areas of historical archaeology, it would be preposterous to suggest that they dominate the field in any way. In general, women's representation, in the journal especially, is far below that of males and far from being on a par with women's representation as members of the Society for Historical Archaeology, which runs at approximately 50% of the total individual membership. From 1967, the year of the journal's founding, to 1990, 309 articles appeared in Historical Archaeology, 88 (29%) of which had women as sole or senior author. Out of a total of 312 book reviews published during the journal's history, 59, or 19%, were written by women. Throughout this time, a total of 6701 references were cited, of which 1228 (18%) were women authors, 213 of whom appeared as junior authors with male senior authors. (Subtracting these articles, one ends up with 17% representation of women in citations).
For this paper we compared the results of Victor's analysis of women's representation in the Society for American Archaeology and its journal, American Antiquity (Victor 1991), with the Beaudry and White results. In this case we applied a statistical test, the E-score, developed by Victor and explained above, as a way of measuring and comparing women's overall representation in the two fields/journals; the data were cast in such a way as to allow for delineation of what we termed "research spheres." We thought this term more apt than "women's work" because it is eminently clear that there are almost no research topics or areas that are exclusively female precincts; on the other hand, there are areas from which women are absent and others in which they are virtually invisible (cf. Gero 1991b).
Most striking in terms of historical archaeology is the area of botanical analysis, for which the E-score is 1.5. This impressive score reflects relatively recent interest in [paleo]ethnobotanical analysis in historical archaeology and in fact is based on a grand total of three articles that have appeared since 1989. Women are well represented in the area of ceramic analysis (1.15), bead research (1.2), miscellaneous artifact studies (1.0), regional surveys (1.05), clay pipe studies (0.9), and urban archaeology (0.9). They have also made a respectable showing in the areas of site reports, gunflint studies, faunal analysis, and several women have authored obituaries (we note here that Kathleen Gilmore is Memorials Editor). Topics on which women seldom publish in the journal include military sites, methods, theory, maritime archaeology, and fur trade/contact. Apart from military sites and methodological studies, however, these subjects are not regularly covered in Historical Archaeology (e.g., articles on maritime archaeology appear rarely because the SHA publishes separately the underwater archaeology proceedings from its annual meetings).
We note that women have become increasingly active and visible in the field of historical archaeology. Whether they have become authoritative voices on behalf of this area of archaeology is questionable, however, given the infrequency of citations of publications by women, even when women are doing the
Page 13
citing. Comparison with women's representation in American Antiquity brightens the overall picture for women as historical archaeologists only slightly.
American Antiquity
When American Antiquity was established in 1935, its editor, W.C. McKern, remarked that "it will become an instrument of value in coordinating the research efforts of all sincere students of American Archaeology" (McKern 1935). In 1935, the number of women represented in the pages of American Antiquity were few; yet, with time the representation of women would presumably increase, especially in the period 1967-1991 (volumes 32-56) with the changes in American society's perception of acceptable roles for women.
To examine whether American prehistoric archaeology as represented by the journal American Antiquity exhibits an increase over time in the representation of women, several aspects within the journal were considered: Women as officers and on the editorial staff, women as authors of articles, women cited in the articles, and women as reviewers and as reviewed authors. In addition, the type of article and the gender of the author of the article were considered in order to determine if women's research spheres do indeed exist. The years of this examination are 1967 until 1991, chosen to correspond with the years of the Historical Archaeology study.
Officers and Board Members
respect to women as officers and on the editorial board, Figure 1 shows the relationship between the number of men and women officers over time. The years 1983 and 1984 represent an anomalous peak in the general trend of relatively poor representation. It is interesting, although perhaps somewhat disheartening, to note that after the peak in the mid 80s, the numbers of women in these positions decrease. With regard to the number of women in relation to men on the editorial board, as shown by Figure 2, there is also an apparent peak in the mid 80s. This peak coincides with the editorships of Dena Dincauze and Patty Jo Watson. The potential correlation between the gender of the editor and the representation of women on the editorial staff proved to be statistically significant with a correlation coefficient of .92, indicating a very strong positive correlation between the gender of the editor and the representation of women on the editorial staff.
Again, after the peak, and coincidentally when a man became editor, the number of women as
Page 14
members of the editorial staff decreases. It thus seems logical to conclude that women appoint women to the editorial staff, and men do not. A regression analysis based on the correlation between the year and the representation of women proved to be statistically insignificant. Using the regression equations, the predicted years in which the number of women would be equal to that of men as officers and as members of the editorial staff would be the year 2000 and the year 1992, respectively. Parity seems unlikely, however, given the recent decreasing trend in women's selection seen in Figures 1 and 2.
Authorship
With respect to the number of women as authors of articles, the picture is quite grim. Of the 974 articles published since 1967, only 11% are written by women, 7% with women as junior authors with male senior authors, 5% with women as senior authors, men as junior authors; 74% were written by men (in 2% of the articles we could not determine the gender of the author).
Figure 3 shows the E-score values of authors plotted against time for the years 1967 to 1991. This display does indeed reveal an increasing trend in the overall representation of women as authors in American Antiquity within the last 24 years; however, when considering the actual values of the E-scores, which are low, this increasing trend loses some significance. The graph is thus exaggerating the correlation between time and the representation of women, which proved to be statistically insignificant. Yet if we utilize the regression equation (which is a statistical faux pas, given the requirement that there exist a significant linear relationship between the variables was not satisfied), by the the year 2046, women will be represented equally to men.
Book Reviewers
Figure 4 represents women as reviewers of books. Again, there is an apparent slight increase over time of the representation of women as reviewers as expressed by the E-score values. However, this correlation between time and women reviewers is not statistically significant. Despite the slight increase over time of women as reviewers, it is important to note that the use of women is never equal to that of men, which it would be if the E-score were 1.5. Again, as in the pattern exhibited for women as officers and women on the editorial staff, and to some extent, women as authors, in the late 1980s there is a dramatic decrease in the representation of women as reviewers.
Page 15
Page 16
At this rate, it will be the year 2031 AD before the use of women as reviewers will be equal to the use of men.
Reviewed Authors
Figure 5 shows the change over time of women as authors of works reviewed. Again, there is a slight increase over the 24 year period, but as the actual values of the E-score show, the degree to which women authors are reviewed is consistently very low, with the highest E-score value occurring in 1979, volume 44. Even at their greatest degree of representation as reviewed authors, women are only reviewed half as frequently as are men. If this trend continues, the regression equation predicts that not before the year 2051AD will there be equal reviewing of women's writing!
Citations
To consider the degree of representation of women in citations in American Antiquity, a twenty-five percent random sample was examined, one issue per volume, with the number of the issue determined randomly. It is our feeling from past experiences with sampling that this twenty-five percent sample is more than adequate to predict the degree to which women are cited by their colleagues. Figure 6 offers the pictorial display of the relationship between time and the citation of women authors. With the exception of a few rogue values, the E-scores are consistently below the equality mark at 1.5. As is obvious in the graph, the data are plagued by heteroscedasticity, and thus correlation and regression analyses are statistically insignificant. However, despite the inconclusive inferential statistical results, the regression equation predicts that women cannot expect to be cited as frequently as men, until the year 2051 AD.
An impression that over time American prehistoric archaeology has become more friendly to women is not supported by the several inferential statistical tests employed; it is only mildly supported by exploratory data analysis and the several graphs generated. Are we to conclude, given W.C. McKern's opening editorial statement and the underrepresentation of women within the journal American Antiquity, that women are not deemed to be "sincere students" of archaeology?
Comparisons
As we have seen, if the journals Historical Archaeology and American Antiquity are representative of their respective subfields, the climate for women in both is quite chilly. With regard to women
Page 17
as officers of the Society for Historical Archaeology and of the Society for American Archaeology (see Figures 7 and 8), there is a peak in the early 1980s in which women in the SHA reach parity and women in the SAA actually outnumber men; however, for some reason there is also a dramatic drop in the representation of women in both societies in the late 1980s. This pattern is shown quite clearly in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 offers a comparison between the representation of women in published articles in Historical Archaeology and American Antiquity. It seems here that the climate for women in historical archaeology is less chilly than that in American prehistoric archaeology; however, for historical archaeologists this can only be somewhat comforting as the overall E-scores for both are around .5, which is only one-third of equality, with women historical archaeologists only slightly better regarded than women prehistoric archaeologists. For example, with regard to women as authors and co-authors of articles in the journals, the overall E-score for Historical Archaeology is .66, that for American Antiquity 51.
For women as reviewers, Figure 10 shows that the lesser degree of "chilliness" is in favor of American Antiquity. However, in neither journal do women reach parity as reviewers. Figure 11 is a graphic comparison of the representation of women in citations. Lutz notes that citation is a form of "'symbolic capital' that confers intellectual legitimacy and boosts professional standing" (Lingua franca 1991:6). By examining the frequency with which women are cited by their colleagues, we can then determine the degree to which women may be deemed "authorities" in their specialities. The graph seems to imply that women are thus not deemed to be authorities at any time, as the highest frequency with which women are cited is twenty-two percent. Again, though, the climate appears to be more favorable (or rather less unfavorable) for women in historical archaeology than women in prehistoric archaeology.
The final area in which we examined the representation of women was in subject matter. Do there actually exist "women's research spheres", or areas in which women tend to publish more frequently? We calculated E-scores in relation to subject (see Figure 12 and legend for explanation of coding of subjects). The scores tend to be relatively low with the exception of the "U" category (relevant to American Antiquity only), which represents textiles and textile manufacture, and the "F" category (ethnobotany) for women in Historical Archaeology. With the exception of the U and F categories, in which women are more prominent, all subject areas are dominated by men. However, despite the preponderance of men, women have apparently begun to carve out niches in other study areas: ceramics (B), beads (BD), ethnobotany (F), to a lesser extent, faunal analysis (G), analysis of human remains (H), metallurgy (I), pipes (PI), and to a great extent textiles (U). In this graph it is also evident that there are more women in Historical Archaeology
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
publishing site reports and site interpretations (A) than there are in American Antiquity. The same holds true for women publishing articles on the interpretation of regional patterns and interaction (P). In American Antiquity there is no category in which women are absent; however, of the categories represented in the journal Historical Archaeology women are absent in articles on gravestones. There does seem to be a trend towards the establishment of women's research spheres.
In conclusion, both the studies of women in historical archaeology and American prehistoric archaeology as reflected in the journals Historical Archaeology and American Antiquity have shown that women in the fields are not represented at levels even remotely equal to men or to their membership in those organizations. In light of Gero's (1991a) statement that women comprise 20% of fully employed archaeologists, it is clear that women who publish in Historical Archaeology and American Antiquity represent only about one-half of the total number of women in archaeology. The next logical step in our study is to begin to answer the questions: Why do women remain underrepresented as authors and authorities relative to their numbers in the field? Why is women's research‹even when prominently published‹so apparently devalued in the field of archaeology? How can we make the climate for women in historical and prehistoric archaeology less "chilly"? And just what do we have to do to make women's voices heard and to transform women's spheres of research into women's spheres of influence?
Note:
Key for Figure 12 Research Subject Types.
A= Site report and or interpretation
B= Ceramics analysis
BD= Beads (HA only)
C= Lithics analysis
D= Archaeological Methods
E= Archaeological Theory
F= Palaeoethnobotany
FT= Fur Trade/contact (HA only)
G= Faunal analysis
GL= Glass (HA only)
GR= Grave stones (HA only)
H= Analysis of Human skeletal remains
I= Metallurgy (AA only)
IA= Industrial Archaeology (HA only)
M= Miscellaneous Artifact studies
MA= maritime (HA only)
MI= Military sites (HA only)
O= Geoarchaeology (AA only))
OB= Obituary (HA only)
P= Regional studies/discussion
PI= Pipes (HA only)
Q= Miscellaneous (AA only)
T= Rock art/ carvings (non-Mesoamerican) (AA only)
U= Textiles and Textile manufacture (AA only)
UR= Urban Archaeology (HA only)
W= Mesoamerican writing, calendar, and iconography (AA only)
References
Beaudry, Mary C., and Jacqueline White
1991 "Cowgirls with the Blues? The Experience of Women in Historical Archaeology." Paper presented at the 24th annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, VA.
Gero, Joan M.
1991a Gender and Power in Knowledge Construction: The Paleoindian Example. Keynote address, The Anthropology and Archaeology of Women Conference, Boone, NC.
1991b The Social World of Prehistoric Facts: Gender and Power in Prehistoric Research. Paper presented at the Women in Archaeology Conference, Albury, Australia.
Lingua franca
1991 Where the Boys Are. Lingua franca 1(3): 6-7.
McKern, W.C.
1935 Editor's Introduction. American Antiquity 1:1-2.
Victor, Katharine L.
1991 Women in American Antiquity? Ms. on file, Department of Archaeology, Boston University.
Woodall, J. Ned, and Philip J. Perricone
1981 The Archeologist As Cowboy: The Consequence of Professional Stereotype. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:506-509.
Wylie, Alison, and Constance Backhouse
1991 Prospectus for: The Chilly Climate for Women Faculty: Voices from the Sacred Grove. Unpublished manuscript available from the authors.
|