Signs of the feminization of sociology in Turkey: Transformation of gender composition and possible scenarios

Abstract

Spanish

French

Recently, both in Turkey and the international arena, there has been a remarkable increase in the number and visibility of women among students and academic personnel, particularly in specific areas of higher education. In this respect, this article provides a gender-based picture of students and academic personnel in undergraduate and graduate sociology programs in Turkey and identifies the direction of the gender-based changes in these programs over the last 20 years in quantitative/demographic terms. The article also attempts to assess, within the framework of qualitative/cultural changes, the current and potential changes and transformations in the methodological practices of the discipline, as well as in the discipline’s present and future basic fields of interest and study. To this end, and within the scope of discussions in the literature regarding the feminization of certain academic disciplines, the article focuses on where sociology in Turkey currently stands in this respect, and on possible future scenarios regarding this discipline.

Keywords

Academic disciplines changing gender composition feminization gender balance/imbalance sociology Turkey

Introduction

In recent years, as in Europe and America, there has also been an increased propensity for higher education in Turkey. In particular, the increase in the number of female students moving on to higher education is noteworthy (OECD, 2015; Vincent-Lancrin, 2008). It is equally significant that there is a similar increase in the number of female academic personnel (Enders and Musselin, 2008). A gender-based evaluation of the increased tendency for higher education suggests that there is a remarkable differentiation in certain academic disciplines (Leathwood and Read, 2008: 5). Such differentiation requires the possible outcomes of these gender-based preferences to be reconsidered.

One of the most explicit indicators of gender-based differentiation is the increased orientation of women towards the social sciences, whereas the number of men is gradually declining in these areas (see especially ASA, 2012; Humanities Indicators, 2015; TÜİK, 2014). In recent years, the apparent gender-based changes among students and academic personnel in certain areas, such as psychology, anthropology and sociology (see e.g. ASA, 2012; Ostertag and McNamara, 1991; Philips, 2010; Skinner and Louw, 2009), brings with it many questions worthy of analysis. In this context, it is important to examine the extent to which certain academic disciplines are undergoing a historical gender-based change, as well as the possible consequences of this change.

The increased number of women and the decreased number of men, not only in social sciences but also in higher education generally, has raised discussions in the literature concerning the feminization of certain academic disciplines and professions. The main axes of these discussions are the reasons for such gender-based changes and transformations and how they have affected or will affect the gender composition and future of particular academic disciplines or professions (see especially Adams, 2005; Leathwood and Read, 2008; Lindsay, 2005; Murphy and Oesch, 2016; Proskurina, 2003; Riska, 2008; Skinner and Louw, 2009; Winter, 1991).

Considering the changes in gender composition of particular academic disciplines in the social sciences, sociology in particular deserves attention. This is because ‘sociology was traditionally male-dominated like nearly all degree courses’ (Witt, 2009: 450); however, data suggest that in recent years and in certain countries, women are increasingly visible in sociology, both in terms of students and academic personnel. For example, the 2004 and 2009 data for the Committee on the Status of Women in Sociology (CSWS), which is part of the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the reports Gender Trends in Sociology and Social Sciences (1966–2012, 1990–2011) of the American Sociological Association all suggest that while men have started to abandon the area/discipline, women, conversely, have become more visible. Furthermore, data in the study conducted by Ann-Katrin Witt (2009), which addresses the change in female–male student ratios in sociology departments of universities in Sweden, suggest a dominance of female students and a gradually declining number of male students. Harley and Wickham (2014: 31) argue that in Australia, the sociology discipline which was dominated by men in 1959 now has more female students than male students and has more women than men in academic posts at all levels and that the trend is clearly towards feminization. It is possible to see a similar tendency in Portugal (see Baptista and Machado, 2010) and the UK (see Wakeling, 2009), even if it changes at different stages of the academy.

In relation to Turkey, however, there has only been limited research on the changes in the gender composition of sociology, on possible changes in the area, and their consequences. Therefore, we consider it important to conduct a comprehensive gender-based inquiry concerning sociology in Turkey, in line with the discussions relating to the feminization of certain academic disciplines. The article evaluates where the academic discipline of sociology in Turkey stands within the context of the discussions on feminization in the literature, and the consequences this current gender distribution (gender balance or imbalance) and changes in gender composition in the discipline are engendering or might engender.

Theoretical framework of the study

The current gender distribution and changes in gender composition in academic disciplines or professions have an impact on how students, academics, and other members of society perceive that academic discipline or profession, and also on the type of narrative they develop regarding that field or profession. Furthermore, the current gender distribution and changes in gender composition also have a profound effect on the practices of an academic discipline or profession, and on the processes with which they produce scientific knowledge (see e.g. Adams, 2005; Leathwood and Read, 2008; Lindsay, 2005; Menkel-Meadow, 1995).

In recent years, gender-based changes favoring women in certain areas of higher education have brought about the discussion of the feminization of certain fields. In this respect, the concept of feminization has been employed to signify different meanings in different contexts within the literature on professions and academic fields. The feminization of an academic discipline or a profession implies that the number of women gradually increases and exceeds that of men in areas that are mainly considered to be a male domain or profession – ‘that women compose more than 50 per cent of the occupational practitioners’ (Peterson, 2014: 36) – and thus, the change this triggers leads to the gender composition of the profession (see e.g. Adams, 2005; England and Boyer, 2009; Leathwood and Read, 2008; Lindsay, 2005; Riska, 2008; Skinner and Louw, 2009). In this sense, ‘the concept of feminization is perhaps most commonly read as a description of a field in which women are in the majority. Feminization also often signifies a process of change, whereby women are seen to be increasing their numbers in relation to men’ (Leathwood and Read, 2008: 10). The concept of feminization, indicating such a quantitative change, may also be described as quantitative or demographic feminization.

‘In addition to this concern with numbers, however, feminization is also used to signify cultural change or transformation, whereby feminine values, concerns and practices are seen to be changing the culture of an organization, a field of practice or society as a whole. This is usually assumed to be a consequence of the numerical increase described above, so that more women entering a particular domain are thought to impact on the culture’ (Leathwood and Read, 2008: 11). The concept of feminization implying such a qualitative change may in turn be described as qualitative or cultural feminization.

Literature on the feminization of professions (and academic disciplines) generally focuses on two main themes. The first theme involves the reasons for the feminization process, while the second is the consequences of this change on the area or the profession. Studies highlighting the reasons focus on the decreased prestige of the area, decreased salaries, or the specifics of the profession (see Adams, 2005; see also Coventry, 1999; Lindsay, 2005; Muzzin et al., 1994; Reskin and Roos, 1990). For those studies relating to the effects or consequences of the increased number of women in male-dominated areas, there are in turn essentially three major types of interpretations (see Riska, 2008). For example, Reskin and Roos (1990: 71) conceptualize it in three forms: genuine integration, ghettoization and the re-segregation of women within the profession.

In this respect, similar to some other academic disciplines and professions, in sociology there is a large quantity of literature on gender-based changes or transformations. The changes in gender composition in the discipline are generally discussed on the basis of the process of the feminization of sociology and its consequences (see e.g. DiFuccia et al., 2007; McNamee et al., 1990; Roos, 1997; Skipper et al., 1987; Spalter-Roth, 2003; Spalter-Roth and Lee, 2000; Witt, 2009). While many academics have considered this as a positive development or transformation, others have concentrated on the transformative effects of such development. Generally, these authors evaluate gender-based changes in sociology with respect to the basic fields of interest in sociology (see e.g. Grant et al., 1987; Misra et al., 1999; Skipper et al., 1987; Stacey and Thorne, 1985, 1996), professional prestige and salaries (see e.g. England et al., 2007; Roos, 1997; Roos and Jones, 1993; Spalter-Roth and Lee, 2000), and the impacts on the process of production of scientific knowledge (see e.g. DiFuccia et al., 2007; McNamee et al., 1990; Schiebinger, 1987; Skipper et al., 1987; Ward and Grant, 1985).

The consequences of the current gender distribution that has led or might lead one way or another to changes in the gender composition of sociology and the character of the discipline, are resulting in debate in academic circles. For example, DiFuccia et al. (2007: 17–18), who studied the effects of the gender imbalance or gap in sociology and the increase in the number of women in the USA, sought answers to some questions: (1) Has the increase in the number of women changed, or is in the process of currently changing, the basic fields of interest and study of sociology? (2) To what extent will the increased visibility of women in sociology affect the basic fields of the discipline in the future? One more question can be added to these two. Could the increase in the number of women lead to a change in the methodologies preferred in sociological research?

Scope and focal points of the study

Based on these issues, the question concerning the level of feminization in a specific discipline or area can only be answered by a fairly comprehensive query. In this article, the concept of feminization means, first, the gender-based quantitative composition and changes in gender composition among both students and academics in the discipline of sociology in Turkey. The second aspect of the concept is about the extent of the effects of the current gender composition on the methodological practices, fields of interest and study of the discipline or on the process of production of scientific knowledge. This research addresses the level of feminization in sociology as an academic discipline in Turkey within the framework of the qualitative/cultural consequences of the quantitative/demographic changes in gender composition on the discipline. In this respect, the objective is to provide a more comprehensive answer to the question of the level of feminization of the discipline in both quantitative/demographic and qualitative/cultural terms.

Therefore, this research addresses the discussion concerning the feminization of sociology, over the period 1995–2015, based on three fundamental questions or axes:

In which direction has there been a change in the gender composition of sociology in Turkey? In other words, in a quantitative/demographic sense, what is the level of feminization and gender balance or imbalance?

In which direction could the current gender distribution of students and academic personnel in sociology, or the changes in gender composition, affect the quantitative/demographic composition of the discipline in future?

To what extent have the current gender distribution and changes in the gender composition of sociology affected, or may affect, both the methodological practices of the discipline and the current and future basic fields of interest and study, or the process of producing scientific knowledge?

In order to be able to answer these questions, this study has focused on the following data:

Changes in gender composition of sociology in Turkey regarding the gender-based numbers of undergraduate and graduate students and academic personnel, within the last 20 years (between 1995 and 2015).

The gender distribution of academics, who are actively working as professors, associate professors and assistant professors in the sociology departments of universities in Turkey, according to their sociological fields of study in their PhD theses.

The gender distribution of sociology graduate students (as well as graduate students working as research assistants) who have completed their studies within the last three years (2013–2015) in Turkey, according to their sociological fields of study for master’s degrees and PhD theses.

Master’s and PhD theses in sociology in Turkey, between 1995 and 2015, by research method and gender.

This study is basically based on quantitative data (secondary analysis of some official data). The basic data source for this study includes the ÖSYM (Student Selection and Placement Center) and YÖK (Board of Higher Education) statistics of students and academic personnel in the relevant years, the YÖK archives on graduate theses, the academic personnel archives of the relevant departments of universities, and digital documents accessed on the personal and institutional websites of the academic personnel. Together with its own research data on Turkey, the study also includes data from other studies, in order to conduct a comprehensive investigation on the gender-based changes and feminization of sociology.

Results

Quantitative/demographic changes in gender composition of sociology in Turkey

Gender distribution of undergraduate and graduate students

In Turkey, between 1995 and 2015, there was a constant increase in the total number of students entering higher education. One of the major reasons for this is the increase in the number of universities, faculties and departments. The number of universities in Turkey from 1933 to 1982 was 19 and 193 in 2016 (ÖSYM, 1996; YÖK, 2016). The number of sociology departments in Turkey, between 1990 and 2000, was 27 in total. In 2015, the total number of sociology departments reached 86. A similar increase can be seen in master’s and doctoral programs in sociology (see YÖK, 2016). Newly opened universities and diversified graduate programs have provided a considerable increase in student numbers. In Turkey, many universities do not require one to be graduated from sociology in order to apply to graduate programs (master’s and PhD). Therefore, students who have graduated from various branches of the social sciences can apply to graduate programs in sociology in Turkey. In this sense the system is fluid.

Between 1995 and 2015, the number of undergraduate students in sociology in Turkey increased from 4772 to 25,900 (an increase of 4.4 times). Between 1995 and 2015, the total number of male and female master’s students in sociology increased from 372 to 3458 (an increase of 8.3 times). In the same period, the total number of male and female doctoral students in sociology increased from 146 to 1078 (an increase of 6.4 times) (see YÖK, 2016).

Figure 1 illustrates gender rates among undergraduate students studying sociology between the years 1995 and 2015 and shows that within the last 20 years the ratio of male students has gradually decreased while that of female students has gradually increased. Between 1995 and 2015, while the number of male students increased from 2529 to 5833 (which means an increase of 1.3 times), the number of female students increased from 2243 to 20,067 (which means an increase of 7.9 times).

Figure 1.

Gender rates among undergraduate students of sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16.

The data show that undergraduate sociology departments have reached a gender distribution or composition similar to those of nursing (female students 82.2%), psychology (female 80.0%) and nutrition and dietetics (female 85.7%), which are usually considered to be areas dominated by women (YÖK, 2016).

Figure 2, illustrating the gender rates among master’s degree students of sociology between 1995 and 2015, shows that the ratio of male students has gradually decreased while that of female students has gradually increased within the last 20 years. Between 1995 and 2015, while the number of male students increased from 238 to 1510 (which indicates an increase of 5.3 times), the number of female students increased from 134 to 1948 (an increase of 13.5 times).

Figure 2.

Gender rates among master’s degree students of sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16.

Figure 3 illustrates the gender rates among PhD students of sociology and shows that the ratio of male students has gradually decreased in the last 20 years, while that of female students has gradually increased. The ratio of increase in the number of female PhD students is significantly higher than that of their male counterparts. Between 1995 and 2015, while the number of male students increased from 95 to 538 (which means an increase of 5.1 times), the number of female students increased from 51 to 495 (an increase of 8.7 times).

Figure 3.

Gender rates among PhD students of sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16.

Despite an overall increase in the number of male students in the last 20 years due to the increase in the number of newly opened universities and departments in Turkey, there is a decreasing proportion of male students and an increasing proportion of female students. Therefore, it can be said that the increase of 5.3 times for master’s male students and the increase of 5.1 times for doctorate male students are related to the general increase in the number of universities, departments, and students in Turkey. During the same period, the number of master’s female students increased by 13.5 times and the number of doctorate female students increased by 8.7 times.

In conclusion, it can be claimed that in particular the undergraduate category has been significantly feminized in quantitative/demographic terms. The increase in the rates of female master’s degree and PhD students suggests that, in the future, most probably the gender composition of these two categories will be similar to that of the undergraduate category. In this respect, we can say that female students in general have become more visible in sociology programs and that the interest in and demand by male students for the same programs have started to significantly decrease. It may be claimed that female students have started to become more visible in this discipline, not only in Turkey but also at an international level. In this respect, Figure 4, which shows the change in the rates of female undergraduate and graduate students of sociology in the USA between 1966 and 2012, suggests a pattern similar to that of Turkey, in terms of the historical increase in the ratio of female students of sociology.

Figure 4.

Sociology degrees awarded to women by degree level in the USA, 1966–2012.

When some other countries are examined, it is seen that the number of undergraduate and graduate female students has a rising trend. For example, sociology in Australia has attracted considerably more female than male students across the 1959–2014 period and the proportion of female students has steadily increased (Harley and Wickham, 2014: 31). As another example, at the present time in Sweden women dominate the undergraduate level and earn the lion’s share of PhDs (Larsson and Magdalenic, 2015: 87).

Data for 2007/2008 indicate that some 58% of UK domiciled research students in sociology were female, compared to 71% of undergraduates in the previous year (Wakeling, 2009: 29). When Portugal is evaluated, the study of Baptista and Machado (2010: 12) shows that the prevalence of females increased in master’s programs and remained practically the same in bachelor’s programs in the period 2003–2006. There are more men with PhDs than women, but a gender balance seems to have been reached recently.

This gender-based picture or composition of the category of undergraduate and graduate students is undoubtedly also reflected in the category of academic personnel. Thus, we can continue to discuss the subject with reference to the increase in the number of female academics in general, and the changing trend in gender composition of academic personnel in Turkey’s sociology departments.

Gender (im)balance in higher education in Turkey

The rate of participation in the general labor force in Turkey in 2014 was 50.5%. The general labor force participation rate is 71.3% for men and 30.3% for women (TÜİK, 2014). However, higher education institutions in Turkey are at the top of the institutions in which women are best represented. The impact of Republican reforms on women’s tendency towards higher education and academia in Turkey is important (see Healy et al., 2005; Neale and Özkanlı, 2010; Özkanlı, 2007; Öztan and Doğan, 2015; Sağlamer et al., 2013). The proportion of women in universities, especially from the Republican reforms to the present day, increased steadily in terms of both students and academics. According to Öncü (1979), higher education is not only a place for Turkish women to complete their career steps but rather a field where they will strengthen their socio-economic privileges.

The total number of academic staff in Turkey has increased from 50,259 to 149,999 in the last two decades (an increase of 1.9 times). With regard to the gender-based ratio of change among the total number of academics, while the ratio of female academics among the total number of academics was 32.8% in 1995–1996, by 2015–2016 it had increased to 43.1% (ÖSYM, 1996; YÖK, 2016). This rate is higher than the number of women academics in many countries in the world. Among the other types of employment, the highest proportion of women is in the higher education institutions (DPDB, 2016). However, female ratios are decreasing in the upper echelons of the academy in Turkey (see DPDB, 2016; Şentürk, 2015).

According to the She Figures data (2015: 21, 22, 68) for the EU-28 and Turkey, there is a generally balanced gender distribution in graduate education and the higher education sector for Europe and Turkey. However, when examining the proportion of women in graduate education and the academy in terms of their field of study, there a sex-based stratification to be seen. For example, the proportion of female students enrolled in mining engineering, mechanical engineering and electrical-electronics engineering departments in 2013 is 13%, 11% and 19% respectively and the number of female academics in these sections is 18%, 12%,and 17% respectively (ÖSYM, 2013; see also Şentürk, 2015: 11–12). Furthermore, according to YÖK, in 2014–2015, among the total number of students enrolled in technical subjects, such as engineering and engineering studies, 75.5% were male, while 24.5% were female students. It can be said that in certain areas of the social sciences, and also in areas such as pediatrics, women are in much higher proportions.

In terms of academic staff, the proportion of women in engineering fields in Turkey is much lower than that of women in the social and behavioral sciences. According to YÖK data (2015–2016), 42.4% of the total 6339 academics in social and behavioral sciences are female and 57.6% are male; 22.9% of the total 9864 academics in the engineering field are female and 77.1% are male. The studies of Yenilmez (2016) and Şentürk (2015) draw attention to the rates of female academics in different fields in the academy in Turkey.

According to Reskin (2001), in changing market conditions, men move away from less profitable areas and these areas become filled by women. Women are mostly concentrated in professions or areas where academic work is not very profitable, or seen as women’s work. In this respect, it could be argued that the increased interest in social sciences in higher education in Turkey is also related to gender-based preferences. Therefore, we could say that both female and male academics generally prefer the areas in which they can reproduce gender roles.

Increased visibility of female academics in sociology

As such, in Turkey an even higher increase in the ratio of female academics is also mirrored in sociology. Between 1995 and 2015, the total number of academic personnel in sociology increased from 215 to 972 in Turkey (an increase of 3.5 times). Figure 5 shows the gender-based rates among sociology academics (professor; associate professor; assistant professor; research assistant; teaching assistant) in the country’s public and private universities between 1995 and 2015.

Figure 5.

Gender rates among academic personnel in sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16.

According to the data in Figure 5, which show the gender distribution of academic personnel in sociology within the last 20 years, the ratio of male academics has decreased whereas the ratio of female academics has shown a general increase. From 1995 to 2015, the number of male academics in sociology increased from 133 to 532 (an increase of 3 times) while the number of female academics increased from 82 to 440 (an increase of 4.4 times). While the number of male academics in the 1995–1996 period was 23.8% higher than that of women, this gap declined to 9.4% in the period of 2015–2016. For this reason, in the last two decades, despite the fluctuations, the decreasing number of men and the increasing number of women are remarkable. In this sense, the initial gap between male and female academics is gradually closing.

When we analyze the changes of the gender rates in terms of academic titles within the last 20 years, it will be easier to identify the possible changes of the gender rates in sociology. In this respect, Figure 6 shows the gender distribution among the total number of titles ‘professor’ and ‘associate professor’ in sociology departments from 1995 to 2015.

Figure 6.

Gender rates in titles of academic personnel in sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16 (professor and associate professor).

While the number of male academics holding the titles professor and associate professor increased from 29 to 163 (an increase of 4.6 times), the number of female academics holding the same titles in sociology increased from 20 to 87 (an increase of 3.4 times). This shows that the ratio of male academics is higher among academics with more senior titles, such as professor and associate professor.

Though numbers of male academics with senior titles are higher, the fact that the number of female academics has been increasing, in terms of the seniority of their titles, such as assistant professor and research assistant, suggests significant data estimating the gender-based change in the academic field and its possible future composition. In this respect, Figure 7 and Figure 8 support this argument.

Figure 7.

Gender rates in titles of academic personnel in sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16 (assistant professor).

Figure 8.

Gender rates in titles of academic personnel in sociology between 1995–96 and 2015–16 (research assistant).

In Figure 7, which shows the gender distribution in the category of assistant professor between 1995–1996 and 2015–2016, it is possible to observe that rates of female and male academics have been getting closer over the years. During these years, while the number of male academics holding the title assistant professor increased from 31 to 198 (an increase of 5.4 times), the number of female academics holding the same title increased from 18 to 155 (an increase of 7.6 times).

There is also a similar tendency in the category of research assistant. According to Figure 8, from 1995–1996 to 2006–2007, the ratio of male academics with the title research assistant had been higher than that of female academics with the same title; however, as of 2007–2008, the proportion of female academics with the title research assistant exceeded that of male academics with the same title. During these years, while the number of male research assistants increased from 65 to 157 (an increase of 1.4 times), the number of female academics with the same title increased from 34 to 181 (an increase of 4.3 times).

In all categories within the last two decades, the proportion of increase in the number of female academics is higher than that of men. However, the proportion of increase in the number of women in the upper echelons of the academy does not follow the proportion of increase seen in the lower strata. Numbers of male academics with senior titles are higher. Consequently, an overall analysis of the figures on the gender distribution or composition of academic personnel in sociology within the last two decades shows that the proportion of male academics increases as the level of academic titles increases, while the proportion of female academics increases as the level of academic titles decreases. The figures show that the proportion of female academics and the ratio of increase in the number of female academics are higher among younger academics.

Similarly, in Sweden, although the undergraduate and graduate categories are dominated by women, the highest levels of the academic hierarchy continue to be controlled by male sociologists (Larsson and Magdalenic, 2015: 87). The feminization of sociology in Australian universities is currently clearest at the lower levels, including in casual positions, research/teaching assistant positions, and the first two of the five rungs of the established career ladder, known usually as Associate Lecturer A and Lecturer B (Harley and Wickham, 2014: 33). For Wakeling (2009: 3–20), in the UK, there also appears to be a downward shift in women’s representation starting after undergraduate level; women are in a minority in the profession, particularly at senior levels. However, there is some sign that this is changing among younger cohorts.

A lot of research data imply that female academics are underrepresented in the higher echelons of the academic field and that the proportion of female academics decreases as the level of academic titles increases (see Öztan and Doğan, 2015: 195; see also DiFuccia et al., 2007; Rees, 2001). One of the main contentions that this suggests is that there is a ‘glass ceiling’ (Cotter et al., 2001). Many studies point to the effect of the glass ceiling on the top career rungs in many professions including academia in Turkey (see Healy et al., 2005; Neale and Özkanlı, 2010; Özkanlı and White, 2009; Öztan and Doğan, 2015). Glass ceiling syndrome generally refers to invisible barriers that prevent progress in career steps. At the same time, it also points to the sexist occupational segregation stemming from social factors (Taşkın and Çetin, 2012: 23).

However, when the gender distribution of the young academics (research assistants) in Figure 8 is examined, it is seen that there is a very significant increase in favor of women. If the gender distribution in the undergraduate and graduate categories (and the research assistant category) is accepted as a potential indicator in terms of the future gender composition of the academy, it can be predicted that the male proportion will decrease further in the upper levels of the academy in the future (although the effect of the glass ceiling in the upper echelons of the academy is increasing).

For this reason, the female-dominated composition in the research assistant category will first be reflected in the assistant professor category. It is possible already to see the signs of this increase in the number of female and male academicians in the assistant professor category. It is thought that the gender composition in favor of women at the level of young academics can then shape the categories of associate professor and professor. Thus, although the female representation rate is lower in the upper rungs of the academy, it is predicted that women will become more visible in these categories after a while.

In summary, the data presented in this section show that in the discipline of sociology, the proportion or the visibility of women has increased significantly over time among not only undergraduate and graduate students but also among the academic personnel. The data point to a ‘gender imbalance or gap’ with respect to the numbers or ratio of female and male students, particularly with regard to undergraduate level. In this respect, it could be argued that the category of undergraduate education in sociology has been largely feminized or female-dominated, in terms of its gender-based quantitative/demographic composition. Although there is no significant gap in the distribution of female and male students at master’s and PhD levels, when considering the historical increase in the number of female and male students at these levels, it may be assumed that a pattern similar to that at undergraduate level may also eventually emerge in these categories. Considering the current gender distribution or composition of the academic staff, it cannot yet be claimed that the discipline has been feminized in quantitative/demographic terms; however, the ratio of increase in the number of women in all categories (the number of women among undergraduate and graduate students and young academics) suggests that, despite the effect of the glass ceiling, women academics are expected to increase in number and become more visible, and the expectation is that the discipline will becoming more feminized in quantitative/demographic terms.

So what might be the consequences of this current outlook? In light of the data, which assumptions can be proposed regarding the basic fields of study, methodological preferences, the process of producing knowledge and the future of sociology when taken into consideration together with the increased number of women and the decline in the number of men in the discipline? Can such a gender-based composition or change be interpreted as a sign of a current and/or prospective change and transformation of many strategic issues, including the nature of and the practices of sociology as a science?

Qualitative/cultural changes and possible scenarios for the future of sociology

Within the framework previously established, attention should be given to some possible qualitative/cultural transformative effects or consequences of the significant increase in women, in both undergraduate and graduate education, as well as in the academic personnel category, and the withdrawal of men from the discipline. In sociology, as mentioned previously, gender distribution or composition at undergraduate level (and to a certain extent even at master’s level) indicates that in quantitative/demographic terms this category has been feminized to a significant degree. Data for the undergraduate and master’s levels indicate that the other categories – including doctorate and academic personnel – have the potential of becoming female-dominated in the near future. This is because the proportion of female undergraduate students in a particular discipline may be regarded as an indicator of the future proportion of women in that discipline (Riska, 2008; see also Adams, 2005). In this respect, an outlook in which female students are in the majority at undergraduate level implies that women will in the future dominate such a discipline or profession as a whole.

One could say that the gender balance among both students and academic personnel is significant for many academic disciplines, in a wide range of aspects, including the fields of study, choice of methods and teaching practices. It could be said that the professions or academic disciplines having the 45–50% gender balance are described as integrated professions (or disciplines) (Lordoğlu and Özkaplan, 2014: 161). If there is no gender balance in a specific discipline, then it might be perceived as a field of science identified solely by a single gender. Furthermore, a significant consequence of this could be a restriction in the production of scientific knowledge to a limited area. In this respect, a gender imbalance or gap in academic disciplines may be mirrored in the process of achieving knowledge on social reality. This is because the general cultural background and in particular the researcher’s gender may lead to a concentration on certain fields of study and an avoidance of others. This, in turn, may lead to specific epistemological problems, in terms of the limitations and barriers in acquiring knowledge on social reality.

At this point, two issues arise. First, is there a difference in the choice of research topics between male and female academics? Second, is there a difference in the choice of research methods between male and female academics?

The basic fields of interest and study in sociology: gender and the choice of research topics

In this respect, one should consider the following question: To what extent are female academics in sociology reflecting their social and cultural backgrounds, including gender, onto their scientific studies? Figure 9 provides information on the gender distribution of academics who are actively working in sociology departments in Turkey in different academic positions (professor/associate professor/assistant professor), according to their fields of study of PhD theses. Considering the fact that PhD theses are strategically important in the process of the production of sociological knowledge, in qualitative/cultural terms these data are particularly significant with respect to the level of feminization of the sociology discipline. This is because a gender-based change or transformation may also have consequences on the character and diversification of the production of sociological knowledge.

Figure 9.

Gender distribution of academics actively working in sociology departments in Turkey in different academic positions (professor/associate professor/assistant professor) according to their fields of study of PhD theses.

It can be seen that female academics actively working in sociology departments in Turkey are more concentrated in areas such as sex and gender, gender and class, family, migration and identity, aging, children and youth than are male academics. In light of these data, it could be said that there are significant differences between women and men with respect to their fields of study (Figure 9).¹ Similarly, Grant et al. (1987) and Skipper et al. (1987) also argue that gender-based differences are highly significant in the basic fields of sociological research. According to their research, studies by female academics are somewhat concentrated on gender studies (such as marriage, family, gender roles, etc.) while those of male academics are concentrated on social disorder, theory and political economy. In this respect, one may speak of a gender-based segregation or clustering in certain areas with regard to the fields studied (see Stacey and Thorne, 1985, 1996).

Similarly, according to the classification used by the ASA in 2010, to identify the fields of study of members, there are differences with respect to the fields of study chosen by male and female members. The fields of study chosen by women members of the ASA are generally concentrated in the categories of sex and gender, body and embodiment, race, gender and class, sociology of family, children and youth, disabilities and society, sexualities, teaching and learning, medical sociology, aging and the life course (see Cohen, 2015; see also CSWS, 2004, 2009). The data on the interest of members of TASA (The Australian Sociological Association) (data from 2004 and 2008) reveal a similar picture (see Germov and McGee, 2005; Harley and Wickham, 2014).

Concerning the future of sociology, master’s and PhD theses in sociology, written in recent years in Turkey, may also offer an idea about future tendencies regarding the sociological fields of study. We emphasized that female academics working actively as professor, associate professor and assistant professor were very concentrated in areas such as sex and gender, family, migration and identity, children and youth and the sociology of health. If this general tendency continues among female undergraduates and graduates, as well as young female academics (research assistants), who are becoming more visible and whose numbers are gradually increasing in sociology, such a tendency may also be decisive in prospective basic fields of interest and study in sociology in Turkey. In this respect, it is important to identify whether young sociologists are relatively concentrated in these limited areas that have gained recognition in the recent past or rather oriented to different and more diverse fields of study.

From this perspective, the areas of study for master’s and PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2015 were classified according to gender. Figure 10 provides information on the gender distribution of sociology graduate students (and at the same time, graduate students working as research assistant) in Turkey according to the fields of study of master’s and PhD theses.²

Figure 10.

Gender distribution of graduate students according to the fields of study of master’s and PhD theses completed in 2013–2015 in sociology in Turkey.

The figure shows that graduate female students (and at the same time, female graduate students who work as research assistants), who are more visible and whose number is gradually increasing in sociology, are also somewhat concentrated in fields such as gender and class, sex and gender, sociology of family, medical sociology, aging and the life course. Therefore, one could say that there is significant differentiation between male and female students with respect to their fields of academic interest (Figure 10). Apart from this, if we are to evaluate the distribution of theses subjects solely among female students, it can be seen that among those written by female students, the areas of study are mainly concentrated in gender and class (10.2%); sex and gender (9.0%); art, literature and cinema (9.4%); sociology of culture (9.0%); medical sociology (6.3%); children and youth (5.5%); sociology of the family (5.1%); media, communications and society (4.3%); and aging and the life course (2.0%). In this sense, one may also see the traces of a gender-based segregation or a certain level of clustering in the fields of study relating to theses written by young sociologists.

On the other hand, there can be a social network between female graduate students and female academics. Women in the academy generally proved themselves in issues such as gender, family, health, children and so on. It can be said that female academics are directing young female sociologists to these well-known areas. According to our research findings, 44.7% of the 331 female graduates who graduated between the years 2011 and 2015 worked with a female advisor. More than half (55.4%) of female students working with female advisors worked in the fields of study of master’s and PhD theses such as gender and class, sex and gender, family, children and youth, medical sociology, aging, and art, literature and cinema. This reproduces the gender network.

Traditionally, there are a few areas where women are very few in number. Areas such as economics and politics are considered almost entirely men’s territory in Turkey. Therefore, even though there is a significant increase in the number of women in sociology, and in general men are starting to withdraw from the field of sociology, it is not easy for women to enter these areas. If we distinguish between hard and soft sciences, politics and economics are accepted as hard areas within the sociology discipline. Especially politics or political sociology as a hard field is perceived as male business in Turkey. In this sense, even if the number of men is reduced, this area or similar areas continue to remain in the hands of a small number of men.

Eventually, the general preferences of young female candidates for sociologists with respect to the fields of study may lead to significant changes in the prospective character and diversification of the basic fields of study in sociology. Similarly, based on their study of gender difference in the patterns of publication in prominent American sociological journals, McNamee et al. (1990) propose a possible scenario on the position of women in sociology: ‘as women participate more and occupy more influential positions within the discipline (for example, journal editorship), the character of journal articles, the quantity of articles focusing on gender, and the number of female authors may increase. This change is likely to occur in graduated stages, beginning with greater consideration of gender as a variable, through consideration of gender as a separate topic of investigation, to focusing on gender issues from a feminist perspective.’ In consequence, ‘as women sociologists assume a more central role in the publication of scientific research as authors and editors, there probably will be a change in the nature and content of much of sociological research’ (McNamee et al., 1990: 102). In this respect, when considering the potential for sociology to become female-dominated, it appears possible that a specific change and limitation might be experienced in the future with regard to the areas of study on which the field focuses.

Methodological orientations: gender and the choice of research methods

According to Grant and Ward (1991: 211), ‘whether or not a systematic relationship exists between gender and research methods has been a frequently debated topic within sociology and related disciplines’. These authors (1991: 212) argued that ‘women scholars have an especial affinity for qualitative methods because these approaches embody qualities stereotypically associated with feminine social roles: empathy, evocation of emotion, establishment of rapport, and relatively intense and egalitarian relationships with informants’ (see Grant et al., 1987; Stanley and Wise, 1983).

In this framework, the research methods used or preferred in graduate theses (master’s and PhD theses) in the last 20 years in Turkey have been examined. In this respect, we tired to determine the change in method preferences in the graduate theses, completed between 1995 and 2015, according to the period under study (Table 1). In addition, the differences in the research method preferences or tendencies of male and female academics were examined (Table 2).

Table 1.

Master’s and PhD theses in sociology in Turkey, 1995–2015, by method and periods.

	1995–2000	2001–5	2006–10	2011–15
	n%	n%	n%	n%
Quantitative	37	121	195	117
	30.3%	28.1%	25.4%	18.6%
Qualitative	13	83	241	266
	10.7%	19.3%	31.4%	42.4%
Mixed	18	54	66	41
	14.8	12.5%	8.6%	6.5%
Non-empirical	54	173	266	204
	44.3%	40.1%	34.6%	32.5%
Total	122	431	768	628
	100%	100%	100%	100%

Source: Compiled from the YÖK Theses Archive.

Table 2.

Master’s and PhD theses in sociology in Turkey, 1995–2015, by method and gender.

	Quantitative	Qualitative	Mixed	Non-empirical	Total
	n%	n%	n%	n%	N%
Male	345	185	99	404	1033
	33.4%	17.9%	9.6%	39.1%	100%
Female	128	418	79	278	903
	14.2%	46.3%	8.7%	30.8%	100%

Source: Compiled from the YÖK Theses Archive.

Looking at Table 1, it appears that there is an increasing trend towards qualitative research methods over the last 20 years. The use of quantitative and other methods appears to show a decreasing tendency. In particular, the proportion of those who prefer qualitative methods has increased from 10.7% to 42.4% over the past 20 years. The use of quantitative methods decreased from 30.3% to 18.6%.

When looking at Table 2, 46.3% of female researchers were inclined to use qualitative methods, while only 14.2% preferred to use quantitative methods. According to the data, it can be said that the tendency of female researchers to prefer qualitative methods compared to men is quite high. There can be seen a significant change in method preferences between the years 1995 and 2015. Thus, it can be stated that with the increase in the number of women in sociology, there has been a significant increase in the use of qualitative methods in academic publications.

Germov and McGee’s (2010) analysis of research articles published in the Journal of Sociology (JoS) (and its predecessor, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology [ANZJS]) shows a similar trend. Harley and Wickham (2014: 44) argue that the turn to qualitative methods and related topical shifts have gone hand-in-hand with the feminization of Australian sociology. Many studies (see Grant and Ward, 1991; Grant et al., 1987; Turner, 2014) addressing the methodology and gender relationship in sociological research in the United States emphasize the tendency of women towards qualitative methods, their causes, and the changes or shifts in method preferences in the field. In this sense, this change or shift in method preferences can also offer clues as to the future orientation of the sociology discipline. As Skipper et al. (1987: 193) suggest, ‘the number of women entering sociology is increasing and the direction they are taking appears to be different from that of men. This could have a profound effect on the future direction of the profession.’ Furthermore, a great deal of research on several professions suggests that women have different practices from men and that increased female participation may transform the general practices or nature of the area or the profession (see e.g. Denekens, 2002; Leathwood and Read, 2008; Lindsay, 2005; Menkel-Meadow, 1995; Riska, 2008).

Some authors (see especially Grant et al., 1987; McNamee et al., 1990; Schiebinger, 1987; Skipper et al., 1987; Ward and Grant, 1985) argue that there will be a change in the focus of the methodological orientation and theoretical perspective of sociology, as the number of female sociologists increases. In the context of qualitative/cultural changes, the increase in the number of women in sociology suggests that there may be more methodological shifts in the future, and that the use of qualitative methods will increase, while the use of other methods will decrease even further. Therefore, the tendency of female researchers towards qualitative methods and the decrease in the use of quantitative methods also indicate that there may be a certain limitation in the means of producing knowledge in the future. In particular, the gradual decrease in the use of quantitative methods may increase the tendency of sociology to be perceived as a soft science.

In this sense, when the data on women’s research topic and method preferences are evaluated, it can be argued that feminization leads the sociology discipline away from the hard science category. In other words, sociology will continue to be perceived or defined as a soft science. Sociology has long been seen as a ‘soft’ science. The fields known as ‘hard’ sciences are more or less associated or identified with men. Identifying science fields with gender also determines the prestige of these areas. For example, according to certain authors (see England et al., 2007; Reskin and Roos, 1990; Roos, 1997; Roos and Jones, 1993), feminization may, as seen with other professions, result in decreased prestige, or decreased income in a specific area, rendering it less appealing to men. In this respect, the more feminized structure a discipline has, the less attractive it becomes for men as a choice of profession. Likewise, according to these authors, if the prestige or income associated with such a discipline decreases due to a high concentration of women, the discipline turns into an area that women would also hesitate to choose as a profession. Nevertheless, the withdrawal or abstention of men is more common than that of women (see especially England et al., 2007).

Similarly, according to DiFuccia et al. (2007: 20), who argue that sociology has always to a certain extent been defined as a soft science and that it has been less appreciated than other disciplines, the increased number of female students and academics in the area has further weakened the prestige of sociology, which was already low. Furthermore, they argue that thinking of the discipline as a softer field of science has negatively affected the perception of male students and their willingness to enter the area. Thus, it can be claimed that sociology is a field that is gradually becoming identified with women and continues to be perceived as a soft science. In the future these circumstances might lead to a wider gender imbalance or gap in this area.

Conclusion

To conclude, the data we have presented regarding the feminization of sociology in Turkey justify two fundamental assumptions or scenarios. First, data on the gender composition of sociology and the ratio of increase in the number of women enable us to conclude that there has been a significant gender-based transformation in quantitative/demographic terms. But, it cannot yet be claimed that the discipline has been feminized in all categories. However, the data on the ratio of increase in the number of women imply that a similar outlook to that of undergraduate (and, to a certain extent, master’s level) education may also emerge in other categories (PhD and academic personnel) and thus the area may become female-dominated both in terms of students and academic personnel in the near future. This, in turn, strengthens the possibility that the discipline of sociology as a whole may soon provide an outlook where there is a gender imbalance or gap in all categories, in terms of students and academic personnel.

Second, the increased number of women in sociology may have qualitative/cultural consequences. The outcome of the gender distribution of students and academic personnel and changes in gender composition in academia suggests that the increased number of women may lead to significant consequences in the basic fields of study and interests in the discipline. The data in this study show that female graduate students and female academics are somewhat concentrated in specific fields of study, which brings with it a certain level of clustering or ghettoization. If we assume that the proportion of women will increase and a more female-dominated structure will arise in all categories in quantitative/demographic terms, there will probably be a significant level of change in the academic fields of study and research in sociology. Therefore, considering the general preferences of young sociologists with regard to their fields of study, the potential/possibility of the sociology scene in Turkey becoming a feminine area (in qualitative/cultural terms) with regard to diversity in its fields of study looks even stronger. Similarly, the increase in the number of women in sociology suggests that there may be more methodological shifts in the future, and that the use of qualitative methods will increase, while the use of other methods will decrease even further. This may lead to a limit on methodological alternatives to sociological research. For sociology in Turkey, this, in turn, increases expectations regarding a change in the foci and fields of interest in sociological research and a limited scope in the production of knowledge.

It is no doubt that any gender balance in an academic discipline is closely related to the fundamental practices of the area. The gender-based composition of research fields may be pivotal with respect to many processes, such as the character and research practices of sociology. When considering all the changes and scenarios mentioned above, there is a need to revisit the gender balance, the basic fields of interest and study, and the methodological tendencies in the process of producing knowledge or, more generally, the current and prospective character of the sociology discipline. The data on Turkey presented in this study broadly correspond to some international data, which show that in sociology in recent years there has been a significant change/transformation in gender distribution. Although it cannot be asserted that sociology in Turkey has been widely feminized in both quantitative/demographic and qualitative/cultural terms across all categories, regardless of any value judgment, the possible effect of a gender imbalance in the future should be taken into consideration. It may be said that this study at the very least draws attention to the discussion of feminization of sociology and suggests a specific outlook on the course of sociology in the future.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biographies

Serdar Ünal is assistant professor at the Department of Sociology, Adnan Menderes University, Turkey. He is also director of the Adnan Menderes University youth studies research and application center. His general research interests are in the areas of culture and identity, immigrants and youth studies.

Berivan Binay is research assistant at the Department of Sociology, Adnan Menderes University, Turkey. Her PhD thesis is on ‘Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration in terms of the problem of social order’. Her research interests are in the areas of social theory and methods, sex and gender.

References

Adams

(2005) Feminization of professions: The case of women in dentistry. The Canadian Journal of Sociology 30(1): 71–94.

ASA (American Sociological Association) (2012) Gender trends in sociology and social sciences (1966–2012). Available at: www.asanet.org/research/stats/gender.cfm (accessed May 2016).

Baptista

Machado

(2010) Our (scientific) community and our society: Rethinking the role and dilemmas of national sociological associations: the Portuguese case. Sociologia Online: Revista da Associação. Portuguesa de Sociologia 1: 1–24.

Cohen

(2015) New data on gender-segregated sociology. Family Inequality. Available at: https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/gender-segregated-sociology-updated/ (accessed 26 May 2016).

Cotter

Hermsen

Ovadia

Vanneman

(2001) The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces 80(2): 655–682.

Coventry

(1999) Do men leave feminizing occupations? The Social Science Journal 36(1): 47–64.

CSWS (2004) 2004 Report of the American Sociological Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in Sociology. Final Report 22 October, Committee Members: Grant L et al. Available at: www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/asa/docs/pdf/Report%20of%20Status%20Cmte%20on%20Women%20(2004).pdf

CSWS (2009) 2009 Report of the American Sociological Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in Sociology. Final Report 21 July, Committee Members: Dellinger KA et al. Available at: www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/about/Council_Statements/Rpt%20of%20Cmte%20Status%20Women%20Aug%202009.pdf

Denekens

(2002) The impact of feminization on general practice. Acta Clinica Belgica: International Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Medicine 57(1): 5–10.

10.

DiFuccia

Pelton

Sica

(2007) If and when sociology becomes a female preserve. The American Sociologist 38(1): 3–22.

11.

DPDB (Devlet Personel Dairesi Başkanlığı) (2016) Available at: www.dpb.gov.tr/tr-tr/istatistikler/kamu-personeli-istatistikleri (accessed December 2016).

12.

Enders

Musselin

(2008) Back to the future? The academic professions in the 21st century. In OECD (ed.) Higher Education to 2030. Volume 1: Demography. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 125–150.

13.

England

Boyer

(2009) Women’s work: The feminization and shifting meanings of clerical work. Journal of Social History 43(2): 307–340.

14.

England

Allison

(2007) Why are some academic fields tipping toward female? The sex composition of U.S. fields of doctoral degree receipt, 1971–2002. Sociology of Education 80(1): 23–42.

15.

Germov

McGee

(2005) Australian sociology: Recent trends and prospects. In: Germov

McGee

(eds) Histories of Australian Sociology. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

16.

Germov

McGee

(2010) What type of papers get published in the Journal of Sociology, 1965–2008? In: Velayutham

Ebert

Watkins

(eds) Social Causes, Private Lives, Refereed Conference Proceedings, TASA Annual Conference, Macquarie University, Sydney, November 2010 (The Australian Sociological Association).

17.

Grant

Ward

(1991) Gender and publishing in sociology. Gender and Society 5: 208–223.

18.

Grant

Ward

Rong

(1987) Is there an association between method and gender in sociological research? American Sociological Review 52(6): 856–862.

19.

Harley

Wickham

(2014) Australian Sociology: Fragility, Survival, Rivalry (Sociology Transformed series, eds Holmwood

Turner

). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Healy

Özbilgin

Aliefendioğlu

(2005) Academic employment and gender: A Turkish challenge to vertical sex segregation. European Journal of Industrial Relations 11(2): 247–264.

21.

Humanities Indicators (2015) Gender distribution of advanced degrees in the humanities. A Project of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Available at: www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=47 (accessed May 2016).

22.

Larsson

Magdalenic

(2015) Sociology in Sweden: A History (Sociology Transformed series, eds Holmwood

Turner

). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.

Leathwood

Read

(2008) Gender and the Changing Face of Higher Education: A Feminized Future? Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

24.

Lindsay

(2005) The feminization of the physician assistant profession. Women and Health 41(4): 37–61.

25.

Lordoğlu

Özkaplan

(2014) Çalışma İktisadı. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.

26.

McNamee

Willis

Rotchford

(1990) Gender differences in patterns of publication in leading sociology journals, 1960–1985. The American Sociologist 21(2): 99–115.

27.

Menkel-Meadow

(1995) Feminization of the legal profession: The comparative sociology of women lawyers. In: Abel

Lewis

PSC

(eds) Lawyers in Society: An Overview. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 222–281.

28.

Misra

Kennelly

Karides

(1999) Employment chances in the academic job market in sociology: Do race and gender matter? Sociological Perspectives 42(2): 215–247.

29.

Murphy

Oesch

(2016) The feminization of occupations and change in wages: A panel analysis of Britain, Germany, and Switzerland. Social Forces 94(3): 1221–1255.

30.

Muzzin

Brown

Homosty

(1994) Consequences of feminization of a profession: The case of Canadian pharmacy. Women and Health 21(2/3): 39–56.

31.

Neale

Özkanlı

(2010) Organisational barriers for women in senior management: A comparison of Turkish and New Zealand universities. Gender and Education 22(5): 547–563.

32.

OECD (2015) Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1787/eag-2015-en (accessed May 2016).

33.

Öncü

(1979) Uzman mesleklerde Türk kadını. In: Abadan-Unat

(ed.) Türk Toplumunda Kadın. Ankara: Sosyal Bilimler Derneği Yayını, pp. 271–286.

34.

Ostertag

McNamara

(1991) ‘Feminization’ of psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15(3): 349–369.

35.

ÖSYM (Student Selection and Placement Center) Research, Publication and Statistics (academic years: 1995–96 and 2012–13). Available at: http://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,8432/2012-2013-ogretim-yili-yuksekogretim-istatistikleri.html (accessed May 2016).

36.

Özkanlı Ö (2007) The situation of academic women in Turkey. Eğitim ve Bilim/Education and Science 32(144): 59–70.

37.

Özkanlı

White

(2009) Gender and leadership in Turkish and Australian universities. Equal Opportunities International 28(4): 324–335.

38.

Öztan

Doğan

(2015) Akademinin cinsiyeti: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi örneği üzerinden üniversite ve toplumsal cinsiyet. Çalışma ve Toplum 3: 191–222.

39.

Peterson

(2014) An academic ‘glass cliff’? Exploring the increase of women in Swedish higher education management. Athens Journal of Education 1(1): 32–44.

40.

Philips

(2010) The feminization of anthropology: Moving private discourses into the public sphere. Gender and Language 4(1): 283–323.

41.

Proskurina

(2003) The feminization of science as a sociological problem. Russian Education and Society 45(7): 51–61.

42.

Rees

(2001) Mainstreaming gender equality in science in the European Union: The ‘ETAN report’. Gender and Education 13(3): 243–260.

43.

Reskin

(2001) Labor markets as queues: A structural approach to changing occupational sex composition. American Sociological Review 52(2): 195–210.

44.

Reskin

Roos

(1990) Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

45.

Riska

(2008) The feminization thesis: Discourses on gender and medicine. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 16(1): 3–18.

46.

Roos

(1997) Occupational feminization, occupational decline? Sociology’s changing sex composition. The American Sociologist 28(1): 75–88.

47.

Roos

Jones

(1993) Shifting gender boundaries women’s inroads into academic sociology. Work and Occupations 20(4): 395–428.

48.

Sağlamer

Tan

Çağlayan

(2013) Türk Yükseköğretiminde Kadın Katılımı Üzerine Bir Araştırma. İstanbul: Türkiye’de Bilim, Mühendislik ve Teknolojide Kadın Akademisyenler Ağı.

49.

Schiebinger

(1987) The history and philosophy of women in science: A review essay. Signs, Journal of Women in Culture in Society 12(2): 305–332.

50.

Şentürk

(2015) Çokuz ama yokuz: Türkiye’deki akademisyen kadınlar üzerine bir analiz. ViraVerita 2: 1–22.

51.

She Figures (2015) Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf (accessed December 2016).

52.

Skinner

Louw

(2009) The feminization of psychology: Data from South Africa. International Journal of Psychology 44(2): 81–92.

53.

Skipper

Jr DeWolf

Dudley

(1987) Sex differences in sociology specializations, 1975–1985: Women’s liberation to ghetto specialization. Sociological Focus 20(3): 185–194.

54.

Spalter-Roth

(2003) Has sociology suffered the declines predicted ten years ago? Footnotes: Newsletter of The American Sociological Association 31(2). Available at: www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/footnotes/feb03/index.html

55.

Spalter-Roth

Lee

(2000) Gender in the early stages of the sociological career. Research Brief 1(2): 1–11.

56.

Stacey

Thorne

(1985) The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems 32(4): 301–316.

57.

Stacey

Thorne

(1996) The missing feminist revolution: Ten years later. Perspectives, The ASA Theory Section Newsletter 18(30): 1–3.

58.

Stanley

Wise

(1983) Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

59.

Taşkın

Çetin

(2012) Kadın yöneticilerin cam tavan algısının cam tavanı aşma stratejilerine etkisi: Bursa örneği. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 33: 19–34.

60.

TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute) (2014) Gender statistics. Available at: www.tuik.gov.tr/Kitap.do?metod=KitapDetay&KT_ID=11&KITAP_ID=294

61.

Turner

(2014) American Sociology: From Pre-Disciplinary to Post-Normal (Sociology Transformed series, eds Holmwood

Turner

). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

62.

Vincent-Lancrin

(2008) The reversal of gender inequalities in higher education: An on-going trend. In: OECD (ed.) Higher Education to 2030. Volume 1: Demography. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 265–298.

63.

Wakeling

(2009) Statistical and demographic review of UK sociology: ESRC commissioned report.

64.

Ward

Grant

(1985) The feminist critique and a decade of published research in sociology journals. The Sociological Quarterly 26(2): 139–157.

65.

Winter

(1991) The feminization of academia. To Improve the Academy 10: 115–121. The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/236 (accessed May 2016).

66.

Witt

(2009) Gender division in sociology degree programmes: Causes and effects? Journal of Further and Higher Education 33(4): 449–461.

67.

Yenilmez

Mİ

(2016) Women in academia in Turkey: Challenges and opportunities. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi/Journal of Administrative Sciences 14(28): 289–311.

68.

YÖK (Board of Higher Education) Statistics of Students and Academic Personnel (between academic years: 1995–96 and 2015–16). Available at: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ (accessed May 2016).

69.

YÖK (Board of Higher Education) Archives on Graduate Theses (between years: 1990–2015). Available at: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ (accessed May 2016).