In article <9305281854.AA14351 at net.bio.net>, MCCAINKW at DUVM.BITNET (Kate) writes:
> Nothing special comes immediately to my mind with respect to counts of
> women's publications, society memberships, etc. with the exception of two
I am collaborating with a colleague (Donna Holmes) on a study of
conference presentations within the Animal Behaviour Society, a
professional society for those interested in animal behaviour. We have
coded 10 years of abstracts for a variety of variables, resulting in a
huge data set. It's not publications, but it's probably closer to
research interests than published papers, to the extent that there are
intervening variables between the research and writing it up. And the
nice thing about animal behaviour is that there are a lot of a priori
hypotheses about what men and women might find interesting. About 35%
of first authors are female within our data set, and that reflects the
society membership as a whole.
The data have been partially analysed, and the manuscript writing is also
I didn't see the original posting; is this of interest?
Chris Hitchcock clh at vax.ox.ac.uk
EGI, Dept of Zoology
South Parks Road formerly: chris at psych.toronto.edu
Oxford OX1 3PS Still reading UseNet
ENGLAND for the signatures.