Problems of Developing Researches on Women’s Political Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis

The attention of researchers to the problems of recruiting new types of elites remains consistently high in the context of the modern political process transformation. But at the same time, the interest of researchers in women’s political leadership remains insignificant because the authors’ work continues to highlight gender inequality in politics, as demonstrated by the results of the study (113 publications versus 11,374). The paradigm of gender studies remains outdated: special attention is paid to the numerical indicators of women in top political positions, to the problems of unequal access and stereotypes of the electorate. Using the methodology of scientometric research approach, the author demonstrates the slow development of research problems of female political leadership in modern domestic science, as well as specifics and directions of development of research on possible institutionalization of women’s political leadership by means of bibliometric analysis of gender studies development on the basis of the e-library and RSCI. Citation analysis allows presenting statistics on the researched topic in popular search engines. The article notes that the problem field of female political leadership lies at the interdisciplinary interface of various scientific disciplines: political sciences, economic sciences, sociological sciences, psychological sciences and historical sciences. At the same time, the number of citations of publications on women’s political leadership more often prevails in economics, sociology and psychology. Researchers of leading Russian universities are mainly interested in the problems of women’s political leadership, including Lomonosov Moscow State University, structures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, The Presidential Academy RANEPA, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, etc. The findings of the study lead to conclusions about the well-established convictions in the scientific community among the gender researchers regarding inequality in politics. However, the transformation of the political process in recent years does not cause corresponding changes in the scientific paradigm among studies on women’s political leadership.

1. Durkheim E. (2008) Metod sotsiologii [Method of Sociology]. In: Durkheim E. La Sociologie. Moscow: TERRA — Book Club. P. 45–200.

2. Garfield E. (1972) Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science. Is. 178(4060). P. 471–479.

3. Gilligan C. (2003) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

4. Grigorieva N.S., Chubarova T.V. (2020) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and in Practice: An Example of Social Policy. Obshchestvennye nauki и sovremennost’. No. 3. P.166–178. DOI: 10.31857/S086904990010077-6

5. Grigorieva N.S., Zhokhova A.A. (2022a) Political Rhetoric of Women Leaders in the French Presidential Election Campaign 2022. Zhenshchina v rossiyskom obshchestve. No. 4. P. 48–58. DOI: 10.21064/WinRS.2022.4.5

6. Grigorieva N.S., Zhokhova A.A. (2022b) Women in the British Political Process in Contemporary Times. A Role Analysis. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedeniye. No. 1–3. P. 393–403. DOI: 10.28995/2073-6401-2022-1-393-403

7. Guskov A. (2015) Russian Scientometrics: A Review of Researches. Bibliosfera. No. 3. P. 75–86.

8. Hinton P.R. (2000) Stereotypes, Cognition, and Culture. Hove, East Sussex; Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

9. Kahn К.F. (1996) Political Consequences of Being Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press, New York.

10. Kashina M.A., Tkach S. (2022) History of the Evolution of Gender Studies in Russia through the Analysis of Discourses of Their Subject Fields (Based on the Analysis of Word-Nets and Word-Clouds). Zhenshchina v rossiyskom obshchestve. No. 3. P. 36–59. DOI: 10.21064/WinRS.2022.3.3

11. Kohli R., Melville N.P. (2019) Digital Innovation: A Review and Synthesis. Information Systems Journal. Vol. 29. Is. 1. P. 200–223. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12193

12. Leydesdorff L. (1989) The Relation between Qualitative Theory and Scientometric Methods in Science and Technology Studies. Scientometrics. Vol. 15. P. 333–347.

13. Marat I.K. (2008) Traktovka ponyatiya «Sotsial’nyy institut» v klassicheskoy i sovremennoy sotsiologii [Interpretation of the concept of “Social institution” in classical and modern sociology]. Aktual’nyye voprosy sovremennoy nauki. No. 3. P. 266–272.

14. Petrunin Y.Y. (2020a) Digital Security: A New Subject Field in the Focus of Scientometrics. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. No. 1–2 (97). P. 127–148. DOI: 10.17212/2307-6879-2020-1-2-127-148

15. Petrunin Y.Y. (2020b) Bibliometric Analysis of Russian Science of Public Administration. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik. No. 79. P. 68–89. DOI: 10.24411/2070-1381-2019-10049

16. Petrunin Y.Y. (2020c) The Problem of Demarcation in Russian Neuroethics. Filosofiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 85–107. DOI: 10.17323/2587-8719-2020-1-85-107

17. Pokatov D.V. (2016) Political Elitism in Postmodern Society: Experience of Sociological Analysis. Voprosy upravleniya. No. 2(20). P. 32–36.

18. Pritchard A. (1969) Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation. Vol. 25. P. 348–349.

19. Rebrey S.M. (2024) How to Measure Inequality of Opportunity: The Axial Institutions Index. Voprosy Ekonomiki. No. 5. P. 128–153. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2024-5-128-153

20. Riabova T.B., Ovcharova O.G. (2016) Gender Studies in Russian Political Sciences: Current Status, Problems and Prospects. Zhenshchina v rossiyskom obshchestve. No. 1(78). P. 3–23.

21. Shvedova N.A. (2021) Women’s Leadership in the World: Bitter Lessons and Hopes. Gendernaya politika v Rossii i v mire: ekonomika, upravleniye, obshchestvo: materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchnoy konferentsii. Ivanovo: Ivanovskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet. P. 40–45. DOI: 10.46726/Sb.2021.5

22. Shvedova N.A. (2022) Women’s Leadership in the World: “Promoting Forward”. Zhenshchina v rossiyskom obshchestve. No. 1. P. 32–47. DOI: 10.21064/WinRS.2022.1.3

23. Sillaste G.G. (2020) Changing the Gender Order and Its Social Risks. Sotsial’nyye riski v sovremennom obshchestve: Materialy Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy onlayn-konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem. Krasnoyarsk: Nauchno-innovatsionnyy tsentr. P. 222–227.

24. Sillaste G.G. (2022) Methodology and Paradigm Shift in the Study of Sociogender Space and Gender Equality. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedeniye. No. 1. Part 3. P. 318–331. DOI: 10.28995/2073-6401-2022-1-318-331

25. Tajfel H. (2010) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

26. Voronina O.A. (2023a) Gender Mainstreaming as Methodology in Social Policy. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyy vestnik. No. 100. P. 73–88. DOI: 10.24412/2070-1381-2023-100-73-88

27. Voronina O.A. (2023b) Theoretical, Empirical and Political Aspects of Gender Studies in Russia. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Iskusstvovedeniye. No. 2. P. 84–92. DOI: 10.28995/2073-6401-2023-2-84-92

28. Weber M. (1990) Izbrannyye proizvedeniya [Selected works]. Moscow: Progress.

29. Zhao L., Tang Z.-Y., Zou X. (2019) Mapping the Knowledge Domain of Smart-City Research: A Bibliometric and Scientometric Analysis. Sustainability. Vol. 11. Is. 23. DOI: 10.3390/su11236648

30. Zhokhova A.A. (2023) Comparative Analysis of the Features of Women’s Political Leadership in Great Britain and France in the XX–XXI Centuries: Problems and Prospects. Voprosy politologii. Vol. 13. No. 6–1(94–1). P. 2607–2615. DOI: 10.35775/PSI.2023.94-1.6-1.009