Gender and Scientific Evaluation

Scientific recognition is rarely neutral. My work in this area investigates how gender shapes which knowledge claims are treated as authoritative, how novelty is attributed and rewarded, and how uncertainty is managed differently depending on who makes a claim.

Key questions

  • How do gendered dynamics shape which scientific contributions get recognized, cited, and treated as authoritative?
  • How is novelty attributed and rewarded differently across gender lines?
  • How is uncertainty managed differently depending on who makes a scientific claim?

Related work

  • Lee, Jina. Claiming Novelty, Claiming Authority: Gender Gaps in Scientific Impact Across Disciplines. Gender & Society.Forthcoming

  • Lee, Jina. The Theory Penalty: Gender Bias in Recognition of Scientific Novelty. Under Review

  • Lee, Jina. Stratified Fact-Making: How Gender and Novelty Claims Stratify the Stabilization of Scientific Facts. Working Paper

  • Leahey, Erin, Jina Lee, and Russell Funk. 2023. What Types of Novelty are Most Disruptive?. American Sociological Review, 88(3): 562-597 DOI ↗

Gender, Culture, and Recognition

Recognition unfolds across cultural fields, markets, and public arenas. My work in this area examines how gender and social hierarchies shape who is recognized, remembered, funded, protected, or able to remain publicly present.

Key questions

  • How do cultural institutions determine whose work is recognized and remembered?
  • How do gender stereotypes shape access to recognition and resources?
  • How do social categories influences judgments of who deserves support or protection?
  • At which stages of evaluation do inequalities emerge and accumulate?

Related work

Science and Academia

Scientific knowledge is shaped not only by what researchers study but by how scientific communities are organized. This line of work examines how structural features of academic fields, such as how audiences are structured, publication norms, and data practices, influence the production, reception, and epistemic character of scientific knowledge.

Key questions

  • How does audience structure shape the impact of domain-spanning innovation?
  • How do editorial and data sharing requirements shape the epistemic character of scientific articles?

Related work

  • Paik, Eugene T., Jina Lee, Russell Funk, Erin Leahey. Divide and Conquer? How Partitioned Audiences Shape the Impact of Domain-Spanning Innovation. Working Paper

  • Lassiter, Charles, Sarah Bratt, Erin Leahey, Charlie Gomez, Jina Lee, and Yeaeun Kwon. Humble Reflections on the Intellectual Process of Developing a Text-based Measure of Humility in Inquiry. In Humble Inquiry: New Perspectives on Intellectual Humility, edited by Nathan Ballantyne, Jared Celniker, and Norbert Schwartz. Cambridge University PressForthcoming

AI and Research Practice

A newer line of my work asks how AI tools are changing research practice itself, not just its speed or volume.

Key questions

  • How can AI-assisted research systems make interpretive decisions visible and auditable?
  • What survives, and what is lost, when human judgment is relocated into external infrastructure a researcher runs alone?

Related work

  • Lee, Jina, Zhuofan Li. Conceptual Divergence Analysis: Mapping a Researcher’s Conceptual Vocabulary Against the Literatures They Address. R&R