Matilda effect

The Matilda effect, named by Margaret W. Rossiter in 1993, is a bias against acknowledging the achievements of women scientists whose research is attributed to their male colleagues, especially males in supervisory positions. This social phenomenon, an example of male chauvinism and cryptogyny, was first described by suffragist and abolitionist Matilda Joslyn Gage (1826–1898) in her essay, "Woman as Inventor" (first published as a suffrage tract in 1870 and later published in the North American Review, retitled "Woman as an Inventor", in 1883).

This sociology-related article is a stub. You can help out with Wikiquote by expanding it!

Quotes

Science is stratified, with an unequal distribution of research facilities and rewards among scientists. Awards and prizes, which are critical for shaping scientific career trajectories, play a role in this stratification when they differentially enhance the status of scientists who already have large reputations: the ‘Matthew Effect’. Contrary to the Mertonian norm of universalism – the expectation that the personal attributes of scientists do not affect evaluations of their scientific claims and contributions – in practice, a great deal of evidence suggests that the scientific efforts and achievements of women do not receive the same recognition as do those of men: the ‘Matilda Effect’. Awards in science, technology, engineering and medical (STEM) fields are not immune to these biases. ... While women’s receipt of professional awards and prizes has increased in the past two decades, men continue to win a higher proportion of awards for scholarly research than expected based on their representation in the nomination pool.
- Anne E. Lincoln, Stephanie Pincus, Janet Bandows Koster, and Phoebe S. Leboy, (April 2012) "The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s". Social Studies of Science 42 (2): 307–320. DOI:10.1177/0306312711435830.

The undervaluing of minorities and their researcher contributions reduces when a threshold level of minority representation (between 15 and 30%) is reached in a group or community. Botany is celebrated as a discipline in which women have been able to make important contributions, especially in the past. At the same time, other biologists have raised worries that women's research contributions are being neglected or dismissed not just in the past but even currently. Based on data on the representation of women authors in 15 biology journals, I will suggest that the difference between botany and other disciplines may arise from the numbers and proportions of women. The contributions made by women in botany could not be as easily dismissed or neglected as elsewhere in biology due to women's higher representation in botany.
- Jani Raerinne, (April 2025) "The Matilda Effect and Women's Representation in Biology". The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. DOI:10.1002/bes2.70014.

Recent work has brought to light so many cases, historical and contemporary, of women scientists who have been ignored, denied credit or otherwise dropped from sight that a sex-linked phenomenon seems to exist, as has been documented to be the case in other fields, such as medicine, art history and literary criticism. Since this systematic bias in scientific information and recognition practices fits the second half of Matthew 13:12 in the Bible, which refers to the under-recognition accorded to those who have little to start with, it is suggested that sociologists of science and knowledge can add to the 'Matthew Effect', made famous by Robert K. Merton in 1968, the 'Matilda Effect', named for the American suffragist and feminist critic Matilda J. Gage of New York, who in the late nineteenth century both experienced and articulated this phenomenon. Calling attention to her and this age-old tendency may prod future scholars to include other such 'Matildas' and thus to write a better, because more comprehensive, history and sociology of science.
- Margaret W. Rossiter, "The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science". Social Studies of Science 23 (2): 325–341. DOI:10.1177/030631293023002004.