The study of gender has become an important aspect in both the social sciences and the humanities. Diverse conceptualizations as well as a large body of evidence enrich our understanding of the topic of gender in the two academic traditions. At the same time, gender research at the nexus of social sciences and humanities also has important implications for communications, film, and media studies. Communications, film, and media studies itself is an interdisciplinary field that borrows theoretical traditions and empirical methods from both the social sciences and the humanities. For example, studies like Segado-Boj et al. [1
] show that television studies can be located in both the social sciences and the arts and humanities disciplines, respectively.
In fact, the study of gender and media as well as film often overlap. The roles of media and film in gender construction and perception have received considerable attention throughout the years. The representation of gender by news media, American and international film and television series, commercial advertising, social media, computer games and other media genres play critical roles in constructing social norms, values, and ideas about social reality and self-perception. Studies have shown the effects that various media and the film/television industry have on gender-related social values, norms, identities, roles, and psycho-social development [2
]. For example, in terms of personality development, watching stereotypical roles in films and television can significantly impact children’s and adolescents’ conceptions of gendered self [5
] notes that gender-centered approaches in communications, film, and media studies have highlighted the fact that modern societies are stratified along the lines of gender, race/ethnicity, and class. The privileges, disadvantages, and exclusions associated with these dimensions are unevenly distributed. Modern, mediatized societies are increasingly saturated by media, information, and communications technologies [8
]. As a result, it is important to study how patterns of inequality, oppression, equality, and empowerment are connected to images, representations, and cultural constructions in and by the media. As media are involved in constructing reality, media are also actively involved in the production of ideas surrounding gender [9
]. Furthermore, De Lauretis [10
] suggests that gender is the product of various social technologies, such as media and film, but also critical practices and institutional discourses.
It is therefore valuable to look at gender research at the nexus of communications, film, and media studies, not only because these studies conceptualize and conduct research on gender representation issues, but also because the whole field of communications, film, and media studies finds itself between the humanities and the social sciences. There is a growing need to study the gender dimension in communications, film, and media studies more thoroughly, because these two subjects interact in socially and academically important, even crucial ways.
A useful approach to exploring and documenting the state of affairs and trends within a particular academic discipline is to engage in bibliometric research and visualize academic networks. Bibliometric research is a robust quantitative approach to analyzing a large variety of academic networks, ranging from visualizations of co-occurrences of key terms, to citation relations between journals and other publications [11
]. For the present research, we conducted analysis by using VOSviewer, a powerful tool to construct and visualize bibliometric networks.
The aim of this paper is to use bibliometric data to explore patterns in the field of communications, film, and media studies and its approach to gender more intensely. More specifically, the objective of the study is to map the intellectual structure of the academic field of communications, film, and media studies from the perspective of how it addresses the topic of gender. Therefore, this paper asked the following four research questions:
Which authors contribute to gendered communications, film, and media studies?
Which author clusters exist in gendered communications, film, and media studies and how do they relate to each other?
Which keywords/terms are most likely to be used in conjunction with gender?
Which keyword clusters exist in gendered communications, film, and media studies and how do these relate to each other?
Our study started with a total publication dataset of 8054 documents (ndocs = 8054) indexed in the Web of Science database. The first publication was dated in 1975 and the last one in 2022. More specifically, we conducted two types of analysis: (a) a co-citation of authors and (b) a textual occurrence of key terms. The first analysis was conducted to answer the first two research questions, whereas the latter analysis dealt with the last two questions. Our objective was to explore the main intellectual trends in the field, and to identify which theoretical body of works serve as a foundation for the discipline. Results indicate that there are seven distinct clusters of a total of 995 authors (nauthors = 995) that interact via main hubs in gendered communications, film, and media studies. At the same time, the application of the term gender in these intersecting fields is clearly divided.
We begin first by clarifying what the term “gender” means. In public discussions and representations, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Many people take masculinity and femininity as two naturally given categories, rather than seeing gender as socially constructed. In this academic context, the term “sex” is used, on the one hand, to refer to biological features such as chromosomes, hormones, sex organs, and other physical features. On the other hand, the term “gender” is used to refer to the social and cultural meanings that have historically and socially been related to these biological differences [12
]. Gender is thus about the social and cultural construction of various notions regarding femininities, masculinities, and other gendered identities, activities, and bodies.
Furthermore, instead of constantly referring to the topic of gender in communications, film, and media studies, the term “gendered communications, film, and media studies” will be used. It should be noted that the term “Communication” in this paper relates to the Web of Science category of communication, whereas the term “communications” refers to the field of communications studies (in relation to media and film studies).
The paper is divided into six sections. This (1) introduction is followed by (2) a brief overview of the literature to locate our study and argue for its relevance. Then, (3) a description of data collection methods and procedures is presented, followed by (4) a descriptive and visual presentations of results, as well as our data analysis. Finally, (5) a discussion and the limitations, as well as (6) the conclusion will be presented.
Gendered communications, film and media studies is a field that has yet to be assessed, or even mapped from a bibliometric perspective (see www.vosviewer.com/publications
(accessed on 7 September 2022) for a detailed list of bibliographic studies using VOSviewer). Some existing studies in the larger area of humanities are more generalist, such as Leydesdorff et al. [13
] who mapped the structure of the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, using techniques that are typically applied in the cases of the Sciences and Social Sciences. Other scholars such as Dharmani et al. [14
] employed VOSviewer to map relevant networks and thematically related clusters in academic literature pertaining to the creative industries. In this study, the audiovisual and media industry was examined from organizational, managerial, and industrial perspectives. The topic of gender, however, was not included.
There is only a relatively small body of literature concerned with exploring bibliometric networks within communications, film, and media studies. Most of this research has focused on specific areas in media studies. For example, Leung et al. [15
], provided a systematic overview of the academic literature regarding social media. A few other studies take the topic of gender into account, but then utilize VOSviewer to map social media posts and not academic literature. Holmberg and Hellsten [16
], for instance, studied gender differences in climate change posts on Twitter, as well as gender differences in the use of affordances on this platform. Their results indicated that even though male and female Twitter users utilized similar language in their tweets, there were clear differences when it came to the use of hashtags and usernames. Women mentioned significantly more campaigns and organizations, whereas men referred more to private people. This study also showed that women focused primarily on the anthropogenic impact on climate change, whereas men usually mentioned usernames with a skeptical stance. A second Holmberg and Hellsten article using VOSviewer examined the response to the fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, but did not account for gender differences [17
Similarly, in film and television studies, very few bibliometric mapping studies have been carried out. Segado-Boj, Martín-Quevedo and Fernández-Gómez [1
] used VOSviewer to map the academic field of television studies. They investigated how this specific field of study came about, what its characteristics are, the streams within it, and the extent to which the rise in publications reflected a consolidated and mature field of research. Researchers have also used VOSviewer to map the language of television scripts in film studies, but not the academic literature of that discipline. Gálvez et al. [18
] for instance, analyzed a series of television scripts in the Western film genre, covering almost half a century, and found that male characters were written in a way that expressed a higher level of cognitive abilities than women.
In short, no previous comprehensive study has investigated gendered communications, film, and media studies by using visual bibliometric mapping methods. A critique of the few existing studies could be that their timespans are limited, and their subject definitions and sample sizes too small. Compared to previous studies, our study explores a large sample size of 8054 publications (ndocs = 8054) and covers a considerable timeframe of nearly 50 years, from 1975 till 2022.
3. Data Collection: Methods and Procedures
To reiterate, this paper sought out to answer the following four research questions: (1) which authors contribute to gendered communications, film, and media studies; (2) which author clusters exist in gendered communications, film, and media studies and how do they relate to each other; (3) which keywords/terms are most likely to be used in confluence with gender; and (4) which keyword clusters exist in gendered communications, film, and media studies and how do they relate to each other? These research questions were operationalized into specifically designed data collection and analysis questions that could be answered by conducting bibliometric research in the Web of Science database:
Which author clusters exist when it comes to the topic of gender in the database?
To what extent do the different clusters link (cooperate) with one another in a data visualization map?
How is the topic of gender addressed in the two Web of Science categories of Film, Radio, Television; and Communication?
What clusters exist when it comes to the topic of gender in these two categories, when we look at co-cited authors and keyword mapping, respectively?
Web of Science is a global academic database that is not affiliated with any publisher. It is a powerful and interdisciplinary research tool. The Web of Science Core Collection (one of the Web of Science’s databases) offers a trusted, high-quality collection of journals, books, and conference proceedings in which six different citation indexes are included. For this study, we selected the databases within the Web of Science Core Collection that pertained to the humanities and social sciences. Our study set out to find every possible entry from the start of the databases until the present time, but the first data entry of our keyword (“gender”) was found in 1975. Below, we included a list of the databases that were selected, including the timeframe that they covered.
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)—from 1956 to the present;
Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI)—from 1975 to the present;
Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH)—from 1990 to the present;
Book Citation Index—Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH)—from 2005 to the present.
Every record in the Web of Science Core Collection also inherits the subject category of its source publication (a journal, book, etc.), also known as its Web of Science Category. A record can be assigned to more than one category. As we addressed the areas of communications, film, and media studies, the two Web of Science categories that were selected were: (i) Communication; and (ii) Film, Radio, Television. The search was further refined by only displaying English entries.
A search for documents pertaining to a specific issue (i.e., gender) can be carried out in two ways: a topic search for words only in the titles; or a topic search for words in the abstract, title, or keyword fields of an article. We tried both and found that the latter option yielded the most relevant records. Since we focus on gendered communications, film, and media studies (implying that gender is a variable that should be taken into consideration as frequently and as much as possible, even if it is not necessarily the most important or sole variable), the word “gender” could be found in either the abstract, title, or keyword fields of an article or book.
A total of 8054 records (ndocs
= 8054) were downloaded from the Web of Science database by extracting their full records and cited references. Then, data analysis was conducted using VOSviewer, a computer program for constructing maps of bibliometric and other networks. It can be used to construct networks of scientific publications, scientific journals, researchers, research organizations, countries, keywords, or terms. Items in these networks can be connected by co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation, bibliographic coupling, or co-citation links [11
]. Even though it is intended primarily for visualizing and analyzing bibliometric networks, it can also be used to visualize social network structures as well as other types of documents.
In this section, we share some reflections regarding the network analyses of the authors and text data. We also suggest some initial hypotheses for further research based on our current results. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the corpus and the problem of grey literature.
5.1. The Network Visualizations of Authors and Keywords
The author map showed several interesting results. First of all, it is a novel and rather surprising finding that there exist seven distinct clusters of authors in the field of gendered communications, film, and media studies. However, the biggest clusters have several degrees of separation between them. From the red cluster, one needs to take several indirect steps before arriving at the green and dark-blue cluster, whereas the green and dark-blue cluster are better connected in terms of co-citations.
When it comes to the red cluster, several popular feminist film scholars find themselves at the outskirts of the cluster, as far as possible removed from the adjacent clusters. This means that they are mostly cited together with other authors in their cluster, but rarely ever in conjunction with authors from different clusters. For example, scholars such as Mulvey, McRobbie, and Gill find themselves on this periphery. This implies that these feminist film scholars are usually co-cited with people who approach gender from a theoretical and social constructivist viewpoint.
However, there are also feminist film scholars who do borrow from adjacent fields, such as Martha Lauzen and Stacy S. Smith. They are both categorized in the green cluster, and their nodes are located more closely to the adjacent yellow and dark-blue cluster. This means that they are more likely to be cited with authors from these adjacent fields. Lauzen and Smith’s work can be categorized as using social-science-based research designs and methodologies in their gender-orientated film and media research. Their research shows how theoretical concepts can be backed up with “hard” data from the social sciences.
The visualizations also portray a tension in terms of the interdisciplinarity of the field. As mentioned in Section 4.1.4
, many of the journals define themselves as cross-disciplinary. Both author and text clusters, however, indicate clear-cut boundaries between different scholarly traditions. There are several academics who act as main hubs between different clusters, such as Goffman, Hargittai, Bandura, and Eagly (see Figure 2
). These main hubs facilitate links and connections to other clusters, which can be interpreted as an accurate representation of interdisciplinarity. However, the network map based on text data seems to present a more straightforward division between the humanities and social sciences, with the red and green clusters showing an unambiguous divide between the two paradigms.
Several clusters on the author map show differences when it comes to network density. For example, the red author cluster is very dense, with authors being so frequently co-cited together that they are almost stacked on top of each other (see Figure 2
). Authors in the yellow cluster, on the other hand, are more loosely spread out over the map. The yellow authors are located in the middle of the map, and authors in clusters on the periphery often need to go through a yellow author in order to connect to a cluster on the opposite side of the map. This implies that even though authors in the red cluster are more likely to be co-cited together, authors in the yellow cluster (while belonging to a similar tradition as their fellow members) are more likely to be co-cited together with authors from other clusters. In the end, the yellow authors are the ones that bridge gaps between different traditions, and can, therefore, be considered significantly more interdisciplinary than authors in other clusters. As mentioned previously, the green cluster also holds a powerful position within the bibliometric network. The authors belonging to the green cluster possess robust ties to other authors in the network, whether they are within the green cluster or other clusters. To access the highly influential red or dark-blue clusters, authors must first pass through the green cluster, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the green cluster’s authors, who serve as intermediaries between the various traditions in the field.
The keyword maps also display several interesting results. Firstly, they show that the term gender is used in two dichotomous ways. It is used either in relation to a more qualitative, or quantitative approach. The keyword maps seem to indicate that there are two very distinct academic traditions present in the field. On the one hand, gender is written about in the context of “discourse”, “culture”, “class”, “power”, “race”, “representation”, and “image”. On the other hand, it is used in a more formal social science setting, with terms including “relationship”, “effect”, “behavior”, “sample”, “survey”, “age”, “implication”, “information”, and “sex”. Therefore, we can hypothesize that gender is used in either of two ways: the concept of gender as a social–cultural construct, or gender as a variable in more formal social and psychological quantitative research designs.
Similar to the feminist film scholars, the words “feminism” and “post-feminism” find themselves on the outskirts of the map. We expected these terms to be more in the center of the field, since feminism and post-feminism are two topics that are closely connected to the term gender. In addition, since the term feminism has been widely used for several decades, one would expect it to be more firmly situated in the field, and not on the periphery. This indicates that these conceptual terms are more likely to be used in a theoretical and social constructivist viewpoint, and not for methodologically and empirically oriented studies.
The existence of the two mini clusters (blue and yellow) in the keyword map (Figure 3
) indicated that there are two traditions within gendered communications, film, and media studies that are rather small: research surrounding advertising, gaming, and music videos, and research focusing on engineering and STEM. The presence of these mini clusters can indicate two things. Firstly, research in these mini clusters is not fixed to one of the two dominant paradigms within the discipline. The yellow mini cluster is more closely located to the green cluster, whereas the blue mini cluster is nearer to the red cluster. Based on the text data, VOSviewer did not link these keywords to dominant clusters, but created two mini clusters instead. Another explanation for the small size of these mini clusters could be that their respective areas of research are still underdeveloped when it comes to addressing the topic of gender.
Thus, we hypothesize that the concept of gender could be used in two ways. In the red cluster, the term is used to refer to a social–cultural construct as a more theoretical approach. The green cluster, on the other hand, uses the term gender in more formal research settings, especially quantitative sociological or psychological research designs.
5.2. Initial Hypotheses Regarding the Clusters and Suggestions for Further Research
By identifying seven clusters of authors and two clusters of textual data (keywords), this research represents the first stage in exploring academic patterns in the field of gendered communications, media, and film studies. However, it is beyond the scope of this research to explore and interpret the internal characteristics of each of the seven author and two keyword clusters. Based on the conceptual framework and empirical results of the present study, it could be possible to conduct such a research project. A second study could identify and dive deeper into the characteristics—such as the exact academic orientations and internal structure—of all seven authors networks and the two textual networks.
With regard to the author clusters, each scholar´s academic output should be examined by looking at the most influential works in their respective oeuvre, and identifying the thematic, conceptual, and methodological similarities between them and other authors in their cluster. This cannot be completed by simplifying each author to a couple of keywords. Based on a detailed internal analysis of clusters, one could characterize the academic orientations of each cluster and give them proper, substantial names. It is beyond the scope of this research to examine all 995 authors (nauthors = 995) in depth, but future research could explore this.
However, based on the present research, we may already articulate some observations. Among the seven authors’ clusters (Figure 2
), the red cluster can be seen as a multidisciplinary, theoretical cluster, involving cultural studies, sociology, and gender studies. The green cluster mainly focuses on media psychology and communications research and can be considered cross-disciplinary due to its positioning on the map. The dark-blue cluster mostly features psychology scholars and authors focusing on inter-personal communications. The yellow cluster predominantly concerns interdisciplinary scholars, with authors focusing on media and communications. Therefore, this cluster finds itself in the middle of the map, between all the other clusters. The purple cluster involves the discourse analysists, scholars focusing on social roles, and linguistic analysts. The turquoise cluster focuses on news media, journalism, popular culture, and gender. Finally, the orange cluster showcases four Japanese scholars that look at gendered communications, film, and media studies.
Similar initial—and partially competing—hypotheses could be made regarding the textual clusters in Figure 2
. Table 10
displays the three divides that could be hypothesized.
These early hypotheses could be too simplistic as they may imply clear-cut divisions, even though this is not the case. Social sciences, of course, do have qualitative aspects, and many quantitative studies are carried out in film, television, and radio studies. Therefore, more in-depth research is needed to substantiate the character and the corresponding naming of these clusters.
5.3. Joint Considerations of the Author Map (Figure 2) and the Keyword Map (Figure 3)
The present study found that the structural patterns of the author map and the keyword maps are completely different. How is it possible that the same authors who clearly create seven different clusters in terms of co-citation, become dichotomous when it comes to the key terms of their research? There could be competing hypothetical explanations for this result. A possible explanation might be that each specific author cluster engages both qualitative and quantitative research approaches, and many specific authors could also adhere to this division. This would allow for the formation of diverse author groups (seven clusters) based on research themes, and a dichotomous pattern of keyword networks.
Another hypothetical explanation could be that one can divide the author clusters up into qualitative and quantitative parts. This means that the clusters that find themselves on the left side of the author map, can be identified with a more qualitative tradition. Author clusters that are located on the right side of the map follow a more quantitatively oriented methodology. The authors in the middle could be the ones that borrow from both qualitative and quantitative traditions. This could mean that the orange and red cluster follow more qualitative/theoretical traditions, whereas the dark-blue and green cluster represents the quantitative side. The purple, turquoise, and yellow clusters are more diverse in terms of qualitative–quantitative approaches (see Figure 5
However, as previously stated, additional extensive research is needed to see if any of these hypotheses hold up. A deeper exploration and understanding are needed of both the author as well as the keyword clusters to see if this overlap is plausible. Moreover, the qualitative–quantitative divide is only one hypothesis concerning the dichotomy of the keyword maps. As discussed above, other competing hypotheses could be formulated that could account for the dichotomy in the keyword maps.
The truth could also lie somewhere in the middle between these possible hypotheses. One thing is certain, however. An author does not consciously or strategically place themselves in these respective clusters. They belong to these clusters by deciding who to quote, what theoretical traditions they follow, and what key terms they use in their work. Only further empirical research could validate the explanatory power of these hypotheses.
5.4. Limitations of the Corpus and the Problem of Grey Literature
Being limited to the database of Web of Science, this study lacks a complete overview of all the existing research literature on gendered communications, film, and media studies. There are two limitations that are attached to using Web of Science. First of all, Web of Science could be characterized as a database that is more biased towards the science paradigm—as its name indicates—and, thus, relatively downplays the humanities and social sciences. Other databases such as Scopus or Elsevier, therefore, could provide a good alternative to or extension of the dataset. Additional research would be needed to include these databases.
Secondly, since Web of Science only includes peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and conference proceedings, it is natural that some of the literature is overlooked. This assumption was proven to be true when the author map only indicated small nodes for researchers such as Stacy S. Smith and Marta Lauzen. Throughout the years, both researchers have reported steadily on gender representation in the film and television landscape. Smith has not only examined on-screen portrayals of gender, race/ethnicity, LGBT and disability in 1300 popular films from 2007 to 2019 [26
], but also off-screen representation when it comes to directors’ gender and race/ethnicity across the same sample [27
]. In a similar vein, Lauzen has examined portrayals of female characters in top grossing U.S. films [28
], as well as looking at the behind-the-scenes employment of women in the same sample [29
]. However, since most of their research is published on online platforms and the websites of their respective universities, these works are categorized as grey (non-academic or not strictly academic) literature and are not included in the Web of Science database.
Grey literature can be defined as publicly accessible, empirical, and policy research material that does not appear in strictly academic systems or channels of distribution, publication, or bibliographic control. It can be published at all levels of academia, but also appear in governmental, business, and industry publications [30
]. The word “grey”, therefore, refers to the uncertain status of this research literature, but not to its relevance nor ethical status. The uncertainty stems from the fact that grey literature is often difficult to access through mainstream academic databases, and its majority is not peer-reviewed [31
]. However, prior studies that have noted the importance of including grey literature in systematic literature reviews are Benzies, Premji, Hayden and Serrett [30
], and Mahood, Van Eerd and Irvin [31
]. They found that grey literature can be useful to validate the results of research-based academic literature searches [30
], and it provides a more comprehensive view of the available evidence [31
Significant grey literature studies exist that have conducted quantitative analyses of the representation of female characters in films. In fact, entire university research units are dedicated to studying the subject. Some influential examples include studies from the Hollywood Diversity Report team [32
] and the Center for Scholars & Storytellers [33
] at the University of California; materials from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media Studies at the Mount Saint Mary’s University [34
]; the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative at the University of Southern California [35
]; and the Center for the Study of Women in Television & Film at the San Diego State University [28
Popular news outlets have actively covered these research reports, yet they are not included in the Web of Science Database. A possible implication is that the results of this study might give a somewhat skewed look of gendered communications, film, and media studies, since its sample does not include all available research publications in the field, most significantly leaving out grey literature.
This study set out to use bibliometric methods to explore and visually display network maps of the academic discipline of gendered communications, film, and media studies. To recall our original intentions and goals, this paper sought out to answer four research questions:
Which authors contribute to gendered communications, film, and media studies?
What clusters of authors exist in gendered communications, film, and media studies and how do these clusters relate to each other?
What keywords/terms are most likely to be used in communications, film, and media studies in conjunction with gender?
What keyword clusters exist in gendered communications, film, and media studies and how do these relate to each other?
These research questions were tailored into specifically designed data collection questions that could be answered by conducting bibliometric research in the Web of Science database. Then, two analyses were conducted: (a) a network analysis of the bibliographic data, specifically looking at “co-citations” (author map); and (b) a network analysis of the text data, specifically looking at the “co-occurrence” terms (keyword maps).
We found that the number of publications in gendered communications, media and film studies has been growing exponentially between the early 2000s and 2022. The top 50 authors in the field (1) in terms of co-citation are listed in Table 4
. Gender theorists, gender sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, and social and cultural theorists (including Butler, Gill, Foucault, Bandura, Goffman, Hall, McRobbie, Eagly, Bourdieu, and Connell) lead the list of authors with the highest number of co-citations in the field. Some of these most co-cited authors tend to be generalists, and they are followed by specialists in the field.
We found that the 995 authors (nauthors
= 995) who publish in the field of gendered communications, film, and media studies (2) form seven author clusters, which we indicated with colors (see Figure 2
). The size of the clusters differs significantly, with the authors being distributed as follows: red cluster (311), green cluster (211), dark-blue cluster (192), yellow cluster (99), purple cluster (95), turquoise cluster (83), and the orange cluster (4). We also looked at the extent to which other clusters cooperate with one another. The results suggest that this is different per cluster. For example, the red cluster—as one of the biggest clusters—is more secluded in terms of co-citations compared to the other two dominant clusters, the green and the dark-blue one. The density/looseness of the clusters also displays some variety. We can only hypothesize that the clusters could be approached as follows, but additional research is definitely needed to confirm this classification: (a) the red cluster features primarily theoreticians of gender and culture; (b) the dark-blue psychologist cluster; (c) the green media psychology and communications cluster; (d) the purple sociology, linguistic and discourse analysis cluster; (e) the turquoise news media and journalism, popular culture, and gender cluster; (f) the yellow social media and communications cluster, and (g) the orange Japanese communications, film, and media cluster.
To discover which keywords/terms were most likely to be used in gendered communications, film, and media studies (3), this paper conducted a textual analysis of the same dataset. Table 6
and Table 8
showcased the top 50 keywords according to number of occurrences and overall relevance.
The textual (keyword) networks in gendered communications, film, and media studies (4) form two main clusters and two mini clusters, as displayed in Figure 3
and Figure 4
. The visualizations feature an extensive scope of 720 keywords (nterms
= 720). Our key finding is that as opposed to the seven clusters of authors, the textual clusters show distinctively different patterns. These form and are stratified along the lines of a dichotomous and bipolar divide. This means that although scholars in the discipline form seven author network clusters in terms of co-citations, their discursive communities display a divided, diverging, and bifurcated pattern.
The conceptual framework and empirical results of the present study lay the foundation for further research regarding the diverse academic agendas of the seven author clusters and interpret the split nature of the two keyword clusters as well as the key difference between the two patterns.