SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Habitus Toplumbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 7

From Witch Hunts to Economics Discipline: The Process of Women's Exclusion from Knowledge and Academia

Cadı Avlarından İktisat Disiplinine: Kadınların Bilgi ve Akademiden Dışlanma Süreçleri

Nilüfer Dilara Ar Mutlu(ATILIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ, POLİTİK EKONOMİ (DR))
Pages
147–168
Publication Date
2026-03-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Consequently, gender inequality in academia is regarded as a structural problem, rooted in historical, institutional and epistemological dynamics, rather than being the sole province of individual preferences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the historical exclusion of women from knowledge production processes and the gender-based inequalities observed in contemporary academia within the framework of feminist epistemology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The theoretical discussion is supported by a descriptive analysis based on gender distributions by title within the economics discipline, using academic staff data from Türkiye for the period 2013–2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, gender inequality in academia is regarded as a structural problem, rooted in historical, institutional and epistemological dynamics, rather than being the sole province of individual preferences.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2013–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Feminist Epistemoloji · Toplumsal Cinsiyet · Akademide Kadınlar

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the historical exclusion of women from knowledge production processes and the gender-based inequalities observed in contemporary academia within the framework of feminist epistemology. The present study addresses inequalities in academia not merely as a problem of representation but as a structural issue linked to the processes of knowledge production and legitimization. The methodology involves an analytical review of national and international literature, establishing a historical framework spanning from witch hunts to the institutionalisation of the modern university and the neoliberal academy. The theoretical discussion is supported by a descriptive analysis based on gender distributions by title within the economics discipline, using academic staff data from Türkiye for the period 2013–2025. The findings demonstrate that female academics are comparatively more represented at lower and middle academic levels, whilst their representation is reduced at higher academic titles. When this distribution is evaluated in conjunction with structural mechanisms such as promotion processes, care burden, gendered academic division of labour, and performance-based evaluation systems, it reveals that inequality has a multi-layered structure. Consequently, gender inequality in academia is regarded as a structural problem, rooted in historical, institutional and epistemological dynamics, rather than being the sole province of individual preferences.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kadınların bilgi üretim süreçlerinden tarihsel olarak dışlanması ile günümüz akademisinde gözlenen toplumsal cinsiyet temelli eşitsizlikler arasındaki ilişkiyi feminist epistemoloji çerçevesinde incelemektir. Çalışma, akademideki eşitsizlikleri yalnızca temsile ilişkin bir sorun olarak değil, bilginin üretimi ve meşrulaştırılması süreçleriyle bağlantılı yapısal bir mesele olarak ele almaktadır. Yöntem olarak ulusal ve uluslararası literatür analitik biçimde değerlendirilmiş; cadı avlarından modern üniversitenin kurumsallaşmasına ve neoliberal akademiye uzanan tarihsel çerçeve kurulmuştur. Kuramsal tartışma, Türkiye’de 2013–2025 dönemine ait akademik kadro verilerinin iktisat disiplini bağlamında unvan bazında cinsiyet dağılımları üzerinden betimleyici analizle desteklenmiştir. Bulgular, kadın akademisyenlerin alt ve orta akademik kademelerde görece daha yüksek oranlarda temsil edildiğini, üst akademik unvanlarda ise temsil oranlarının azaldığını göstermektedir. Bu dağılım, terfi süreçleri, bakım yükü, cinsiyetlendirilmiş akademik iş bölümü ve performans temelli değerlendirme sistemleri gibi yapısal mekanizmalarla birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, eşitsizliğin çok katmanlı bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak akademideki toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği, bireysel tercihlerle sınırlı olmayan, tarihsel, kurumsal ve epistemolojik dinamiklerle ilişkili yapısal bir sorun olarak değerlendirilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Mutlu, N. D. A. (2026). From Witch Hunts to Economics Discipline: The Process of Women's Exclusion from Knowledge and Academia. Habitus Toplumbilim Dergisi, Sayı: 7, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.62156/habitus.1858452

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (95)

  1. Agenjo-Calderón, A., ve Gálvez-Muñoz, L. (2019). Feminist economics: theoretical and political dimensions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 78, 137-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJES.12264
  2. Aiston, S., ve Fo, C. (2020). The silence/ing of academic women. Gender and Education, 33, 138-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1716955
  3. Altınoluk, D. (2017). Cinsiyetlendirilmiş kurum olarak akademi: Erkek akademisyenlerin “öteki” üzerinden erkeklik inşaları. Masculinities: A Journal of Identity and Culture, 8, 37-58.
  4. Aslanbeigui, N., ve Oakes, G. (2009). The Provocative Joan Robinson: The Making of a Cambridge Economist. Duke University.
  5. Atay, Ö., Gürgen, N. E., ve İmamoğlu, E. (2022). Türkiye'de kadın akademisyenlerde algılanan cam tavan sendromu araştırması. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.33537/sobild.2022.13.2.15
  6. Auriol, E., Friebel, G., Weinberger, A., ve Wilhelm, S. (2021). Women in economics: europe and the world. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP16686. [online]. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3960290 (Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2025).
  7. Avilova, T., ve Goldin, C. (2024). Seeking the “missing women” of economics with the undergraduate women in economics challenge. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 38(3), 137-162. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.38.3.137
  8. Ayyıldız, P., ve Banoğlu, K. (2024). The leaky pipeline: where ‘exactly’ are these leakages for women leaders in higher education? School Leadership & Management, 44(2), 120-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.232373 Baker, M. (2012). Gendered families, academic work and the 'motherhood penalty.' Women's Studies Journal, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774823982-007
  9. Barker, D. K., ve Feiner, S. F. (2004). Liberating Economics: Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work, and Globalization. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11867
  10. Bayer, A., ve Rouse, C. (2016). Diversity in the economics profession: a new attack on an old problem. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 221-242. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.30.4.221
  11. Bennett, C. (2011). Beyond the leaky pipeline: consolidating understanding and incorporating new research about women’s science careers in the UK. Brussels Economic Review, 54, 149-76.
  12. Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who will do science? trends, and their causes in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics: a special report. The Rockefeller Foundation.
  13. Bird, S., Litt, J., ve Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work.” NWSA Journal, 16, 194-206.
  14. Blackmore, J. (2002). Globalisation and the restructuring of higher education for new knowledge economies: new dangers or old habits troubling gender equity work in universities? Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), 419-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00228
  15. Blackmore, J. (2015). Disciplining Academic Women: Gender Restructuring and the Labour of Research in Entrepreneurial Universities. M. Thornton (Eds.). Through A Glass Darkly: The Social Sciences Look at the Neoliberal University. ANU Press.
  16. Blau, F., ve Lynch, L. (2024). 50 years of breakthroughs and barriers: women in economics, policy, and leadership. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32820
  17. Blumberg, R. L. (1984). A general theory of gender stratification. Sociological Theory, 2, 23-101. https://doi.org/10.2307/223343
  18. Boustan, L., ve Langan, A. (2019). Variation in women's success across phd programs in economics. NBER Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.1.23
  19. Brommesson, D., Erlingsson, G. Ó., Ödalen, J., ve Fogelgren, M. (2022). “Teach more, but do not expect any applause”: Are women doubly discriminated against in universities’ recruitment processes? Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(3), 437-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09421-5
  20. Bryson, V. (2019). Feminist Politika Teorisi (1.baskı). Phoenix Yayınevi.
  21. Bryson, V. (2021). The futures of feminism. Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526138507
  22. Buckles, K. (2019). Fixing the leaky pipeline: strategies for making economics work for women at every stage. Journal of Economic Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.1.43
  23. Burkinshaw, P. (2015). Higher education, leadership, and women vice chancellors: Fitting into communities of practice of masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137444042
  24. Charles, M., ve Bradley, K. (2002). Equal but separate? a cross-national study of sex segregation in higher education. American Sociological Review, 67(4), 573-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088946
  25. Chassonnery-Zaïgouche, C., Cherrier, B., ve Singleton, J. D. (2025). "Economics is not a man's field": cswep and the first gender reckoning in economics, 1971-1991. History of Political Economy, 57(4), 641-675. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-11857074
  26. Currie, J., Thiele, B., ve Harris, P. (2002). Gendered Universities in Globalized Economies: Power, Careers, and Sacrifices. Lexington Books.
  27. Çakır, S. (2007). Feminizm: Ataerkil İktidarın Eleştirisi. H. Birsen Örs (der.), Modern Siyasal İdeolojiler içinde, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  28. Çubuk, S., ve Erol, D. (2023). Türkiye’de kadının akademideki yeri: cam tavana bir bakış. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Kadın ve Aile Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 185-210.
  29. Demir, S. (2018). Akademide kadın: Farklı disiplinlerden kadınların akademideki yeri ve aile yaşamlarıyla etkileşimi. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 187-210. https://doi.org/10.14782/marusbd.412643
  30. Derin-Güre, P., ve Akbostancı, E. (2025). İktisat biliminde kadınlar: türkiye’de akademik alanda eşitlik mücadelesi. İktisat ve Toplum, (173), 24-33.
  31. Di Leo, R., Epifanio, M., Scotto, T. J., ve Troeger, V. E. (2024). Motherhood in academia: A novel dataset of UK academic women with an application to maternity leave uptake. Social Policy and Administration, 59(3), 454-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13057
  32. Dimand, R. W. (1999). Women economists in the 1890s: journals, books and the old Palgrave. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21(3), 269-288.
  33. Dinçer, N. N. (2025). iktisatta cam tavan: kadınlar ve eşitlik arayışı. İktisat ve Toplum, (173), 18-23.
  34. Dion, M., Sumner, J., ve Mitchell, S. (2018). Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. Political Analysis, 26, 312- 327. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.12
  35. Eğitim Öğretim Alanları (ISCED) Sınıflaması (2013). https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/DIESS/SiniflamaSurumDetayAction.do?surumId=987veturId=39veturAdi=%207.%20E%C4%9Fitim%20S%C4%B1n%C4%B1flamalar%C4%B1
  36. Ehrenreich, B., ve English, D. (1992). Cadılar, büyücüler ve hemşireler. Kavram.
  37. Eldemir, P. (2021). Akademide genç kadın olmak: özdüşünümsellik üzerinden bir tartışma. Feminist Tahayyül, 2(2), 242-272.
  38. Eldemir, P., ve Yılmaz, T. (2021). Duygudaşlıktan yoldaşlığa: işte bu bizim hikayemiz. Feminist Tahayyül, 2(1), 38-65.
  39. Eslen‐Ziya, H., ve Yildirim, T. (2021). Perceptions of gendered‐challenges in academia: how women academics see gender hierarchies as barriers to achievement. Gender, Work and Organization, 29(1), 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12744
  40. Ezgin Ağıllı, S., ve Açık Turguter, E. (2020). Patriyarka ve kapitalizm ilişkiselliği ile örülmüş bilimin cinsiyetçi yapısı ve akademide kadın asistan olmak. Universal Journal of History and Culture, 2(2), 104-130.
  41. Federici, S. (2012). Caliban ve cadı: Kadınlar, beden ve ilksel birikim. Otonom Yayıncılık.
  42. Gartner, H., ve Schneebaum, A. (2023). An analysis of women’s underrepresentation in undergraduate economics. Review of Political Economy, 35, 593- 613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2023.2183672
  43. Gill, A., ve Fernández, M. (2025). Disputing authorship: reinscriptions of collective modes of knowledge production. Social Sciences, 14(4), 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14040243
  44. Gill, R. (2016). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neoliberal academia. Feministische Studien, 34(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1515/fs-2016-0105
  45. Göktürk, Ş., ve Tülübaş, T. (2021). Survival of the fittest: women’s academic experiences of navigating neoliberal expectations in Turkish universities. Gender and Education, 33(3), 267-284. http://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1735311
  46. Groenewegen, P. D., ve King, S. (1994). Women as producers of economic articles: a statistical assessment of the nature and the extent of female participation in five British and North American journals 1900-39 (No. 201).
  47. Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell University Press.
  48. Hartsock, N. (1997). Comment on hekman’s “truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: truth or justice? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 367-74.
  49. Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 341-365.
  50. Hengel, E., ve Moon, E. (2023). Gender and equality at top economics journals. Unpublished manuscript. https://erinhengel.github.io/Gender-Quality/quality.pdf
  51. Hills, E., ve Rowan, L. (2002). Feminist Academics as Nomadic Subjects: Reconceptualizing Women in Universities. https://doi.org/10.18738/AWL.V10I0.151
  52. Hospido, L., ve Sanz, C. (2019). Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences. Labor: Demographics ve Economics of the Family eJournal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3422016
  53. Humphries, J., ve Schneider, B. (2021). Gender equality, growth, and how a technological trap destroyed female work. Economic History of Developing Regions, 36, 428- 438. https://doi.org/10.1080/20780389.2021.1929606
  54. Järvinen, M., ve Mik-Meyer, N. (2024). Giving and receiving: gendered service work in academia. Current Sociology, 73(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921231224754
  55. Kaya Erdoğan, E. (2023). Türkiye yükseköğretiminde toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği. Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 21(83), 163-185.
  56. Kendir-Gök, Y. (2025). Yapay zekâ hikâyesi: cinsiyetlendirilmiş ve hegemonik bilginin algoritmik yeniden üretimi. Feminist Tahayyül: Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(2), 284-314.
  57. Kessler-Harris, A. (1991). A woman's wage: historical meanings and social consequences. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46, 210-225.
  58. Kim, M. (2023). The problem of gender in economics. Review of Radical Political Economics, 55(4), 639-650. https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134231199127
  59. Lima, J., De Castro Casa Nova, S., ve De Oliveira Vendramin, E. (2023). Sexist academic socialization and feminist resistance: (de). constructing women’s (dis) placement in Brazilian accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102600
  60. Long, M. (2023). Gender, feminist pedagogy, and economics education. Review of Political Economy, 35, 587-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2023.2184043
  61. Lopes, M., ve de Camargo Santos, C. (2025). Academic housework in pandemic times: COVID-19 effects on the gendered distribution of academic work in Portugal. European Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041231191888
  62. Lundberg, S., ve Stearns, J. (2019). Women in economics: stalled progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.33.1.3
  63. Majcher, A. (2002). Gender ınequality in german academia and strategies for change. German Policy Studies.
  64. McCann, C. (2025). The evolution of economics at the university of oxford: gendered constructions of legitimate economic knowledge and authorities. History of Education, 54(5), 556-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2025.2486094
  65. McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The Rhetoric Of Economics (2. baskı). The University of Wisconsin.
  66. Mezzadri, A. (2016). Class, gender and the sweatshop: on the nexus between labour commodification and exploitation. Third World Quarterly, 37, 1877-1900. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1180239
  67. Mies, M. (2011). Ataerki ve Birikim: Uluslararası İşbölümünde Kadınlar. Dipnot.
  68. Mies, M., Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. ve Von Werlhof, C. (2008). Son sömürge: kadınlar. İletişim.
  69. Nelson, J. A. (1993). gender and economic ıdeologies. Review of Social Economy, 51(3), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/758537259
  70. Nelson, J. A. (2003). Free market” economics and feminist alternatives”. Journee Etudes.
  71. Pelizzon, S. M. (2020). Kadının konumu nasıl değişti? Feodalizmden kapitalizme. İmge.
  72. Powell, J., ve Yurchenko, Y. (2025). Whose history of which economic thought? International Review of Economics Education, 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2025.100325
  73. Romito, P., ve Volpato, C. (2005). Women inside and outside academia: a struggle to access knowledge, legitimacy and influence. Social Science Information, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018405050440
  74. Rowbotham, S. (2011). Kadının Gizlenmiş Tarihi. Payel.
  75. Saunderson, W. (2002). Women, academia and identity: constructions of equal opportunities in the ‘new managerialism’– a case of ‘lipstick on the gorilla’? Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), 376-406. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00226
  76. Savigny, H. (2014). Women, know your limits: Cultural sexism in academia. Gender and education, 26(7), 794-809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.970977
  77. Serdaroğlu, U. (2010). İktisat ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet. Efil.
  78. Sezgin, F. H., ve Haykır Hobikoğlu, E. H. (2022). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim kurumlarında istihdamda cinsiyet açığının istatistiksel analizi. KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 69-93. https://doi.org/10.21798/kadem.2022.110
  79. Shackleton, J. R., Dimand, M. A., Dimand, R. W., ve Forget, E. L. (1996). Women of value: feminist essays on the history of women in economics. The Economic Journal, 106(439), 1817. https://doi.org/10.2307/2235238
  80. Spoon, K., LaBerge, N., Wapman, K., Zhang, S., Morgan, A., Galesic, M., Rivera, L., Mendy, J., Martinez, M., Fosdick, B., Larremore, D., ve Clauset, A. (2023). Gender and retention patterns among U.S. faculty. Science Advances, 9(42). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adi2205
  81. Stockemer, D., Galassi, G., ve Abou-El-Kheir, E. (2025). Closing the publishing gender gap in economics and political science: Does a critical mass matter?. PLOS One, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323364 Tekin-Koru, A. (2025). İktisat: Sosyal bilimlerin taş fırın erkeği. İktisat ve Toplum, (173), 10-17.
  82. Thwaites, R., ve Pressland, A. (2017). Introduction: Being an early career feminist academic in a changing academy. R. Thwaites ve A. Pressland (Eds.). Being an early career feminist academic: Global perspectives, experiences and challenges (ss. 1-20). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54325-7_ 1
  83. Usui, C. (1993). Women and the economic miracle: gender and work in postwar japan. Social Forces, 73, 356-358. https://doi.org/10.1093/SF/73.1.356
  84. Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 20, 198-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00495.x
  85. Vatansever, A. (2022). Feminization of resistance: reclaiming the affective and the ındefinite as counter-strategy in academic labor activism. Publications, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10010001
  86. Venkat, P., Sekaran, V. C., Mayya, S. S., Ashok, L. ve Kamath, V. G. (2022). Women faculty in higher education: a social identity lens to gender issues. Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University, 17(4), 915-919. https://doi.org/10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_8_22
  87. Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29, 5.
  88. Westoby, C., Dyson, J., Cowdell, F., ve Buescher, T. (2021). What are the barriers and facilitators to success for female academics in UK HEIs? A narrative review. Gender and Education, 33(8), 1033-1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2021.1884198
  89. Wolfinger, N. H., Mason, M. A., ve Goulden, M. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. The Journal of higher education, 79(4), 388-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772108 Woolf, V. (2016). Kendine Ait Bir Oda. Kırmızı Kedi.
  90. Yalom, M. (2002). Antik Çağlardan Günümüze: Evli kadının tarihi. Çitlembik.
  91. Yerlikaya-Yaran, B. (2024). Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğinin akademideki izdüşümleri: Artvin Örneği. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 19(2), 559-593. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.138218
  92. Yin, S. (2021). Re-articulating feminisms: a theoretical critique of feminist struggles and discourse in historical and contemporary China. Cultural Studies, 36, 981-1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2021.1944242
  93. Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi (2025). https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2025).
  94. Yükseköğretim Kanunu ile Bazı Kanun ve Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerde Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun (2018). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/03/20180306-11.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2025).
  95. Zacchia, G. (2020). What does ıt take to be top women economists? an analysis using rankings in RePEc. Review of Political Economy, 33, 170-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2020.1848624