If you’ve already read our article on gender disparity in arts administration (Jung, Schinberg, and Xie 2020), then you’re likely aware of the potential limitations and suggestions for future research. 

 
Below, I will highlight some limitations of the study and how they can improve future research of the field.

We only examined two journals

Our study only analyzed two journals (IJAM and JAMLS), which did not include different research outputs, such as books, book chapters, or other written reports. To gain a greater understanding of disparity citing, future research should include more journals or source material from these sources, broadening the range of research and perhaps allowing definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Citation patterns based on authors’ race and identity 

A further potential direction for future research would be to track citation patterns based on the author’s race and identity, not only binary gender identities as we did in our article. This would complement our research (and other past studies) and provide greater insight and means for future research, further helping us understand and explain these disparities better. 

The use of qualitative research methods

Our study predominantly utilized quantitative methods, counting citations to draw conclusions and offer potential explanations. Future studies could consider using qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, to further understand gender disparities in citation. 

If you have any questions regarding the article or the potential limitations, you can contact Yuha by clicking here.