We often think of science as a space where hard work and intellectual curiosity lead to discovery and recognition. But just like in any other field, sometimes credit is misplaced. Two important ideas -- the Matthew Effect and the Matilda Effect -- reveal how recognition (or the lack thereof) can affect our understanding of science history. These phenomena highlight some of the invisible barriers that can hold people back, and learning about them is the first step toward change.
What are the Matthew and Matilda Effects?
The Matthew Effect, first described by Robert Merton, describes the phenomenon of heaping accolades on already-prominent scientists (Merton, 1968). Once someone reaches a certain level of fame or prestige, they seem to attract more recognition -- even when others contribute just as much (or even more) to a project.
Similarly, the Matilda Effect addresses how women in science often don't receive the credit they deserve (Rossiter, 1993). Margaret Rossiter named the Matilda Effect for Matilda Gage, an activist and suffragette from the 1800s. Examples of the Matilda Effect include many instances of women's scientific contributions being ignored or misattributed to men.
An Example of the Matilda Effect: Rosalind Franklin
One striking example is Rosalind Franklin, whose skills in X-ray diffraction played a huge role in the discovery of DNA's double helix. Yet, much of the recognition for this discovery went to Watson and Crick. In fact, three men (Watson, Crick, and Wilkins) won the Nobel Prize in 1962, "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids" (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962, n.d.).
Evidence of the Matilda Effect
Researchers observed the Matilda Effect in an experiment involving 243 communications graduate students. The participants evaluated research abstracts presented as authored by either male or female scientists. Interestingly, the findings revealed that the same research was often perceived as higher quality when it was thought to be written by men (Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013). Participants also rated male-named researchers are more desirable for collaboration. This evidence highlights how gender-associated assumptions can influence our judgments.
Strategies to Reduce the Matilda Effect
Fortunately, there are actions we can take to help improve fairness and recognition in science. Here are three ways to reduce the Matilda Effect and help create a more inclusive and innovative research community.
Transparency in decision-making: Using clear criteria for decisions on promotions, funding, etc. can reduce the chance of hidden biases influencing outcomes.
Mentorship opportunities: Pairing women with experienced mentors and supportive communities can help create opportunities for advancement. Mentors can also help spotlight contributions from new researchers.
Blind reviews: Anonymous review systems, where the author's identity is hidden, can reduce the effect of gender/name-associated biases. Hiding the author's name lets the work stand on its own.
Science thrives on the participation of all kinds of people, investigating all kinds of questions. Recognizing contributors for their work helps maintain an inclusive, innovative scientific community.
Join the Conversation
What do you think about the Matthew and Matilda Effects? Have you seen examples of these in your own field? Do you have any ideas for improving fairness in science? I'd love to hear your thoughts, so share them here or send me a message.
And don't forget to share the knowledge! Awareness helps create change.
References
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962. (n.d.). NobelPrize.Org. Retrieved February 8, 2025, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/summary/
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. JSTOR.
Comments