From Late Bloomer to Booming: A Bibliometric Analysis of Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies in Portugal

Abstract

Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies (WGFS) in Portugal emerged relatively late compared to other European countries, and a systematic quantitative analysis of Portuguese research in this field is lacking. This article addresses this gap by conducting a pioneering bibliometric analysis of WGFS publications by scholars based in Portugal between 1995 and 2021, utilizing data from the Web of Science. The analysis reveals several key findings, including a significant growth in WGFS productivity in the 2010s, a high level of internationalization of Portuguese production, and the increasing prominence of specific themes and theoretical perspectives, such as LGBTQIA+ studies and intersectionality. By examining the trajectory of Portuguese scholarship in WGFS since the 1990s, this study provides valuable insights and opens important avenues for future research.

1. Introduction

Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies (WGFS) has made remarkable progress since its genesis in the North American academic context during the late 1960s. Once a marginal academic field, closely associated with the women’s movements of second-wave feminism (Davis et al. 2006), it has now evolved into a vibrant global scholarly area, encompassing a diverse community of students, lecturers, and researchers worldwide. The development of WGFS, however, has followed diverse rhythms and trajectories across different countries (Pinto 2008), influenced by a multitude of factors, including political and economic dynamics, as well as the specificities of teaching and scientific research structures in various regional or national contexts (Silius 2002; Zimmermann 2008).

In Portugal, WGFS emerged as a field in the 1980s, a relatively “late” emergence in the European context (Pereira 2013), and somewhat extrinsic to universities (Monteiro 2011). Nevertheless, especially since the early 2000s, Portuguese WGFS has undergone a significant development. This is evident in the proliferation of books, articles, and research projects in the field, involving both established authors with extensive backgrounds in Women’s Studies and a growing number of young researchers (Ferreira 2019; Torres et al. 2015).

One of the distinctive features of WGFS in Portugal consists of a pronounced vocation for the production of meta-discourses; that is, discourses whose objects are Portuguese research in WGFS and its development. In fact, since the mid-1990s, the situation and trajectories of teaching and research in Women’s Studies in the country have been widely documented (Abranches 1998; Amâncio 2003; Amâncio and Oliveira 2014; Araújo 1997; Ferreira et al. 2001; Grünell and Kas 1995; Pereira 2013; Ramalho [1995] 2009; Tavares 2008; Vaquinhas 2002). This wide range of literature is largely based on qualitative studies and individual perceptions of researchers associated with the area. No systematic quantitative analyses that reveal the overall characteristics of Portuguese research in WGFS have been carried out so far. Such analyses are increasingly frequent, for example in Sweden (Söderlund and Madison 2015), Brazil (Hoppen and Vanz 2023), Colombia (Cudina et al. 2021), and in Muslim-majority countries (Arik and Akboga 2018).

This article aims to address this gap in the literature by offering a comprehensive analysis of WGFS in Portugal. To accomplish this, we conduct a pioneering bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science (WoS) database, covering the period from 1995 to 2021. By using quantitative data, we complement the existing studies and provide valuable insights into the development of the field in the country.

Our analysis focuses on identifying patterns of scientific production within WGFS in Portugal over time. For this purpose, we examine the keywords associated with the publications as well as the most frequently cited references. By doing so, we can identify the main research topics in the field and the authors who have had a significant influence on Portuguese research in WGFS over the past three decades. In addition, we explore aspects such as the growth patterns of WGFS publications over the period under review, the characteristics of the main journals that have published Portuguese articles in the field, and the relative contributions from different disciplinary areas. Our approach goes beyond a purely descriptive exercise of quantitative data. By engaging bibliometric indicators and incorporating a dialogue with the literature on the development of WGFS in Portugal, we aim to overcome the limitations of previous studies. Through our mapping of Portuguese scholarly production in WGFS, we propose also to respond to a lack of “syntheses and interpretations of the whole” that, according to Pinto (2015, p. 32), has marked the trajectory of the area in the country. We believe that the results of our analyses provide relevant critical insights and foster debates on the past, present, and future developments in the field.

2. Brief Background on the Development of WGFS in Portugal

Before delving into the presentation and discussion of our study’s results, it is important to provide some background information to contextualize this bibliometric analysis within the development of WGFS in Portugal. While acknowledging that the evolution of WGFS in Portugal “has been neither easy nor linear” (Joaquim 2004, p. 88), we propose a three-phase framework to delineate its trajectory: a first stage of initiation from the late 1970s to 1990; a second phase of consolidation from 1991 to 2000; and a third period of expansion, extending from 2001 to the present. It is important to emphasize, following Virgínia Ferreira (2001, p. 15), that the trajectories of WGFS in Portugal have been characterized by a series of advances and retreats, convergences, and ruptures. Constructing a narrative about the field’s development in the country requires the refusal of the teleological elements that often accompany retrospective readings, avoiding the artificial portrayal of progress narratives.

By providing this historical context, we aim to offer a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic nature of WGFS in Portugal, recognizing the complexities and nuances that have shaped its development over time. This contextualization is important for interpreting the results of our bibliometric analysis.

2.1. Phase 1: Initiation (1970s–1990)

WGFS emerged in Portugal later than in other European countries given the constraints imposed by the Estado Novo dictatorship (1926–1974) on the expansion of scientific research in the Social Sciences and Humanities, as well as the underdevelopment of feminist movements in the country until the mid-1970s (Amâncio 2003; Ferreira 2001; Monteiro 2011; Pereira 2013). These historical factors created an unfavorable context for the emergence of WGFS, resulting in a period of “latency” for the field until the 1980s (Amâncio 2003, p. 691). In the absence of the usual academic and social drivers of WGFS, the development of the area in Portugal in its early years occurred on the margins of the academia and was primarily driven by state initiatives. The Commission on the Status of Women (CCF), created in 1977, later renamed as the Commission for Equality and Women’s Rights (CIDM), and subsequently as the Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality (CIG), played a significant role (Joaquim 2004; Monteiro 2011; Moreira and Sales Oliveira 2022). This public entity published several studies, organized events on Women’s Studies, and stimulated the creation of the Portuguese Association of Women’s Studies (APEM)—the first scientific organization dedicated to promoting and disseminating the field (Ferreira 2001; Pinto 2015).

2.2. Phase 2: Consolidation (1990s)

The 1990s was a decade of clear acceleration in the process of institutionalization of WGFS in Portugal (Pereira 2013; Vaquinhas 2002). In this period, the sporadic nature of activities in preceding decades has gradually given way to increased systematicity and visibility. The creation of the Portuguese Association of Women’s Studies (APEM) in 1991 and the introduction of the first Master’s program in Women’s Studies at the Universidade Aberta in 1995 were important milestones during this phase. These developments solidified the institutional presence of WGFS as a distinct field of academic knowledge in Portuguese universities. Another significant advancement occurred in 1999, with the creation of the first and, to date, the only two Portuguese journals specifically dedicated to WGFS: ex æquo—Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Estudos sobre as Mulheres and Faces de Eva—Estudos sobre a Mulher. Additionally, in the same year, an agreement between the CIDM and the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, the national research council), as part of the Global Plan for Equal Opportunities (1997),1 led to the launch of a funding program specifically targeting research on gender relations and gender equality policies. This program has played a significant role in stimulating new interest and engagement within the field, and its influence should not be underestimated. As noted by the Editorial Board of the journal ex æquo in its first issue, many “eminent” Portuguese professors, who had previously shown no interest in WGFS-related topics, “as soon as such issues beg[a]n to attract funding, [were] ready to reorient their concerns and interests” towards the field (ex æquo Editorial Board 1999, p. 8).

2.3. Phase 3: Expansion in the 21st Century

The turn to the 21st century has marked a significant turning point in the development of WGFS in Portugal. The 2000s witnessed the so-called “WGFS boom” in the country (Pereira 2017, p. 29), characterized by a surge in academic interest and receptivity towards the field. A multiplication of research projects, study groups, congresses, seminars, and publications were observed, including some of the first translations of canonical foreign texts in the field (e.g., Macedo 2002; Macedo and Rayner 2011). In 2012, the establishment of the first center fully dedicated to WGFS, the Interdisciplinary Centre for Gender Studies (CIEG), recognized by the national research council (FCT), further solidified the trajectory of the field in the country. The rapid expansion of the WGFS has also been evident in the increasing availability of educational programs dedicated to the field. This expansion led to a growing trend of “autonomization” of the area, with the establishment of independent study programs: until 2001, the country had only one Master’s program in WGFS; between 2002 and 2008, seven new programs were created—two doctorates and five Master’s degrees.

Several internal and external factors have contributed to this expansion. At the socio-cultural level, Pereira (2017) highlights the impacts of the significant mobilizations of feminist movements around two referenda on abortion held in the country in 1998 and 2007. In parallel, there was a gradual reduction in state participation in the budgets of the country’s public universities in the course of the 2000s (Cardoso et al. 2011; Cabrito et al. 2021). This forced institutions to seek other sources of funding to compensate for the decrease in public participation, such as the direct contribution of students via the payment of tuition fees. This process took place concomitantly with the introduction of important transformations in the structure of higher education as part of the implementation, at the European level, of the Bologna Process. As a result, universities saw the creation of new postgraduate programs as valuable opportunities to increase their revenues, especially “interdisciplinary Master programs, as well as programs in emerging areas of science and knowledge” (Reichert and Tauch 2005, p. 15), which favored the expansion of WGFS.

Nevertheless, the influence of the Bologna Process on the institutionalization of WGFS in Portugal remains a subject of controversy among Portuguese researchers in the field, following debates conducted in other European countries (Alvanoudi 2009; Carrera Suárez and Suárez 2006; Evans 2006; Hemmings 2006; Vieira 2007). If, on the one hand, the implementation of Bologna has facilitated the creation of independent WGFS programs at the postgraduate level (Pereira 2017), an opposite effect has been observed with regard to the integration of WGFS in undergraduate degrees. As Teresa Pinto argued in an interview conducted by Rita Mira (2013), the reduction in undergraduate programs, required to adapt their structures to the Bologna Process, occurred at the expense of optional curricular units, precisely the situation in which most of the WGFS courses were found in Portuguese universities. Moreover, the progressive institutional presence of Gender Studies in the country has been accompanied by a prevailing notion that this field produces ideology rather than scientific knowledge (Vieira 2007, p. 176). It has faced challenges in terms of academic legitimacy, being viewed as having a “dubious academic legitimation” (Pinto 2008, p. 27) and a fragile “epistemic status” (Pereira 2018). These challenges arise from various sources, including traditional positivist epistemologies, emerging academic perspectives that proclaim the obsolescence of categories such as “women” or “feminism” (the so-called post-feminist discourses) and from populist anti-gender countermovements.

This complex context has influenced the perception and reception of WGFS in Portugal, presenting ongoing debates and tensions surrounding its academic standing.

3. Bibliometric Studies on WGFS

Among the various approaches to measuring scientific output, known as scientometrics, bibliometrics holds a privileged position (Godin 2006). Its origins date back to the early twentieth century, when methods based on the measurement of published scholarship and scientific research began to be used by librarians as a tool for developing journal collections (Haustein and Larivière 2015). The term “bibliometrics” was first used by Pritchard (1969), who defined it as a method “to shed light on the processes of written communication and of the nature and course of development of a discipline […], by means of counting and analyzing the various facets of written communication” (Pritchard 1969, pp. 348–49). Bibliometric analyses offer a range of possibilities, including the exploration and systematization of large amounts of bibliographic data within specific fields of study or disciplines. They are regarded as effective tools for identifying research trends or “hidden patterns” and trace the knowledge background and evolution of a particular field (Daim et al. 2006; Yun et al. 2020). Although the majority of bibliometric studies have traditionally been devoted to scientific and technological disciplines (Hérubel 1999), some researchers have extended the scope of application of bibliometrics to the analysis of scholarly production in other domains, including WGFS.

Yun et al. (2020) identify two general categories of previous studies that have articulated bibliometrics with Women’s Studies. The first category includes research efforts that have applied the bibliometric method to unveil gender inequalities that permeate the scholarly production in various fields. These studies have focused, for example, on the gendered patterns that structure indicators such as the publication productivity of women and men authors, citation patterns, and collaboration practices among researchers (Aguinis et al. 2018; Aksnes et al. 2011; Bendels et al. 2018; Caplar et al. 2017; Cooper et al. 2021; Dion et al. 2018).

The second group of previous studies—into which the present study falls—consists of works that utilize the bibliometric method to analyze the characteristics and tendencies of scholarly production in the field of Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies. The first bibliometric studies of publications in WGFS date back to the mid-1990s. The pioneering study by Cronin et al. (1997) focused on the works published between 1970 and 1994 in three major journals in the field (Feminist Studies, Signs—Journal of Women in Culture and Society and Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies), analyzing characteristics of authorship, editorial patterns, and their changes over time. Subsequent studies have expanded the understanding of the field of WGFS, highlighting trends that have shaped scholarly production in this domain. For example, Tsay and Li (2017) found that the United States and the United Kingdom are the two largest contributors to the journal literature on Women’s Studies published globally between 1900 and 2013 and indexed in the WoS. The authors also found that the volume of publications in Women’s Studies grew exponentially over time, a factor also identified by Hoppen and Vanz (2020). When investigating the intellectual structure of Women’s Studies through the bibliometric analysis of the global production in the field published between 1975 and 2017, Yun et al. (2020) found the considerable influence of references from the area of Social Psychology. They also revealed the high incidence, among the references cited in the corpus of analysis, of documents in book format published since the 1990s. The authors further identified six major research topics that have structured the scientific production in the field: gendered experiences, sex role, gendered violence, health, sexual minorities, and sexually transmitted diseases. In a recent bibliometric study examining gender research in the Social Sciences in post-Soviet countries, Kataeva et al. (2023) found a significant growth in the volume of publications since the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially between 2017 and 2021.

In the Portuguese context, only two previous studies have used the bibliometric approach to investigate aspects related to the field of WGFS. Ferreira et al. (2020) examined texts published over a two-decade period (from 1999 to 2019) in the journals ex æquo and Faces de Eva, which are the sole Portuguese journals specifically dedicated to WGFS. The analyses results showed the consolidation of WGFS as an interdisciplinary field of study and revealed a growing trend towards collaborative research. Another study carried out in Portugal, by Santos et al. (2022), focused on the bibliographic references listed in the syllabi of the course units within the seven Portuguese doctoral and Master’s degree programs in WGFS that were active during the 2021–2022 academic year. The study revealed the existence of a markedly post-structuralist curriculum, predominantly theoretical in nature, with a great openness to foreign literature, especially from other European countries and the United States.

Our study aims to contribute to the existing literature by providing a holistic view on the scholarly production of Portuguese WGFS over nearly three decades.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Data Collection

To map the main characteristics of Portuguese production in WGFS published from 1995 to 2021, we utilized the Web of Science Core Collection as our source of bibliographic data. With over 76 million records and more than 1600 million cited references (Kataeva et al. 2023), WoS is one of the largest and “most authoritative bibliographic databases” (Liu 2021, p. 849). It is widely recognized in academia as a reliable tool to track high-quality research (Hu et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2020) and has been extensively used in bibliometric studies, focusing specifically on publications in the field of WGFS (Arik and Akboga 2018; Hoppen and Vanz 2020; Kataeva et al. 2023; Tsay and Li 2017; Yun et al. 2020). Several advantages of WoS over Scopus, another widely utilized indexing database in bibliometric analyses, have been demonstrated in previous studies. WoS provides greater coverage across years and a more diverse range of information across multiple disciplines (Archambault et al. 2006; Goodman and Deis 2007). Additionally, WoS offers an advantage over Scopus with its dedicated category (research area), specifically for Women’s Studies. Due to the databases’ use of disparate tag fields, merging them and conducting an integrated analysis became unfeasible.

For the purposes of this study, Portuguese scientific production in WGFS is defined as publications within the field that meet the requirements described below, including at least one author affiliated with a Portuguese institution and indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection.2

The definition of the time frame for our analysis was motivated by the fact that in 1995, following the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and the publication of the Beijing Platform for Action (United Nations 1995), gender mainstreaming and the promotion of gender research became integral to the official strategies for advancing equality between women and men at both the European and Portuguese levels. The launch of Portugal’s first Global Plan for Equal Opportunities in 1997 detailed these official strategies and established transversal measures to promote the inclusion of gender issues into teaching and scientific research.3 In addition, 1995 also marked the creation of the country’s first-degree program in Women’s Studies. Hence, our analysis focuses on the second and third phases that we presented earlier.

The process of designing our search strategy involved several steps and preliminary tests. Initially, we conducted a search for all documents classified as belonging to the field of Women’s Studies in the WoS database. In this search, we considered documents with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese institution and published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2021. This initial search yielded 271 records, which we deemed insufficient and not representative of all Portuguese production in WGFS over the past three decades. Consequently, it became apparent that a more specific search query was necessary. Our objective was to establish search parameters that were broad enough to capture the multifaceted and far-reaching nature of WGFS production while ensuring that only documents with primary subject matter related to WGFS topics were included.

After thoroughly reviewing the search strategies used in previous bibliometric studies that analyzed WGFS production in different countries and performing several preliminary tests, we formulated a search query with the following main characteristics:

• Based on Hoppen’s (2021) list of search expressions used in her bibliometric study of Brazilian scientific production in WGFS, we compiled a set of ninety-eight terms. These terms included variants in Portuguese and English, where applicable, and were targeted for searching in document titles.
• Preliminary tests showed that many studies in the Biological and Health Sciences use the term “gender” as a synonym for biological sex, only disaggregating clinical trial results into “male” and “female” categories. This usage posed a significant source of false positives, artificially inflating the involvement of these areas in the results. To address this limitation, we excluded documents with “gender” in the title that were categorized in the Web of Science under specific fields of Life and Health Sciences, which were identified as the primary contributors to false positives.
• Finally, to capture other specific WGFS publications that did not meet the previous search criteria, we collected all 271 Portuguese records categorized as “Women’s Studies” in the WoS. We also included publications with “Gender Studies”, “Feminist Studies”, or “Women’s Studies” listed as their topic (WoS—TS field). The complete search query, including all search expressions used, is available in the Supplementary Materials.

Initially, our search conducted in September 2022 yielded a set of 1588 results. However, through meticulous manual analysis aimed at excluding “false positives”—papers that met our search parameters but did not specifically focus on gender issues—we refined the results to a total of 1309 documents.

4.2. Data Analysis

We conducted analyses of the data collected from the WoS platform using various dimensions, including year of publication, language of publication, document type, journal of publication (for articles), number of authors per record, research area (Web of Science, field WC), author keywords (Web of Science, field DE), and cited references.

To identify the main research topics that structured the Portuguese production in WGFS between 1995 and 2021, keyword mapping and clustering analysis were performed using VOSviewer version 1.6.18 (van Eck and Waltman 2010), developed by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman at Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Netherlands. VOSviewer is a powerful software tool for visualizing bibliometric networks and creating and exploring maps based on a co-occurrence matrix (van Eck and Waltman 2010; Yun et al. 2020). To identify influential works in the field, we used the software BibExcel version 2016-02-20 to determine the most frequently cited references. The same software was used to perform frequency analyses of most of the other variables. BibExcel (Persson n.d.), an open source software developed by Professor Olle Persson from Umeå University, Sweden, allows the calculation of bibliometric indicators of activity, collaboration, and co-occurrence. Microsoft Excel was used for the manual data cleaning, file conversion, and construction of graphs and tables.

In analyzing the distribution pattern of Portuguese WGFS articles among journals, we applied Bradford’s (1934) Law. According to Frogeri et al. (2022), this law, along with Lotka’s (1926) and Zipf’s (1949) laws, is one of the main methods used in bibliometric analyses. Bradford’s law focuses on journal productivity and posits that, in a given research area or topic, a small number of “core journals” concentrate the majority of articles, while the remaining production is dispersed across numerous periodicals (Tsay and Li 2017; Hoppen 2021). To identify the core journals, we followed the procedure outlined by Araújo (2006): the journals were listed in descending order based on the number of Portuguese articles they published in the WGFS field; the total number of articles published was divided by three; and the most productive group of journals, representing 1/3 of the articles, was identified.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. The Expansion in the 21st Century, the Impact of Productivity, and the Accentuated Internationalization of Portuguese WGFS

Our search yielded a total of 1309 Portuguese publications in WGFS between 1995 and 2021, also revealing a period of transition in the 2010s, as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The 2010s marked a significant phase of transformation in the field, characterized by a rapid and significant growth in the volume of publications, which we have classified as the “expansion” phase. In 2012, the annual production surpassed 50 publications for the first time, and in 2015, it exceeded 90 publications, and has consistently remained above this threshold since then. The highest annual production peak occurred in 2021, when 178 documents were published.

The significant growth in WGFS productivity during the 2010s becomes even more evident when compared with the immediately preceding decade using the growth index (GI). The GI is calculated by dividing the total research output in the second period by the total research output in the first period. A GI equal to one denotes production stability, a value less than one indicates a decrease, and a value greater than one reflects an increase in production (Hoppen 2021, p. 135). Between 2001 and 2010, a total of 119 Portuguese publications in WGFS were identified, while between 2011 and 2020, the total output reached 997, resulting in an expressive growth index of 8.37.

The data on the evolution of publication volume over time echoes the trends pointed out in the literature, which reports a “WGFS boom” in Portugal from the mid-2000s (Pereira 2017). This corresponds to a phase of expansion in the field, as evidenced by our own classification. Notably, 92.5% of the records in our database (1212 records) were published from 2010 onwards, reflecting the significant change in the attitudes towards WGFS within Portuguese academia during the first decade of the 21st century. This expansion phase was accompanied by a significant growth in institutional presence, including the development of training programs and the creation of specialized research centers.

Furthermore, in the 2000s—a decade characterized by increasing budget cuts in the country’s universities—three instances of calls for project funding dedicated to research on gender relations were launched under the FCT/CIDM protocol (2003, 2005, and 2008), following the first instance in 1999. A total of 59 projects were funded across the four rounds of calls, corresponding to an allocation of EUR 7.5 million (Pereira 2013). As a result, the number of researchers working in the field increased significantly, including those who redirected their interests towards gender issues and students from newly established postgraduate programs. These developments can be linked to the observed increase in the number of publications. Importantly, the phase of WGFS expansion, in terms of the volume of scientific publications, seems to extend to the present day, as evidenced by the peak of publications occurred in 2021, the final year of analysis in our time series.

In the current scientific context, characterized by the hegemony of a neoliberal and performative academic paradigm (Hark 2007; Pereira and Santos 2014), the scientific productivity of a field of study can have a great influence on the processes of negotiation of its epistemic status (Pereira 2008). This is particularly relevant for WGFS, which has faced constant questioning of its academic legitimacy and ability to produce valid, legitimate, and rigorous scientific knowledge since its emergence in the 1960s (Ferreira 2001; Lykke 2000; Varikas 2006; Vieira 2007). According to Maria do Mar Pereira, “an increase in publications about gender issues may contribute to place them more centrally on the academic agenda and bolster the status of the field” (Pereira 2008, p. 151). Therefore, the significant rise in WGFS publications indicated by our data can be seen as a factor that has contributed to the recent increase in the level of official recognition and appreciation of the field in Portugal (Pereira 2017).

The increased official recognition experienced in the field is evident in various indicators. These indicators include a notable increase in research funding allocated to gender research projects and initiatives, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of the importance and relevance of gender-related studies. Additionally, there has been an important expansion of postgraduate degree programs specifically focused on WGFS, providing opportunities for advanced education and specialization in this field. The recognition of the field is further exemplified by the excellent evaluation received by the only research center in Portugal exclusively dedicated to WGFS. This evaluation affirms the quality and significance of the center’s research activities and its contributions to the advancement of knowledge in the field. Moreover, a recent milestone in the official recognition of gender studies in Portugal is the establishment of gender equality criteria for the assessment and accreditation of Higher Education Institutions by the Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education (A3ES).

This reading aligns with the understanding that WGFS in Portugal is subject to a conditional form of academic recognition (Pereira 2017), wherein its official recognition as a relevant academic field is conditioned on its conformity to the metricized parameters of scientific productivity prevailing in academia.

5.2. Languages and Document Types: The Dominance of English and Articles

Regarding the languages used in Portuguese WGFS publications, English is clearly predominant, accounting for 1123 documents or 85.8% of the total. In addition to English, six other languages were identified in the database: Portuguese (142 documents, or 10.8% of the total), Spanish (35 publications, or 2.7%), French (5 works, 0.4%), Italian (2 records, 0.2%), and Galician and Korean (each with only one publication). To put our data into perspective, we evoke the study by Hoppen and Vanz (2020), which focused on the entire international scholarly production self-described as gender studies and indexed in WoS. They found that 74.6% of the publications were in English, a lower proportion compared to Portuguese production.

These results can be interpreted in several ways. On the one hand, we should bear in mind that the current configuration of the global academic publishing market, dominated by multinational corporations mainly headquartered in North America and the United Kingdom (Collyer 2018), favors the dominance of the English language in global academic bibliographic production. Additionally, WGFS developed earlier and faster in countries with an Anglo-Saxon tradition (Ramalho 2001), resulting in English historically serving as the “lingua franca” among gender researchers worldwide (Santos et al. 2022; Tsay and Li 2017). However, attention should be given to how Portugal’s semi-peripheral position in the global academic order favors the use of English as an epistemic marker. As Pereira (2014) argues, amid the unequal distribution of epistemic status across the globe, proper scholarliness and scientificity have historically been associated with “central” Western countries. Thus, publishing in English, especially in foreign vehicles (as explored in the next section), functions as a symbolic “stamp of quality” for scholars from semi-peripheral countries, lending legitimacy and enhancing the “truth effects” (Foucault 1979) of their knowledge claims. In other words, the English language and internationalization can be seen as tools strategically mobilized by researchers to symbolically bring the semi-peripheral Portuguese production in WGFS closer to the “center” (and its soi-disant “immanent scientific authority”).4

The diversity that is expressed in languages is also reflected in types of documents. We identified 15 different publication types, ranging from traditional scientific articles to book reviews (40 documents) and letters (1 document). The most recurrent format is the article published in a journal, with 830 instances, corresponding to 63.4% of the total. This is followed by articles published as book chapters (article; book chapter) and full articles published in proceedings papers (proceedings papers), which represent 9.5% and 9% of the total, respectively. Together, these three types of publication comprise 82% of the 1309 documents in the database. These results resonate with findings from previous bibliometric studies that have examined WGFS production in specific national contexts and at the international level. Söderlund and Madison (2015), when analyzing Swedish production in the area, also identified articles as the most frequent type of publication. In the study previously mentioned, Hoppen and Vanz (2020) also found a prevalence of articles, which accounted for 75.4% of the total publications.

5.3. Distribution of Portuguese WGFS Articles Based on the Application of Bradford’s Law: A Clear Predominance of the US and the UK

To explore the distribution pattern of Portuguese WGFS articles across journals, we employed Bradford’s law (

Table 1. Bradford zones for article distribution in Portuguese WGFS, 1995–2021.

Zones	Number of Journals	Number of Articles	%
I	43	277	33.4%
II	162	277	33.4%
III	276	276	33.3%
Total	481	830

). Our findings demonstrate a general adherence to Bradford’s scattering law, which states that there are a few highly productive periodicals, a larger number of moderately productive ones, and an even larger number of journals with low productivity (Bradford 1934). Zone I is composed of 43 different journals, accounting for 33% of the total number of Portuguese articles in WGFS published between 1995 and 2021. On average, each journal in this zone published 6.4 articles. Zone II consists of 162 journals, with an average publication of about two articles per journal. Zone III comprises 276 journals, each of which published only one article. Notably, out of the 481 journals that published Portuguese articles in WGFS during this period, 350 (73% of the total) published only one article.

The core journals in the Portuguese WGFS field (Zone I) are published in nine different countries, with the United States and the United Kingdom being the most represented countries (15 and 11 journals, respectively). Brazil follows with six core journals, while Portugal and Switzerland each contribute three journals. Spain has two journals and Australia, South Korea, and the Netherlands each have one. This distribution highlights the global reach of Portuguese WGFS, albeit with a concentration in North America and Europe.

5.4. From Single Authorship and Theoretical Focus to a More Collaborative and Competitive Model of Scholarly Production

From 1995 to 2021, more than 3000 authors contributed to the Portuguese WGFS publications indexed in WoS. On average, there are 2.4 authors per work, with single authorship being the most frequent, accounting for 359 documents (27.4% of the total), followed by co-authorship between two individuals, present in 278 documents (21.2%). Most of the publications are signed by a small number of individuals: 68.8% with up to three authors and 81.2% being authored by up to four individuals. The prevalence of individual authorship is a well-documented trend in the Social Sciences, Humanities, and theoretically oriented fields such as Mathematics and Philosophy. In these fields, theoretical reflection holds greater significance compared to applied or experimental areas, which often involve co-authorship (Meadows 1999). Thus, the prevalence of single authorship not only indicates that Portuguese WGFS scholarship is closely associated with the Social Sciences and Humanities but also underscores the field’s emphasis on theoretical reflection, as shown in previous bibliometric studies (Diniz and Foltran 2004; Hoppen and Vanz 2020).

However, there is evidence of a shift in this pattern of single authorship, with an increase in the number of authors per record observed from 2004 onwards. This shift may reflect the international trend towards more collaborative scientific production (Hoppen and Vanz 2020), as well as a broadening of the range of scientific fields that make up Portuguese WGFS.

Table 2. Authorship disaggregated into three periods.

Authors per Work 1995–2004 (n = 21)			Authors per Work 2005–2014 (n = 358)			Authors per Work 2015–2021 (n = 930)
n Authors	n Work	%	n Authors	n Work	%	n Authors	n Work	%
1	10	47.6%	1	119	33.2%	1	230	24.7%
2	2	9.5%	2	81	22.6%	2	195	21.0%
3	1	4.8%	3	71	19.8%	3	192	20.6%
4	1	4.8%	4	39	10.9%	4	122	13.1%
5	1	4.8%	5	15	4.2%	5	74	8.0%
6	4	19.0%	6	11	3.1%	6	49	5.3%
7 or +	2	9.5%	7 or +	22	6.1%	7 or +	68	7.3%

demonstrates that single authorship was even more common until 2004, with 47.6% of the documents published between 1995 and 2004 having only one author. This proportion decreased to 33.2% between 2005 and 2014, and further dropped to 24.7% between 2015 and 2021, indicating a gradual change in authorship patterns.

According to Ferreira et al. (2020, p. 39), the growing prevalence of co-authorship in scientific research can be attributed to the increasing pressure to publish that is observed across all scientific disciplines. This trend has been further amplified with the dissemination of scientific performance models based on bibliometric measures. Initially rooted in the culture of publication within life and natural sciences or experimental sciences, this culture has expanded its influence to non-experimental sciences. While single authorship used to be predominant in non-experimental sciences, Ferreira and colleagues highlight that experimental sciences have traditionally embraced the practice of publishing research with diverse co-authorships, involving individuals from various academic categories, institutions, and geographic locations. This collaborative approach recognizes the value of interdisciplinary collaboration and the inclusion of diverse perspectives in advancing scientific knowledge.

The gradual change in authorship patterns also seems to be associated with the emergence of new research funding policies. The period of transition towards collective authorships coincides with an increase in funding for collective research projects in WGFS (namely through the FCT/CIDM protocol, mentioned above). As a result, the proportion of research in the field carried out by teams rather than individuals has also grown, favoring jointly authored publications.

5.5. Beyond Disciplinary Limits, but with a “Narrow Interdisciplinarity” Approach, Anchored Mainly in the Social Sciences

A total of 116 areas have contributed to the Portuguese production in WGFS published between 1995 and 2021 and indexed in WoS. This diverse range of contributions reflects the commitment of gender studies to challenge rigid boundaries between areas of knowledge, aligning with the goal of achieving a radical “composite de-identification” as defined by Maria Irene Ramalho (2001), where disciplinary boundaries are destabilized.

Table 3. Web of Science research areas (WC) present in 1.5% or more of the works between 1995 and 2021.

Research Areas (n = 1309)
Areas	n Works	%	Areas	n Works	%
Women’s Studies	270	20.60%	History	41	3.10%
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary	140	10.70%	Business	40	3.10%
Public, Environmental and Occupational Health	123	9.40%	Communication	34	2.60%
Psychology, Multidisciplinary	109	8.30%	Economics	32	2.40%
Education and Educational Research	101	7.70%	Humanities, Multidisciplinary	32	2.40%
Social Issues	74	5.70%	Psychology, Developmental	25	1.90%
Psychiatry	66	5.00%	Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism	23	1.80%
Sociology	57	4.40%	Area Studies	21	1.60%
Psychology, Clinical	55	4.20%	Cultural Studies	21	1.60%
Management	51	3.90%	Law	21	1.60%
Psychology, Social	49	3.70%	Criminology and Penology	19	1.50%
Family Studies	44	3.40%

presents the most common areas that appear in 1.5% or more of the 1309 records analyzed.

Figure 3 illustrates the number of research areas that have contributed to the scientific production in WGFS during three distinct periods. Between 1995 and 2004, 20 areas contributed to the scientific production in the field, which increased to 84 between 2005 and 2014, and further expanded to 108 between 2015 and 2021. These findings demonstrate the growing interdisciplinary nature of WGFS over time.

Table 4. Most common Web of Science research areas (WC) in three periods.

Areas 1995–2004 (n = 21)			Areas 2005–2014 (n = 358)			Areas 2015–2021 (n = 930)
Areas	n Works	%	Areas	n Works	%	Areas	n Works	%
Psychology, Developmental	4	19.0%	Women’s Studies	91	25.4%	Women’s Studies	176	18.9%
Psychology, Multidisciplinary	3	14.3%	Public, Environmental and Occupational Health	48	13.4%	Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary	104	11.2%
Women’s Studies	3	14.3%	Psychology, Multidisciplinary	38	10.6%	Public, Environmental and Occupational Health	74	8.0%
Literature	2	9.5%	Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary	35	9.8%	Education and Educational Research	71	7.6%
Psychology, Social	2	9.5%	Education and Educational Research	30	8.4%	Psychology, Multidisciplinary	68	7.3%
Psychiatry	2	9.5%	Sociology	26	7.3%	Social Issues	56	6.0%
History	2	9.5%	Psychiatry	21	5.9%	Psychology, Clinical	48	5.2%
Communication	2	9.5%	Social Issues	17	4.7%	Psychiatry	43	4.6%
Virology	1	4.8%	History	17	4.7%	Management	38	4.1%
Sociology	1	4.8%	Psychology, Social	14	3.9%	Family Studies	38	4.1%
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary	1	4.8%

highlights the main fields that were included in WGFS across the three periods. “Women’s Studies” have gained prominence since the late 2000s, indicating the consolidation of the field as a distinct area of study in Portuguese academia. The participation of the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences has increased gradually, while Management has emerged as a new prominent field. Conversely, the participation of the Humanities (Literature and History) has shown a decreasing trend.

These results allow us to distinguish the type of interdisciplinarity that shapes Portuguese production in WGFS. Huutoniemi et al. (2010) propose a typology to identify the scope of interdisciplinarity in research, ranging from “narrow interdisciplinarity”, involving conceptually and methodologically compatible disciplines within the same broad domain of scholarship (e.g., physics and chemistry), to “broad interdisciplinarity”, encompassing collaboration between conceptually disparate disciplines from different intellectual domains (e.g., mathematics and history). Our analysis indicates that Portuguese production in WGFS is marked by a narrow interdisciplinarity, with a dominant presence of contributions from the Social Sciences and limited representation from life sciences and STEM.

5.6. What Has Been Studied: Thematic Expansion, “Localized Internationalization”, the Growing Interest in Sexualities and Intersectionality, and the Waiving of “Women”

Figure 4 represents a co-occurrence map of 95 author keywords that were used five or more times between 1995 and 2021 in the Portuguese production in the field of WGFS. They are organized into nine clusters, which correspond to the main research topics and areas that structure the field in Portugal.

Cluster 1 (C1), named “Non-normative Sexualities”, includes terms such as “sexual orientation”, “gay men”, “lesbian women”, “homosexuality”, and “homophobia”. This cluster represents an area of research that explores sexualities diverging from normative expectations shaped by the assumption of heterosexuality as the normal, natural, and desirable standard. In this area of research, a significant theme of interest revolves around discrimination and the various forms of symbolic and material violence experienced by individuals with non-normative sexual identities. This is evident through the recurrence of terms like “sexual prejudice”, “homophobia”, “stigma”, and “bullying”. Furthermore, the presence of words such as “parenting”, “adoption”, and “children” within C1 expresses the existence of a research subarea in the Portuguese WGFS that focuses on the unique experiences and challenges faced by non-normative sexual identity groups in terms of parenting (Figure 5).

Cluster 2 (C2) is labeled “Physical and Mental Health” and focuses on studies that revolve around issues of mental and physical health disorders. The presence of terms such as “anxiety”, “aging”, and “depression” within this cluster highlights the significant contribution of psychology to research in this area.

The presence of “COVID-19” among the most frequent keywords in C2 indicates that Portuguese WGFS have actively engaged in debates about the pandemic crisis. These discussions have examined the gender asymmetries exacerbated or brought about by the pandemic (see Figure 6). It is worth mentioning that this interest in the pandemic’s gender impacts aligns with the establishment of the “Gender Research 4 COVID-19” program in the country in 2020. The program was initiated by the FCT in collaboration with the Secretary of State for Citizenship and Equality and provided specific support to projects and initiatives dedicated to the production and dissemination of knowledge on the gender impacts of the pandemic. This alignment of topics studied in Portuguese WGFS with the priorities of national funding agencies and public administrations reveals the close relationship established between the state and the field. It echoes the characteristics observed during the “initiation” phase of WGFS in Portugal in the 1970s and 1980s.

Cluster 3 (C3) encompasses terms such as “adolescence”, “adolescents”, “gender differences”, and “well-being”. The terms collectively fall under the umbrella of “Gender and Youth”. C3 also includes terms associated with health, such as “HIV” and “depressive symptoms”, suggesting that the interplay between gender relations, physical and mental health, and adolescence is a significant area of interest of Portuguese research in WGFS.

Cluster 4 (C4) is labeled “Gender and Culture” and comprises terms such as “Portugal”, “Brazil”, “culture”, “media”, and “gender stereotypes”. This cluster represents a field of study dedicated to analyzing the unique aspects of gender dynamics within different national and cultural contexts, with a particular focus on Portugal and Brazil. The presence of terms related to the media suggests that there is a particular interest in examining cultural gender representations. This highlights the significant influence of fields such as communication and cultural studies on this research strand.

Cluster 5 (C5) is labeled “Politics and Identity” and is composed of terms such as “feminism”, “empowerment”, “gender identity”, “women”, and “queer”. This cluster represents a strand of research that focuses on the dynamics of contemporary political struggles for recognition and empowerment based on various identity categories.

Cluster 6 (C6) is labeled “Contemporary Labor Relations and Gender” and brings together concepts such as “entrepreneurship”, “performance”, “higher education”, and “unemployment”. This cluster represents a subfield of studies that focuses on the intersection of gender dynamics and the emergence and consolidation of neoliberal forms of structuring labor relations. The presence of “higher education” among the main keywords in C6 indicates a specific interest in exploring the impact of the neoliberal paradigm on the educational sector.

Cluster 7 (C7) includes terms such as “class”, “migration”, and “youth”, suggesting that studies within this cluster cover the complex interactions between multiple social markers of difference, such as class, ethnicity, and gender. This strand of research can be characterized by examinations of “Intersectionality”. Additionally, terms like “violence against women” and “violence” indicate that one recurring theme within this cluster is the analysis of sexist violence from an intersectional perspective.

Labeled “Gender Inequalities in Different Contexts”, Cluster 8 (C8) brings together concepts such as “gender equality”, “gender diversity”, “gender gap”, “family”, “gender inequalities”, “education”, and “gender pay gap”. This strand of research within the Portuguese WGFS focuses on examining the ways in which gender dynamics and asymmetries are embedded and perpetuated in different institutional and socialization contexts, including work, education, and family settings.

Finally, Cluster 9 (C9), titled “Sexism and Discrimination”, encompasses terms such as “discrimination”, “sexism”, and “stereotypes”. Notably, the term “ambivalent sexism” is prevalent within this cluster, indicating the great influence of the theoretical framework proposed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (1996) in Portugal. Their framework suggests that sexism is a dual-factor phenomenon that includes both overtly hostile elements and seemingly benevolent attitudes towards women.

Table 5. Characteristics of the clusters identified based on the co-occurrence of keywords.

Cluster	Label	n Keywords	Core Keywords
C1	Non-normative Sexualities	18	Sexual orientation; homophobia; gay men
C2	Physical and Mental Health	12	Depression; anxiety; COVID-19
C3	Gender and Youth	12	Gender differences; adolescence; well-being
C4	Gender and Culture	11	Portugal; Brazil; media
C5	Politics and Identity	10	Feminism; identity; women
C6	Contemporary Labor Relations and Gender	10	Gender; higher education; entrepreneurship
C7	Intersectionality	9	Intersectionality; gender studies; migration
C8	Gender Inequalities in Different Contexts	7	Education; gender equality; diversity
C9	Sexism and discrimination	6	Discrimination; sexism; stereotypes

summarizes the main information on the composition of the nine clusters identified.

After conducting a cluster analysis, we deemed it interesting to examine the main changes that have occurred over time with respect to the topics investigated. Our analysis covered three time periods: 1995 to 2004, 2005 to 2014, and 2015 to 2021.

Table 6. Keywords appearing in 1.5% or more of publications—2005 to 2014 and 2015 to 2021.

Keywords 2005–2014 (n = 209)			Keywords 2015–2021 (n = 679)
Author Keywords	Occurrences	%	Author Keywords	Occurrences	%
Gender	71	34.00%	Gender	182	26.80%
Portugal	23	11.00%	Portugal	60	8.80%
Women	11	5.30%	Gender Differences	27	4.00%
Gender Differences	8	3.80%	Sexual Orientation	19	2.80%
Higher Education	8	3.80%	Women	18	2.70%
Homosexuality	7	3.30%	Homophobia	17	2.50%
Discrimination	7	3.30%	Gender Equality	17	2.50%
Feminism	6	2.90%	Education	15	2.20%
HIV	6	2.90%	Higher Education	14	2.10%
Prejudice	5	2.40%	Intersectionality	13	1.90%
Gender Identity	5	2.40%	Gender Studies	13	1.90%
Attitudes	5	2.40%	Gay Men	12	1.80%
Family	4	1.90%	Depression	12	1.80%
Migration	4	1.90%	Feminism	12	1.80%
Emotions	4	1.90%	Diversity	11	1.60%
Gender Studies	4	1.90%	Discrimination	11	1.60%
Depression	4	1.90%	Brazil	10	1.50%
Class	4	1.90%	Well-Being	10	1.50%
Sex	4	1.90%	Adolescence	10	1.50%
			Stereotypes	10	1.50%

presents the most frequently occurring keywords for the latter two time intervals, as the limited number of publications from 1995 to 2004 precluded meaningful analysis.

During the first period analyzed (2005 to 2014), only one term directly related to sexuality was present (“homosexuality”, present in 3.3% of the publications). However, in the subsequent period (2015 to 2021), three terms related to sexuality (sexual orientation, homophobia, and gay men) emerged, indicating a growing focus on sexualities, particularly non-normative sexual identities, within Portuguese WGFS. This trend aligns with findings of Ferreira et al. (2020) in their study on texts published between 1999 and 2019 in the Portuguese journals ex æquo and Faces de Eva, as well as with similar observations in the international scholarly production of the field (Hoppen and Vanz 2020; Angelis et al. 2023; Costa 2023). This scenario suggests that LGBTQIA+ studies have recently consolidated as an important research area within Portuguese WGFS.

A similar growing tendency can be observed for the frequency of “intersectionality”. While absent between 2005 and 2014, it appeared in 1.9% of the publications from 2015 to 2021. Introduced by Kimberle Crenshaw (1991) in her studies on the discrimination experienced by black women in the American legal system, the concept of intersectionality explores how individuals’ simultaneous belonging to subalternized groups defined by multiple social markers of difference (such as class, race, and gender) leads to unique experiences of discrimination and oppression. The integration of this critical perspective into Portuguese WGFS reflects the field’s evolving recognition of the complexity and interconnections between different axes of marginalization, surpassing single-axis analyses. Although the concept emerged in North American feminist discussions in the early 1990s, its integration into Portuguese WGFS has occurred relatively recently.

While intersectionality has gained widespread recognition and influence within feminist scholarship, it has also faced criticism and contestation. Some scholars, including concept proponents such as McCall (2005), Collins (2015), and Hancock (2016), raise concerns about the potential for intersectionality to be co-opted and diluted in mainstream academic and policy circles. They argue that this co-optation can lead to the depoliticization of intersectionality, reducing it to a mere checklist of identities. Moreover, they highlight the tensions and challenges the concept faces in effectively addressing power dynamics. For example, Sara Ahmed (2017) questions how intersectionality can sometimes become a buzzword that obscures power relations and perpetuates existing hierarchies. Similarly, Kergoat (2012) suggests that the multiplicity of entry points, such as caste, religion, region, ethnicity, and nation, in addition to race, gender, and class, can lead to the fragmentation of social practices and the dissolution of violence in social relations, potentially contributing to its reproduction.

Another area of problematization revolves around the tension between intersectionality as a theory and as a framework for social analysis. Some scholars, like Nash (2008), argue that intersectionality, as a theory, should be more clearly defined and operationalized, with specific methodologies and empirical approaches. They advocate for a more structured and rigorous understanding of intersectionality to enhance its applicability and analytical power. On the other hand, others, such as Bilge (2010), contend that intersectionality is primarily a framework or lens through which to analyze social phenomena. They suggest that it is not a fully developed theory with its own set of predictions and explanations, highlighting that the explanatory power of intersectionality alone may be insufficient to fully account for all the complexities it aspires to address. The use of the concept of intersectionality carries a similar risk to what has occurred with the concept of gender. In many studies, gender has been employed as an empirical and descriptive category, serving as a substitute for sex rather than an analytical tool. Similarly, with intersectionality, there is a risk of attributing categories such as class without questioning their validity. It becomes challenging to reconcile a conceptualization based on fixed categories within constructivist feminist approaches that have fundamentally challenged the notion of sex and gender as predetermined categories. From our perspective, it is not possible to destabilize certain categories while leaving others intact. When these concepts are trivialized and applied simplistically, they lose their political significance, transforming analytical categories into individual characteristics and disregarding the power dynamics that shape societies.

Another significant change observed in our data concerns the decrease in the frequency of the terms “women” and “sex”. In the first period, “women” was present in 5.3% of the publications, which decreased to 2.7% in the second period. Similarly, the frequency of “sex” decreased from 1.9% between 2005 and 2014 to 0.4% between 2015 and 2021. These findings indicate a broader paradigmatic transition within Portuguese WGFS, characterized by the declining influence of theoretical–political perspectives premised on the recognition of the irreducibility of the sexual differences between men and women, conventionally referred to as “feminism of sexual difference” (Braidotti 2003). Contributing to this paradigmatic shift is the emergence and consolidation of strands of contemporary feminist thought influenced by social constructivist perspectives. These strands of thought move away from rigid categories and recognize that they do not adequately reveal the fundamentally socio-cultural origins, rather than biological, of the perceived differences between the sexes.

Regarding continuities observed across both time periods, the persistent presence of “gender” and “Portugal” as the most frequent terms is notable. It is not surprising that “gender” appears as the most frequent term. The concept originated from the clinical studies of the American psychologist John Money in the 1950s and was later appropriated and radically re-signified by feminist theorists such as Ann Oakley and Gayle Rubin in the 1970s. It emerged as the main “theoretical tool” mobilized by activists and intellectuals during the political-theoretical struggles of second-wave feminism. Although there is no consensus among theorists in the field regarding its uses and potentialities—for instance, Francophone materialist feminists prefer the notion of “rapports sociaux de sexe” over “gender” (Daune-Richard and Devreux [1986] 1990; Falquet 2012)—its historical role in delimiting an analytical perspective that challenges the naturalized social relations of patriarchal oppression cannot be denied. Gender has played a pivotal role in establishing the field of women’s studies, and data show that Portuguese production has consistently operationalized what Stacy Alaimo (2010, p. 5) refers to as “feminist theory’s most revolutionary concept”, although not always in an analytical accurate way, as has been noted by Amâncio (2003) and Ferreira (2013).

Finally, the presence of Portugal as the second most frequent keyword in both periods indicates a focus on national issues within the literature analyzed. This trend could be seen as an expression of the political engagement that has characterized WGFS since its historical roots in women’s movements. It would suggest a natural “contextualist” imperative in the field, that is, a particular concern with political and social issues specific to the national context in which it is situated. However, findings from bibliometric analyses of WGFS scholarly production in other countries suggest that this pattern is not common across all spaces (Cudina et al. 2021; Hoppen 2021). This strong “national focus” observed in Portuguese production seems to contrast with other trends revealed by the data, which point to a significant degree of internationalization.

Hence, we identify the dynamic that we could term “localized internationalization”. This phenomenon describes the process through which Portuguese researchers, despite publishing their work mainly in languages other than Portuguese and in foreign journals, integrate themselves into international debates on gender studies mainly as representatives of national issues, moving away from topics of a more transversal and transnational nature. This pattern aligns with findings of previous bibliometric studies on the scholarly production in other fields, which have shown that authors from countries outside the world’s main centers of scientific production are more likely to explicitly highlight the national origin of their studies. In contrast, production from the “central” countries, particularly the United States, tends to be less inclined to emphasize its national specificity (Cheon et al. 2020; Kahalon et al. 2022). We can interpret this as indicating a form of subordinate integration/internationalization.

5.7. Influential Works: An Exogenous and Poststructuralist Intellectual Background

To identify influential works in Portuguese WGFS, we conducted an analysis of the most frequently cited references in our database.

Table 7. Most cited references in Portuguese WGFS production between 1995 and 2021.

Occurrences	Cited Reference	Title	Publication Medium
48	Butler, Judith (1990)	Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity	Book
32	Meyer, Ilan H (2003)	“Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence”	Psychological Bulletin
31	Braun, Virginia, and Clarke, Victoria (2006)	“Using thematic analysis in psychology”	Qualitative Research in Psychology
26	Hu, Li-tze, and Bentler, Peter M. (1999)	“Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”	Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
	Glick and Fiske (1996)	“The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism”	Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
25	Crenshaw (1991)	“Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color”	Stanford Law Review
22	Connell, Raewyn (1995)	Masculinities	Book
	West, Candace, and Zimmerman, Don H. (1987)	“Doing Gender”	Gender and Society
	Connell, Raewyn (1987)	Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics	Book
21	Butler, Judith (2004)	Undoing Gender	Book
20	Cohen, Jacob (1988)	Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences	Book
	Fornell, Claes, and Larcker, David F. (1981)	“Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”	Journal of Marketing Research
	Cheung, Gordon W., and Rensvold, Roger B. (2002)	“Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance”	Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
18	Acker, Joan (1990)	“Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations”	Gender and Society
	Amâncio, Lígia (1994)	Masculino e feminino. A construção social da diferença	Book
	Nogueira, Conceição, and Oliveira, João Manuel de (2010)	Estudo sobre a discriminação em função da orientação sexual e da identidade de género	Book
17	Rosen, Raymond et al. (2000)	“The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A Multidimensional Self-Report Instrument for the Assessment of Female Sexual Function”	Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
16	Hofstede, Geert (2001)	“Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations”	Book
15	Connell, Raewyn (2002)	Gender	Book
	Amâncio, Lígia, and Oliveira, João Manuel de (2006)	“Men as Individuals, Women as a Sexed Category: Implications of Symbolic Asymmetry for Feminist Practice and Feminist Psychology”	Feminism and Psychology
	Connell, Raewyn (2005)	“Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”	Gender and Society

presents twenty-one references that were cited fifteen times or more between 1995 and 2021.

The most cited work in Portuguese WGFS is Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble. Originally published in 1990, this text is considered a foundational work in queer theory and has made a significant contribution to the field of WGFS through Butler’s influential theory of gender performativity. This theory was developed in close dialogue with key figures of French poststructuralism, such as Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Gender Trouble marked Judith Butler’s emergence as a prominent contemporary feminist thinker. Other bibliometric studies also confirm the lasting impact of Butler’s intellectual contributions on WGFS, with Gender Trouble being one of the most frequently cited references worldwide (Yun et al. 2020).

Among the 21 bibliographical references with 15 or more mentions, Raewyn Connell emerges as a highly influential author in the analyzed national scientific production, despite not being the author of the most cited publication. Her four works included in the survey—consisting of two focused on the analysis of gender relations in general and two on the study of masculinities—have received a total of 74 mentions, making her the most frequently referenced author in the bibliographic lists. One of her notable contributions is the book Gender and Power, published in 1987, which offers a conceptualization of gender as a social structure that differs from the notion of sexual roles. This conceptualization of gender applies to all aspects of society, ranging from the family to organizations and the state. Another influential concept introduced by Connell is that of “hegemonic masculinity”. Based on the norm of heterosexuality, this concept has generated a substantial body of research literature. However, it is important to note that, like other concepts such as gender and intersectionality, the concept of hegemonic masculinity has sometimes been misinterpreted or misapplied. Connell and her colleagues have highlighted the tendency to define hegemonic masculinity as a set of personal traits rather than as a position within a structure of gendered power relations, involving the subordination of women and other men (Wedgwood et al. 2022, p. 1).

The presence of Crenshaw’s (1991) influential article on intersectionality among the most cited references confirms the significant influence of this theoretical perspective on gender studies in Portugal in recent years. Similarly, the presence of Glick and Fiske’s (1996) article indicates the popularity of the concept of “ambivalent sexism” in national scholarly production in the field, as mentioned earlier.

It is worth noting that among the twenty-one most cited references, only three publications are by Portuguese authors, primarily from the field of social psychology. These publications include Masculino e feminino. Construção social da diferença by Lígia Amâncio, Estudo sobre a discriminação em função da orientação sexual e da identidade de género by Conceição Nogueira and João Manuel de Oliveira (2010), and “Men as Individuals, Women as a Sexed Category: Implications of Symbolic Asymmetry for Feminist Practice and Feminist Psychology” by Lígia Amâncio and João Manuel de Oliveira (2006). Additionally, it is noteworthy that two works devoted to the study of masculinities, both by Raewyn Connell, are included among the most frequent references.

Finally, it is worth noting that among the most referenced works there are five publications that focus on research methodology: four concentrate on quantitative methods, including a methodology manual, and one focuses on qualitative methods. This emphasis on methodology may be associated with a concern to affirm scientific rigor in an attempt to escape the epistemological contestation faced by this field of study. This recognition of the importance of methodology manuals could be linked to negotiation processes regarding the “epistemic status” (Pereira 2017) of WGFS in academia, particularly the strategies employed by researchers to navigate academic environments that often underestimate and devalue the knowledge produced in this field. To counter criticisms of a perceived lack of scientific rigor, researchers resort to what Messer-Davidow (2002) describes as “strategies of scientization.” These strategies involve aligning the field with conventional scientific practices and norms, including the adoption of established methodologies.

6. Conclusions

This study employed bibliometric methods to comprehensively map the scholarly production of Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies in Portugal from 1995 to 2021. The findings of our analyses provide a thorough overview of the field’s development spanning nearly three decades. Moreover, our quantitative insights complement and extend upon previous qualitative studies and individual perceptions of researchers associated with the field.

Our data reveal a recent and significant expansion in the number of WGFS publications, particularly since the 2010s. This finding further supports the idea that despite a later emergence of WGFS in Portugal compared to other European countries, there has been a “WGFS boom” (Pereira 2017) in the country in the 21st century. This scenario is associated not only with a greater receptivity of Portuguese society to gender issues, resulting from sociocultural transformations that occurred in the country in the transition to the 21st century, but the observed increase in scientific production has also been heavily influenced by the creation of funding opportunities for gender research, notably through the FCT/CIDM protocol in the 2000s and subsequent sporadic calls, such as the “Gender Research 4 COVID-19” program in 2020. These funding initiatives have contributed to an increase in the number of Ph.D. graduates and the development of capacity building for competitive funding applications at national and international levels, thus fostering the establishment of new research teams, which has led to an increase in the number of publications.

The prevalence of English as the dominant language of publication and the substantial presence of foreign journals as the primary outlets for Portuguese articles indicates the internationalization of Portuguese WGFS. These findings also reflect the dynamics that are emerging from Portugal’s position as a semi-peripheral country within the global academic order.

Regarding authorship patterns, while single authorship has remained predominant in the field, there is an increasing tendency towards co-authorship. This aligns with the global trend towards more collaborative scientific production and mirrors the expanding range of scientific fields contributing to Portuguese WGFS. However, our analyses show that the field’s scholarly production relies primarily on contributions from the Social Sciences, suggesting a narrow interdisciplinarity with limited representation from the life sciences and STEM. Greater representation of STEM areas could provide unique insights and contribute to a more holistic understanding of gender-related issues.

Through keyword mapping and clustering, we identified nine main research topics within Portuguese WGFS, including non-normative sexualities, physical and mental health, gender and youth, gender and culture, politics and identity, contemporary labor relations and gender, intersectionality, gender inequalities in different contexts, and sexism and discrimination. non-normative sexualities and the intersectional theoretical-analytical perspective have gained significant prominence in recent years. Conversely, there is a contrasting trend observed in terms historically associated with feminist scholarship, such as “women” and “sex”. These findings indicate a paradigmatic transition in Portuguese WGFS, characterized by the emerging influence of strands of feminist thought heavily influenced by socio-constructivist perspectives.

Furthermore, our analysis highlights the influence of poststructuralist-inspired references, exemplified by Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble, and foreign publications as important knowledge backgrounds for Portuguese WGFS over the past decades.

While this study provides the first systematic quantitative analysis of Portuguese scholarly production in WGFS using bibliometrics, it also opens avenues for future research. Future studies can explore other indexing databases beyond the Web of Science to expand the coverage of bibliographic data and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the field. Additionally, investigating patterns of inter-institutional collaboration and author collaboration through cluster analysis can offer insights into the networks and relationships that shape Portuguese WGFS. Our study provides valuable information for future comparative studies with other countries, which can further elucidate the unique characteristics and contributions of Portuguese WGFS within the broader global context.

This article contributes to our understanding of the development, dynamics, and key research areas within Portuguese WGFS. By combining bibliometric analysis with qualitative insights from previous studies, we have provided a comprehensive overview that can guide future research and inform policy decisions aimed at mainstreaming gender into research.