English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since Gero’s (1985) germinal article on gender inequities in archaeology, feminist archaeologists have theorized that research processes are gendered: fieldwork is masculine-coded, and lab and museum work are feminine-coded. Goldstein and colleagues (2018) revealed that while more men submit grant applications to the National Science Foundation (NSF) overall, both men and women submit more post-Ph.D. proposals for field-based than for lab-based projects. This paper expands on these data by presenting an analysis of NSF-funded project abstracts (1955–2020) focusing on 1) methods employed, 2) primary regions where research is conducted, and 3) genders and organizational affiliations of principal investigators. We demonstrate that in this dataset, the gendered lab/field divide is not statistically significant; however, there are significant correlations between the genders of PIs and the regions they study. We conclude that the gendering of archaeological methods is in flux but that inequities and gendered patterns continue to shape archaeological research.

Funding in the “Field:” An Analysis of Demographics and Methods in National Science Foundation Archaeology Grants (1955–2020)