Unequal credit in academic collaboration has long been understood through the Matthew effect—more credit is given to already famous coauthors. The Matilda effect posits that women receive less credit than men, assumed to be riding collaborators’ coattails. Analyzing 62 interviews that center women faculty of color contrasted with three same-rank colleagues (white women, men of color, and white men), we theorize the Maya effect: how unequal crediting for collaborative work is inseparable from both racialized and gendered oppression. The Maya effect theorizes not just the authorship end point, but also how inequalities arise in crediting output, illustrating how each stage of collaboration operates in gendered and racialized ways. Our narrative data holistically illustrate racialized and gendered patterns in collaboration at the stages of finding collaborators, maintaining collaboration, and crediting output of collaboration. We see racialized gender disparities in who can enter collaborations without fear of mistreatment, in silencing of ideas, and in how unequal crediting arises within ongoing research team interactions. The Maya effect is necessary to understand the meanings and mechanisms of inequality in collaborative work, and ultimately in whose knowledge is produced.
Mickey et al. (Sun,) studied this question.