Academic Passporting in Western Versus Non-Western Feminist Scholarship (1936–2024): Bibliometric and Thematic Landscapes

This study examines structural inequalities in feminist knowledge production by analyzing 11,060 Scopus indexed articles published between 1936 and 2024. Using bibliometric indicators, statistical citation analysis, and topic modeling, the study found that Western affiliated scholars dominate both output and recognition, whereas non-Western voices remain numerically and symbolically marginalized. The findings highlight how “Westernization” operates not only through citation advantage but also through thematic centrality: scholarship from Western institutions often sets the agenda in areas such as digital activism and intersectionality, while non-Western contributions, often centered on decolonial critique, grassroots mobilization, and local contexts, receive less global visibility. Mixed teams improve recognition among non-Western scholars but do not close the structural gap, suggesting that collaboration narrows inequalities without redistributing epistemic authority. To explain these dynamics, this study introduces the concept of academic passporting , whereby Western institutional affiliations function as strong passports that confer recognition and visibility, whereas non-Western affiliations operate as weak passports, unless stamped through Western collaboration. These findings have implications for diversifying scholarly practices, rethinking theoretical frameworks, and shaping equitable research policies.