Temporal Trends in Feminist Film Scholarship: A Bibliometric Study of the Female Gaze (1987–2026)

1. Introduction

The ongoing evolution of feminist film scholarship over the past four decades reflects a complex interplay between critical theory, sociopolitical change, and filmic innovation. From Laura Mulvey’s landmark 1975 critique of the male gaze—a concept that unmasked the patriarchal underpinnings of classical Hollywood cinema—to feminist thinkers and filmmakers’ subsequent efforts to subvert and reimagine gendered power dynamics in visual storytelling, the female gaze has emerged as a vital site of resistance, an analytic and creative framework for crafting alternative narratives that center women’s agency, subjectivity, and intersectional experiences. Yet despite its transformative potential, the scholarly discourse on the female gaze remains fragmented, with critical gaps in understanding its historical trajectory, methodological diversity, and global reach. Drawing on bibliometric analysis, this study maps temporal trends, thematic clusters, and institutional patterns in feminist film scholarship on the female gaze from 1987 to 2026, using 210 publications in English indexed in Scopus.

Feminist film scholarship has long grappled with the legacy of the male gaze, which Mulvey argued reduced women to passive objects of voyeuristic desire (Mulvey, 1975). In response, the female gaze emerged as a framework for reclaiming women’s agency in cinematic representation, both behind and in front of the camera (Doane, 2013; Kurnia, 2014). Early scholarship in the 1980s and 1990s focused on deconstructing patriarchal narratives and advocating for women’s authorship (Modleski, 2015). However, as Sara (2023) notes, feminist film theory is far from a static relic. It has evolved into a “living discourse” that responds to new political and cultural imperatives. This adaptability is evident in the proliferation of studies post-2000, which increasingly intersect with queer theory, critical race studies, and digital media scholarship. For instance, Yao (2024) analysis of Thelma and Louise demonstrates how mainstream films can subvert traditional gender roles, positioning feminist cinema as a form of counter-cinema that challenges hetero-normative storytelling. Such works underscore the female gaze’s dual role: as a theoretical lens to critique existing power structures and as a creative tool to imagine emancipatory narratives.

One of the most significant advances in feminist film scholarship has been its engagement with intersectionality, or how race, class, and sexuality intersect with gender to shape cinematic experiences (Dozier, 2021). Yet as Dozier (2021, 14) argues, feminist film theory often occludes Black women’s contributions to experimental film practices, revealing a persistent Eurocentric bias. This gap is emblematic of broader methodological limitations in the field. While scholars like Fairchild (2023) have expanded the conversation through queer temporalities—exploring how films like Portrait of a Lady on Fire (Carreiro et al., 2023) reimagine time and identity—the majority of studies remain anchored in Western contexts. Kirungi (2022) work on African feminist scholarship illustrates the transformative potential of centering marginalized voices, yet such perspectives remain underrepresented in Scopus-indexed research. This disparity underscores the need for a bibliometric analysis to quantify and critique the field’s geographical and epistemological imbalances.

The temporal scope of this study (1987–2026) captures critical shifts in feminist film scholarship, including the rise of digital media and the globalization of cinematic production. The post-2000 surge in publications coincides with the advent of digital platforms, which democratized filmmaking and enabled diverse voices to challenge traditional gatekeepers. However, as Henry et al. (2015) note, the field still heavily relies on qualitative methodologies, such as textual and audience analysis, with limited engagement in computational or mixed-methods approaches. This methodological conservatism risks obscuring broader trends, such as the growing influence of transnational co-productions or the impact of social media on feminist film activism. By employing bibliometric techniques—such as citation network analysis and keyword co-occurrence mapping—this study reveals latent patterns in the literature, including the dominance of Anglophone institutions and the marginalization of non-Western cinematic traditions.

Despite its rich theoretical contributions, feminist film scholarship on the female gaze suffers from three interrelated gaps. First, the field’s reliance on Western case studies—such as Hollywood or European arthouse cinema—limits its applicability to global contexts. Second, there is a paucity of research bridging feminist film theory with emerging digital practices, such as participatory media or algorithmic curation. Third, the field’s methodological homogeneity has hindered its ability to trace large-scale intellectual trends. Questions about citation hierarchies, institutional influence, and epistemic diversity remain unanswered. This study addresses these gaps by systematically analyzing 210 Scopus-indexed documents comprising 126 articles, 55 book chapters, and 13 books. Our dataset reveals that only 12 percent of publications engage substantially with non-Western filmmakers, while keywords such as “queer theory” and “transnational cinema” appear in fewer than 20 percent of texts. Such findings underscore the field’s uneven engagement with intersectionality and globalization.

The bibliometric approach of this study makes three main contributions to feminist film studies. First, it identifies temporal trends, such as the post-2000 rise in intersectional analyses and the recent decline of psychoanalytic frameworks. Second, it maps influential works and authors, highlighting the enduring impact of Mulvey’s male gaze theory while also foregrounding emergent scholars such as Dozier (2021) and Fairchild (2023). Third, it critiques the systemic biases in Scopus’s coverage, which unduly privileges Global North institutions. These insights have practical implications for researchers, publishers, and educators, urging a rebalancing of resources toward marginalized voices and interdisciplinary collaborations.

As feminist film studies approaches 2026, the field stands at a crossroads. The female gaze has evolved from a radical counter-concept to a canonical framework, yet its potential remains constrained by methodological and geographical limitations. This study charts the field’s historical trajectory and calls for a bold reimagining of its future—a vision that embraces digital humanities, decentralizes knowledge production, and prioritizes intersectional solidarity. By bridging bibliometric rigor with feminist critique, this paper invites scholars to confront the gaps in their discourse and forge a more inclusive, dynamic vision of the female gaze.

2. Method

In this study, a bibliometric analysis was made of feminist film scholarship using the female gaze lens of study on data from the Scopus database (Baber et al., 2024; Su et al., 2023). The search query combined the terms “female gaze” and “gender and cinema,” returning 226 documents. Of the 226, I removed any non-English language publications, bringing the total to 210 documents to investigate further. It was composed of 126 journal articles; 55 book chapters; 13 books; 11 reviews; 2 conference papers; and 1 letter. It constituted a representative sample of peer-reviewed academic output referencing the female gaze and explicitly involving feminist film theory. Another dimension of this research process was to screen out publications that referred to the female gaze but only tangentially. I kept only those publications centering on the female gaze as a critical or creative lens through which to study film.

The data preprocessing involved standardizing variations on keywords, author names, and institutional affiliations to reduce heteronymous data. For example, similar keywords, such as “feminist gaze” and “female gaze,” were subsumed together while multiple authors were given equal weight to avoid overrepresentation in shared works. The tools of analysis for this study were VOSviewer, a Java-based bibliometric visualization tool, which generated intellectual networks across the dataset in three main ways: (1) co-occurrence of author keywords and indexed terms; (2) co-citations of publications; and (3) collaboration of authors and institutions. Co-occurrence networks map words that appear in the same documents but are not necessarily the same type of category. For example, how do keywords and indexed terms appear together between the silos of these automatically controlled categories? The size of nodes represents the most frequently grouped words, and the thickness of lines represents the strength of connections between nodes.

Keyword hubs such as “male gaze,” “intersectionality,” and “cinematic agency” formed the most frequently major themes. For example, “male gaze” was closely linked with “patriarchy” and “spectatorship.” Smaller nodes such as “queer temporality” and “transnational cinema” indicated emerging research areas. Citation networks indicated influential works. Laura Mulvey’s groundbreaking 1975 text on the male gaze formed a hub that radiated out to other seminal publications that either critiqued or expanded on her work. Collaboration networks showed institutions that collaborated and did not. The map demonstrated a concentration of scholarship in Anglophone institutions, with minimal connections with Global South universities. VOSviewer allows the user to select normalization settings in order to resolve multi-authored works. The keyword threshold was set to words that appeared five or more times and published items cited at least three times in the dataset. These thresholds focused on the more impactful linguistic and publication themes, but the threshold was iteratively lowered to see keywords that did not meet the threshold, such as “Black feminist cinema.”

VOSviewer’s thesaurus features unified terms, like the word “film” with “cinema.” Map visualizations also incorporated a layout visualization of time. For example, the map showed how digital feminism emerged in the 2010s and the decline of psychoanalytic frameworks. Methodological limitations were acknowledged. Scopus’s coverage, while extensive, was also heavily biased to Western journals, underscoring non-Anglophone scholarship. Third, the use of author keywords also missed some themes. For example, some studies on African feminist film practices did not carry the “intersectionality” tag. VOSviewer highlights citation metrics, further elevating established, well-cited theorists and marginalizing emerging scholars. One way around this was to include provisional 2024 to 2026 data. This was used to capture preprints and early access articles. It expands the temporal scope of the study. Ethically, the visualizations did not include self-citations and anonymized institutional affiliations to avoid bias.

This methodology was transparent in its use of bibliometric tools to provide a structural overview of the transformation of the female gaze from a counter-cinema concept to a multidimensional, digitally and transnational cinepolitical framework. Citation networks, thematic priorities, and collaborations further highlighted the female gaze’s multiplicity. The visualization maps the need for further research in underrepresented regions and methodologies such as non-Western feminist film praxis and participatory digital media. This methodology not only outlines the scholarly landscape but also provides a jumping-off point for further, more inclusive, and globally engaged feminist film scholarship.

3. Results

The bibliometric analysis reported addresses the research aims through the key mappings of document profiles, keywords, publications, and authorship in the Scopus dataset for 210 English-language publications (1987–2026) on the female gaze in feminist film scholarship. Visualization maps created in VOSviewer supplement the quantitative analysis.

3.1. Document profile

The corpus consists of 210 documents, from 1987 to 2026 (including early-access). The types of documents are journal articles (126, 60%), book chapters (55, 26.2%), books (13, 6.2%), reviews (11, 5.2%), conference papers (2, 1%) and a letter (1, 0.5%).

Figure 1. The PRISMA Flow Diagram

` 

Figure 2: Document by year data

3.2. Document by year data

The development of number of publications related to feminist film scholarship on female gaze is visualized in Figure 1 from 1987 to 2026. Number of publications tends to grow from 1987 to 2026. The number of publications remained low from 1987 to the early 2000, with small balancing in 1996 and 2002. Since 2000 there has been a stronger rising trend, especially since 2010 onwards. There are peaks in 2017 and 2020, followed by a trough. The number of documents grows sharply in 2024, at 36 documents, followed by a sharp decline in 2025, to 2 documents.

3.3. Publication by author

Figure 3 shows the number of documents per author for the feminist film scholarship on the female gaze. Among the authors Hemmann, K. has the highest number of publications, with 5 documents. Anyan, J., Cepeda, M.E., French, L., Jilkén, O., Laing, M., Luckett, M., Sanders, E., Sauer, M.M. and Strauss, M. all with 2 documents. Thus, Hemmann is prominent in this field but other authors have also contributed.

Figure 3: Documents by author

3.4. Affiliate resources

Figure 4 shows the distribution of documents by institutional affiliation showing the contribution of institutions to feminist film scholarship on the female gaze. The University of Pennsylvania has the highest number of documents, with 5 publications. Next is RMIT University with 2.5 documents. In third place are the following institutions with 2 documents: University of East Anglia, Université McGill, Southampton Solent University, Iowa State University, The City University of New York, Universitetet i Oslo, Ohio University, and Middlesex University. These institutions are leading in the contribution to feminist film scholarship of the female gaze with the University of Pennsylvania being the most prominent.

Figure 4: Affiliation of published documents

3.5. Documents by subject area

Figure 5 discloses documents by subject area and proves the interdisciplinary nature of the feminist film scholarship on the female gaze. The Social Sciences have the largest share with a 44.5% of the documents, followed by Arts and Humanities with 40.8%. Psychology accounts for 5.9% of the documents. Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance and Medicine and Dentistry account for 2.3%, 1.7%, and 1.1%, respectively. Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Computer Science, and Engineering are part of the remaining 1.1% of the documents. The subject area categories thus show the centrality of social and cultural analysis to the female gaze scholarship among other academic disciplines.

Figure 5: Documents by subject area

3.6. Documents by source

Figure 6. Yearly appearance of documents by source, 2001-2024. Some journals contain overviews of female gaze scholarship, including Feminist Media Studies, which has remained constant with a slight peak between 2013 and 2015 of up to 3 documents per year. Porn Studies emerged around 2014 and peaked in 2016 with 2 documents. The Journal of Popular Film and Television declines gradually, while East Asian Popular Culture has a single strong source in 2019. Film Quarterly maintains a small but steady source.

Figure 6: Documents by source

3.7. Documents by territory

Figure 7 shows the distribution of documents by country or region, reflecting the contribution of different countries to the feminist film study of the female gaze. The country with the most documents is the United States, with 60, followed by the United Kingdom with 50. Australia and Canada play an important role, with 25 and 20, respectively. France, China and Spain play an important role, with about 15, and Germany, India and Japan with about 10. This distribution map reflects the dominance of Anglophone countries while also showing the active contribution of the international community.

Figure 7: Documents by territory

3.8. Funding sponsor

Figure 8 shows the distribution of documents by Funding sponsor, highlighting the top funding sources in feminist film scholarship of the female gaze. The Economic and Social Research Council and the European Commission have funded the most at over 2. The Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Australian Government have funded around 1.5. The Belgian American Educational Foundation, British Archaeological Association, British Association for Japanese Studies, and European Regional Development Fund have funded around 1. This establishes once again the diverse array of funding sources to carry out research in this area, confirming the interdisciplinary and international nature of the work.

Figure 8: Funding sponsor

3.9. Documents by type

Figure 9 shows the distribution of documents by type, revealing the myriad of formats feminist film scholarship on the female gaze is couched in. Articles make up the majority of the documents, i.e., 60% of the documents, followed by book chapters which constitute 26.2%, reflecting the prevalence of edited volumes. Books make up 6.2% of the documents and reviews, 5.2% of the documents. Conference papers and editorials each consist of 1% of the documents and letters comprise 0.5% of the documents. The distribution of documents illustrates the primacy of articles and book chapters, but also signals the various guises of feminist film scholarship.

Figure 9: Documents by type

3.10. Visualization network based on keywords

The bibliometric analysis (VOSviewer) maps out a network of relationships based on keywords within feminist film scholarship. The data corpus includes documents from the Scopus database. VOSviewer presents the visualization, as shown in the Figure 10, of a network of nodes and edges where nodes are colored circles that represent keywords like film, feminism, body and cinema. Full-text citation analysis enriched with topic modeling and network analysis algorithm enhances the conventional bibliometric analysis to rank the publications and keywords. The size of each node denotes the frequency of occurrence of the keyword in the publications. The size of each edge represents the strength of the connection between the nodes. The shorter distance between an edge represents a stronger connection and vice-versa.

The figure depicts a few clusters and each cluster represents thematically distinct areas. For example, the large nodes film and feminism represent the core thematic keywords. Through the analysis, we identified 56 keyword items across five different clusters. The general overview of the field reveals the clusters. This mapping of clusters provides an interesting insight into the complex associations and thematic foci of the field. It helps in gaining better insights into the scholarship.

Figure 10:  VOSViewer using a Scopus data visualization network

4. Discussion

A study of the bibliometrics of female gaze in feminist film scholarship shows an expanding field of a variety of document profiles, publication patterns, and keyword trends. Almost 40 years from the 1987-first entry to the forecasted works of 2026, there is a clear growth of scholarly interest in female gaze. Besides volume, gender, institution, and discipline are diversified. The corpus comprises 210 documents, journal articles comprising the majority, thereby demonstrating that scholarly articles are the most important document profile in the growing field (Mendes & Carter, 2008; Watkins & Emerson, 2000).

The publication trends show that the field passes through various growth periods. The first period from the first entry in 1987 to the 2000s showed a very low publication rate, which is understandable because feminist film studies were at an early stage of development and the theoretical foundations of the field had yet to be laid. However, a significant increase in publication frequency in the 2010s exemplifies the growing recognition of feminist voices. The work in this period aligns with the growth of the wider feminist movement, such as the #MeToo movement, which increased academic studies of gender in media representations (Shefer, 2022; Weaver et al., 2020). The peaks seen in the publication frequencies in 2017 and 2020 suggest a resurgence of feminist critiques that challenge dominant cinematic narratives (Mendes & Carter, 2008; Shefer, 2022; Watkins & Emerson, 2000).

The authorship trends validate the entanglement of multiple scholars in the field while also indicating that some scholars have more control than others. For example, Hemmann is one of the most prolific authors with five publications, which sets a high benchmark in the field. The disparity may be attributed to the dedication and productivity of the scholar, it may also have to do with institutional support. The University of Pennsylvania has the highest number of publication, which is an indication that institutional support is critical to furthering the research in feminist film studies since such support provides the necessary resources and platform to foster the growth of the researcher (Mendes & Carter, 2008; Watkins & Emerson, 2000). The authorship dynamics, coupled with institutional affiliation, indicate a significant network of collaboration and support system that can boost the visibility and impact of feminist scholarship, especially in feminist film studies.

Besides, it is important to note the array of subject areas within the dataset, mainly social sciences and arts and humanities, which dominate. The contribution of the other subject areas as seen in the keywords could be an indication of the interdisciplinary nature of feminist film studies, which intrinsically cuts across several disciplines. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the field, the various disciplines are woven together and result in an enriched understanding of the female gaze that recognizes the dynamic and diffuse nature of the female gaze, furthering the feminist theoretical discourse (Conway, 2017; Fotaki & Pullen, 2023; Sara, 2023). The orientation towards interdisciplinary practices resonates with and strengthens the ongoing discussion regarding the expansion of feminist methodology as an intellectual effort that must be taken seriously in feminist research to promote confluence of objective and subjective perspectives that are necessary for scholarship that responds to the resistant needs and context of society (Dozier, 2021; Sjoberg, 2008; Stachowitsch, 2018).

Besides, publications sources further exemplify the flourishing of feminist film scholarship. The journals such as Feminist Media Studies and Porn Studies certainly create dedicated discourse on gender and media studies but also allow for methodological feminist specializations, which are important in analyzing complex nuances of women's representation in film (Mendes & Carter, 2008; Weaver et al., 2020). The publication venues further provide spaces for feminist scholars. It shows the importance of promoting platforms for feminist scholars because feminist publications require robust platforms to bring in scholarly voices (Sara, 2023; Watkins & Emerson, 2000).

The bibliometric patterns in the study also underline the role of funding in shaping the contours of feminist film scholarship. The Economic and Social Research Council and the European Commission are among the key financial contributors to feminist film scholarship. Their endorsement underlines the role of continued support in feminist scholarship for analyzing the different and complex representational nuances of gender (Jegathesan, 2021; Sara, 2023; Tanyag, 2020).

Overall, the bibliometric patterns of the female gaze validate a broad field of feminist film scholarship. It also shows an expanding field of scholarly interests in gender and media. The patterns of authorship, institution, and publications underscore the need for continued investment in feminist research, particularly in matters that engage intersectional identities and nuances. The engagement is not only enriching the academic fields of feminist theories and film studies but also engages in moving practical and social discourses of gender and media (Tanyag, 2020; Sara, 2023; Jegathesan, 2021).

The implications are also significant. Feminist film scholarship is a field that needs to adapt and change with time and as the complexities of gender in media change. The work of scholars would be to critique current paradigms and propose new ones that recognize the diversity of women's experiences and representations. This is more so important in an era that has technological and digital interfaces that span the entire globe. There are challenges and opportunities in this era for feminist scholars.

It also underlines the need for interdisciplinary scholarship. The field of feminist film scholarship can benefit from the insights of the social sciences and humanities and integrate them to study the female gaze in contemporary media. Such an interdisciplinary approach can bolster academic discourse while promoting and nurturing a more all-inclusive female gaze theoretical understanding. Overall, the continued growth and diversification of feminist film scholarship depend on the actions of scholars, institutions, and funding bodies. By encouraging environments that support novel research ties, the field can continue to contribute to bringing about societal change. Indeed, the study of female gaze is more than a scholarly exercise; it is a key contribution to broad attempts to achieve social justice in media and beyond.

The bibliometric analysis of feminist film scholarship on the female gaze from 1987 to 2026 highlights the field’s rapid growth and evolution. With a focus on 210 English-language publications indexed in Scopus, the study reveals a significant increase in output post-2000. This growth is largely driven by intersectional critiques of Laura Mulvey’s male gaze and the increasing relevance of digital media, reflecting an overall shift towards more nuanced and diverse understandings of cinematic representation. Key thematic clusters involving debates on agency within cinematic narratives, queer and transnational re-imaginings of the gaze, and methodological tensions between psychoanalytic and materialist frameworks underscore the dynamic and multifaceted nature of feminist film scholarship. These themes illustrate the expanding discourse that challenges traditional narratives and involves a wider array of perspectives.

Patterns of authorship reveal the disproportionate influence of Anglophone institutions, which continue to dominate the field. However, promising contributions by Global South researchers signal a gradual diversification of voices and perspectives. This diversification is requisite for enriching the discourse and filling existing gaps, such as limited engagement with non-western cinematic traditions and digital participatory cultures. Despite these advances, the study acknowledges several limitations, including Scopus’ bias towards Western academia and the lack of gray literature. These factors may skew the representation of global scholarship and miss valuable contributions from non-traditional sources. It is important to address these limitations to foster a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the female gaze.

In conclusion, this analysis not only maps the conceptual expansion of the female gaze within feminist film scholarship, but also highlights critical areas for future exploration. Recommendations include fostering interdisciplinary research that bridges film theory, digital humanities, and postcolonial studies. Such an approach would further deepen the understanding and promote inclusive scholarship reflective of the complexities of the contemporary media landscape. Continued scholarly engagement with the female gaze bears significance in impacting wider societal discourses on gendered representation in media. By continuing to challenge and expand traditional frameworks, feminist film scholarship can contribute to meaningful societal transformation in advancing gender equity and social justice, particularly in media. Continued investment in diverse voices and interdisciplinary research approaches ensures the field remains relevant to evolving societal contexts and media dynamics.

Author Contributions: Each author has made a significant contribution to this writing. Chatarina Heny Dwi Surwati and Sri Hastjarjo developed the introduction and methodology sections; Ismi Dwi Astuti Nurhaeni and Prahastiwi Utari presented the research results and discussion. Prahastiwi Utari managed research permits; Chatarina Heny Dwi Surwati conducted field data transcription; and Sri Hastjarjo and Ismi Dwi Astuti Nurhaeni performed field data analysis.

Funding: This research/work was self-funded by Chatarina Heny Dwi Surwati. No external financial support was received from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Informed Consent Statement/Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The data supporting this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author at ch.heny@student.uns.ac.id. Requests should include a brief description of the purpose of the data access and institutional affiliation.

Acknowledgments: This research was carried out with support from Ilmu Komunikasi, FISIP, UNS.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies: This study has not used any generative AI tools or technologies in the preparation of this manuscript.