8
Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9; 109(41):16474-9
All selected articles haveThis article has been added to your saved articles
You can follow/unfollow articles via MyF1000 or via the article or browse pages.
01 Oct 2012
General Interest, Interesting Hypothesis
DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793461430
This work provides stunning evidence that gender bias continues to exist even among the science faculty of research-intensive universities. Both female and male faculty in the biological and physical sciences more favorably evaluated applications for a lab manager position if the applications were assigned...Continue reading
This work provides stunning evidence that gender bias continues to exist even among the science faculty of research-intensive universities. Both female and male faculty in the biological and physical sciences more favorably evaluated applications for a lab manager position if the applications were assigned a male name ('John') rather than a female name ('Jennifer'), even though the applications were identical in all other respects. The male applicant was rated higher in competence and likelihood of being hired, was selected for higher salary, and was provided more career mentoring. This work is similar to a 1999 study {1} that demonstrated preference for psychology faculty CVs with a male name over identical CVs associated with a female name. The focus of this current work on young, aspiring scientists is particularly powerful because it provides strong evidence that unconscious, subtle gender bias may impact the continuing efforts to recruit and retain a gender-balanced workforce in science.
References
1.
The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study
DOI: 10.1023/A:1018839203698
Disclosures
None declared
Add Comment
Braam J: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Moss-Racusin CA et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109(41):16474-9]. In F1000Prime, 01 Oct 2012; DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793461430. F1000Prime.com/717956885#eval793461430
08 Oct 2012
Wendy Hanna-Rose
F1000 Developmental Biology
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA, USA.
F1000 Developmental Biology
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA, USA.
Confirmation, Controversial, General Interest
DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793462071
In this study by Moss-Racusin et al., the authors present a striking result of subtle gender bias favoring male students in science faculty at research-focused institutions, a group that is acutely aware of gender issues. This is a well-designed study that addressed gender bias towards average, wellqualified...Continue reading
In this study by Moss-Racusin et al., the authors present a striking result of subtle gender bias favoring male students in science faculty at research-focused institutions, a group that is acutely aware of gender issues. This is a well-designed study that addressed gender bias towards average, well-qualified students and solicited responses from a representative pool of faculty members across multiple institutions and departments. It serves as a reminder to all academics to be vigilant against subtle gender bias.
Academic faculty strives for objectivity, but this study demonstrates that even this highly educated group can fall prey to subtle gender biases. The faculties solicited for the study were informed that they were providing valuable feedback for the student’s career development. The study found that, consistently, both male and female faculty members in both the physical and life sciences rated identical female applicants as less competent and less hireable than male applicants. If the student was to be hired, the faculty indicated they would offer the female student less mentoring and a lower salary. Importantly, the proportion of faculty that responded correlated well with the demographics of the academic departments. Thus, this study addresses the typical feedback that average female undergraduates in science receive. The authors suggest that subtle gender bias early on may underlie the later gender disparity observed in the sciences. Thus, increased education and awareness of subtle gender bias is necessary if we are to ever achieve the meritocratic ideal in academic science.
Academic faculty strives for objectivity, but this study demonstrates that even this highly educated group can fall prey to subtle gender biases. The faculties solicited for the study were informed that they were providing valuable feedback for the student’s career development. The study found that, consistently, both male and female faculty members in both the physical and life sciences rated identical female applicants as less competent and less hireable than male applicants. If the student was to be hired, the faculty indicated they would offer the female student less mentoring and a lower salary. Importantly, the proportion of faculty that responded correlated well with the demographics of the academic departments. Thus, this study addresses the typical feedback that average female undergraduates in science receive. The authors suggest that subtle gender bias early on may underlie the later gender disparity observed in the sciences. Thus, increased education and awareness of subtle gender bias is necessary if we are to ever achieve the meritocratic ideal in academic science.
Disclosures
None declared
Hanna-Rose W and Vrablik T: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Moss-Racusin CA et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109(41):16474-9]. In F1000Prime, 08 Oct 2012; DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793462071. F1000Prime.com/717956885#eval793462071
16 Oct 2012
Controversial, General Interest
DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793462709
I found this article fascinating, but perhaps not surprising? It describes a really interesting experiment in which CVs with either a woman's name or a man's name at the top were shown to people and the same CVs were evaluated differently depending on the sex of the applicant. Women with the same CV were...Continue reading
I found this article fascinating, but perhaps not surprising? It describes a really interesting experiment in which CVs with either a woman's name or a man's name at the top were shown to people and the same CVs were evaluated differently depending on the sex of the applicant. Women with the same CV were rated lower than men. This occurred when both men and women were evaluating. The authors say that this is not due to deliberate bias, just intrinsic bias in the way we view men and women.
Disclosures
None declared
Norman R: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Moss-Racusin CA et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109(41):16474-9]. In F1000Prime, 16 Oct 2012; DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793462709. F1000Prime.com/717956885#eval793462709
29 Oct 2012
Confirmation, Controversial, General Interest
DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793463536
Being a male specimen, I notice that only female reviewers were attracted by this article, and this is a further reinforcement of the sad situation depicted by the authors. Evidently, there is a psychological bias against women, at least in the positions considered here, and the bias is shared by both...Continue reading
Being a male specimen, I notice that only female reviewers were attracted by this article, and this is a further reinforcement of the sad situation depicted by the authors. Evidently, there is a psychological bias against women, at least in the positions considered here, and the bias is shared by both genders, since female evaluators also showed it while examining the CVs of the applicants! I do not want to now count the females and males in F1000 to see if it is statistically significant that an article like this one has been reviewed by only females. The interpretation might be that, at least in F1000, female scientists are more sensitive to this issue than males! Is it possible to envisage a rule, within F1000, that, once enforced, might solve this problem? I do not know if I would like it. I want to choose articles because I like them, and not because I must keep an author gender balance! Psychological attitudes cannot be changed by written rules; they are the product of culture. Evidently, our culture has still to evolve in a direction that really gives equal opportunities to all candidates. As a male specimen, I will try to discover gender-biased attitudes in the way I consider any kind of application. The rules are written already, in most regulations, but we must change them in our brains too. A rule, in this specific case, might be not to mention the gender of the applicant.
Disclosures
None declared
Boero F: F1000Prime Recommendation of [Moss-Racusin CA et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109(41):16474-9]. In F1000Prime, 29 Oct 2012; DOI: 10.3410/f.717956885.793463536. F1000Prime.com/717956885#eval793463536
F1000Prime Recommendations, Dissents and Comments for [Moss-Racusin CA et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109(41):16474-9]. In F1000Prime, 24 May 2013; F1000Prime.com/717956885
Only registered/signed-in users can make comments.
Sign in or Subscribe to create your user account and join the discussion.
Sign in or Subscribe to create your user account and join the discussion.
No comments yet.
Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student-who was randomly assigned either a male or female name-for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants' preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.
PMID: 22988126
