Abstract
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.
If you're happy with implicit bias, that's your choice to be perceived as a second class citizen.Yes, I actually experienced some kind of bias against me being a woman with a technical background. I wouldn't dare to say that I was ever deprived from opportunities because of that, though.
Yet, I don't support quotas, because positive discrimination could also be demeaning as others already mentioned.
I can't find the paper but somebody in the field keeps citing to me how in academic settings intern hiring skews towards women when given the same qualifications. Unfortunately this is because it's creepy old dudes choosing between having a lady work under him or a man, choose a lady for a number of reasons... perceived controllability, sexy reasons, etc. There's all kinds of discrimination, sometimes when it looks positive, it may not be.
Does the study actually say it’s creepy old dudes hiring women because of bewbs and controllability?
What's your solution to combat implicit bias?I'm not happy with any kind of biases, couldn't make this any clearer. My concern is where the positive discrimination begins. Not supporting this guy and his crusade against female scientists who were selected instead of him.
Do you think that authors of publications deliberately don't cite studies with female authors? If that's true, it begs for positive discrimination, but it by itself is much more disturbing than just sexism. It means that the scientific field puts sex above facts which is a very serious accusation.
Like I said, this was all second hand, I'm sure a lot of the interpretation was downstream. But that interpretation sounds plausible from what I know about academic types.
Much syentiffic
That's the study's findings so what are the serious measures?Depends where the implicit bias is. If a scientist reads a scientific publication and forms their opinion based on author's sex, not on the presented facts, that calls for serious measures.
Go back and read the abstract in post #7.Really? Where in the study does it says anything like that?
Depends where the implicit bias is. If a scientist reads a scientific publication and forms their opinion based on author's sex, not on the presented facts, that calls for serious measures.
Notice how you shifted the goal posts?Are you sure you read it? Because what it says has nothing to do with dismissal of female publications.
Abstract
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.
So you can't see how this implicit bias can cross over into peer reviewing?Let me explain the difference between applying for a job and publishing a scientific paper. The former evaluates professional and personal profile, the latter evaluates facts.
But, OK, if I have to address the former, I'd introduce blind application process and actual tests that could measure who's the better fit for the job according to objective criteria. Knowing how ambitious are women in science, I don't doubt most of them would do great.
Nah, it's not that sky is falling dramatic. All it takes is for implicit bias to play out through peer reviewing by setting a higher bar for acceptance for females than males.It's different, not that it's not possible. I mean, when scientists are presented with facts they tend, or at least try, to evaluate it impartially otherwise the whole field is fucked.
But it's not just facts and nothing else. That's why it's called scientific theory since theory can be amended which IMO, is the beauty of science since as knowledge grows, previously considered 'facts' which were wrong, are disposed of and amended.It really goes against science, and I have never experienced such a thing. If you could prove you're right, the other side must prove you wrong using the same methods. That's why I love science because according to it facts are facts and nothing else matters.
So, what happens when it comes time to interview the applicant?As I said, blind application process would help for the unbiased selection of candidates.
There is much more to being hired in academia than citations (or even publications), or at least there should be. This is actually something I ran into when I applied to an academic position several years ago. Since I have not been working in academia, I don't have anywhere near the publications/citations record of someone who has. What I do have is an extensive network of contacts in industry and government, a track record of successful proposal writing (bringing in money), and experience managing the research efforts of a small and diverse team. And no, no one cut me any slack for any of that, or for being female. They hired a guy with far less experience . . . and more publications.
*shrug* I didn't pretend my comment was anything other than it was. I don't even play a scientist on TV... or on forums for that matter.