Literature DB >> 25870272

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

Wendy M Williams1, Stephen J Ceci2.   

Abstract

National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.

Entities:  

Keywords:  faculty hiring; gender bias; hiring bias; underrepresentation of women; women in science

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25870272      PMCID: PMC4418903          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  9 in total

1.  Careers in science. More women in science.

Authors:  Jo Handelsman; Nancy Cantor; Molly Carnes; Denice Denton; Eve Fine; Barbara Grosz; Virginia Hinshaw; Cora Marrett; Sue Rosser; Donna Shalala; Jennifer Sheridan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-08-19       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Donna K Ginther; Shulamit Kahn; Wendy M Williams
Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest       Date:  2014-12

3.  Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Wendy M Williams
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.

Authors:  C Wenneras; A Wold
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-05-22       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women.

Authors:  Jason M Sheltzer; Joan C Smith
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering by gender.

Authors:  Deborah Kaminski; Cheryl Geisler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  How stereotypes impair women's careers in science.

Authors:  Ernesto Reuben; Paola Sapienza; Luigi Zingales
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Authors:  Corinne A Moss-Racusin; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  When Scientists Choose Motherhood: A single factor goes a long way in explaining the dearth of women in math-intensive fields. How can we address it?

Authors:  Wendy M Williams; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Am Sci       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 0.548

  9 in total
  43 in total

1.  Gender Diversity in a STEM Subfield - Analysis of a Large Scientific Society and Its Annual Conferences.

Authors:  Evgenia Shishkova; Nicholas W Kwiecien; Alexander S Hebert; Michael S Westphall; Jessica E Prenni; Joshua J Coon
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016).

Authors:  Stephen Politzer-Ahles; Jeffrey J Holliday; Teresa Girolamo; Maria Spychalska; Kelly Harper Berkson
Journal:  J Second Lang Writ       Date:  2016-10-07

3.  Leading scientists favour women in tenure-track hiring test.

Authors:  Boer Deng
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions.

Authors:  Tessa E S Charlesworth; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Journals invite too few women to referee.

Authors:  Jory Lerback; Brooks Hanson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Facial appearance affects science communication.

Authors:  Ana I Gheorghiu; Mitchell J Callan; William J Skylark
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable.

Authors:  Francesca Gino; Caroline Ashley Wilmuth; Alison Wood Brooks
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Making the jump: Expert guidance on transitioning to academic independence.

Authors:  Ignacio Saez; Anne S Berry; Julie E Elie; Samantha R Santacruz
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 3.386

9.  Why East Asians but not South Asians are underrepresented in leadership positions in the United States.

Authors:  Jackson G Lu; Richard E Nisbett; Michael W Morris
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  The Future of Women in Psychological Science.

Authors:  June Gruber; Jane Mendle; Kristen A Lindquist; Toni Schmader; Lee Anna Clark; Eliza Bliss-Moreau; Modupe Akinola; Lauren Atlas; Deanna M Barch; Lisa Feldman Barrett; Jessica L Borelli; Tiffany N Brannon; Silvia A Bunge; Belinda Campos; Jessica Cantlon; Rona Carter; Adrienne R Carter-Sowell; Serena Chen; Michelle G Craske; Amy J C Cuddy; Alia Crum; Lila Davachi; Angela L Duckworth; Sunny J Dutra; Naomi I Eisenberger; Melissa Ferguson; Brett Q Ford; Barbara L Fredrickson; Sherryl H Goodman; Alison Gopnik; Valerie Purdie Greenaway; Kate L Harkness; Mikki Hebl; Wendy Heller; Jill Hooley; Lily Jampol; Sheri L Johnson; Jutta Joormann; Katherine D Kinzler; Hedy Kober; Ann M Kring; Elizabeth Levy Paluck; Tania Lombrozo; Stella F Lourenco; Kateri McRae; Joan K Monin; Judith T Moskowitz; Misaki N Natsuaki; Gabriele Oettingen; Jennifer H Pfeifer; Nicole Prause; Darby Saxbe; Pamela K Smith; Barbara A Spellman; Virginia Sturm; Bethany A Teachman; Renee J Thompson; Lauren M Weinstock; Lisa A Williams
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-09-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.