Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape
November 21, 2014 2:13 PM Subscribe
A new paper in the journal Psychological Science in the
Public Interest Provides a detailed and comprehensive look at the gender gap between men and women in academic science.
Their (surprisingly optimistic?) conclusion?: Barriers to women’s full participation in mathematically intensive academic science fields are rooted in pre-college factors and the subsequent likelihood of majoring in these fields, and future research should focus on these barriers rather than misdirecting attention toward historical barriers that no longer account for women’s underrepresentation in academic science.
Their (surprisingly optimistic?) conclusion?: Barriers to women’s full participation in mathematically intensive academic science fields are rooted in pre-college factors and the subsequent likelihood of majoring in these fields, and future research should focus on these barriers rather than misdirecting attention toward historical barriers that no longer account for women’s underrepresentation in academic science.
No, Academic Science Hasn't Overcome Sexism:
posted by jaguar at 2:22 PM on November 21, 2014 [11 favorites]
Thats a good reaction take counterpoint, and I was not aware of it before posting this. But it seems to be responding to the dumbed down NYT article (that I deliberately didn't link too) rather than the actual academic study. What jumped out at me was the idea that retention was not considered - it was not the focus of this study but it very explicitly was considered. There is a whole section about that and studies on promotion/ sustained progress and what fields represent outliers.
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 2:36 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 2:36 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
I am just starting to read it now, but this sentence in the FPP, Barriers to women’s full participation in mathematically intensive academic science fields are rooted in pre-college factors" is absolutely not true for many women I know who hit significant barriers starting at the undergraduate level and continuing to the tenure and promotion levels as professors.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:40 PM on November 21, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 2:40 PM on November 21, 2014 [8 favorites]
Academic science is sexist: We do have a problem here.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:41 PM on November 21, 2014 [17 favorites]
I can't speak to the symmetry of the faces of those who penned the op-ed, but I can certainly highlight their inability to align their own words with their own data, or even their own words with their other own words. Their editorial and their paper are riddled with self-contradictory observations and internal inconsistencies. They seem to be arguing that the problems with gender imbalance in science aren't the fault of sexism in the academy but instead trace to kindergarten and grade school and to the 'choices' that women (actually, girls) make. I'm all good with recognizing the problems with early inculcation in gender stereotypes, but that doesn't exculpate the academy, and neither do these authors' data. It's also unclear to me why they believe the 'academy' needs a rousing defense against these valid accusations of sexism--and worse--as though it were a much-beleaguered long-suffering warrior fending off an undeserved piling on.This response does a great job picking apart their data.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:41 PM on November 21, 2014 [17 favorites]
For those who want the summary version, the NYT op-ed piece by the study's authors is here.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:05 PM on November 21, 2014
posted by Dip Flash at 3:05 PM on November 21, 2014
From the op-ed:
Our analysis reveals that the experiences of young and midcareer women in math-intensive fields are, for the most part, similar to those of their male counterparts: They are more likely to receive hiring offers, are paid roughly the same (in 14 of 16 comparisons across the eight fields), are generally tenured and promoted at the same rate (except in economics), remain in their fields at roughly the same rate, have their grants funded and articles accepted as often and are about as satisfied with their jobs. Articles published by women are cited as often as those by men. In sum, with a few exceptions, the world of academic science in math-based fields today reflects gender fairness, rather than gender bias.
That is an impressive number of weasel words.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:19 PM on November 21, 2014 [8 favorites]
Our analysis reveals that the experiences of young and midcareer women in math-intensive fields are, for the most part, similar to those of their male counterparts: They are more likely to receive hiring offers, are paid roughly the same (in 14 of 16 comparisons across the eight fields), are generally tenured and promoted at the same rate (except in economics), remain in their fields at roughly the same rate, have their grants funded and articles accepted as often and are about as satisfied with their jobs. Articles published by women are cited as often as those by men. In sum, with a few exceptions, the world of academic science in math-based fields today reflects gender fairness, rather than gender bias.
That is an impressive number of weasel words.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:19 PM on November 21, 2014 [8 favorites]
That is an impressive number of weasel words
From weasels bred for lab studies, rather than wild weasels of uncertain genetics.
But I am sure this study will reassure the women who are struggling with tenure and promotion that it's not the system. It's their fault.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:29 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
From weasels bred for lab studies, rather than wild weasels of uncertain genetics.
But I am sure this study will reassure the women who are struggling with tenure and promotion that it's not the system. It's their fault.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:29 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
I really think any researcher handwaving away gender disparities because boys like trucks and girls like dolls, let alone ones who say that women are choosing their choice to be marginalized in the workplace, should just be set out in a field of fire ants.
posted by jaguar at 3:30 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 3:30 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
should just be set out in a field of fire ants.
But... but... that's biology! Make it a field of gears.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:38 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
But... but... that's biology! Make it a field of gears.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:38 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
One day there'll be a study that validates the idea that women are consistently surrounded by sexism, that different kinds of sexism at different stages of their lives affect individual women differently, and that sexism occurs at every single stage of our lives.
posted by barchan at 3:38 PM on November 21, 2014 [15 favorites]
posted by barchan at 3:38 PM on November 21, 2014 [15 favorites]
This response does a great job picking apart their data.
This is a 54-page paper with a 13-page appendix, 22 total figures, 6 tables, and over 200 references. That blog post barely touches on its substance. The fact that it's big doesn't mean that it's right, but it does mean that it will take some time to digest and analyze. No one has taken that time yet.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:53 PM on November 21, 2014 [5 favorites]
This is a 54-page paper with a 13-page appendix, 22 total figures, 6 tables, and over 200 references. That blog post barely touches on its substance. The fact that it's big doesn't mean that it's right, but it does mean that it will take some time to digest and analyze. No one has taken that time yet.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:53 PM on November 21, 2014 [5 favorites]
"I really think any researcher handwaving away gender disparities because boys like trucks and girls like dolls, let alone ones who say that women are choosing their choice to be marginalized in the workplace, should just be set out in a field of fire ants."
From reading the paper (and the critiques), that's not entirely what they're saying, since they basically do say that gender preferences in middle school and high school are largely environmentally determined. The idea of an innate attraction to trucks or dolls is dismissed pretty early on as unsupportable, and mechanisms like the stereotype effect (which is really well documented and environmental) are offered instead.
The biggest flaw that I see with this, as a non-academic, is the way that personal choice and preference (especially around child-rearing) is reported, especially in a decontextualized way. If sexist assumptions still mean that women do the majority of household chores and childrearing, then describing a "preference" for flexible hours seems disingenuous.
Interestingly, at least as I read it, the weakest claim is the headline — their conclusion that the lower representation of women in STEM comes from more than one cause is pretty uncontroversial and they pretty much destroy the notion of inherent biological differences. It's still a bit weak sauce to point at earlier events as a way to diminish the effects of institutionalized sexism in academia, but there's at least a plausible claim that things like institutionalized sexism in high school and middle school has a bigger effect.
(One of the more interesting arguments they present, when knocking down the notion of disproportionate male representation at the right tail of math skill distribution, is that females who are in that top percent of performers in math tend to also be top performers in verbal skills, something that ostensibly gives them more options compared to the literal monomath men. That would tend to be contradicted by the pay gap, but it's interesting to think about as a challenge to a familiar misogynist trope.)
posted by klangklangston at 4:57 PM on November 21, 2014
From reading the paper (and the critiques), that's not entirely what they're saying, since they basically do say that gender preferences in middle school and high school are largely environmentally determined. The idea of an innate attraction to trucks or dolls is dismissed pretty early on as unsupportable, and mechanisms like the stereotype effect (which is really well documented and environmental) are offered instead.
The biggest flaw that I see with this, as a non-academic, is the way that personal choice and preference (especially around child-rearing) is reported, especially in a decontextualized way. If sexist assumptions still mean that women do the majority of household chores and childrearing, then describing a "preference" for flexible hours seems disingenuous.
Interestingly, at least as I read it, the weakest claim is the headline — their conclusion that the lower representation of women in STEM comes from more than one cause is pretty uncontroversial and they pretty much destroy the notion of inherent biological differences. It's still a bit weak sauce to point at earlier events as a way to diminish the effects of institutionalized sexism in academia, but there's at least a plausible claim that things like institutionalized sexism in high school and middle school has a bigger effect.
(One of the more interesting arguments they present, when knocking down the notion of disproportionate male representation at the right tail of math skill distribution, is that females who are in that top percent of performers in math tend to also be top performers in verbal skills, something that ostensibly gives them more options compared to the literal monomath men. That would tend to be contradicted by the pay gap, but it's interesting to think about as a challenge to a familiar misogynist trope.)
posted by klangklangston at 4:57 PM on November 21, 2014
This is a nice opportunity for a paraphrased Daily Show zing: "Is sexism still a problem? Many men (and a few women) say no."
posted by klangklangston at 5:01 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 5:01 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
RI Governor Elect (and 2020 Presidential candidate*) Gina Raimundo spoke about this on an "open forum" with a bombastic New England Republican sympathizer (Scott McKay) and toothless "political correspondant" (Ian Donnis) just this morning - She noted a study that her transition team is using demonstrated that girls in the third grade and younger need to be engaged with math and science for them to take up STEM careers later in life, and that these girls can make or break a community as a center for high-tech industry.
So, when my little girl wants to watch Monster Math Squad or Peg and Cat or Team Umi Zoomi**, I'll sit down with her, and joke with her about what we're watching.
She also likes to watch Cyberchase on occasion, which is clearly for middle-schoolers, but she has the hungry look in her eye I did when I discovered my Dad's calculus college textbooks as an elementary schooler. Didn't understand any of it, but it was so interesting, this whole universe of knowing I could puzzle over and wonder about.
My Dad (otherwise an excellent parent) got this panicked, pissed-off look in his eye when he caught me leafing through them and yanked them away, never to be seen again. Math wasn't a very good subject for me in middle and highschool.
Sorry, Dad. I don't care if she's smarter than the both of us put together. I'm going to sit down and try to remember enough pre-Algebra to crack wise with her while she watches.
* No kidding. Every RI governor since I was a kid in the '70s has been this ludicrous, comedic character, either a semi-competent oddball eccentric or an incompetent borderline/actual criminal in a shiny suit. Raimundo is sharp, sharp, sharp - polished while being human, quicker than anyone interviewing her with instant command of even small issues of policy. She's Obama without the "Ummm Uhhh Errr", and I want to know who's bright idea it was to hide that away during the primary and general election. Did they think we'd be afraid of this caliber of politician and policy-maker... ummm... diPrete, Sundlin, Almond, Carcceri, Chaffee... nevermind, question withdrawn.
** When she and her cousins were 3, we had an iPad, and skyped, our family to my sister's, for the first time, on her 3rd birthday! She showed off her new Team Umi Zoomi doll... buuut... at this time, the show wasn't on Netflix or Amazon. She had never seen it, and didn't know it was supposed to represent a character, Melli. Her cousins had cable TV, and loved the show...
"Hey! That's Melli!" they cried!
"My babydoll not 'melly!" my little one said, starting to cry...
They talked it out. Good kids.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:01 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
So, when my little girl wants to watch Monster Math Squad or Peg and Cat or Team Umi Zoomi**, I'll sit down with her, and joke with her about what we're watching.
She also likes to watch Cyberchase on occasion, which is clearly for middle-schoolers, but she has the hungry look in her eye I did when I discovered my Dad's calculus college textbooks as an elementary schooler. Didn't understand any of it, but it was so interesting, this whole universe of knowing I could puzzle over and wonder about.
My Dad (otherwise an excellent parent) got this panicked, pissed-off look in his eye when he caught me leafing through them and yanked them away, never to be seen again. Math wasn't a very good subject for me in middle and highschool.
Sorry, Dad. I don't care if she's smarter than the both of us put together. I'm going to sit down and try to remember enough pre-Algebra to crack wise with her while she watches.
* No kidding. Every RI governor since I was a kid in the '70s has been this ludicrous, comedic character, either a semi-competent oddball eccentric or an incompetent borderline/actual criminal in a shiny suit. Raimundo is sharp, sharp, sharp - polished while being human, quicker than anyone interviewing her with instant command of even small issues of policy. She's Obama without the "Ummm Uhhh Errr", and I want to know who's bright idea it was to hide that away during the primary and general election. Did they think we'd be afraid of this caliber of politician and policy-maker... ummm... diPrete, Sundlin, Almond, Carcceri, Chaffee... nevermind, question withdrawn.
** When she and her cousins were 3, we had an iPad, and skyped, our family to my sister's, for the first time, on her 3rd birthday! She showed off her new Team Umi Zoomi doll... buuut... at this time, the show wasn't on Netflix or Amazon. She had never seen it, and didn't know it was supposed to represent a character, Melli. Her cousins had cable TV, and loved the show...
"Hey! That's Melli!" they cried!
"My babydoll not 'melly!" my little one said, starting to cry...
They talked it out. Good kids.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:01 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is a nice opportunity for a paraphrased Daily Show zing: "Is sexism still a problem? Many men (and a few women) say no."
To clarify, the authors of this study include three women and one man.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:11 PM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]
To clarify, the authors of this study include three women and one man.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:11 PM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]
Well then, let's look at the data they present.
The crux of their argument is this:
posted by ChuraChura at 5:43 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
The crux of their argument is this:
By graduation from college, women are overrepresented in LPS majors but far underrepresented in GEEMP fields [Geosciences, engineering, math,. In GEEMP fields, by 2011, there was very little difference in women's and men's likelihood to advance from a baccalaureate degree to a PhD and then, in turn, to advance to a tenure-track assistant professorship. Another way to think of this is that far fewer women are interested in (or perhaps capable in...) GEEMP fields to begin with, but once women are within GEEMP fields, their progress resembles that of male GEEMP majors.To which I say blargh.
...
The economists among us agree with the psychologists that early socialization and possibly even biological differences can lead to differences in comparative advantage. MOreover, they emphasize that anticipated gender differences in future career opportunities lead to behaviors and choices that reinforce early socialization...
In LPS, the issues are different... Our team started by emphasizing different possible avenues of post-baccalaureate gender differences, with economists emphasizing rational choices, where the opportunity cost of balancing work and family is associated with not pursuing academic science, and psychologists emphasizing people-versus-things preferences that result in many STEM females opting for medicine, law, and veterinary science over GEEMP fields. Psychologists have charted large sex differences in occupational interests, with women preferring so-called "people-oriented" (or "organic," or natural-science) fields and men preferring "things."
posted by ChuraChura at 5:43 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
This thread is useless without discussion of the paucity of women in philosophy. Sexism: it's not just for STEM.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 5:58 PM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 5:58 PM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]
Made of Star Stuff: Every academic field has problems with sexism, but let's not deflect the attention from STEM here.
posted by divabat at 6:02 PM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by divabat at 6:02 PM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]
I know about too many cases of harassment, individual and systemic, in STEM departments to believe these results. I know personally several women faculty who have fled their departments specifically because of intractable barriers and discrimination. I agree that it's a big study that will take time to digest, but, as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof....
Heck, we're not quite 25 years past the the École Polytechnique massacre. I think things are better, but they aren't that much better.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:04 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
Heck, we're not quite 25 years past the the École Polytechnique massacre. I think things are better, but they aren't that much better.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:04 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
I would also add that gender parity does not equal lack of sexism. You just have to look at my own field, physical anthropology (one of those lovely LPS fields where things are just great!!!!!!) to see that in action. Stag Parties Linger: Continued gender bias in a female discipline. Is Primatology an Equal-Opportunity discipline? Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and sexual assault.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:05 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 6:05 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
From reading the paper (and the critiques), that's not entirely what they're saying, since they basically do say that gender preferences in middle school and high school are largely environmentally determined.
I'm sure it's not entirely what they're saying, and I'm willing to admit the possibility of crappy editing, but the Op-Ed by Ceci and Williams specifically uses that model to explain the disparity:
posted by jaguar at 6:12 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm sure it's not entirely what they're saying, and I'm willing to admit the possibility of crappy editing, but the Op-Ed by Ceci and Williams specifically uses that model to explain the disparity:
So if alleged hiring and promotion biases don’t explain the underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields, what does? According to our research, the biggest culprits are rooted in women’s earlier educational choices, and in women’s occupational and lifestyle preferences.I don't care if they're explaining that through environment rather than biology, it's still annoyingly essentialist.
As children, girls tend to show more interest in living things (such as people and animals), while boys tend to prefer playing with machines and building things. As adolescents, girls express less interest in careers like engineering and computer science. Despite earning higher grades throughout schooling in all subjects — including math and science — girls are less likely to take math-intensive advanced-placement courses like calculus and physics.
posted by jaguar at 6:12 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
Divabat: OK, fair enough, and I didn't mean to derail.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 6:14 PM on November 21, 2014
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 6:14 PM on November 21, 2014
In all fairness if you're a mid career scientist in a math heavy field with any kind of solid experience in a sensible specialization at all AND you're a proven non-moron who knows R or is good at modeling you can wear a paper bag on your head, hop around like a kangaroo and communicate entirely in sniffing noises and someone will hire you. Demand vastly, vastly exceeds supply for people who can do that shit.
Also looking just at academia is a)only a tiny percent of scientists and b) slowly becoming a subset of scientists who can't make it in the real world in many fields. Not neurosurgery surely but the arguement can be made that the cream of many scientific fields do not reside in ivory towers.
posted by fshgrl at 6:54 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also looking just at academia is a)only a tiny percent of scientists and b) slowly becoming a subset of scientists who can't make it in the real world in many fields. Not neurosurgery surely but the arguement can be made that the cream of many scientific fields do not reside in ivory towers.
posted by fshgrl at 6:54 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]
Wow, I'm surprised how quickly this research is just being dismissed. Seems like a lot of that is by people really personally invested in denying this report.
If anyone has any actual data (as opposed to anecdotal stuff) that disproves any of the findings, that's great and I'd love to see it. If the research is flawed I want to know where, how and why.
So far, though, the criticisms I am seeing are mostly not by people who have actually read the original paper, and also largely based on anecdata.
posted by misha at 8:19 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
If anyone has any actual data (as opposed to anecdotal stuff) that disproves any of the findings, that's great and I'd love to see it. If the research is flawed I want to know where, how and why.
So far, though, the criticisms I am seeing are mostly not by people who have actually read the original paper, and also largely based on anecdata.
posted by misha at 8:19 PM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]
The critique is from people who are validly questioning the criteria the researchers used. A study based on flawed premises is going to be flawed.
posted by jaguar at 8:24 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 8:24 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't think anyone is denying that increasing the confidence girls and young women have in their ability to do things like math is basically nothing but good. But dismissing the role that the climate of colleges, universities, and particular disciplines offer to women faculty and grad students plays in women's decisions to (and ability to) stay in academia doesn't make sense. Calling sexism solved when men and women comprise equal proportions of the faculty doesn't make sense. Blaming institutional problems on the fact that girls just don't like math - they prefer playing with animals and helping people - that doesn't makes sense either.
I think most of the women in the academy commenting in this thread would love it if this research solved all (or most, or many) of the gender-based problems they/we face in day to day life. But it won't, and framing this research in the popular press as "Academic science doesn't have a sexism problem" is frankly offensive.
posted by ChuraChura at 8:33 PM on November 21, 2014 [5 favorites]
I think most of the women in the academy commenting in this thread would love it if this research solved all (or most, or many) of the gender-based problems they/we face in day to day life. But it won't, and framing this research in the popular press as "Academic science doesn't have a sexism problem" is frankly offensive.
posted by ChuraChura at 8:33 PM on November 21, 2014 [5 favorites]
But it won't, and framing this research in the popular press as "Academic science doesn't have a sexism problem" is frankly offensive.
It's also a giant gaslighting endeavor. Dismissing actual women's experiences of sexism as "anecdotal" is unethical. Claiming women leaving the profession are simply making a personal choice uninfluenced by gender discrimination is ignorant. Claiming that environmental influences cause women to leave academia but that those influences are somehow absent from academia is ridiculous.
posted by jaguar at 8:40 PM on November 21, 2014 [11 favorites]
It's also a giant gaslighting endeavor. Dismissing actual women's experiences of sexism as "anecdotal" is unethical. Claiming women leaving the profession are simply making a personal choice uninfluenced by gender discrimination is ignorant. Claiming that environmental influences cause women to leave academia but that those influences are somehow absent from academia is ridiculous.
posted by jaguar at 8:40 PM on November 21, 2014 [11 favorites]
Dismissing actual women's experiences of sexism as "anecdotal" is unethical
Why have research when women's experiences will suffice?
posted by rr at 9:20 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
Why have research when women's experiences will suffice?
posted by rr at 9:20 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
In all fairness if you're a mid career scientist in a math heavy field with any kind of solid experience in a sensible specialization at all AND you're a proven non-moron who knows R or is good at modeling you can wear a paper bag on your head, hop around like a kangaroo and communicate entirely in sniffing noises and someone will hire you. Demand vastly, vastly exceeds supply for people who can do that shit.
I would love to hear more about this - which fields and where is all the demand coming from? Your description generally describes me but I'm not sure how narrowly you're defining "sensible specialization" here.
For people saying nobody has engaged with the paper, it's been out for awhile and plenty of people have read it. This excerpt from ChuraChura's great link does a good job of breaking it down. I'll see what I can find for other critiques, this made the rounds on twitter when the NYT story came out three weeks ago and many scientists had very serious criticisms of their conclusions.
I would love to hear more about this - which fields and where is all the demand coming from? Your description generally describes me but I'm not sure how narrowly you're defining "sensible specialization" here.
For people saying nobody has engaged with the paper, it's been out for awhile and plenty of people have read it. This excerpt from ChuraChura's great link does a good job of breaking it down. I'll see what I can find for other critiques, this made the rounds on twitter when the NYT story came out three weeks ago and many scientists had very serious criticisms of their conclusions.
Take a look at Figure 14 in their paper. The analysis suggesting that women are cited as often as men is weird and selective, but this graph is pretty clear: Men are still published significantly more than women. There are so many significant difference asterisks on those graphs, they look like a tiny galaxy. I know the H index is a hot new thing, but which one matters more still on your CV: Your citation count or your publication list?posted by dialetheia at 10:29 PM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]
Check out Figure 15. Go ahead. Just for fun. And scroll on down to Figure 16. Look at the salary values on Table 4. Look at Figure 18. See the job satisfaction results in Figure 19. Take a gander at Figure 5. Figure 4. I don't understand how they wrote the paper or the op-ed they did while looking at the same results I see in their paper. Nothing about these data says, "OK, folks. Our work in the academy is done. Let's focus on those kindergartners."
Why have research when women's experiences will suffice?
You do realize that research about people's experiences should include research into people's experiences?
posted by jaguar at 10:37 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
You do realize that research about people's experiences should include research into people's experiences?
posted by jaguar at 10:37 PM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]
Okay, I just read the paper' and urge everyone to do so, because it is fascinating. Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions drawn--and in some cases I do not--the wealth of research included and the various works being compared throughout the paper's many studied factors to try to account for gender disparities (some favoring men, others favoring women's) are impressive.
Here's some random info I found helpful/significant:
1. One thing that leaps out is that economics, in direct contrast to the other fields of study, IS definitively biased against women in just about every measure. It is striking because in this one area of study, the level of achievement favoring men over women has actually grown wider (from the year 1995 to 2008), rather than diminished as it has for pretty much every other discipline. So we see LESS success for women then nearly two decades ago in terms of hiring, wages, professional advancement, just very noticeable gaps that can only be accounted for by sexist bias in grading and hiring practices (at least, it cannot be accounted for by any of the many other factors the paper examined). So, yeah, economics is NOT a gender neutral playing field, at all.
2. Did you know that in the US, girls (not women, but like 12 years old) who check a box indicating their gender BEFORE taking a Math test score poorer than if they check the gender box AFTER the test? They psych themselves out, probably because they have taken in the notion that girls are not good at math.
2 A.There ARE definite gaps in boys vs girls when it comes to math skills, and they cannot be explained away by sexism. In some countries where sexism is worst, girls score higher than boys in math. Asian girls score higher than Asian boys. Singapore, Norway and Indonesia have barely any gap. Here in the US, boys outperform girls mathematically at a rate of 2:1. The paper goes into a number of potential contributing factors.
2. B. Women, do NOT undervalue your math skills and think you can't go into a math-oriented field unless you are a top math achiever. Most of the research shows that men simply go for the math fields when they have decided they are interested as long as they are at least competent in their math courses and math tests, but women seem to shy away if their grades aren't perfect in late high school or early undergrad.
3. Whether you are a man or a woman trying to advance in one of these fields, you definitely want to look into the section about which sources favor your gender when it comes to grants. It is spread pretty evenly, as some sources favor men, while others favor women, but good to know where your best options are, right? Do not be afraid to aim high on the dollar amounts on your grant applications, and for heaven's sake, don't neglect to reapply when you can! Those two areas are where the men are excelling, and getting more money on average than women because of it, though the number of grants initially awarded is comparable for both sexes.
posted by misha at 12:26 AM on November 22, 2014 [2 favorites]
Here's some random info I found helpful/significant:
1. One thing that leaps out is that economics, in direct contrast to the other fields of study, IS definitively biased against women in just about every measure. It is striking because in this one area of study, the level of achievement favoring men over women has actually grown wider (from the year 1995 to 2008), rather than diminished as it has for pretty much every other discipline. So we see LESS success for women then nearly two decades ago in terms of hiring, wages, professional advancement, just very noticeable gaps that can only be accounted for by sexist bias in grading and hiring practices (at least, it cannot be accounted for by any of the many other factors the paper examined). So, yeah, economics is NOT a gender neutral playing field, at all.
2. Did you know that in the US, girls (not women, but like 12 years old) who check a box indicating their gender BEFORE taking a Math test score poorer than if they check the gender box AFTER the test? They psych themselves out, probably because they have taken in the notion that girls are not good at math.
2 A.There ARE definite gaps in boys vs girls when it comes to math skills, and they cannot be explained away by sexism. In some countries where sexism is worst, girls score higher than boys in math. Asian girls score higher than Asian boys. Singapore, Norway and Indonesia have barely any gap. Here in the US, boys outperform girls mathematically at a rate of 2:1. The paper goes into a number of potential contributing factors.
2. B. Women, do NOT undervalue your math skills and think you can't go into a math-oriented field unless you are a top math achiever. Most of the research shows that men simply go for the math fields when they have decided they are interested as long as they are at least competent in their math courses and math tests, but women seem to shy away if their grades aren't perfect in late high school or early undergrad.
3. Whether you are a man or a woman trying to advance in one of these fields, you definitely want to look into the section about which sources favor your gender when it comes to grants. It is spread pretty evenly, as some sources favor men, while others favor women, but good to know where your best options are, right? Do not be afraid to aim high on the dollar amounts on your grant applications, and for heaven's sake, don't neglect to reapply when you can! Those two areas are where the men are excelling, and getting more money on average than women because of it, though the number of grants initially awarded is comparable for both sexes.
posted by misha at 12:26 AM on November 22, 2014 [2 favorites]
Like many others, I read this article back when it came out, laughed at how badly they had interpreted their own data, and moved on. The mountain of studies that already exist that document what's actually going on in science, and that are somehow able to interpret their own data in a non-self-contradictory way, all support the idea that sexism is alive and well in math and science. Yes, it does begin in elementary school with stereotype threat (and I'm delighted that people are learning about stereotype threat who had not previously known about it, because it is a well-documented curse upon everybody about whom there are stereotypes). But it absolutely continues throughout our scientific vareers. This article from a couple years ago is a very uncomplicated study with very uncomplicated results: scientists, male and female, judge hiring and potential for mentoring differently if a man's name is on a resume than if a woman's name is on the same resume. I am glad to help list dozens of other studies, similarly simple in their design and data analysis that show the same thing for a range of disciplines. This is the world.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:20 AM on November 22, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 4:20 AM on November 22, 2014 [5 favorites]
Why have research when women's experiences will suffice?
As a quant social science guy, if you run your regression, get your stars on the p-values, and find a lot of anecdotal, or as we say, case study, evidence that contradicts the inferences you made from your data, then it is likely something went wrong and worth revisiting.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:18 AM on November 22, 2014 [6 favorites]
As a quant social science guy, if you run your regression, get your stars on the p-values, and find a lot of anecdotal, or as we say, case study, evidence that contradicts the inferences you made from your data, then it is likely something went wrong and worth revisiting.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:18 AM on November 22, 2014 [6 favorites]
> "Why have research when women's experiences will suffice?"
Well, good thing we have lots of research and data verifying that women are actually experiencing the things that they're experiencing, then.
posted by kyrademon at 6:35 AM on November 22, 2014 [6 favorites]
Well, good thing we have lots of research and data verifying that women are actually experiencing the things that they're experiencing, then.
posted by kyrademon at 6:35 AM on November 22, 2014 [6 favorites]
Anyone who is interested in the nature-vs-nature questions and wants research-based answers to what actually might be responsible for the differences in childhood interest in or aptitude for science should read Pink Brain, Blue Brain by Lise Eliot
From the study: "While outright biases in hiring and promotion in the past may have been a significant reason that many female PhDs did not appy for tenure-track positions, or applied but were not hired or promoted, the current most important barrier at this transition point, at least in statistical terms, is the perception among female PhD recipients and postdocs that these positions are not compatible with family formation."
As a woman with a PhD in physics, this is absolutely the reason I sought an industry job rather than an academic one. By the time I got my PhD I was nearly thirty, and not interested in temporary positions requiring relocation at the end of three years and a new job search. Enough frickin' training. I wanted a job. And not a "no job security until you're thirty seven" job either, which is what "tenure track" as opposed to "tenured" actually means.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:03 AM on November 22, 2014 [3 favorites]
From the study: "While outright biases in hiring and promotion in the past may have been a significant reason that many female PhDs did not appy for tenure-track positions, or applied but were not hired or promoted, the current most important barrier at this transition point, at least in statistical terms, is the perception among female PhD recipients and postdocs that these positions are not compatible with family formation."
As a woman with a PhD in physics, this is absolutely the reason I sought an industry job rather than an academic one. By the time I got my PhD I was nearly thirty, and not interested in temporary positions requiring relocation at the end of three years and a new job search. Enough frickin' training. I wanted a job. And not a "no job security until you're thirty seven" job either, which is what "tenure track" as opposed to "tenured" actually means.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:03 AM on November 22, 2014 [3 favorites]
-Economics Is a Dismal Science for Women
-We should pay teachers more: "It's common to hear that teachers should be paid better — more like doctors and lawyers. In 2009, the Equity Project, a charter school in New York decided to try it: they would pay all their teachers $125,000 per year with the possibility of an additional bonus... Four years later, students at TEP score better on state tests than similar students elsewhere. The differences were particularly pronounced in math, according to a new study from Mathematica Policy Research."
posted by kliuless at 8:38 AM on November 22, 2014 [1 favorite]
-We should pay teachers more: "It's common to hear that teachers should be paid better — more like doctors and lawyers. In 2009, the Equity Project, a charter school in New York decided to try it: they would pay all their teachers $125,000 per year with the possibility of an additional bonus... Four years later, students at TEP score better on state tests than similar students elsewhere. The differences were particularly pronounced in math, according to a new study from Mathematica Policy Research."
posted by kliuless at 8:38 AM on November 22, 2014 [1 favorite]
2. Did you know that in the US, girls (not women, but like 12 years old) who check a box indicating their gender BEFORE taking a Math test score poorer than if they check the gender box AFTER the test? They psych themselves out, probably because they have taken in the notion that girls are not good at math.
Yes, I did. I'm sure many of us did, because stereotype threat has been studied and reported on for decades, and many of us dismissing this study have been studying, reading, or researching these issues for decades.
posted by jaguar at 8:44 AM on November 22, 2014 [7 favorites]
Yes, I did. I'm sure many of us did, because stereotype threat has been studied and reported on for decades, and many of us dismissing this study have been studying, reading, or researching these issues for decades.
posted by jaguar at 8:44 AM on November 22, 2014 [7 favorites]
I knew if I just applied to more grants for more money, I would experience sexism less intensely.
posted by ChuraChura at 8:54 AM on November 22, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by ChuraChura at 8:54 AM on November 22, 2014 [7 favorites]
I would love to hear more about this - which fields and where is all the demand coming from?
If you're a really good data manager, statistician, modeler or informatics person who can program in sql and R and knows ESRI decently and you actually produce usuable products on time you can get hired. I'm not talking PIs, but the people who make the POs vision happen. I think this study is a bit flawed by looking at those mid career math heavy professionals because they are so in demand.
posted by fshgrl at 12:28 PM on November 22, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you're a really good data manager, statistician, modeler or informatics person who can program in sql and R and knows ESRI decently and you actually produce usuable products on time you can get hired. I'm not talking PIs, but the people who make the POs vision happen. I think this study is a bit flawed by looking at those mid career math heavy professionals because they are so in demand.
posted by fshgrl at 12:28 PM on November 22, 2014 [1 favorite]
misha: "Wow, I'm surprised how quickly this research is just being dismissed. Seems like a lot of that is by people really personally invested in denying this report."
This is pretty much a textbook example of ad hominem argument.
posted by Lexica at 1:17 PM on November 22, 2014 [6 favorites]
This is pretty much a textbook example of ad hominem argument.
posted by Lexica at 1:17 PM on November 22, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'm familiar with stereotype threat, I learned about it when I got my degree in education decades ago, thanks.
However, I wasn't aware that just bubbling in the gender box without any additional priming (in this case, like the reminder, subtle or otherwise, that women are sometimes perceived to be bad at math) was enough to have a measurable, statistically significant effect on test scores prior to this study.
But that's okay, I always enjoy learning new things! Of course, I could just not attempt to challenge my pre-conceived notions and bury my head in the sand instead. When you do that, though, you run the risk of looking foolish when someone comes along and points out your own biases.
Speaking of which, hydropsyche, I am sure you're aware, having read this paper, that the simple study you mention was one of many the researchers factored in, and what the flaws and omissions were that led them to look more closely at the data you are referencing. I gather you got a good laugh at their reasoning; maybe you could explain where specifically you feel they erred?
posted by misha at 11:20 PM on November 22, 2014
However, I wasn't aware that just bubbling in the gender box without any additional priming (in this case, like the reminder, subtle or otherwise, that women are sometimes perceived to be bad at math) was enough to have a measurable, statistically significant effect on test scores prior to this study.
But that's okay, I always enjoy learning new things! Of course, I could just not attempt to challenge my pre-conceived notions and bury my head in the sand instead. When you do that, though, you run the risk of looking foolish when someone comes along and points out your own biases.
Speaking of which, hydropsyche, I am sure you're aware, having read this paper, that the simple study you mention was one of many the researchers factored in, and what the flaws and omissions were that led them to look more closely at the data you are referencing. I gather you got a good laugh at their reasoning; maybe you could explain where specifically you feel they erred?
posted by misha at 11:20 PM on November 22, 2014
Several people above have linked to excellent sentence by sentence and figure by figure discussions of the problems with the original article. There are many reasons to question why one article which contradicts all of the published research on the topic is getting so much attention while all the rest of the published literature is ignored by "people who seem to be personally invested in denying its report".
posted by hydropsyche at 6:09 AM on November 23, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 6:09 AM on November 23, 2014 [4 favorites]
maybe you could explain where specifically you feel they erred?
Scanning the article, there is literally one regression table. Is this normal for the field? How are we supposed to evaluate the data? Where are the robustness checks?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:40 AM on November 23, 2014 [3 favorites]
Scanning the article, there is literally one regression table. Is this normal for the field? How are we supposed to evaluate the data? Where are the robustness checks?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:40 AM on November 23, 2014 [3 favorites]
I gather you got a good laugh at their reasoning; maybe you could explain where specifically you feel they erred?
The burden is the other way around -- given this one study that contradicts both a long list of previous studies and an enormous number of first-hand accounts of being a woman in the sciences in academia (many of which can be found with no effort in previous discussions of this subject here), it's on people who buy these results to explain how to reconcile that.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 AM on November 23, 2014 [5 favorites]
The burden is the other way around -- given this one study that contradicts both a long list of previous studies and an enormous number of first-hand accounts of being a woman in the sciences in academia (many of which can be found with no effort in previous discussions of this subject here), it's on people who buy these results to explain how to reconcile that.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:00 AM on November 23, 2014 [5 favorites]
Here is another really substantive critique of the original research, from Dr. Zuleyka Zavallos at STEMWomen (for whom I have written and been interviewed). For example:
Beyond the paper’s conceptual problems, the analysis is riddled with methodological confusion. The authors claim to present a life-course analysis. This is an established methodology within the social sciences, that takes into consideration how individuals experience identity, health, family or other social phenomena at different stages. Typically, this means collecting data about childhood, adolescence, adulthood and late age, and identifying how significant life events or transitions (marriage or children for example) affect individuals’ decision-making. A life course approach will take these individual biographies and connect them to broader socio-economic patterns.posted by ChuraChura at 8:08 AM on November 23, 2014 [8 favorites]
A life course approach usually involves following a cohort over a long period (collecting longitudinal data over a number of years). Otherwise, it can also involve the analysis of qualitative data, such as people’s oral histories (gathered via interviews or other observations). The problem is that Ceci and colleagues have not been faithful to the life course approach and their analysis is profoundly flawed as a result. They look at different stages in women’s education and careers as if they are independent, rather than interconnected. For example, the fact that studies show that senior male researchers prefer not to take on women as summer interns or as students is treated separately, and dismissed by Ceci’s team as a factor in the hiring patterns of women. There are incremental inequalities at various stages of academia, which make it even harder for women to be successful.
The article ChuraChura just posted is well worth reading in its entirety and does a fantastic job of contextualizing the problems with the study.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:37 AM on November 23, 2014
posted by Dip Flash at 8:37 AM on November 23, 2014
Thanks for the link to STEMWomen, ChuraChura. I don't know how I had missed it before, but what a great site. And it was cool to read about your research.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:41 AM on November 23, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 10:41 AM on November 23, 2014 [2 favorites]
Several people above have linked to excellent sentence by sentence and figure by figure discussions of the problems with the original article.
Some of the earlier links were making arguments based on the NY article alone, not the full study. That was frustrating because the critique would say, 'Why didn't they address this earlier finding in their work', when they actually had done so.
As I said earlier I don't agree with all the conclusions made. The first comments seemed not to actually address the study at all, though, just sarcastically dismiss it, and that kind of approach definitely comes across as being personally invested in a specific outcome of a study, rather than logically engaging with it and criticizing specific methodology or hypotheses, etc.
I also didn't know this paper had been out for weeks and people might have read it already, so when I saw those critiques pop up so awfully fast for a 54 (or however many it was) page study, it didn't seem like giving this post a fair chance. Thanks for that latest link, though, ChuraChura, it really explores this more and brings up some good critiques. About this,
I knew if I just applied to more grants for more money, I would experience sexism less intensely.
Did I say something about the grants that offended you? According to the study, some women simply neglected to reapply for a grant extension, which cost them funding. I feel like that is useful info to know. I don't understand-- was my remarking on that a sexist observation to make? Am I missing something?
posted by misha at 1:20 AM on November 24, 2014
Some of the earlier links were making arguments based on the NY article alone, not the full study. That was frustrating because the critique would say, 'Why didn't they address this earlier finding in their work', when they actually had done so.
As I said earlier I don't agree with all the conclusions made. The first comments seemed not to actually address the study at all, though, just sarcastically dismiss it, and that kind of approach definitely comes across as being personally invested in a specific outcome of a study, rather than logically engaging with it and criticizing specific methodology or hypotheses, etc.
I also didn't know this paper had been out for weeks and people might have read it already, so when I saw those critiques pop up so awfully fast for a 54 (or however many it was) page study, it didn't seem like giving this post a fair chance. Thanks for that latest link, though, ChuraChura, it really explores this more and brings up some good critiques. About this,
I knew if I just applied to more grants for more money, I would experience sexism less intensely.
Did I say something about the grants that offended you? According to the study, some women simply neglected to reapply for a grant extension, which cost them funding. I feel like that is useful info to know. I don't understand-- was my remarking on that a sexist observation to make? Am I missing something?
posted by misha at 1:20 AM on November 24, 2014
Well, my personal experience of sexism in academia includes entrenched attitudes that women researchers will sleep with field assistants, comments from faculty on the perceived inapropriateness of my clothing, conversations faculty have had with my breasts, compliments on my looks while make students get asked about their research, the time I was advised by a professor not to get a "titty tattoo," and other stuff I am not comfortable sharing here. This in a context with demonstrated patterns of sexual assault and harassment perpetrated by mentors and professors, evidence that faculty - even liberal-minded ones - demonstrating bias against female students in hiring decisions and emailed responses, shoddy maternity practices, illegal questioning about martial status during interviews, and so on and so forth.
So honestly, the advice to try and extend grants - to a thread full of academics who are, i guarantee, already consumed by efforts to secure even the minimal funding to get their research done in the political context of decreased science funding - is fairly unhelpful. And frustrating. And now I'm off to go work on more grant applications, because even though m my research was rated excellent by all my reviewers last time I submitted, they funded only 8 of 94 applications and mine was not one of them.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:45 AM on November 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
So honestly, the advice to try and extend grants - to a thread full of academics who are, i guarantee, already consumed by efforts to secure even the minimal funding to get their research done in the political context of decreased science funding - is fairly unhelpful. And frustrating. And now I'm off to go work on more grant applications, because even though m my research was rated excellent by all my reviewers last time I submitted, they funded only 8 of 94 applications and mine was not one of them.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:45 AM on November 24, 2014 [5 favorites]
This recent thread on ambitious women in the corporate world being held back by expectations that they will be the primary caretaker and do most of the domestic labor absolutely applies in this case as well.
Another related but distinct thing the Ceci paper doesn't really seem to dig into (and which I haven't seen discussed much in the thread, though I haven't been following it closely and may have missed it) is the two-body problem. Academia often involves making a quite explicit choice about which partner's career will be prioritized and which will take the back burner, because academic jobs are rare and geographically disparate. If you're in the corporate world, it is totally reasonable to be able to expect to find two high-achieving jobs in, say, NYC. But in academia, even or maybe even especially in STEM, it is commonplace for members of a couple to have their best offers in geographically disjunct sets. One partner's best offers may be in a Chicago suburb and a midwestern land grant university, while the other's may be in the UC system or at a research institute in rural VA. And since women in hetero marriages tend to be younger than their husbands, they can be forced onto the market prematurely, thus having to compete against more experienced candidates because (e.g.) their husband's postdoc determined when both of them would have to look for faculty positions. Faculty committees do take this into account to some extent when hiring, but on the flip side, I also know several very talented women who have had to take non-TT positions (or non-academic positions!) in order to "follow" their husbands to a new city.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:27 PM on November 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
Another related but distinct thing the Ceci paper doesn't really seem to dig into (and which I haven't seen discussed much in the thread, though I haven't been following it closely and may have missed it) is the two-body problem. Academia often involves making a quite explicit choice about which partner's career will be prioritized and which will take the back burner, because academic jobs are rare and geographically disparate. If you're in the corporate world, it is totally reasonable to be able to expect to find two high-achieving jobs in, say, NYC. But in academia, even or maybe even especially in STEM, it is commonplace for members of a couple to have their best offers in geographically disjunct sets. One partner's best offers may be in a Chicago suburb and a midwestern land grant university, while the other's may be in the UC system or at a research institute in rural VA. And since women in hetero marriages tend to be younger than their husbands, they can be forced onto the market prematurely, thus having to compete against more experienced candidates because (e.g.) their husband's postdoc determined when both of them would have to look for faculty positions. Faculty committees do take this into account to some extent when hiring, but on the flip side, I also know several very talented women who have had to take non-TT positions (or non-academic positions!) in order to "follow" their husbands to a new city.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:27 PM on November 24, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Akai Gurley | How To Make Streaming Royalties Fair(er) Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments