5 ms·

This study shows the opposite: > In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two ve

This study shows the opposite: > In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume. > The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John. https://gender.stanford.edu/news/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer https://gender.stanford.edu/news/why-does-john-get-stem-job-...

mpweiher 1y ago
Except that the Ceci/Williams study is (a) more recent (b) has a much larger sample size and (c) shows a larger effect. It is also arguably a much better designed study. Yet, Moss-Racusin gets cited a lot more. Because it fits the dominant narrative, whereas the better Ceci/Williams study contradicts the dominant narrative. More here: Scientific Bias in Favor of Studies Finding Gender Bias -- Studies that find bias against women often get disproportionate attention. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/scientific-bias-in-favor-studies-finding-gender-bias https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906...
- like_any_other 1y ago
  The effect is wider and stronger than that: These findings are especially striking given that other research shows it is more difficult for scholars to publish work that reflects conservative interests and perspectives. A 1985 study in the American Psychologist, for example, assessed the outcomes of research proposals submitted to human subject committees. Some of the proposals were aimed at studying job discrimination against racial minorities, women, short people, and those who are obese. Other proposals set out to study "reverse discrimination" against whites. All of the proposals, however, offered identical research designs. The study found that the proposals on reverse discrimination were the hardest to get approved, often because their research designs were scrutinized more thoroughly. In some cases, though, the reviewers raised explicitly political concerns; as one reviewer argued, "The findings could set affirmative action back 20 years if it came out that women were asked to interview more often for managerial positions than men with a stronger vitae." [1,2] Meaning that, first, such research is less likely to be proposed (human subject committees are drawn from researchers, so they share biases), then it is less likely to be funded, and finally, it receives less attention. [1] https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea... [2] Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    Yeah, one glaring example of this effect is the NSFGears project. The researchers studied why people leave engineering. Their first report, Stemming the Tide, reported on women. It was published and very widely reported. The reporting was largely inaccurate, because the claims that were made were that women were leaving due to discrimination. If you actually looked at the numbers, that was totally false. The number 1 reason was "didn't like engineering", followed by "too few chances for advancement" and "wanted to start a family". And of course, being promoted to management was als considered "leaving engineering". But whatever. That wasn't the kicker. The kicker was that they did a follow-up study on why men left engineering. And it turns out it's for pretty much exactly the same reasons! Our early analysis suggests that men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving. Namely, that there were little opportunities for advancement, perceptions of a lack of a supportive organization, lost interests in the field, and conflicts with supervisors. One key difference between men and women was women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family Ba da dum. And yes, you guessed it: deafening silence. More than a decade later, nothing has been published. My guess is that they can't get it published. It's the same researchers, same topic, at least the same relevance, presumably same quality of work. But it doesn't fit the narrative. I contacted the principal investigator a number of years ago, and she said to wait a little, they were in the process of getting things published. Since then: crickets. https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/ https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/
    - gitremote 1y ago
      Of course, you truncated only the last sentence of the analysis summary, which contradicted your narrative: As we dug deeper into this relationship, we found that these women often attempted to make accommodations at work in order to meet their care-giving responsibilities only to be met with resistance from the work environment.
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        It adds context, but doesn't contradict anything - the resistance they faced was to actions that their male peers didn't attempt, so it doesn't imply any kind of disparate treatment.
includenotfound 1y ago
This is not a study but a news article. The study is here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109 A replication was attempted, and it found the exact opposite (with a bigger data set) of what the original study found, i.e. women were favored, not discriminated against: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391525384_Are_STEM_Faculty_Biased_Against_Female_Applicants_A_Robust_Replication_and_Extension_of_Moss-Racusin_and_Colleagues_2012 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391525384_Are_STEM_...
- gitremote 1y ago
  The second link is a preprint from 2020 and may not have been peer-reviewed.
im3w1l 1y ago
I think it's important to be very specific when speaking about these things, because there seems to be a significant variation by place and time. You can't necessarily take a past study and generalize it to the present, nor can you necessarily take study from one country and apply it in another. The particular profession likely also plays a role.

mpweiher 1y ago

Except that the Ceci/Williams study is (a) more recent (b) has a much larger sample size and (c) shows a larger effect. It is also arguably a much better designed study. Yet, Moss-Racusin gets cited a lot more. Because it fits the dominant narrative, whereas the better Ceci/Williams study contradicts the dominant narrative. More here: Scientific Bias in Favor of Studies Finding Gender Bias -- Studies that find bias against women often get disproportionate attention. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906/scientific-bias-in-favor-studies-finding-gender-bias https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906...

like_any_other 1y ago
The effect is wider and stronger than that: These findings are especially striking given that other research shows it is more difficult for scholars to publish work that reflects conservative interests and perspectives. A 1985 study in the American Psychologist, for example, assessed the outcomes of research proposals submitted to human subject committees. Some of the proposals were aimed at studying job discrimination against racial minorities, women, short people, and those who are obese. Other proposals set out to study "reverse discrimination" against whites. All of the proposals, however, offered identical research designs. The study found that the proposals on reverse discrimination were the hardest to get approved, often because their research designs were scrutinized more thoroughly. In some cases, though, the reviewers raised explicitly political concerns; as one reviewer argued, "The findings could set affirmative action back 20 years if it came out that women were asked to interview more often for managerial positions than men with a stronger vitae." [1,2] Meaning that, first, such research is less likely to be proposed (human subject committees are drawn from researchers, so they share biases), then it is less likely to be funded, and finally, it receives less attention. [1] https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea... [2] Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994
- mpweiher 1y ago
  Yeah, one glaring example of this effect is the NSFGears project. The researchers studied why people leave engineering. Their first report, Stemming the Tide, reported on women. It was published and very widely reported. The reporting was largely inaccurate, because the claims that were made were that women were leaving due to discrimination. If you actually looked at the numbers, that was totally false. The number 1 reason was "didn't like engineering", followed by "too few chances for advancement" and "wanted to start a family". And of course, being promoted to management was als considered "leaving engineering". But whatever. That wasn't the kicker. The kicker was that they did a follow-up study on why men left engineering. And it turns out it's for pretty much exactly the same reasons! Our early analysis suggests that men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving. Namely, that there were little opportunities for advancement, perceptions of a lack of a supportive organization, lost interests in the field, and conflicts with supervisors. One key difference between men and women was women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family Ba da dum. And yes, you guessed it: deafening silence. More than a decade later, nothing has been published. My guess is that they can't get it published. It's the same researchers, same topic, at least the same relevance, presumably same quality of work. But it doesn't fit the narrative. I contacted the principal investigator a number of years ago, and she said to wait a little, they were in the process of getting things published. Since then: crickets. https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/ https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/
  - gitremote 1y ago
    Of course, you truncated only the last sentence of the analysis summary, which contradicted your narrative: As we dug deeper into this relationship, we found that these women often attempted to make accommodations at work in order to meet their care-giving responsibilities only to be met with resistance from the work environment.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      It adds context, but doesn't contradict anything - the resistance they faced was to actions that their male peers didn't attempt, so it doesn't imply any kind of disparate treatment.

includenotfound 1y ago

This is not a study but a news article. The study is here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109 A replication was attempted, and it found the exact opposite (with a bigger data set) of what the original study found, i.e. women were favored, not discriminated against: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391525384_Are_STEM_Faculty_Biased_Against_Female_Applicants_A_Robust_Replication_and_Extension_of_Moss-Racusin_and_Colleagues_2012 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391525384_Are_STEM_...

gitremote 1y ago
The second link is a preprint from 2020 and may not have been peer-reviewed.

im3w1l 1y ago

I think it's important to be very specific when speaking about these things, because there seems to be a significant variation by place and time. You can't necessarily take a past study and generalize it to the present, nor can you necessarily take study from one country and apply it in another. The particular profession likely also plays a role.