4 ms·

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 desi

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.

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.