Are We Cracking the Ivory Ceiling?
Haslanger presentation "Are We Cracking the Ivory Ceiling: Women and Minorities in Philosophy"
November 2015 (pdf).
Some LINKS (more coming!):
Implicit Bias and Philosophy International Research Project (Univ. of Sheffield): http://biasproject.org
Gender Equity Project (Virginia Valian): http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/genderequity/
ADVANCE portal: http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/
Univ. of Michigan Annotated Bibliography on Evaluation Bias
APA Committee on the Status of Women: http://www.apaonlinecsw.org
Beyond Bias and Barriers (National Academies of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies):
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_054743.pdf
2011 Guardian Links re Black Professoriate in UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/27/only-50-black-british-professors?intcmp=239,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2011/may/27/black-professor-shortage-failure-to-nurture-talent.
Georgia State study on pipeline leaks:
Study by Eddy Nahmias, presented at SPP 2013 and blogged by Tania Lombrozo 6/17/2013; reported in Inside Higher Ed 6/28/2013.
Kieran Healy co-citation data 2013:
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/19/lewis-and-the-women/
Strategies to Reduce Stereotype Threat, compiled by Greg Walton, Geoff Cohen and Claude Steele (May 2012): http://www.stanford.edu/~gwalton/home/Welcome_files/StrategiesToReduceStereotypeThreat.pdf
Reducing Stereotype Threat: http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/reduce.html
Micro-inequities: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201304/micro-inequities-40-years-later
Active Bystander Training: http://web.mit.edu/bystanders/
Selected Research (annotations from UMich annotated bibliography linked above)
The articles linked below are for personal edification only. For any other uses, please contact the publisher.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan S. (2004). "Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination." The American Economic Review 94(4), 991-1013; "Employers' Replies to Racial Names." NBER Website. Thursday, August 31, 2006.
Empirical study demonstrating impact of implicit discrimination by race, and not attributable to class.
Bertrand, M., Chugh, D., & Mullainathan, D. (2005). "Implicit discrimination." American Economic Review, 95(2), 94-98.
Reflective discussion of how and where implicit discrimination operates. Includes useful review of the literature, and fairly extended discussion of research needed.
Biernat & Kobrynowicz (1997). "Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), 544-557.
Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. Two models of judgment—the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory—provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In two studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.
Steele, C. M. (1997). "A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African-Americans." American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
This paper reviews empirical data to show that negative stereotypes about academic abilities of women and African Americans can hamper their achievement on standardized tests. A 'stereotype threat' is a situational threat in which members of these groups can fear being judged or treated stereotypically; for those who identify with the domain to which the stereotype is relevant, this predicament can be self-threatening and impair academic performance. Practices and policies that can reduce stereotype threats are discussed.
Steinpreis, R.E., Anders, K.A. & Ritzke, D. (1999). "The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study." Sex Roles, 41, 7/8, 509-528.
The authors of this study submitted the same c.v. for consideration by academic psychologists, sometimes with a man’s name at the top, sometimes with a woman’s. In one comparison, applicants for an entry-level faculty position were evaluated. Both men and women were more likely to hire the “male” candidate than the “female” candidate, and rated his qualifications as higher, despite identical credentials. In contrast, men and women were equally likely to recommend tenure for the “male” and “female” candidates (and rated their qualifications equally), though there were signs that they were more tentative in their conclusions about the (identical) “female” candidates for tenure.
Thompson, M. & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2002). "When being different is detrimental: Solo status and the performance of women and minorities." Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 183-203.
This article spells out how the absence of “critical mass” can lead to negative performance outcomes for women and minorities. It addresses the impact on both the actor and the perceiver (evaluator).
Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003). "Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty." Discourse & Society 14(2): 191-220.
This study compares over 300 letters of recommendation for successful candidates for medical school faculty position. Letters written for female applicants differed systematically from those written for male applicants in terms of length, in the percentages lacking basic features, in the percentages with “doubt raising” language, and in the frequency of mention of status terms. In addition, the most common possessive phrases for female and male applicants (“her teaching” and “his research”) reinforce gender schemas that emphasize women’s roles as teachers and students and men’s as researchers and professionals.
Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997). "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review." Nature, 387, 341-343.
This study assessed gender differences in ratings applications of postdoctoral fellowships from the Swedish Medical Research Council, as well as predictors of those ratings. Overall female applicants were rated lower than male applicants, and therefore the rate of awards to females was lower than that to males. Using objective criteria of scientific productivity, the researchers found that in fact female applicants had to be 2.5 times more productive than their male counterparts in order to receive the same “competence” ratings from reviewers. Parallel findings were reported for US funding agencies in a 1994 GAO report on Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection. Related issues have been raised in the recent (2004) GAO report Gender Issues: Women’s Participation in the Sciences has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX.
Haslanger presentation "Are We Cracking the Ivory Ceiling: Women and Minorities in Philosophy"
November 2015 (pdf).
Some LINKS (more coming!):
Implicit Bias and Philosophy International Research Project (Univ. of Sheffield): http://biasproject.org
Gender Equity Project (Virginia Valian): http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/genderequity/
ADVANCE portal: http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/
Univ. of Michigan Annotated Bibliography on Evaluation Bias
APA Committee on the Status of Women: http://www.apaonlinecsw.org
Beyond Bias and Barriers (National Academies of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies):
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_054743.pdf
2011 Guardian Links re Black Professoriate in UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/27/only-50-black-british-professors?intcmp=239,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2011/may/27/black-professor-shortage-failure-to-nurture-talent.
Georgia State study on pipeline leaks:
Study by Eddy Nahmias, presented at SPP 2013 and blogged by Tania Lombrozo 6/17/2013; reported in Inside Higher Ed 6/28/2013.
Kieran Healy co-citation data 2013:
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/19/lewis-and-the-women/
Strategies to Reduce Stereotype Threat, compiled by Greg Walton, Geoff Cohen and Claude Steele (May 2012): http://www.stanford.edu/~gwalton/home/Welcome_files/StrategiesToReduceStereotypeThreat.pdf
Reducing Stereotype Threat: http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/reduce.html
Micro-inequities: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201304/micro-inequities-40-years-later
Active Bystander Training: http://web.mit.edu/bystanders/
Selected Research (annotations from UMich annotated bibliography linked above)
The articles linked below are for personal edification only. For any other uses, please contact the publisher.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan S. (2004). "Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination." The American Economic Review 94(4), 991-1013; "Employers' Replies to Racial Names." NBER Website. Thursday, August 31, 2006.
Empirical study demonstrating impact of implicit discrimination by race, and not attributable to class.
Bertrand, M., Chugh, D., & Mullainathan, D. (2005). "Implicit discrimination." American Economic Review, 95(2), 94-98.
Reflective discussion of how and where implicit discrimination operates. Includes useful review of the literature, and fairly extended discussion of research needed.
Biernat & Kobrynowicz (1997). "Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), 544-557.
Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. Two models of judgment—the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory—provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In two studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.
Steele, C. M. (1997). "A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African-Americans." American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
This paper reviews empirical data to show that negative stereotypes about academic abilities of women and African Americans can hamper their achievement on standardized tests. A 'stereotype threat' is a situational threat in which members of these groups can fear being judged or treated stereotypically; for those who identify with the domain to which the stereotype is relevant, this predicament can be self-threatening and impair academic performance. Practices and policies that can reduce stereotype threats are discussed.
Steinpreis, R.E., Anders, K.A. & Ritzke, D. (1999). "The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study." Sex Roles, 41, 7/8, 509-528.
The authors of this study submitted the same c.v. for consideration by academic psychologists, sometimes with a man’s name at the top, sometimes with a woman’s. In one comparison, applicants for an entry-level faculty position were evaluated. Both men and women were more likely to hire the “male” candidate than the “female” candidate, and rated his qualifications as higher, despite identical credentials. In contrast, men and women were equally likely to recommend tenure for the “male” and “female” candidates (and rated their qualifications equally), though there were signs that they were more tentative in their conclusions about the (identical) “female” candidates for tenure.
Thompson, M. & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2002). "When being different is detrimental: Solo status and the performance of women and minorities." Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 183-203.
This article spells out how the absence of “critical mass” can lead to negative performance outcomes for women and minorities. It addresses the impact on both the actor and the perceiver (evaluator).
Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003). "Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty." Discourse & Society 14(2): 191-220.
This study compares over 300 letters of recommendation for successful candidates for medical school faculty position. Letters written for female applicants differed systematically from those written for male applicants in terms of length, in the percentages lacking basic features, in the percentages with “doubt raising” language, and in the frequency of mention of status terms. In addition, the most common possessive phrases for female and male applicants (“her teaching” and “his research”) reinforce gender schemas that emphasize women’s roles as teachers and students and men’s as researchers and professionals.
Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997). "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review." Nature, 387, 341-343.
This study assessed gender differences in ratings applications of postdoctoral fellowships from the Swedish Medical Research Council, as well as predictors of those ratings. Overall female applicants were rated lower than male applicants, and therefore the rate of awards to females was lower than that to males. Using objective criteria of scientific productivity, the researchers found that in fact female applicants had to be 2.5 times more productive than their male counterparts in order to receive the same “competence” ratings from reviewers. Parallel findings were reported for US funding agencies in a 1994 GAO report on Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection. Related issues have been raised in the recent (2004) GAO report Gender Issues: Women’s Participation in the Sciences has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX.