In this adaptation excerpt from “Not Just Boys: Why We Need More Women in Science,” physicist Athens Donald examines the role of bias towards women in science publishing and its prevalence that still exists among academia.
When examining individuals, it may be thought that there are appropriate quantitative and objective metrics to be used. In reality, such metrics can see the disadvantages of women. These trends can be significant in many different sectors and in different countries. In science, like elsewhere, references tend to use outstanding adjectives about women rather than men. This reduces the likelihood of progression.
Women’s papers are not cited as much. Their grants are on average smaller. And their papers struggle to acquire past reviewers. Recent research into judges’ comments highlighted how offensive the judges’ comments are. One example is, “This paper is simply fertilizer.” There is little constructive criticism.
You might like it
And Misogyny can sometimes explicitly feed reviewer comments, as in the case of another review cited in the same paper. “The original author was a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing a paper.” I think the judge was then blacklisted by the editors involved, but I don’t think that’s unlikely to be the fact that the editor thought it was right to pass on comments.
Faced with such a response, many researchers’ confidence, especially female researchers in the field minority, may be shaken up to the point they take a step back or stop completely.
Many of the obstacles I just outlined are prejudices that may be, but they are unconscious. Not only is explicit discrimination illegal, it is not so obvious now. Bacteriologist and first woman, Rita Colwell, led a major US fundraising agency and was told at the start of her career in 1956 that she “doesn’t waste women’s fellowship.” This comment angered her, but it didn’t stop her with her professional truck.
Most senior scholars, whether or not they personally embrace such ideas, will probably be more cautious in order to fully express such opinions today. However, there is no need to consider women to be in any way second-class citizens. That opinion may unconsciously permeate your actions.
This underground type of bias – known in many ways as unconscious or implicit bias – has been subjected to intense scrutiny in recent years as it should be. Bias at the individual level serves as an unconscious response to all the stereotypes we have been fed from birth and come in many forms and forms. Compare it with two thought modes: System I and System 2 by Nobel Prize-winning Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman.
System 1, which operates automatically and rapidly in an essentially involuntary way, creates an unconscious bias that women are not scientists, which are expected to be as good at childcare and nurturing as men, but are more generally expected to be very good at childcare and nurturing.
System 2, a slower thought process, takes time to think through such decisions. The process allows for bias towards women in the idea that they were first thought, faced and hopefully rejected. Organizations that implement unconscious bias training should ensure that individuals are impressed by the need to move towards slower, more consideration (i.e., System 2) thinking. You don’t need to imagine training as simply a tickbox exercise that tells people not to be biased.
The latter, especially seen in online courses, is insufficient to see the results change, which is the only measure of the success of such programs. That could backfire.
The subtle ways that unconscious bias can work in academic settings were described in detail in Virginia Varian’s classic book, Why So Slow? (MIT Press, 1998) On the progression of women in academia. Despite Valian’s book being quarter-century old, it is still a sober read, highlighting all the different places that could lead to disadvantage across the university sector (not just STEM).
Related: 30 amazing women in science and mathematics
What is the hard evidence beyond anecdotes and doubts that unconscious bias can affect women’s careers? Many studies have shown how powerful such biases are in many different attires.
One of the most impressive class of studies is comparing both male and female responses to the same CV submitted in the names of typical male and typical females. Valian highlights LS Fidell’s research up until 1975. This shows bias in her own field of psychology. Since then, many studies have tried to demonstrate the prevalence of such bias, but it appears to have not disappeared.
For example, in one highly cited study, faculty sent the same CV and evaluated it. These were application materials for undergraduate science students who applied superficially for the position of Science Institute Manager. Both male and female teachers were more likely to “hire” men despite their identical track record, providing more support/training and salaries than women.
In the late 1990s, data were seen not only on the publication of Valian’s books, but also on the Swedish Medical Research Council’s data on biomedical fellowships. Sweden is generally considered one of the world’s most egalitarian societies when it comes to gender issues, but as a result, it has not led readers to evaluate it.
The title of the paper presenting the findings of this study gives the game a “peer review of nepotism and sexism.” Using a set of metrics to devise impact merit figures, we graphically demonstrated how significantly there was a difference in the ability scores of male and female raters objectively rated as demonstrating comparable effects.
The author’s analysis showed that this inconsistency corresponded to three articles in high-end journals such as Nature, or to a staggering difference between 20 papers in moderately ranked journals. Similarly, what worries me was the personal bias that was the nepotism of the title when the applicant was known to the panel members.
It happened that the other panel members scored people known to have more advanced such relevance, despite not being permitted to participate in the assessment itself, as is customary in such fundraising panels.
Bias is provided in many forms, regardless of the amount of processes, such as excluding known associates from making relevant judgments. When the study came into being in 1997, many women already suspected that they were either unfairly treated or at least discriminatory in comparison to men.
For too many, the message from the 1988 Mithtriggs comic was painfully familiar at the time, and may still do so. To counter this kind of behavior, it is important for people around the table to suck up the chips, and it’s good that X agrees with just Miss Triggs saying this.
“That’s a great suggestion, Miss Triggs. Perhaps one of the guys here wants to make it. pic.twitter.com/ann5b68vehaugust 11, 2019
This technique was exposed more strongly by female staff at the Obama White House, calling it amplification. As the Washington Post explained, when women make important points, other women repeat it and give the author credit. This made the men in the room aware of their contributions and denied the opportunity to assert the idea as their own.
All committees around the world can further push back bad behavior from other committee members, whether academia or not.
Another trend that is often seen in committees, discussions, and other potentially conflicting situations is that when a man talks to another committee member, it is usually a woman. Again, American politics provides a clear example of how to deal with this arrogant behavior. During the Vice President’s debate in 2020, Kamala Harris quietly said, “Vice President, I’m talking.” But many people will find it easy if someone else, an ally or woman, has created the exact same point for them.
©Athene Donald. Not only boys, but also extract: Why you need a woman in science published by Oxford University Press in May 2023, available in paperback and e-book format, £16.99.
