Do women face a reputational bias when they co-author?(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
Do women face a reputational bias when they co-author?
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/11/do-women-face-a-reputational-bias-when-they-co-author.html
5 comments
Lots of assuming going on here:
>"The majority of schools require faculty to apply for tenure after 7 years. I consider one year before and after the 7th year to account for people who go up for tenure early or late because of a leave of absence, for example. I put universities into bins of 3 based on their ranking and assume that an individual is denied tenure if that person moves to a lower-ranked university group after 6-8 years. For example, a person who moves from Harvard to MIT after 6 years is not assumed to have been denied tenure since he moves within the same bin of schools. Someone who moves from Harvard to UCLA after 6 years is assumed to have been denied tenure since he moves to a lower group of schools. As another example, a person who moves 5 or fewer years after his initial appointment is not assumed to have been denied tenure since he moved before the tenure window (years 6 through 8 at an institution) starts."
Arbitrary binning of universities, using a change in employer as a proxy for getting tenure, using number of papers published as a measure of productivity, fitting lines to a relationship that does not appear linear (and in fact cannot be linear since fraction getting tenure must be in the range 0-1).
This issue may exist, but I don't think this analysis is capable of producing anything convincing.
>"The majority of schools require faculty to apply for tenure after 7 years. I consider one year before and after the 7th year to account for people who go up for tenure early or late because of a leave of absence, for example. I put universities into bins of 3 based on their ranking and assume that an individual is denied tenure if that person moves to a lower-ranked university group after 6-8 years. For example, a person who moves from Harvard to MIT after 6 years is not assumed to have been denied tenure since he moves within the same bin of schools. Someone who moves from Harvard to UCLA after 6 years is assumed to have been denied tenure since he moves to a lower group of schools. As another example, a person who moves 5 or fewer years after his initial appointment is not assumed to have been denied tenure since he moved before the tenure window (years 6 through 8 at an institution) starts."
Arbitrary binning of universities, using a change in employer as a proxy for getting tenure, using number of papers published as a measure of productivity, fitting lines to a relationship that does not appear linear (and in fact cannot be linear since fraction getting tenure must be in the range 0-1).
This issue may exist, but I don't think this analysis is capable of producing anything convincing.
These types of arguments should be made by peer reviewers. Addressing these makes the paper (and research) stronger.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of internal corruption in academia, which makes this feedback ineffective. If you apply for a grant, you already have to outline results of our research. Heather Sarsons, the author, is a doctoral fellow in the "Inequality and Social Policy program". She is paid to find inequality. If she won't find any, she would be unsuccessful. The same holds for colleagues--who actually do peer review. They are on the same ship.
It's not a critique of this work, but the overall climate in academia. About 80% of papers in health science was found to be unreproducible. Guess why.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of internal corruption in academia, which makes this feedback ineffective. If you apply for a grant, you already have to outline results of our research. Heather Sarsons, the author, is a doctoral fellow in the "Inequality and Social Policy program". She is paid to find inequality. If she won't find any, she would be unsuccessful. The same holds for colleagues--who actually do peer review. They are on the same ship.
It's not a critique of this work, but the overall climate in academia. About 80% of papers in health science was found to be unreproducible. Guess why.
To bolster your comment, let me add that Economics as a field is particularly corrupt with regards to how much the reputation of your institution counts for jobs/publications. For example, the leading journal of economics that is "Quarterly Journal of Economics" has 50% of it's articles only from Harvard and MIT. That means 2 schools out of the hundreds who do economics dominate the leading journal. Although Harvard+MIT are good, by no means are they THAT much better over Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton etc. It is obvious that the reviewers are accepting their own people (QJE is a Harvard journal) over other people.
The comparable figure for Physics is something like the top 100-odd schools produce the half of the research. That seems like a much fairer distribution.
Take the inherent fuzziness of social science research, compound it with prestige gaming, compound with the impossibility of reporting a negative result, and what you get is shoddy research.
The comparable figure for Physics is something like the top 100-odd schools produce the half of the research. That seems like a much fairer distribution.
Take the inherent fuzziness of social science research, compound it with prestige gaming, compound with the impossibility of reporting a negative result, and what you get is shoddy research.
>It's not a critique of this work, but the overall climate in academia.
I think it's both. Contentious though this may be, I think that the reproductibility problems in academia invite us to consider the idea that we may be hiring political activists to do research.
I think it's both. Contentious though this may be, I think that the reproductibility problems in academia invite us to consider the idea that we may be hiring political activists to do research.
I'm a (male) PhD student at Caltech, and didn't really believe gender bias was prevalent in academia till I spoke with female friends and learned about the kind of problems they faced. Believe me people, the problem is real.
In what field are you? From my experience in a business school, there is a lot of pressure now to have more woman and minorities as faculty. For instance, this is a task I recently got asked to do:
--------------------------------
Hi ,
* said that you can help me collect some data for the finance hiring committee. Here is what I need.
Attached is an excel spreadsheet with a list of business schools. Please go to each business school's website, and look up the finance department/area/group, and count the # of assistant professors in that group. In addition, please note the name of any assistant professor who is female or African-American, and the year of PhD if available. I hope you can complete this task by . Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
*
--------------------------------
Interestingly (in a sad way), I couldn't find any African American assistant professor professor in the list of ~100 schools I got for that field (although I did find "African Africans" and "African Europeans" or whatever you call being black and not American).
--------------------------------
Hi ,
* said that you can help me collect some data for the finance hiring committee. Here is what I need.
Attached is an excel spreadsheet with a list of business schools. Please go to each business school's website, and look up the finance department/area/group, and count the # of assistant professors in that group. In addition, please note the name of any assistant professor who is female or African-American, and the year of PhD if available. I hope you can complete this task by . Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
*
--------------------------------
Interestingly (in a sad way), I couldn't find any African American assistant professor professor in the list of ~100 schools I got for that field (although I did find "African Africans" and "African Europeans" or whatever you call being black and not American).
Africans who are not from America generally realize that their society has a lot of problems, which really isn't there in America or the 'developed' countries. So they try to learn what they can to improve.
African Americans have internalized their class status so much, copying 'white people' has become equivalent to not being black.
African Americans have internalized their class status so much, copying 'white people' has become equivalent to not being black.
> Interestingly (in a sad way), I couldn't find any African American assistant professor professor in the list of ~100 schools I got for that field (although I did find "African Africans" and "African Europeans" or whatever you call being black and not American).
That leads to a question not often discussed. I have seen in other places too that black people that are from outside US fare better in US than African-Americans. Is there a point in which the years lived under systemic racism have side effects of learned helplessness that amplify and perpetuate the initial problem?
That leads to a question not often discussed. I have seen in other places too that black people that are from outside US fare better in US than African-Americans. Is there a point in which the years lived under systemic racism have side effects of learned helplessness that amplify and perpetuate the initial problem?
This can be partly explained by the fact that much racism in America actually uses cultural markers in addition to just skin color. For example, many people will judge a person as stupid if they seem "thuggish" regardless of skin color. Some don't consider that racist, because it's not about skin color. But it is a cultural marker that correlates with race, so in that sense it is at least partly racism.
Someone from Africa would only have some of the cultural markers we look for when making racial distinctions in America, so in this way they would be partially spared. Sometimes all it takes is some indication that this black person is "not like all the other black people" for someone to be open to the idea they are a capable and safe human being.
Our prejudices are not simple. We are not stupid, we are very good at seeing patterns. And evidence for intra-racial distinctions is not evidence against interracial distinctions.
Someone from Africa would only have some of the cultural markers we look for when making racial distinctions in America, so in this way they would be partially spared. Sometimes all it takes is some indication that this black person is "not like all the other black people" for someone to be open to the idea they are a capable and safe human being.
Our prejudices are not simple. We are not stupid, we are very good at seeing patterns. And evidence for intra-racial distinctions is not evidence against interracial distinctions.
Which is another can of worms. Because the case against discrimination based on one's culture is much harder than race. And I am not even sure if culture should have blanket protection - there is stuff out there that we don't want taking hold in the west.
I think it is more likely to be the result of approaching things with an outsiders perspective. This gives you the ability to avoid problems insiders assume are unavoidable.
[deleted]
> problems insiders assume are unavoidable
Isn't that one aspect of learned helplessness?
Isn't that one aspect of learned helplessness?
Not quite. There is a difference between assuming you can't do anything about the situation and giving up.
>Believe me people, the problem is real.
It would be nice if you provided concrete examples, because I've had very much the opposite experience as you. From my perspective the problems are grossly exaggerated.
It would be nice if you provided concrete examples, because I've had very much the opposite experience as you. From my perspective the problems are grossly exaggerated.
>Believe me the problem is real
I guess we should all go ahead and believe him. I mean he did write a comment on the internet which consisted of some form of empty hearsay. That's all the proof any of us should need.
I guess we should all go ahead and believe him. I mean he did write a comment on the internet which consisted of some form of empty hearsay. That's all the proof any of us should need.
Last time I checked they didn't just let anybody write comments on the Internet.
> It would be nice if you provided concrete examples, because I've had very much the opposite experience as you
He said, while providing no concrete examples :)
He said, while providing no concrete examples :)
The burden of proof is on the other guy... it's hard to prove a negative. (but the joke is well-taken).
It's not a negative. You have to demonstrate that there are as many women as men, you have to demonstrate that their grants are comparable to men's, and you have to demonstrate that most women speak highly of the selection process and how fair they found it.
Please catalogue your evidence with citations whenever possible, and make sure you use reputable sources. Please also disclose your precise statistical procedure and experimental setup so that we may assess the validity of your findings. The questionnaires that you have given to women to assess their satisfaction are also of interest, as changes in wording can elicit different responses. I hope your experiment procedure has controlled for that.
Please catalogue your evidence with citations whenever possible, and make sure you use reputable sources. Please also disclose your precise statistical procedure and experimental setup so that we may assess the validity of your findings. The questionnaires that you have given to women to assess their satisfaction are also of interest, as changes in wording can elicit different responses. I hope your experiment procedure has controlled for that.
What are you on about?
Person A: "I observe a bias".
Person B (me): "Please show me the bias. I haven't seen it."
You (to me): "Prove that you don't observe a bias".
Christ, the level of discourse in these conversations is abysmal. We've reached the point where asking for citations is met with the response of "citation needed".
Person A: "I observe a bias".
Person B (me): "Please show me the bias. I haven't seen it."
You (to me): "Prove that you don't observe a bias".
Christ, the level of discourse in these conversations is abysmal. We've reached the point where asking for citations is met with the response of "citation needed".
There's no need to paraphrase a conversation that is already present. The problem is you didn't only ask for citations, on something that was also clearly an anecdote, but also made your own greater claim i.e. the absence of something, without even providing your own anecdote. That is what you are being asked for citations on.
Sure, you can nitpick over the use of the word prevalent, but it's quite clear from the context that the conclusion was drawn on basis of the experience described (other than the article).
Sure, you can nitpick over the use of the word prevalent, but it's quite clear from the context that the conclusion was drawn on basis of the experience described (other than the article).
Then you've misunderstood: "claims of X seem exaggerated" can (and should) be taken as "the evidence for X is weak" (hence my request for more).
Anyway you want to cut it, this is a completely pedantic derailment of the original point: OP is making completely empty declarations.
Anyway you want to cut it, this is a completely pedantic derailment of the original point: OP is making completely empty declarations.
A bias is not bigfoot. You can clearly prove that there is fairness ("no bias", but we can phrase your negative as a positive) by simply showing that things are equal. All you have to do is count males and females and show that they are equal.
If things are not equal, you can still prove that there is no bias by asking the disadvantaged group for their opinion. It's not like polling this group is impossible.
If things are not equal, you can still prove that there is no bias by asking the disadvantaged group for their opinion. It's not like polling this group is impossible.
> by simply showing that things are equal.
Statistics do not work like this. You either positively reject the null hypothesis (i.e.: "these things are different") or you fail to reject the null hypothesis (i.e.: "I cannot assert these are different").
Formally speaking, I am doing the latter.
Informally speaking, everybody else understood my point as a rebuttal to OP's. More explicitly: "claims of X seem grossly exaggerated" should be taken as "I haven't seen compelling evidence for X" -- it may be awkwardly phrased, but I suspect you know exactly what I meant.
Statistics do not work like this. You either positively reject the null hypothesis (i.e.: "these things are different") or you fail to reject the null hypothesis (i.e.: "I cannot assert these are different").
Formally speaking, I am doing the latter.
Informally speaking, everybody else understood my point as a rebuttal to OP's. More explicitly: "claims of X seem grossly exaggerated" should be taken as "I haven't seen compelling evidence for X" -- it may be awkwardly phrased, but I suspect you know exactly what I meant.
There are more statistics than a simple frequentist-style hypothesis testing. You can totally make a probability statement about equality if you allow Bayesian-style statistics. Frequentist-style hypothesis testing was designed for a time when computations were done by hand and data was scarce, but we can do better now.
You can also just outright swap around your null and alternative hypotheses for a frequentist-style test. For example, your null hypothesis could be "proportion of women to men is 0.1" and your alternative hypothesis is that it isn't, for a standard two-tailed test.
You can also just outright swap around your null and alternative hypotheses for a frequentist-style test. For example, your null hypothesis could be "proportion of women to men is 0.1" and your alternative hypothesis is that it isn't, for a standard two-tailed test.
>Person B (me): "Please show me the bias. I haven't seen it."
You didn't only disbelieve his statement, you offered a different claim.
You didn't only disbelieve his statement, you offered a different claim.
No demonstration is needed, because no claim is being made - The author explicitly states it is their experience that contradicts the original claim; While the original claim states as fact the claim being made, with no qualifier* suggesting that this is subjective opinion.
* Well, other than maybe the word 'belief', but this isn't clear imo
* Well, other than maybe the word 'belief', but this isn't clear imo
I'll accept this.
In which case I'll reiterate my request that he provide examples, since I've not observed the effect he seems to see all around him.
In which case I'll reiterate my request that he provide examples, since I've not observed the effect he seems to see all around him.
[deleted]
In what metholodically sound way are you taking into account the financial (and other) incentives (if any) at play that may have played a role in narrating tales of distress?
So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting bitmadness should have listened to his friends telling him their problems, then designed and executed a rigorous study into whether they were lying for profit (and/or other motives).
If so, that would be an extremely unusual thing for a human being to do, and I would wonder what would motivate someone to ask that kind of question.
If so, that would be an extremely unusual thing for a human being to do, and I would wonder what would motivate someone to ask that kind of question.
I'm not sure you understand me correctly.
My aim was to inspire thinking.
I agree that a methodologically sound experiment in the social sciences would be an unusual thing to do. But should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or, to put it differently, if you are in the market for a second-hand automobile, would you trust the used-car saleswoman's word, or wonder if she has ulterior motives?
My aim was to inspire thinking.
I agree that a methodologically sound experiment in the social sciences would be an unusual thing to do. But should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or, to put it differently, if you are in the market for a second-hand automobile, would you trust the used-car saleswoman's word, or wonder if she has ulterior motives?
> I agree that a methodologically sound experiment in the social sciences would be an unusual thing to do
Would you care to elaborate, or are you just being flippant?
> if you are in the market for a second-hand automobile, would you trust the used-car saleswoman's word, or wonder if she has ulterior motives?
A used car salesperson's motives are crystal clear, which is why their opinion is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt. You seem to be suggesting by comparison that women have an equally uncomplicated incentive to lie. Don't misunderstand, I think people do lie, especially to themselves, but I also think the evidence shows that discrimination is part of human nature.
Considering that this kind of experience lines up with both anecdotal evidence and with studies of unconscious bias in related areas [0][1][2][3][4] my default position is to assume that a problem is reasonably likely, but that further data would be useful.
[0] Female students seen as less competent than identical male students with identical application materials, offered lower starting salaries (Moss-Racusin et al, 2012)
[1] People in gender-incongruent roles penalised more heavily for mistakes (Brescoll, Dawson, & Uhlmann, 2010).
[2] Voluble women perceived as less competent and less suitable leaders, inverse true for men (Brescoll, 2011).
[3] Women who succeed in male-dominated fields percieved as not likeable (Heilman et al, 2004).
[4] Students question the competence of female teachers who evaluate them negatively, less so than male teachers (Sinclair & Kunda 2000).
...and yes, repeatability is an issue. That's a systematic problem.
Would you care to elaborate, or are you just being flippant?
> if you are in the market for a second-hand automobile, would you trust the used-car saleswoman's word, or wonder if she has ulterior motives?
A used car salesperson's motives are crystal clear, which is why their opinion is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt. You seem to be suggesting by comparison that women have an equally uncomplicated incentive to lie. Don't misunderstand, I think people do lie, especially to themselves, but I also think the evidence shows that discrimination is part of human nature.
Considering that this kind of experience lines up with both anecdotal evidence and with studies of unconscious bias in related areas [0][1][2][3][4] my default position is to assume that a problem is reasonably likely, but that further data would be useful.
[0] Female students seen as less competent than identical male students with identical application materials, offered lower starting salaries (Moss-Racusin et al, 2012)
[1] People in gender-incongruent roles penalised more heavily for mistakes (Brescoll, Dawson, & Uhlmann, 2010).
[2] Voluble women perceived as less competent and less suitable leaders, inverse true for men (Brescoll, 2011).
[3] Women who succeed in male-dominated fields percieved as not likeable (Heilman et al, 2004).
[4] Students question the competence of female teachers who evaluate them negatively, less so than male teachers (Sinclair & Kunda 2000).
...and yes, repeatability is an issue. That's a systematic problem.
Would you care to elaborate
Anyway, we both agree on the systematic repeatability problem in social sciences.
A used car salesperson's motives are crystal clear,
which is why their opinion is justifiably taken
with a pinch of salt.
uncomplicated incentive to lie.
> ... have you ever applied that concept to yourself, or to texts like...
Yes. I am currently doing a lot of work on exactly that subject.
> A gender studies researcher's motives are crystal clear...
...and we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. We're discussing a man talking to his friends about their own experiences. You were the first one to bring up the topic of social science.
Yes. I am currently doing a lot of work on exactly that subject.
> A gender studies researcher's motives are crystal clear...
...and we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers. We're discussing a man talking to his friends about their own experiences. You were the first one to bring up the topic of social science.
we're not discussing the motives of gender studies researchers.
As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results? Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress?
> Have you considered the possibility that those researchers have the same motivation as the "friends"?
You seem to be implying that a significant portion of discrimination is (by fair means or foul) invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so.
By that same logic, a significant portion of men would therefore refute and deny any genuine stories of discrimination, as they have a motive to do so.
The best way to unpick this stuff is with actual data, and there's plenty of data (from labs, randomised controlled trials, and other types of study) that says discrimination is still occurring at a systematic level.
> You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility.
Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned.
> As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results?
To be published when ready.
> Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress?
That would be empathy, Bob.
You seem to be implying that a significant portion of discrimination is (by fair means or foul) invented, on the basis that women have a motive to do so.
By that same logic, a significant portion of men would therefore refute and deny any genuine stories of discrimination, as they have a motive to do so.
The best way to unpick this stuff is with actual data, and there's plenty of data (from labs, randomised controlled trials, and other types of study) that says discrimination is still occurring at a systematic level.
> You brought up gender studies researchers by referencing material of questionable scientific credibility.
Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned.
> As to you "doing a lot of work on exactly that subject", what are the results?
To be published when ready.
> Why do you, like a lot of men, automatically genuflect to damsels, going on about their distress?
That would be empathy, Bob.
You seem to be implying ...
Do you agree or disagree?
By that same logic ...
there's plenty of data
Feel free to offer some thoughtful analysis of the actual papers mentioned.
sure we'll just go ahead and believe you, being that you were so specific and straight forward with the proof. I mean you weren't vague at all with your friends alleged experiences.
Are you kidding me, if I was female colleges would fall over backwards if I was inclined to take up STEM subjects.
maybe the fact you arn't should tell you something about your perspective on the issue.
That they have a perspective that women in college do not have and cannot understand (assuming that a man couldn't understanding a woman's perspective)?
There seems to be an underlying conclusion that men can't understand what women face and are blind to their privilege, but that women can understand the problems men face and are not blind to their privilege.
There seems to be an underlying conclusion that men can't understand what women face and are blind to their privilege, but that women can understand the problems men face and are not blind to their privilege.
[deleted]
Now, I don't know, but my impression is that the appearance of confidence (by which I mean the things associated with confidence, like being tall, speaking in a loud voice, being a guy, having a higher level of social competence, etc...) have a lot to do with how much credit you get for doing a thing when it is obvious that credit is being shared.
I mean, that's just my impression, not a study or anything... but it is something I observe, and it's weird because my own bias is to assume that the less confident or less socially competent person did most of the work.
I mean, that's just my impression, not a study or anything... but it is something I observe, and it's weird because my own bias is to assume that the less confident or less socially competent person did most of the work.
[deleted]
"NOTE: Very preliminary – please do not cite without permission. Comments welcome."
I wonder if Cowen sought permission or just ignored that sentence? I am aware that linking to something from a blog isn't exactly the same as citing it (presumably Sarsons is trying to discourage citations in other papers), but Cowen could have mentioned, but didn't mention, the preliminary nature of the paper when quoting the abstract.