There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track
faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology
at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the
main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical
female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the
same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants'
profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles
were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons
of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed
a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and
non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed
no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for
national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing
applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and
204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether
they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers
to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not.
In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula
vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing
from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both
genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers
in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for
STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.
Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.