Go beyond bias training

Mendoza‐Denton, Rodolfo; Patt, Colette; Richards, Mark A.

doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05144-7

Cited by 49 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that studies in the Psychology field did not show evidence of gender bias may be attributed to the similar representation of both genders in this research field [45]. On the other hand, as differences in the perception about female and male scientists are a broad process affecting many aspects of the scientific life and work [46], the ability of available experimental studies to detect such bias may be constrained because they followed only one strategy to measure gender bias (i.e. formal academic evaluations).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women underrepresentation in science has frequently been associated with women being less productive than men (i.e. the gender productivity gap), which may be explained by women having lower success rates, producing science of lower impact and/or suffering gender bias. By performing global meta-analyses, we show that there is a gender productivity gap mostly supported by a larger scientific production ascribed to men. However, women and men show similar success rates when the researchers' work is directly evaluated (i.e. publishing articles). Men's success rate is higher only in productivity proxies involving peer recognition (e.g. evaluation committees, academic positions). Men's articles showed a tendency to have higher global impact but only if studies include self-citations. We detected gender bias against women in research fields where women are underrepresented (i.e. those different from Psychology). Historical numerical unbalance, socio-psychological aspects and cultural factors may influence differences in success rate, science impact and gender bias. Thus, the maintenance of a women-unfriendly academic and non-academic environment may perpetuate the gender productivity gap. New policies to build a more egalitarian and heterogeneous scientific community and society are needed to close the gender gap in science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mendoza-Denton, Patt, and Richards [15] have proposed the two factors reviewed above–structure and belonging–as key dimensions along which academic units may differ, and which may contribute to the formation of inclusive environments that foster equitable participation across groups. Nevertheless, the relationship between belonging and structure remains unexamined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure and belonging: Pathways to success for underrepresented minority and women PhD students in STEM fields

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advancement of underrepresented minority and women PhD students to elite postdoctoral and faculty positions in the STEM fields continues to lag that of majority males, despite decades of efforts to mitigate bias and increase opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds. In 2015, the National Science Foundation Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NSF AGEP) California Alliance (Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, UCLA) conducted a wide-ranging survey of graduate students across the mathematical, physical, engineering, and computer sciences in order to identify levers to improve the success of PhD students, and, in time, improve diversity in STEM leadership positions, especially the professoriate. The survey data were interpreted via path analysis, a method that identifies significant relationships, both direct and indirect, among various factors and outcomes of interest. We investigated two important outcomes: publication rates, which largely determine a new PhD student’s competitiveness in the academic marketplace, and subjective well-being. Women and minority students who perceived that they were well-prepared for their graduate courses and accepted by their colleagues (faculty and fellow students), and who experienced well-articulated and structured PhD programs, were most likely to publish at rates comparable to their male majority peers. Women PhD students experienced significantly higher levels of distress than their male peers, both majority and minority, while both women and minority student distress levels were mitigated by clearly-articulated expectations, perceiving that they were well-prepared for graduate level courses, and feeling accepted by their colleagues. It is unclear whether higher levels of distress in women students is related directly to their experiences in their STEM PhD programs. The findings suggest that mitigating factors that negatively affect diversity should not, in principle, require the investment of large resources, but rather requires attention to the local culture and structure of individual STEM PhD programs.

show abstract

“…Indeed, the research demonstrates more generally the simple principle that “ambiguity is the breeding ground for bias” ( Mendoza-Denton et al, 2018b ). But clearly the Chemistry doctoral program at Berkeley has short-circuited this source of bias in ways that have yielded equitable outcomes in a fashion that we consider spectacular relative to most STEM Ph.D. programs at R1 universities in the United States ( Laursen and Weston, 2014 ; Fisher et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: A Wake-up Call: Publication and Structurementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Thus, a robust literature documents systematic limitations in STEM education around networking, information sharing, belonging, and community for URM scholars ( Walker et al, 2008 ). In our previous research, we have noted that clarity of expectations and a sense of belonging are critical aspects of programs that aim to achieve equity in outcomes ( Mendoza-Denton et al, 2017 ; Mendoza-Denton et al, 2018b ; Fisher et al, 2019 ). For all these reasons, URM students may only realize the key importance of publication (as opposed to degree completion) relatively late in their graduate studies unless such expectations are made explicit at the outset.…”

Section: A Wake-up Call: Publication and Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Postdocs as Key to Faculty Diversity: A Structured and Collaborative Approach for Research Universities

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 50 years the diversity of higher education faculty in the mathematical, physical, computer, and engineering sciences (MPCES) has advanced very little at 4-year universities in the United States. This is despite laws and policies such as affirmative action, interventions by universities, and enormous financial investment by federal agencies to diversify science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) career pathways into academia. Data comparing the fraction of underrepresented minority (URM) postdoctoral scholars to the fraction of faculty at these institutions offer a straightforward empirical explanation for this state of affairs. URM postdoc appointments lag significantly behind progress in terms of both undergraduate and Ph.D.-level STEM student populations. Indeed, URM postdoc appointments lag well-behind faculty diversity itself in the MPCES fields, most of which draw their faculty heavily from the postdoctoral ranks, particularly at research-intensive (R1) universities. Thus, a sea-change in how postdocs are recruited, how their careers are developed, and how they are identified as potential faculty is required in order to diversify the nation’s faculty, and particularly the R1 MPCES professoriate. Our research shows that both Ph.D. students and postdocs benefit from intentional structure at various levels of their respective “apprentice” experiences, a factor that we believe has been neglected. Several key structural approaches are highly effective in these regards: (1) A collaborative approach in which leading research universities collectively identify outstanding URM candidates; (2) Faculty engagement in recruiting and supporting these postdocs; (3) Inter-institutional exchange programs to heighten the visibility and broaden the professional experiences of these postdocs; (4) Community-building activities that create a sense of belonging and encourage continuing in academia for each cohort; and (5) Continuing research based on outcomes and new experimental approaches. The California Alliance, consisting of UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, and Stanford, has been engaged in such a program for almost a decade now, with most of the California Alliance URM postdocs now in tenure track positions or on the path toward careers as faculty at research intensive (R1) institutions. If this approach was brought to scale by involving the top 25 or so URM Ph.D.-producing R1 institutions in the MPCES fields, about 40% of the national URM postdoctoral population in these fields could be affected. Although this impact would fall short of bringing URM MPCES faculty ranks up to full representation of the United States population as a whole, it would vastly improve the outlook for URM students and their aspirations to take on leadership roles as scientists and engineers.

show abstract

Go beyond bias training

Cited by 49 publications

References 12 publications

Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review

Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review

Structure and belonging: Pathways to success for underrepresented minority and women PhD students in STEM fields

Postdocs as Key to Faculty Diversity: A Structured and Collaborative Approach for Research Universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About