Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

Abstract

Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women-or favoring men-within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women's underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments-two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.gender bias | science workforce | diversity | science education | sexism O bjectivity is a fundamental value in the practice of science and is required to optimally assess one's own research findings, others' findings, and the merits of others' abilities and ideas (1). For example, when scientists evaluate data collected on a potentially controversial topic (such as climate change), they strive to set aside their own belief systems and instead focus solely on the strength of the data and conclusions warranted. Similarly, when scientists evaluate a resume for a laboratory-manager position or assess the importance of a conference submission, the gender of the applicant or author should be immaterial. If they are truly objective, scientists should focus only on the relevant criteria of applicant qualifications or research merit.However, despite rigorous training in the objective evaluation of information and resultant values (2), people working and learning within the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) community are still prone to the same subtle biases that subvert objectivity and distort accurate perceptions of scientific evidence by the general public (3, 4). We focus here on the robust gender biases documented repeatedly within the psychological literature (5-7). Some within the STEM community have turned to these methods and ideas as an explanation for the c...

Academic Excellence and Gender Bias in the Practices and Perceptions of Scientists in Leadership and Decision-making Positions

“…In this context it is worth noting that men academics, particularly in STEM fi elds, have been found to evaluate the results of research studies unveiling gender bias as less meritorious than women (Handley et al 2015). Thus, contrary to the common belief that academics and research managers will be persuaded to take action to correct gender bias if presented with scientifi c evidence, this study shows that scientifi c evidence may be disregarded by people in positions in which they can effect change.…”

A Plea for Anti-Anti-Individualism: How Oversimple Psychology Misleads Social Policy

“…For example, Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) found that individuals' attitudes about the death penalty only became stronger and more polarized when they confronted powerful evidence for the opposing view. 23 Similarly, Handley, Brown, Moss-Racusin, and Smith (2015) found that men were more critical than women of empirical evidence suggesting a bias against hiring women in the sciences (whereas women were more critical of evidence suggesting the absence of such a bias). Optimism that our biases will simply melt away after exposure to sufficiently many counterstereotypes seriously underappreciates the human capacity to interpret the facts in ways that prop up what we already believe.…”

Response to “Response to Hoy, ‘Gender imbalance and brain stimulation conferences: We have a problem and it is everyone's problem’”

“…More broadly, the data we present raise the question of why, if female scientists are publishing high-quality original research, are they underrepresented at conferences, on editorial boards, and in other senior positions? Indeed, there is growing evidence for widespread, systematic gender bias in the sciences [5]. It is imperative that effort is required by the entire scientific community to address such issues, which can only enhance scientific advancement and discovery.…”