Gender Bias Produces Gender Gaps in STEM Engagement

Sex Roles ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 651-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinne A. Moss-Racusin ◽  
Christina Sanzari ◽  
Nava Caluori ◽  
Helena Rabasco
2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Stephen J Ceci ◽  
Shulamit Kahn ◽  
Wendy M Williams

Stewart-Williams and Halsey provide an unusually broad synthesis of the enormous literature on gender gaps in hiring, letters of recommendation, mathematical and spatial abilities, email appointment-making, people vs things orientation, within-gender variability, salaries, occupational preferences, and employment discrimination. They argue that sociocultural factors, while important, cannot by themselves account for the entirety of these gaps. In addition, they argue that factors resulting from evolutionary origins, cognitive ability gaps at the extreme right tail of the distribution, and underlying gender differences in abilities, preferences, and values are needed to explain why women are less well represented in the most math-intensive fields. In our commentary, we reprise our own recent synthesis (unpublished) of gender gaps in six domains (letters of recommendation, academic hiring, salaries, teaching evaluations, journal acceptance rates, grant funding success) and put our results in the context of these authors' arguments.


2021 ◽  
pp. 246-259
Author(s):  
Kerrie Burn

The 1000 Women in Religion Project is working towards adding 1,000 biographies about women to Wikipedia, where only 18% of entries are about women. Knowledge and gender gaps on Wikipedia are well documented and exist despite the platform’s idealistic early goal of providing “free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” This paper details the Australian Women in Religion Project, a collaborative initiative under the auspices of the University of Divinity. The experience of the Australian project can be used as a model for similar projects in other parts of the world. Understanding Wikipedia’s policies around notability, reliability, secondary sources, and conflict of interest is important. There are many benefits to participating in Wikipedia projects like this and theological librarians are well placed to contribute. This is a practical way to highlight noteworthy women in religion while addressing issues of systemic knowledge and gender bias on platforms like Wikipedia.


Societies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Torsten Skov

Implicit or unconscious bias is commonly proposed to be responsible for women’s underrepresentation in academia. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and discuss the evidence supporting this proposition. Publications about unconscious/implicit gender bias in academia indexed in Scopus or psycInfo up to February 2020 were identified. More than half were published in the period 2018–2020. Studies reporting empirical data were scrutinized for data, as well as analyses showing an association of a measure of implicit or unconscious bias and lesser employment or career opportunities in academia for women than for men. No studies reported empirical evidence as thus defined. Reviews of unconscious bias identified via informal searches referred exclusively to studies that did not self-identify as addressing unconscious bias. Reinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies were common in these reviews. More empirical evidence about unconscious gender bias in academia is needed. With the present state of knowledge, caution should be exercised when interpreting data about gender gaps in academia. Ascribing observed gender gaps to unconscious bias is unsupported by the scientific literature.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-71
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Cimpian

Accountability policies incentivize school districts to close achievement gaps on standardized tests of math and reading, but these policies omit one prominent student dimension: gender. According to the “mixed” evidence on male–female gender gaps in math test scores, a gap advantaging males may be opening early in elementary school, but the dominant evidence—standardized testing—does not reveal this emergence. In contrast to math, the evidence for the reading gender gap favoring females is clearer, but there too the apparent female advantage may not be as large as it seems. Looking across well-established large-scale tests in math and reading, this article looks to explain why some gender gaps emerge and how policymakers can help mitigate the gaps. One of the most consistent predictors of gaps in both math and reading is gender bias. Focusing on gender gaps in tests is counterproductive to actual gender equity in education, which will require a much stronger focus on uncovering and addressing gender bias.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda J. Koch ◽  
Susan D'Mello ◽  
Paul R. Sackett

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krisztian R. Vegvari ◽  
Ryan J. Altstadt ◽  
Paula Truax

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document