National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

Significance The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers. 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.

[1]  Jason M. Sheltzer,et al.  Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Ernesto Reuben,et al.  How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  M. C. Urban,et al.  Promise and Pitfalls of a Gender-Blind Faculty Search , 2013 .

[4]  Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick,et al.  The Matilda Effect in Science Communication , 2013 .

[5]  M. Graham,et al.  Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  U. Schimmack The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[7]  Wendy M Williams,et al.  When Scientists Choose Motherhood: A single factor goes a long way in explaining the dearth of women in math-intensive fields. How can we address it? , 2012, American scientist.

[8]  C. Geisler,et al.  Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention in Science and Engineering by Gender , 2012, Science.

[9]  P. Karaca-Mandic,et al.  Interaction terms in nonlinear models. , 2012, Health services research.

[10]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[11]  Sharon Bell,et al.  A Review of 'Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty'. Author: National Research Council of the National Academies , 2011 .

[12]  S. Ceci,et al.  Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Krista Lynn Minnotte,et al.  Recruiting and hiring women in STEM fields. , 2010 .

[14]  A. Bug,et al.  Swimming against the unseen tide , 2010 .

[15]  Francine D. Blau,et al.  Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant Professors? Interim Results from a Randomized Trial , 2010 .

[16]  Richard Williams,et al.  Using Heterogeneous Choice Models to Compare Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups , 2009 .

[17]  M. Mason,et al.  Problems in the Pipeline: Gender, Marriage, and Fertility in the Ivory Tower , 2008 .

[18]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Response to Webb et al.: Double-blind review: accept with minor revisions , 2008 .

[19]  K. Monroe,et al.  Gender Equality in Academia: Bad News from the Trenches, and Some Possible Solutions , 2008, Perspectives on Politics.

[20]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering , 2007 .

[21]  S. Ceci,et al.  Is tenure justified? An experimental study of faculty beliefs about tenure, promotion, and academic freedom , 2006, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[22]  Shulamit Kahn,et al.  Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001 , 2006 .

[23]  Denice D. Denton,et al.  More Women in Science , 2005, Science.

[24]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  When Professionals Become Mothers, Warmth Doesn't Cut the Ice , 2004 .

[25]  A. Eagly,et al.  Stereotypes as Dynamic Constructs: Women and Men of the Past, Present, and Future , 2000 .

[26]  Michael J. Burke,et al.  Sex Discrimination in Simulated Employment Contexts: A Meta-analytic Investigation , 2000 .

[27]  R. Steinpreis,et al.  The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study , 1999 .

[28]  P. Devine,et al.  Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice , 1998 .

[29]  C. Wennerås,et al.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.

[30]  Deborah Jones Merritt,et al.  Sex, Race, and Credentials: The Truth about Affirmative Action in Law Faculty Hiring , 1997 .

[31]  A. Irvine Jack and Jill and Employment Equity , 1996, Dialogue.

[32]  Stéphane Baldi,et al.  PRESTIGE DETERMINANTS OF FIRST ACADEMIC JOB FOR NEW SOCIOLOGY PH.D.s 1985–1992 , 1995 .

[33]  M. Foschi,et al.  Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants , 1994 .

[34]  L. Paddison,et al.  Why so Few , 1986 .

[35]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[36]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[37]  M. Faculty,et al.  Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty , 2010 .

[38]  C. Hill,et al.  Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. , 2010 .

[39]  Mary Ann Mason,et al.  Why Graduate Students Reject the Fast Track. , 2009 .

[40]  Donna K. Ginther,et al.  Does Science Promote Women , 2009 .

[41]  Kelsey E. Medeiros,et al.  Beyond Bias and Barriers : Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering , 2007 .

[42]  S. Benard,et al.  Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? , 2005 .