The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s

Science is stratified, with an unequal distribution of research facilities and rewards among scientists. Awards and prizes, which are critical for shaping scientific career trajectories, play a role in this stratification when they differentially enhance the status of scientists who already have large reputations: the ‘Matthew Effect’. Contrary to the Mertonian norm of universalism – the expectation that the personal attributes of scientists do not affect evaluations of their scientific claims and contributions – in practice, a great deal of evidence suggests that the scientific efforts and achievements of women do not receive the same recognition as do those of men: the ‘Matilda Effect’. Awards in science, technology, engineering and medical (STEM) fields are not immune to these biases. We outline the research on gender bias in evaluations of research and analyze data from 13 STEM disciplinary societies. While women’s receipt of professional awards and prizes has increased in the past two decades, men continue to win a higher proportion of awards for scholarly research than expected based on their representation in the nomination pool. The results support the powerful twin influences of implicit bias and committee chairs as contributing factors. The analysis sheds light on the relationship of external social factors to women’s science careers and helps to explain why women are severely underrepresented as winners of science awards. The ghettoization of women’s accomplishments into a category of ‘women-only’ awards also is discussed.

[1]  B. Reskin.  Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[2]  R. Fiorentine.  Men, Women, and the Premed Persistence Gap: A Normative Alternatives Approach , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  Yu Xie,et al.  Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes , 2003 .

[4]  Shelley J. Correll,et al.  Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[6]  Barbara A. Gutek,et al.  Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future Directions , 1999 .

[7]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  J. M. McPherson,et al.  Social Networks and Organizational Dynamics , 1992 .

[9]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  Hadas Mandel.  The Declining Significance of Gender , 2008 .

[11]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  Linda Grant,et al.  GENDER AND PUBLISHING IN SOCIOLOGY , 1991 .

[13]  B. Reskin,et al.  Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations , 1990 .

[14]  J. S. Long,et al.  Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism , 1995 .

[15]  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 .

[16]  M. Heilman,et al.  No credit where credit is due: attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[17]  Ben A. Barres,et al.  Does gender matter? , 2006, Nature.

[18]  C. Goldin,et al.  Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians , 1997 .

[19]  P. Drentea,et al.  Consequences of Women's Formal and Informal Job Search Methods for Employment in Female-Dominated Jobs , 1998 .

[20]  Shelley J. Correll,et al.  Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self‐Assessments1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers , 1974 .

[22]  B. Frey,et al.  Awards as Compensation , 2007 .

[23]  M. Rossiter.  The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science , 1993 .

[24]  Barbara F. Reskin,et al.  Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality , 2003, American Sociological Review.

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

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

[27]  P. McLeod,et al.  Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups , 1996 .

[28]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[29]  S. K. Horwitz,et al.  The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography , 2007 .

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

[31]  Carolyn E. Psenka,et al.  Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty , 2003 .

[32]  R. Blank.  The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[33]  J. Handelsman,et al.  NIH Director's Pioneer Awards: could the selection process be biased against women? , 2005, Journal of Women's Health.

[34]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Stratification in American Science , 1970 .