Assessing Gender Bias in Particle Physics and Social Science Recommendations for Academic Jobs

Robert H Bernstein,Michael W Macy,Stephen J Ceci,Christopher J Cameron,Wendy M Williams,Sterling Chance Williams-Ceci

doi:10.3390/socsci11020074

Robert H Bernstein, Michael W Macy + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11020074

Copy DOI

Journal: Social Sciences	Publication Date: Feb 14, 2022
Citations: 12	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Cornell University

Abstract

We investigated gender bias in letters of recommendation as a possible cause of the under-representation of women in Experimental Particle Physics (EPP), where about 15% of faculty are female—well below the 60% level in psychology and sociology. We analyzed 2206 letters in EPP and these two social sciences using standard lexical measures as well as two new measures: author status and an open-ended search for gendered language. In contrast to former studies, women were not depicted as more communal, less agentic, or less standout. Lexical measures revealed few gender differences in either discipline. The open-ended analysis revealed disparities favoring women in social science and men in EPP. However, female EPP candidates were characterized as “brilliant” in nearly three times as many letters as were men.

Highlights

Are women in physics limited by less enthusiastic depictions of their ability relative to their male counterparts? Does gender bias influence how job letters are written, resulting in women physicists having a more difficult time entering the academic workforce? The underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields such as physics, engineering, computer science, economics, and mathematics is a problem that is historically persistent and extensively studied (Hill et al 2010; National Academy of Science et al 2007; NationalResearch Council 2010; Valian 1998; Xie and Shauman 2003)
This study investigates gender bias in letters of recommendation by comparing two fields differing dramatically in women’s representation: experimental particle physics (EPP) and developmental social science
Women are well-represented among PhDs in the developmental social sciences, which in this study is comprised of psychology and sociology applicants

Summary

Introduction

Are women in physics limited by less enthusiastic depictions of their ability relative to their male counterparts? Does gender bias influence how job letters are written, resulting in women physicists having a more difficult time entering the academic workforce? The underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields such as physics, engineering, computer science, economics, and mathematics is a problem that is historically persistent and extensively studied (Hill et al 2010; National Academy of Science et al 2007; NationalResearch Council 2010; Valian 1998; Xie and Shauman 2003). Recent studies have examined possible gender bias in letters of recommendation, noting that “there is little research that addresses whether letters of recommendation for academia are written differently for men and women and whether potential differences influence selection decisions in academia” (Dutt et al 2016; Li et al 2017; Madera et al 2009; Messner and Shimahara 2008; Schmader et al 2007; Trix and Psenka 2003). There is no research on gender differences in recommendations that compares academic fields in which women are well-represented to fields in which they are not. This study investigates gender bias in letters of recommendation by comparing two fields differing dramatically in women’s representation: experimental particle physics (EPP) and developmental social science. Women are well-represented among PhDs in the developmental social sciences, which in this study is comprised of psychology and sociology applicants. For more details on the demographic breakdowns of our samples, see Appendix A, along with

Methods

Results

Conclusion