Does gender bias influence awards given by societies?

Abstract

AGU is a participant in a U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded project called Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies (AWARDS), which seeks to examine whether gender bias affects selection of recipients of society awards. AGU is interested in learning why there is a higher proportion of female recipients of service and education awards over the past 2 decades. Combined with a lower rate of receipt of research awards, these results suggest that implicit (subconscious) bias in favor of male candidates still influences awardee selection. Six other professional societies (American Chemical Society, American Mathematical Society, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Neuroscience, and Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) are participating in the project. Volunteers from each participant society attended an Association for Women in Science (AWIS)–sponsored workshop in May 2010 to examine data and review literature on best practices for fair selection of society awardees. A draft proposal for implementing these practices will be brought before the AGU Council and the Honors and Recognition Committee at their upcoming meetings.

A Pressing Need for Gender Balance in AGU Honors Nominations

“…Past Eos writers and others have done a thorough job of quantifying the gender disparity in award granting and have suggested a number of reasons that might account for it. Holmes et al [2011] detail a past review of gender distribution in AGU awards in association with the Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies ( AWARDS) project, which is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article found that women were more likely to be nominated for service and education awards than research awards and suggested that implicit biases might lead nominators to think of women in a personal light rather than a professional one.…”

Consider Nominating a Woman for an AGU Award

“…But, again, as with the response to Druffel [ 1994 ], which possibly increased the number of female Fellows, the increased number of female medalists may have been in response to Holmes et al . [ 2011 ].…”

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Volume 94, Number 10, 5 March 2013

“…A continued look at this data supports the hypothesis that women are overlooked for honors, especially election as With such small numbers, it is impossible to identify a specific cause. But, again, as with the response to Druffel [1994], which possibly increased the number of female Fellows, the increased number of female medalists may have been in response to Holmes et al [2011]. Their brief report described the results of an Association for Women in Science (AWIS) analysis, which depicted underrepresentation of women among awardees of four scientific societies that cannot be explained by the percentage of women in the field.…”

“…Practices to reduce these biases in award nominations and selections have been developed by AWIS. This information, presented in Eos by Holmes et al [2011], may have alerted AGU members, especially those on awards committees, to identify remarkable female scientists. Both of the female medalists who became new Fellows were more than 26 years post -Ph.D., suggesting that they may have been overlooked for earlier nomination to become a Fellow despite their achievements.…”