Gender Segregation in Elite Academic Science

Abstract

Efforts to understand gender segregation within and among science disciplines have focused on both supply- and demand-side explanations. Yet we know little about how academic scientists themselves view the sources of such segregation. Utilizing data from a survey of scientists at thirty top U.S. graduate programs in physics and biology (n = 2,503) and semistructured interviews with 150 of them, this article examines the reasons academic scientists provide for differences in the distribution of women in biology and physics. In quantitative analyses, gender is more salient than discipline in determining the reasons scientists provide for gender disparities between disciplines, suggesting that gender may act as a “master status,” shaping the experiences of scientists regardless of the gender composition of the discipline. Qualitative interviews confirm this interpretation and reveal that scientists also perceive mentoring, natural differences, discrimination, and the history of the disciplines to be important factors. Results contribute to research on the relationship between emotional labor and occupational gender segregation conducted in professions such as law and nursing.

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

“…A classic empirical example of confirmation bias showed that peer-reviewers were less favorable toward an essentially identical research manuscript when it was doctored to report results inconsistent with the reviewers' preferred theoretical viewpoint, but more favorable when it was doctored to report results consistent with the reviewers' preferred theoretical viewpoint (49). Add to this finding that there is compelling evidence that women faculty are more likely to view gender bias as a problem within their current working academic context (40), and it is possible that women may evaluate research demonstrating a gender bias (belief consistent) more favorably than men, but evaluate research demonstrating no gender bias (belief inconsistent) less favorably than men.…”

“…In fact, a recent (nonexperimental) analysis of naturally occurring online comments written by readers of popular press articles covering the research of Moss-Racusin et al (10) suggests that men were more likely than women to demonstrate negative reactions to experimental evidence of gender bias (35). Further, several lines of theorizing suggest that men may evaluate such research as less meritorious than would women (24,(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42). Among these theories, Social Identity Theory (36)(37)(38) and related perspectives (39) posit that people are motivated to perceive their group favorably and defend that perception against threat, and that people within privileged groups often seek to retain and justify their privileged status (39).…”

Nanotechnology researchers’ collaboration relationships: A gender analysis of access to scientific information

“…And in the United States, increased gender participation is argued to be essential for maintaining the US as the global scientific leader with a competitive scientific workforce (Ecklund et al, 2012). The issue of women's participation in STEM is thus of increasingly broad public policy concern.…”

Are Men from Mars and Women from Venus? Bridging the gender learning gap in medical education

“…Some researchers claim that the superior academic performance demonstrated by women in medical careers is due to their instinctive desire to help humankind. 4,6 Women have also been described as being more perceptive to emotions, enabling them to be more caring and empathetic. 6 Their enhanced academic performance may also be due to goal setting, commitment and discipline in following a structured curriculum, spending more time studying and developing stronger social networks; these attributes may develop as a result of social and cultural customs that encourage women to perform well academically.…”