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

Abstract

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.

Who Becomes a Tenured Professor, and Why? Panel Data Evidence from German Sociology, 1980-2013

“…The female effect equals 57 percent if years spent as an assistant professor are not taken into account. Moreover, our findings do not support the idea of the socalled "Matilda Effect" (Lincoln et al 2012), according to which academic achievements are valued less for women than for men. Instead, we find the opposite to be true: while academic awards do not count for men, they are the strongest predictor for women in increasing their chances of getting a tenured position.…”

“…Other research shows that publications and academic achievements pay off more for men than for women, a finding which has been called the "Matilda effect" (Lincoln et al 2012; KnoblochWesterwick/Glynn/Huge 2013). Moreover, women in academia face stronger structural hurdles than men, leading to lower rates in academic success (Ding/ Murray/Toby 2006: 666;Xie/Shauman 1998;Long 1990Long : 1313.…”

Women’s representation in national science academies: An unsettling narrative

“…Many cultures have male and female work spheres, confine girls to less valued 'women's work' and underestimate women's intellectual and technological capacities. This bias can be replicated in the processes of nomination, evaluation and selection of women and men, for example, for science grants, fellowships and prizes 33 , which contribute to the body of evaluation for membership into academies of science. Moreover, a number of questions warrant further investigation to better contextualise the findings of the IAP survey.…”

Energizing equality

“…To name a few, female academics are less likely to receive grant funding 7 , less likely to win prizes 8 , more likely to be seen as less competent than males 9 , and more likely to have their gender misattributed in publications 10 . They also often end up taking on more teaching and administrative duties than their male colleagues; this work is rarely appropriately recognised by promotion or hiring boards.…”