Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Gender bias in academic recruitment

Preprint

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      It is well known that women are underrepresented in the academic systems of many countries. Gender discrimination is one of the factors that could contribute to this phenomenon. This study considers a recent national academic recruitment campaign in Italy, examining whether women are subject to more or less bias than men. The findings show that no gender-related differences occur among the candidates who benefit from positive bias, while among those candidates affected by negative bias, the incidence of women is lower than that of men. Among the factors that determine success in a competition for an academic position, the number of the applicant's career years in the same university as the committee members assumes greater weight for male candidates than for females. Being of the same gender as the committee president is also a factor that assumes greater weight for male applicants. On the other hand, for female applicants, the presence of a full professor in the same university with the same family name as the candidate assumes greater weight than for male candidates.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 28

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

      Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student-who was randomly assigned either a male or female name-for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants' preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: not found
        • Article: not found

        Sex Differences in Research Productivity: New Evidence about an Old Puzzle

          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Gender Differences in Productivity

           Erin Leahey (2006)
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            21 December 2018
            1901.00429 10.1007/s11192-015-1783-3

            http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

            Custom metadata
            Scientometrics, 106(1), 119-141
            arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1810.13236, arXiv:1810.12207
            cs.DL physics.soc-ph

            General physics, Information & Library science

            Comments

            Comment on this article