Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

被引:635
作者
Ceci, Stephen J. [1 ]
Williams, Wendy M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Cornell Univ, Dept Human Dev, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
women in science; gender bias; child penalty; peer review; SEX-DIFFERENCES; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; BIAS; RELIABILITY; PROPOSALS; EQUALITY; VALIDITY; NEPOTISM; IMPACT; MEN;
D O I
10.1073/pnas.1014871108
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.
引用
收藏
页码:3157 / 3162
页数:6
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]   Equality not taken for granted [J].
Abbott, A .
NATURE, 1997, 390 (6656) :204-204
[2]  
ALLISON P, 1990, AM SOCIOL REV, V55, P119, DOI DOI 10.2307/2095801
[3]  
ANGEL M, 2010, 201024 TEMPL U LEG S
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2007, COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[5]  
[Anonymous], 200102 FED RES BANK
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2010, The Mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls
[7]   Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions [J].
Bornmann, L ;
Daniel, HD .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2005, 63 (02) :297-320
[8]   Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Mutz, Ruediger ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2007, 1 (03) :226-238
[9]   Bias cut - Women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science - so how can discrimination be tackled? [J].
Bornmann, Lutz .
NATURE, 2007, 445 (7127) :566-566
[10]   To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review [J].
Borsuk, Robyn M. ;
Aarssen, Lonnie W. ;
Budden, Amber E. ;
Koricheva, Julia ;
Leimu, Roosa ;
Tregenza, Tom ;
Lortie, Christopher J. .
BIOSCIENCE, 2009, 59 (11) :985-989