10 November 2009
By George Whale
One of the participants at the seminar spoke about discrimination in academia, and I gathered that she was referring to discrimination against women. It struck me as odd, because although women are undeniably discriminated against in some areas of life, academia doesn't seem to be one of them.
On the contrary, universities nowadays bend over backwards to accommodate and promote women and ethnic minorities, and I can cite several examples of so-called "positive discrimination", where candidates have been given preference over better-qualified people for no other reason than their membership of some supposedly under-represented group.
It may be taboo (and possibly career-damaging) to say it, but surely by now we all know the reality, don't we?
Elizabeth Dodson10 November 2009 at 10:40 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I entirely agree that people should get jobs on their own merits - purely because they are the best applicant. I would also be quite offended if anyone suggested that I had been given any unfair preference due to my gender - because that devalues all the hard work that I've put in over the years. In terms of discrimination, many would argue that it is still more difficult for women to progress in HE. In particular there has been a lot of discussion over the gender pay gap - which exists at all levels in HE. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/30/rise-universities-gender-pay-gap Of course there are many reasons for this pay gap - and I'm not arguing that this is a cut and dry issue - but it provides an illustration of differences that exist. If you feel personally discriminated against then I suggest you talk to a union representative. Discrimination is inherently unfair and can take many forms. But please also remember that there are many sides to this argument and that individual experiences may not always be indicative of the wider picture.
Chris Thomson11 November 2009 at 07:57 AM
permalinkreport this comment
On a similar note I was recently speaking to a colleague who felt that women were unfairly discriminate against for PhD study as the research councils would not fund part time study, and if you have a family anything else was impractical. Now employment legislation should help for researchers here, but I was certainly surprised by those comments as it was not something I had considered before - I guess it is very hard to see discrimination unless you find it directed at yourself.
David Proctor11 November 2009 at 07:23 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I'm not sure that it's correct to state that discrimination is no longer an issue in HE, George. I think it's still a problem in disciplines such as the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering for researchers at all levels of experience.
George Whale11 November 2009 at 08:06 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hello David, nice to meet you in London the other day! If you're referring to gender imbalances in science and engineering, I concede that they exist, but I'm sure you're aware that the causes may be complex, and not easily attributable to discrimination. Also, I would point out that in some areas of art and design, male students and staff are comparably scarce at all levels, but nobody alleges discrimination there. In either case, giving a "leg-up" to under-qualified or inexperienced representatives of the scarcer sex is hardly a fair or sustainable solution. The idea of giving preferential treatment to young women because of a current imbalance caused by some (real or imaginary) past unfairness is an idea that seems to be gaining ground in our (increasingly feminized) culture. Consider, for example, the women-only shortlists used by New Labour to recruit more women MPs, and now being considered by the Conservatives. These measures benefit women, of course, but perhaps equally significantly they enable ambitious male leaders to present themselves as caring, egalitarian and ideologically on-track. But such measures are still fundamentally unmeritocratic.
David Proctor11 November 2009 at 09:59 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi George, It was great to chat with you last week. What a strange feeling to meet someone in person that you've communicated with online! It happened again and again last Thursday and was really something unusual and interesting. You make a good point, appointments should be made on merit, and gender differences among STEM faculty undoubtedly have complex origins. I can only speak of the sciences and mathematics, where the gender differences vary from moderate (life sciences) to substantial (mathematics). If there are few women in chemistry and physics, for example, because fewer women are interested in those subjects, that's fine. But I think the efforts of Women in STEM organizations are valuable because they aim to ensure that gender differences are *not* due to discrimination. Should this notion be carried into hiring policies? I don't know, to be honest. I believe there's an issue to be addressed here, but I don't really have a good answer for how to go about doing so. I tend to think that a less-than-ideal solution is better than no solution at all, but I might feel differently if a less qualified candidate was hired into a position that I was seeking.
Matthew Salois12 November 2009 at 09:46 AM
permalinkreport this comment
The gender gap in economics (unlike in other social sciences) tends to be quite large, much like one finds in physics or mathematics. In response to this, the profession some time ago set up a committee to promote the advancement of women in the profession. For example, the American Economic Association formed the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. Like George has pointed out, I take some issue with the government taking a lead on "promoting" equal rights in a profession because of the issues he mentions. However, I strongly believe the profession itself should take an initiative on building gender equality. I am curious if the professional societies of other disciplines take a similar approach.
Hannah DeeEdited: 17 November 2009 at 12:27 PM
permalinkreport this comment
What a load of rubbish! Let me guess, you're a white bloke, right? Here is an exercise for you to do, if you can be bothered. Take an department - any department. Your own will do. Slice the data horizontally. Determine the gender split, at undergrad, postgrad, researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, and professor. Philosophy at Leeds, when I was a student there, seemed to be about 60% women at UG with ZERO women above Lecturer. Psychology, probably 75% women at UG with ZERO women above reader. Computing, 15% women at UG, one reader, no profs. That's an exercise you can do for yourself. If you want more solid data, take a look at this: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/t/ucu_genderpaygap96-06.pdf which shows that in 2006, I could expect to be paid, on average, 6 grand less than you, just because you're a man. Can you understand why that might make me somewhat annoyed?
Rachel Talbot12 November 2009 at 12:27 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hannah, I can understand your frustration - there is clearly a gap in pay however please don't be too judgmental in your posts - I don't think any of the men commenting above are being dismissive of potential discrimination, just trying to work out the issues. I think there are many issues involved in this and although positive discrimination is one way of making sure women equally represented throughout the academic hierarchy, as Elizabeth pointed out, women need to be promoted on merit otherwise it devalues our efforts. I'm sure discrimination at many levels still exist in Universities but the intitute I work for has a strict point system that guides who should be invited to interview and who is employed. The actual employment process actively seeks to avoid discriminations. I have discussed this a number of times with my colleagues and these are some of the issues that I think might effect the gender gap (both in terms of pay and representation): - Men may be more inclined to negotiate pay when being appointed - Is there a feeling that the more senior the post, the less suitable it is to be filled with a member of staff who works part time (which might put off some women from applying) - Are some women who have children put of by the work load involved with more senior posts and the expectation to be available 24/7 - Senior posts appear to be filled for a long period of time, if traditionally these went to men, then it is going to take a long time for enough posts to become available to get equal representation. I don't know whether any of these are actually true but thought it was worth mentioning them!
Hannah Dee12 November 2009 at 12:33 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Rachel, whilst your conciliatory tone is probably more sensible than mine, I do think this a fundamentally poorly thought out blog post. George's initial blog can basically be paraphrased as: "Hey, I don't see any discrimination so there isn't any, is there. Aren't I being controversial." Is that the standard of discourse we want here?
George Whale12 November 2009 at 02:52 PM
permalinkreport this comment
@Hannah Dee: It would be foolish indeed of me to assert that there is no discrimination in academia, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My main point is that, of all sectors of society, academia is one of the places where women are least lkely to experience discrimination, because academics nowadays are quick to identify and rectify it (see, for example, Rachel Talbot's post). My subsidiary point is that, in their zealous efforts to cast white males as the perennial culprits in such matters, academic institutions tend to overlook other forms of discrimination, for example, the over-promotion of women to make up for perceived shortfalls (which is still discrimination, whichever way you look at it). I am strongly in favour of true meritocracy in research, where the best candidate always gets the job regardless of other considerations, and although I understand enough about human nature to know that that will never be possible, nevertheless I think it's something worth striving for. I like the approach described in Matthew Salois' post, where professions try to identify and act on the deep roots of the problem, rather than taking superficially corrective steps that don't really achieve anything long-term. Hannah, if you are dissatisified with the level of discourse on this blog, then you are free to raise the standard, and to point out the logical or other shortcomings of my contributions. That's called free and open debate, and it's precisely because this topic is rarely discussed with real openness or honesty that it is controversial and raises people's hackles. It was not my primary aim to stir up controversy, though I admit that my interest in this topic is driven by negative personal experience. If ever a topic needed good quality research free of bias, this is it: see Rachels's (constructive) post for some potentially interesting research questions. You are correct Hannah, in guessing that I am a white, British "bloke". The even worse news - and this may rock you to the very core - is that I'm not in the least ashamed of it!
Hannah Dee12 November 2009 at 03:13 PM
permalinkreport this comment
George As you will have gathered, this is a topic very close to my heart. I am, as well as being a postdoctoral researcher in computer science, deputy chair of the British Computer Society's women's group. So I am aware of the issues as they pertain to a very male-dominated field, and I am actually involved in research to try and work out the underlying causes. (See, for example, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1562951&dl=ACM which describes part of an ongoing study into undergraduate attitudes to computing from a gender perspective.) The issues raised in Rachel's post are major contributors to the academic imbalance, and yes, there is good quality research going on in this area. The IEEE, the IET, the BCS, and women-specific organisations like Daphnet, MentorSET, and the UK resource centre for women in science, enginerring and technogy all investigate why this parlous situation persists across the STEM workforce, including those of us engaged in STEM work in Universities. UCU has done a lot of work in determining the extent of the problem in universities. Several individual institutions are also conducting internal audits - I know of excellent work at Sheffield, for example, showing that male SL appointments generally happen several years earlier than female ones. So I have to ask - have you any evidence of this rampant female over-promotion in academia? Because it's really not something that's been found in any studies I've heard of. Indeed, the exact opposite would seem to be the case. And I'm fairly familiar with the literature. Yours, Hannah (And no need to be ashamed. Some of my best friends are blokes. I even married one.)
Dan Black12 November 2009 at 03:24 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I never used to think there was much sexism in academia until a female friend pointed out how some of the opinions voiced by people I have known were actually very sexist. I have since changed my mind and decided that sexism is rife in the sciences.
George Whale12 November 2009 at 03:50 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hannah, I'm pleased to hear that research has been, and is being conducted to try to indentify the real causes of women's under-representation in some areas of science and technology. Of course, in such a contested area, it is doubly important for researchers to establish beyond question their objectivity. Regarding over-promotion of women and minorities: I am aware of specific examples that I have encountered personally, which may or may not reflect a broader problem. I look forward to the day when it will be possible to research this issue properly. (Tennie, my email reply to you came back undelivered - but your point is broadly taken.)
Hannah Dee12 November 2009 at 04:18 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Whereas I look forward to the day when there's pay equality in HE, and think the research being conducted now IS proper.
George Whale12 November 2009 at 04:31 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I meant that I look forward to proper research into possible negative effects of positive discrimination. I was not criticising research currently being done in your area - I think you misunderstood me.
Esther Haines13 November 2009 at 10:03 AM
permalinkreport this comment
After holding positions in physics and chemistry in both the university and government sectors, I have worked in the women in SET area for six years. I have four points: 1. Positive discrimination, i.e. appointing on the basis of gender, is illegal in the UK. This is not to say that it does not happen, of course. In certain circumstances, positive action, including actively encouraging members of underrepresented groups to apply for positions and encouraging members of underrepresented groups to undertake training, including, for example, women-only courses, is legal. The Equality Bill, currently awaiting its report stage in the Commons, extends the allowable positive action to include taking gender (and other ‘protected characteristics’) into account in recruitment and promotion, but only where the candidates are equally qualified. Note that there are indications that, even if this becomes law, many employers would be reluctant to use this provision because of the difficulty of determining what ‘equally qualified’ means. The Equality Bill would not allow employers to have a policy of automatically treating members of any particular group, for example, women, more favourably than those who are not members of that group. [References: Section 48 of the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1975/PDF/ukpga_19750065_en.pdf, and Equality Challenge Unit Briefing on the Equality Bill, April 2009, http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-bill-briefing-04-09] 2. Although few women experience overt discrimination, there is ample evidence that women and members of ethnic minorities in higher education are disadvantaged by unconscious bias. The report published by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in the US, ‘Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Sciences and Engineering’ (National Academies Press, 2007, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=117410 provides a review. The book by Virginia Valian, ‘Why so slow? The advancement of women’ (MIT Press, 1999) and the ‘Tutorials for Change’ on her website, http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/psych/faculty/valian/valian.htm, cover much of the same material, as does the STRIDE Faculty Recruitment Workshop Presentation on the University of Michigan’s website, http://sitemaker.umich.edu/advance/stride. A well known experiment is that reported by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke, Sex Roles, Volume 41, Numbers 7-8, 1 October 1999, pp. 509-528. They sent academic CV’s that differed only in whether the name on the CV was a traditional male name or a traditional female name to 238 academic psychologists. They found that both men and women were more likely to recommend a male job applicant than a female job applicant even though their records were identical. Note that this experiment shows that the ‘gender schemas’ underlying this result are common to both men and women. Specific examples of unconscious bias are often appear inconsequential. It is their cumulative effect that is important. 3. Policies or informal practices that apply equally to both men and women can have a disproportionately deleterious impact on women. For example, a seminar timed to start at 4.30pm will either exclude those with primary responsibility for a child or mean that they have to leave early or cannot participate in discussions afterwards. Key findings of the Royal Society of Chemistry include: • Good practice benefits all, staff and students, men and women. However, bad practice adversely affects women’s careers more than men’s. • The best departments don’t target measures specifically at women because improved working conditions benefit all and make for a happy department: Good Practice isn’t about how many women are in the department, it’s about processes that are fair, flexible, accessible and transparent to all. [Planning for Success - Good Practice in University Science Departments, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008, http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/PlanningforSuccess.asp]. 4. While it is clear that women are under-represented at lecturer level and above, it can be difficult to disentangle what are the effects of current practices and what are the effects of past poor practice in snapshot data. A recent study of hiring and promotion by the National Academies in the US, Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty, showed a mixed picture across disciplines. [http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/PGA_050952 and Science 324, 1250, 5 June 2009] Finally, in his introductory comments to the report ‘A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT’ in 1999 [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html] the then President of MIT, Dr Charles Vest said ‘I have always believed that contemporary gender discrimination within universities is part reality and part perception. True, but I now understand that reality is by far the greater part of the balance.’ While much has improved in the ensuing ten years, many of the issues identified in that report remain relevant. This is why, for example, the Institute of Physics has established Project Juno to help Physics Departments attract and retain women [http://www.iop.org/activity/diversity/Gender/Juno_code_of_practice/page_31619.html].
Chris Thomson13 November 2009 at 10:29 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks for all the comprehensive and well referenced posts!
George Whale13 November 2009 at 02:30 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Tennie, sorry not to reply to your email, but it keeps bouncing back. In answer to your question, yes, I found both the conference and blog very useful :)
Tennie Videler13 November 2009 at 02:54 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks George, I've asked to have your address white-listed but it's very odd that I don't even see ity in my spam filter. At least we've got this medium to communicate (if somewhat publicly).
David Kent16 November 2009 at 10:49 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi all, Brand new to the UK from Canada in the position of a PDF in Cambridge. In Vancouver, I was involved with a number of people where issues such as these were discussed very openly and many of the arguments raised above appeared. One which did not, and I've been personally puzzled by is the series of double blind fellowship success studies reported in EMBO a few years back (you can find the references to the articles in paragraph 5 of my recent blog entry). It appears that even when reviewers don't know the gender of the application, women still do not come out equally represented. The theme of the discussions we had in Vancouver were centred on personality (represented by the "guts" to ask for the pay hike referenced above), presentation of current accomplishments (men generally present a less flawed picture of themselves), and reference letters (which generally come from senior PIs who could house subtle or outright gender biases in the first place) - anyone have any thoughts on these? I'd love to hear what you think. Dave
Esther Haines19 November 2009 at 02:56 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Dave There is a paper by Trix and Psenka, Discourse & Society, Vol 14(2): 191-220 (2003) looking at letters of recommendation for medical faculty at a large American medical school. They found a number of differences between letters recommending men and those recommending women. Those for women tended to be shorter, to contains more references to the candidate's personal life (my own favourite is 'She is close to my wife.'), and to contain more' doubt raisers' - phrases that appear to be positive but leave room for other interpretations, as in 'It is amazing how much she has achieved.' I don't know if anyone has looked at this for other disciplines or cultures. Esther
Esther Haines19 November 2009 at 03:33 AM
permalinkreport this comment
There is a study of the effects of affirmative action hiring in the US, which has a different legal framework from the UK. See Heilman and Haynes in 'Discrimination at work: the psychological and organizational bases' Ed Robert L. Dipboye, Adrienne Colella, Routledge, 2004. As far as I can tell from the excerpts available on Google Books, this study focuses on the deleterious effects on members of the group favoured by the affirmative action. Esther
Tennie Videler17 December 2009 at 02:06 PM
permalinkreport this comment
just spotted this resource for women in science (thanks, David P): http://www.underthemicroscope.com