Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination

More Than a Joke: The Intersection of Gender-Based Humor and Gender Inequities Experienced by Women Department Chairs in Academic Medicine

Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study is to describe how women academic department chairs in emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology experience humor in the workplace. Method: Interviews were conducted with 35 women department chairs in academic medicine from 27 institutions that aimed to describe women's leadership emergence. The data from the primary study yielded rich and revealing themes involving participants' experiences with humor in the context of their leadership roles, justifying a secondary analysis focusing specifically on these experiences. Relevant remarks were extracted, coded, and summarized. Results: Participants discussed two broad types of humor-related experiences. First, they described how they responded to aggressive gender-based humor directed at themselves or their colleagues by tolerating it or expressing disapproval. This humor includes demeaning quips, insulting monikers, sexist jokes, and derogatory stories. Participants often did not confront this humor directly as they feared being rejected or ostracized by colleagues. Second, they described how they initiated humor to address gender-related workplace issues by highlighting gender inequalities, coping with sexual harassment and assault, and managing gender-based leadership challenges. Participants felt constrained in their own use of humor because of the need to be taken seriously as women leaders. Conclusion: Women leaders in academic medicine use humor to confront gender-related issues and experience aggressive gender-based humor in the workplace. The constraints placed on women leaders discourage them from effectively confronting this aggressive gender-based humor and perpetuating gender inequities. Eliminating aggressive gender-based humor is needed to create safe and equitable work environments in academic medicine.

How Can Debiasing Research Aid Efforts to Reduce Discrimination?

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Scientists studying intergroup biases are often concerned with lessening discrimination (unequal treatment of one social group versus another), but many interventions for reducing such biased behavior have weak or limited evidence. In this review article, we argue one productive avenue for reducing discrimination comes from adapting interventions in a separate field-judgment and decision-making-that has historically studied "debiasing": the ways people can lessen the unwanted influence of irrelevant information on decision-making. While debiasing research shares several commonalities with research on reducing intergroup discrimination, many debiasing interventions have relied on methods that differ from those deployed in the intergroup bias literature. We review several instances where debiasing principles have been successfully applied toward reducing intergroup biases in behavior and introduce other debiasing techniques that may be well-suited for future efforts in lessening discrimination.

Stuck on Intergroup Attitudes: The Need to Shift Gears to Change Intergroup Behaviors

Decades of research on how to improve intergroup relations have primarily examined ways to change prejudiced attitudes. However, this focus on negative intergroup attitudes has yielded few effective solutions. Because intergroup relations are shaped by behavior during intergroup interactions, it is necessary to identify constructs that have a strong causal impact on intergroup behavior change. In this article, I will discuss evidence showing that intergroup attitude change is neither a sufficient nor necessary cause for intergroup behavior change. Empirical research suggests that intergroup attitudes are difficult to change and have a limited effect on intergroup behavior. I also distinguish between constructs that primarily affect intergroup attitude change (e.g., counterstereotypical exemplars, evaluative conditioning) and constructs that primarily affect intergroup behavior change (e.g., social norms, self-efficacy). Further, suggestions for future research will also be provided to advance understanding of the various psychological constructs that influence intergroup behavior change, which will help us develop effective methods of improving intergroup relations.

Motivated Categories: Social Structures Shape the Construction of Social Categories Through Attentional Mechanisms

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Social categories like race and gender often give rise to stereotypes and prejudice, and a great deal of research has focused on how motivations influence these biased beliefs. Here, we focus on potential biases in how these categories are even formed in the first place, suggesting that motivations can influence the very categories people use to group others. We propose that motivations to share schemas with other people and to gain resources shape people's attention to dimensions like race, gender, and age in different contexts. Specifically, people will pay attention to dimensions to the degree that the conclusions produced from using those dimensions align with their motivations. Overall, we suggest that simply examining the downstream effects of social categorization like stereotyping and prejudice is not enough, and that research should look earlier in the process at how and when we form the categories on which those stereotypes are based.

Unconscious Bias

Unconscious biases (also known as implicit biases) are involuntary stereotypes or attitudes held about certain groups of people that may influence our behaviors, understandings, and actions, often with unintended detrimental consequences. Implicit bias appears in multiple facets of medical education, training, and promotion with negative effects on diversity and equity efforts. Notable health disparities exist among minority groups in the United States, which may partly be attributable to unconscious biases. Although there is little evidence supporting the effectiveness of current bias/diversity training programming, standardization and blinding may be helpful, evidence-based methods to reduce implicit bias.

Educational guidelines for diversity and inclusion: addressing racism and eliminating biases in medical education

Racism and bias contribute to healthcare disparities at a patient and population health level and also contribute to the stagnation or even regression of progress toward equitable representation in the workforce and in healthcare leadership. Medical education and healthcare systems have expended tremendous efforts over the past several years to address these inequities. However, systemic racism continues to impact health outcomes and the future physician workforce. The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics called for action to achieve a future free from racism in obstetrics and gynecology education and healthcare. As a result of this call to action, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Guidelines Task Force was created. The mission of the Task Force was to support educators in their efforts to identify and create educational materials that augment antiracist educational goals and prepare, recruit, and retain a talented and diverse workforce. In this Special Report, the authors share these guidelines that describe best practices and set new standards to increase diversity, foster inclusivity, address systemic racism, and eliminate bias in obstetrics and gynecology educational products, materials, and environments.

Reducing discrimination against job seekers with and without employment gaps

Past research shows that decision-makers discriminate against applicants with career breaks. Career breaks are common due to caring responsibilities, especially for working mothers, thereby leaving job seekers with employment gaps on their résumés. In a preregistered audit field experiment in the United Kingdom (n = 9,022), we show that rewriting a résumé so that previously held jobs are listed with the number of years worked (instead of employment dates) increases callbacks from real employers compared to résumés without employment gaps by approximately 8%, and with employment gaps by 15%. A series of lab studies (an online pilot and two preregistered experiments; n = 2,650) shows that this effect holds for both female and male applicants-even when compared to applicants without employment gaps-as well as and for applicants with less and more total job experience. The effect is driven by making the applicant's job experience salient, not as a result of novelty or ease of reading.

Sure you are ready? Gendered arguments in recruitment for high-status positions in male-dominated fields

Recruitment contexts such as STEM professorships promote clearly defined selection criteria and objective assessment. We illuminate in these contexts, the subjective interpretation of seemingly objective criteria and gendered arguments in discussions of applicants. Additionally, we explore gender bias despite comparable applicant profiles investigating how specific success factors lead to selection recommendations for male and female applicants. Implementing a mixed methods approach, we aim to highlight the influence of heuristics, stereotyping, and signaling in applicant assessments. We interviewed 45 STEM professors. They answered qualitative open-ended interview questions, and evaluated hypothetical applicant profiles, qualitatively and quantitatively. The applicant profiles enabled a conjoint experiment with different applicant attributes varied across the profiles (i.e., publications, willingness to cooperate, network recommendation, and applicant gender), the interviewees indicating scores of selection recommendation while thinking aloud. Our findings reveal gendered arguments, i.e., questioning women potentially fueled by a perception of women's exceptional status and perceived self-questioning of women. Furthermore, they point to gender-independent and gender-dependent success patterns, thereby to potential success factors particularly for female applicants. We contextualize and interpret our quantitative findings in light of professors' qualitative statements.

Practical tips for navigating a program director transition

Residency and fellowship program directors profoundly impact trainees, institutions, and patient safety. Yet, there is concern for rapid attrition in the role. The average program director tenure is only 4-7 years, and that timeline is likely a result of burnout or opportunities for career advancement. Program director transitions must be carefully executed to ensure minimal disruption to the program. Transitions benefit from clear communication with trainees and other stakeholders, well-planned successions or searches for a replacement, and clearly delineated expectations and responsibilities of the outgoing program director. In this Practical Tips, four former residency program directors offer a roadmap for a successful program director transition, with specific recommendations to guide critical decisions and steps in the process. Themes emphasized include readiness for a transition, communication strategies, alignment of program mission and search efforts, and anticipatory support to ensure the success of the new director.

Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

What predicts employer discrimination? The role of implicit and explicit racial attitudes

Hiring discrimination against black jobseekers remains prevalent in the United States. Yet, despite strong evidence about the existence of employer discrimination, we know relatively little about what motivates employers' discriminatory behavior. I draw on an original two-wave study with a sample of white hiring agents to examine whether respondents' explicit (deliberate) and implicit (automatic) racial attitudes predict their evaluations of white and black job applicants. Building on dual-process models of the attitude-behavior relationship, I theorize that the hiring process at many U.S. organizations-characterized by ambiguity, time pressure and distractions, and the legitimacy of emotions as a decision-making tool-encourages decision-making based on implicit rather than explicit cognition. Consistent with this theorization, I find implicit, but not explicit, racial attitudes predict respondents' evaluations of white applicants, and of black applicants relative to white applicants. This suggests hiring agents' behavior reflects implicit biases, rather than deliberate avoidance. The results further highlight the role of pro-white bias, not solely anti-black sentiment, in explaining discrimination: implicit attitudes were associated with bias in favor of white jobseekers, not only with discrimination against black jobseekers relative to white jobseekers. Finally, in open-ended responses, hiring agents explain their racially-motivated evaluations without invoking race, suggesting the ambiguity of the hiring process enables them to justify their behavior as colorblind. Together, these findings illustrate how employers can portray an egalitarian image while engaging in racially-motivated behavior.

The Impact of Self-Disclosure and Strategies for Communication Competence on Professors' Perceptions and Evaluations of Students Who Do and Do Not Stutter

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of self-disclosure and strategies for communication competence on perceptual ratings and performance evaluations of undergraduate students who do and do not stutter by professors who require oral presentations.

METHOD

Two hundred thirty-eight college instructors who require oral presentations in their classes participated in this study. Each participant viewed one video of six possible randomized conditions varying according to the presence and disclosure of stuttering (i.e., fluent, stuttering, stuttering + disclosure) and level of communication competence (i.e., high vs. low). Participants evaluated public speaking performance against a standardized rubric and rated the student along 16 personality traits.

RESULTS

Results of separate 2 × 3 analyses of variance revealed that professors perceived a student who disclosed stuttering, compared to the identical video without disclosure, more positively overall. Significant interactions between fluency (i.e., presence vs. absence of stuttering vs. disclosure of stuttering) and communication competence (i.e., high vs. low) were found for overall performance evaluation scores. The video during which the student disclosed stuttering and presented with low communication competence was given a higher score than the identical video without disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Professors respond positively to both strategies for high communication competence and self-disclosure. High communication competence behaviors mitigate positive feedback bias. Disclosure results in improved positive perceptions across levels of communication competence. For students presenting with low communication competence, disclosure may improve evaluation of performance in oral presentations. The greatest perceptual and evaluative benefits were achieved with the combination of the two strategies.

Understanding Gender Biases and Differences in Web-Based Reviews of Sanctioned Physicians Through a Machine Learning Approach: Mixed Methods Study

Background

Previous studies have highlighted gender differences in web-based physician reviews; however, so far, no study has linked web-based ratings with quality of care.

Objective

We compared a consumer-generated measure of physician quality (web-based ratings) with a clinical quality outcome (sanctions for malpractice or improper behavior) to understand how patients’ perceptions and evaluations of physicians differ based on the physician’s gender.

Methods

We used data from a large web-based physician review website and the Federation of State Medical Boards. We implemented paragraph vector methods to identify words that are specific to and indicative of separate groups of physicians. Then, we enriched these findings by using the National Research Council Canada word-emotion association lexicon to assign emotional scores to reviews for different subpopulations according to gender, gender and sanction, and gender and rating.

Results

We found statistically significant differences in the sentiment and emotion of reviews between male and female physicians. Numerical ratings are lower and sentiment in text reviews is more negative for women who will be sanctioned than for men who will be sanctioned; sanctioned male physicians are still associated with positive reviews.

Conclusions

Given the growing impact of web-based reviews on demand for physician services, understanding the different dynamics of reviews for male and female physicians is important for consumers and platform architects who may revisit their platform design.

Next Steps: Advocating for Women in Orthopaedic Surgery

Orthopaedic surgery is the least diverse of all medical specialties, by both sex and race. Diversity among orthopaedic trainees is the lowest in medicine, and growth in percentage representation is the lowest of all surgical subspecialties. Women comprise only 6% of orthopaedic surgeons and 16% of orthopaedic surgery trainees. This extreme lack of diversity in orthopaedics limits creative problem-solving and the potential of our profession. Women in orthopaedics encounter sexual harassment, overt discrimination, and implicit bias, which create barriers to training, career satisfaction, and success. Women are underrepresented in leadership positions, perpetuating the lack of diversity through poor visibility to potential candidates, which impedes recruitment. Correction will require a concerted effort, as acknowledged by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leadership who included a goal and plan to increase diversity in the 2019 to 2023 Strategic Plan. Recommended initiatives include support for pipeline programs that increase diversity of the candidate pool; sexual harassment and implicit bias acknowledgement, education, and corrective action; and the active sponsorship of qualified, capable women by organizational leaders. To follow, women will lend insight from their diverse viewpoints to research questions, practice problems, and clinical conundrums of our specialty, augmenting the profession and improving patient outcomes.

Why so Few, Still? Challenges to Attracting, Advancing, and Keeping Women Faculty of Color in Academia

From its earliest beginnings, the university was not designed for women, and certainly not for women of color. Women of color in the United States are disproportionately under-represented in academia and are conspicuous by their absence across disciplines at senior ranks, particularly at research-intensive universities. This absence has an epistemic impact and affects future generations of scholars who do not see themselves represented in the academy. What are the barriers to attracting, advancing, and retaining women faculty of color in academia? To address this question we review empirical studies that document disparities in the assessment of research, teaching, and service in academia that have distinct implications for the hiring, promotion, and professional visibility of women of color. We argue that meaningful change in the representation, equity, and prestige of women faculty of color will require validating their experiences, supporting and valuing their research, creating opportunities for their professional recognition and advancement, and implementing corrective action for unjust assessment practices.

Why Psychology Needs to Stop Striving for Novelty and How to Move Towards Theory-Driven Research

Psychological science is maturing and therefore transitioning from explorative to theory-driven research. While explorative research seeks to find something "new," theory-driven research seeks to elaborate on already known and hence predictable effects. A consequence of these differences is that the quality of explorative and theory-driven research needs to be judged by distinct criterions that optimally support their respective development. Especially, theory-driven research needs to be judged by its methodological rigor. A focus on innovativeness, which is typical for explorative research, will instead incentivize bad research practices (e.g., imprecise theorizing, ignoring previous research, parallel theories). To support the advancement of psychology, we must drop the innovation requirement for theory-driven research and instead require the strongest methods, which are marked by high internal and external validity. Precise theorizing needs to substitute novelty. Theories are advanced by requiring explicit, testable assumptions, and an explicit preference for one theory over another. These explicit and potentially wrong assumptions should not be silenced within the peer-review process, but instead be scrutinized in new publications. Importantly, these changes in scientific conduct need to be supported by senior researchers, especially, in their roles as editors, reviewers, and in the hiring process. An important obstacle to further theory-driven research is to measure scientific merit using researchers' number of publications, which favors theoretically shallow and imprecise writing. Additionally, it makes publications the central target of scientific misconduct even though they are the main source of information for the scientific community and the public. To advance the field, researchers should be judged by their contribution to the scientific community (e.g., exchange with and support of colleagues, and mentoring). Another step to advance psychology is to clearly differentiate between measurement model and theory, and not to overgeneralize based on few stimuli, incidences, or studies. We will use ideas from the theory of science to underline the changes necessary within the field of psychology to overcome this existential replication crisis.

The weight of school grades: Evidence of biased teachers' evaluations against overweight students in Germany

Discrimination and prejudice against overweight people is common in Western societies. In this article we aim to understand whether these attitudes reverberate into the school setting, by investigating whether teachers grade overweight students more severely than comparable normal weight students. By relying on the Attribution-Value Model of Prejudice (AVMP) and previous studies, we test a series of hypotheses using data from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS SC3) on a sample of students enrolled in the 7^th grade (lower secondary education). We used hierarchical ordered logit regression to assess whether overweight and obese students receive systematically lower grades by their teachers in German and mathematics, adjusting for subject-specific competences measured with a standardized test, and a rich set of socio-demographic and socio-psychological students’ characteristics (e.g. the “big five”). Results suggested that overweight and obese students were more severely graded in both subjects. The penalty for overweight students, and especially for obese students, was slightly larger in German and in the lowest part of the grade distribution. There was also indication of heterogeneous penalties by gender, with overweight male students being especially penalized in math. Possible ways to help teachers in assigning grades in a fairer way are discussed at the end.

"It's a Little Different for Men"-Sponsorship and Gender in Academic Medicine: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Women remain underrepresented in top leadership positions in academic medicine. In business settings, a person with power and influence actively supporting the career advancement of a junior person is referred to as a sponsor and sponsorship programs have been used to diversify leadership. Little is known about how sponsorship functions in academic medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To explore perceptions of sponsorship and its relationship to gender and career advancement in academic medicine.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with sponsors and protégés.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve sponsors (clinical department chairs) and 11 protégés (participants of a school of medicine executive leadership program [N = 23]) at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

KEY RESULTS

All sponsors were men and all were professors, six of the 11 protégés were women, and four of the 23 participants were underrepresented minorities in medicine. We identified three themes: (1) people (how and who): women seek out and receive sponsorship differently; (2) process (faster and further): sponsorship provides an extra boost, especially for women; and (3) politics and culture (playing favorites and paying it forward): sponsorship and fairness. Informants acknowledge that sponsorship provides an extra boost for career advancement especially for women. Sponsors and protégés differ in their perceptions of how sponsorship happens. Informants describe gender differences in how sponsorship is experienced and specifically noted that women were less likely to actively seek out sponsorship and be identified as protégés compared to men. Informants describe a tension between sponsorship and core academic values such as transparency, fairness, and merit.

CONCLUSION

Sponsorship is perceived to be critical to high-level advancement and is experienced differently by women. Increased understanding of how sponsorship works in academic medicine may empower individual faculty to utilize this professional relationship for career advancement and provide institutions with a strategy to diversify top leadership positions.

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores

Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications' final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014-2016, we examine assigned reviewers' preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration-the process of combining criterion scores into overall impact scores-disadvantage black applicants. Using multilevel models and matching on key variables including career stage, gender, and area of science, we find little evidence for racial disparities emerging in the process of combining preliminary criterion scores into preliminary overall impact scores. Instead, preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities-yet do not explain all of the variability-in preliminary overall impact scores.

Ease and control: the cognitive benefits of hierarchy

This review identifies two cognitive benefits of social hierarchy that may contribute to hierarchy maintenance. First, research indicates that people pay attention to hierarchies automatically, early, and accurately. As a result, hierarchies feel easy to process, which increases liking and support of hierarchy. Second, through their clear, predictable structures and the opportunities they provide for personal agency, hierarchies help people satisfy their need for control, which may lead people to seek out and maintain hierarchy, especially if they currently hold a high rank or believe in social mobility. These cognitive benefits of ease and control may have effects on the performance of hierarchies and on people's willingness to change unfair structures.

Toward an Integrative Framework for Studying Human Evaluation: Attitudes Toward Objects and Attributes

Evaluation is central to human experience, and multiple literatures have studied it. This article pulls from research on attitudes, human and nonhuman mating preferences, consumer behavior, and beyond to build a more comprehensive framework for studying evaluation. First, we distinguish between evaluations of objects (persons, places, things) and evaluations of attributes (dimensions, traits, characteristics). Then, we further distinguish between summarized attribute preferences (a valenced response to a direction on a dimension, such as liking sweetness in desserts) and functional attribute preferences (a valenced response to increasing levels of a dimension in a set of targets, such as the extent to which sweetness predicts liking for desserts). We situate these constructs with respect to existing distinctions in the attitude literature (e.g., specific/general, indirect/direct). Finally, new models address how people translate functional into summarized preferences, as well as how attribute preferences affect (a) subsequent evaluations of objects and (b) situation selection.

Student, instructor, and observer agreement regarding frequencies of scientific teaching practices using the Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching-Observable (MISTO)

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Teaching (ST) pedagogical framework encompasses many of the best practices recommended in the literature and highlighted in national reports. Understanding the growth and impact of ST requires instruments to accurately measure the extent to which practitioners implement ST in their courses. Researchers have typically relied on students, instructors, or observers to document course teaching practices, but it remains unclear whether and how these perspectives differ from each other. To address this issue, we modified our previously published instrument to generate the Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching-Observable (MISTO), which can be completed by students, instructors, and observers, and we investigated the degree of similarity between these three perspectives across 70 undergraduate science courses at seven different institutions in the USA.

RESULTS

We found that the full MISTO and Active Learning subcategory scores showed the highest correlations among the three perspectives, but the degree of correlation between perspectives varied for the other subcategories. Match scores between students and instructors were significantly higher than observer matches for the full MISTO and for the Active Learning, Inclusivity, and Responsiveness subcategories.

CONCLUSIONS

We find that the level and type of agreement between perspectives varies across MISTO subcategories and that this variation likely stems from intrinsic differences in the course access and scoring decisions of the three perspectives. Building on this data, we recommend MISTO users consider their research goals, available resources, and potential artifacts that may arise when deciding which perspective best fits their needs in measuring classroom teaching practices.

Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework

Gender inequalities in the workplace persist, and scholars point to gender discrimination as a significant contributor. As organizations attempt to address this problem, we argue that theory can help shed light on potential solutions. This paper discusses how the lack of fit model can be used by organizations as a framework to understand the process that facilitates gender discrimination in employment decisions and to identify intervention strategies to combat it. We describe two sets of strategies. The first is aimed at reducing the perception that women are not suited for male-typed positions. The second is aimed at preventing the negative performance expectations that derive from this perception of unsuitability from influencing evaluative judgments. Also included is a discussion of several unintentional consequences that may follow from enacting these strategies. We conclude by arguing for the importance of the interplay between theory and practice in targeting gender discrimination in the workplace.

The Ego-Defensive Role of Legitimacy: How Threat-Based Justifications Protect the Self-Esteem of Discriminators

This article analyzes the ego-defensive role played by legitimation, by examining the hypothesis that threat-based justifications attenuate the negative effect on an individual's self-esteem caused by his or her becoming aware of his or her own discriminatory behavior. Across three studies (including a pilot experiment), participants who were led to believe that they had acted in a discriminatory way experienced a decrease in their self-esteem. In Study 1 ( N = 116), this effect was nullified when discrimination was justified by either symbolic or realistic threat perceptions. Study 2 ( N = 250) replicated this pattern of results and went further by showing that discrimination affects self-esteem only in more egalitarian individuals, whereas for those less egalitarian, it affects their social image. According to the ego-defensive role of legitimation, a meta-analytical integration of the results confirmed that the influence of discrimination in depressing self-esteem is moderated by threat-based justifications.

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers' ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers "translated" a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

Does Sexism Affect Thai Women's Psychological and Behavioural Responses? The Stereotype Threat-Buffering Effect of Mindfulness

Few studies have examined the linkage of perceived sexism with stereotype threat and psychological responses in a work setting and moderators that may buffer this negative effect. In Study 1, the relationships among perceived sexism, stereotype threat, and psychological responses were explored among Thai female employees ( N = 296) in a self-report questionnaire study. The aim of Study 2 was to investigate whether mindfulness can mitigate the disastrous effect of sexism on performance, using an experimental design. In Study 1, the standard error of measurement (SEM) results observed a partial mediation effect of stereotype threat for the sexism-disidentification relationship, and sexism only had a significant direct effect on career aspirations. In Study 2, the interaction effect of sexism × mindfulness on the female participants’ reasoning test scores was significant, indicating that those with mindfulness practice performed better when being exposed to sexist behaviours. The current research provides additional information on understanding the impact of sexism on disengagement and decreased career aspirations among Thai female employees in male-dominated industries. In practice, Thai organisations should be concerned about the impact of sexism on disengagement and the protective factor of performance decrements by encouraging anti-sexist norms and fostering the cultivation of mindfulness through practice.

Ten Years toward Equity: Preliminary Results from a Follow-Up Case Study of Academic Computing Culture

Just over 10 years ago, we conducted a culture study of the Computer Science Department at the flagship University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, one of the top five computing departments in the country. The study found that while the department placed an emphasis on research, it did so in a way that, in conjunction with a lack of communication and transparency, devalued teaching and mentoring, and negatively impacted the professional development, education, and sense of belonging of the students. As one part of a multi-phase case study spanning over a decade, this manuscript presents preliminary findings from our latest work at the university. We detail early comparisons between data gathered at the Department of Computer Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2005 and our most recent pilot case study, a follow-up research project completed in 2016. Though we have not yet completed the full data collection, we find it worthwhile to reflect on the pilot case study data we have collected thus far. Our data reveals improvements in the perceptions of undergraduate teaching quality and undergraduate peer mentoring networks. However, we also found evidence of continuing feelings of isolation, incidents of bias, policy opacity, and uneven policy implementation that are areas of concern, particularly with respect to historically underrepresented groups. We discuss these preliminary follow-up findings, offer research and methodological reflections, and share next steps for applied research that aims to create positive cultural change in computing.

Gendered Perceptions of Cultural and Skill Alignment in Technology Companies

Previous research documents how stereotypes discourage young women from choosing and attaining technology jobs. We build off this research and ask whether (and how) stereotypes continue to affect men and women once they enter the technology workforce. Using a novel survey of technical employees from seven Silicon Valley firms and new measures of what we call “cultural” and “skill” alignment, we show that men are more likely than women to believe they possess the stereotypical traits and skills of a successful tech employee. We find that cultural alignment is especially important: because women are less likely than men to believe they match the cultural image of successful tech workers, they are less likely to identify with the tech profession, less likely to report positive supervisor treatment, and more likely to consider switching career fields. This paper is the first to use unique and independent measures of cultural and skill alignment comparing employees’ perceptions of themselves to their perceptions of an ideal successful worker. By allowing cultural and skill alignment to operate separately, we are able to determine which work outcomes are most strongly related to each form of alignment. Our results imply that if we can broaden the cultural image of a successful tech worker, women may be more likely to feel like they belong in technology environments, ultimately increasing their retention in tech jobs.

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques

BACKGROUND

Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories.

METHODS

We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative "topics" (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity.

RESULTS

Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as "leaders" and "pioneers" in their "fields," with "highly innovative" and "highly significant research." By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having "expertise" and working in "excellent" environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals.

Engaging Gatekeepers, Optimizing Decision Making, and Mitigating Bias: Design Specifications for Systemic Diversity Interventions

In this contribution to the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Special Issue on Understanding Diversity Dynamics in Systems: Social Equality as an Organization Change Issue, I develop and describe design specifications for systemic diversity interventions in upward mobility career systems, aimed at optimizing decision making through mitigating bias by engaging gatekeepers. These interventions address the paradox of meritocracy that underlies the surprising lack of diversity at the top of the career pyramid in these systems. I ground the design specifications in the limited empirical evidence on “what works” in systemic interventions. Specifically, I describe examples from interventions in academic settings, including a bias literacy program, participatory modeling, and participant observation. The design specifications, paired with inspirational examples of successful interventions, should assist diversity officers and consultants in designing and implementing interventions to promote the advancement to and representation of nondominant group members at the top of the organizational hierarchy.

Gendered help: Effects of gender and realm of achievement on autonomy- versus dependency-oriented help giving

Building on research on helping relations and gender stereotypes, the present research explored the effects of gender-stereotypical perceptions on willingness to offer dependency- and autonomy-oriented help to women and men. Two studies were conducted in a 2 (Gender of the person in need) × 2 (Domain of achievement) between-participants design. Study 1 examined future success expectations of male versus female students needing help in performing either a stereotypically masculine or a stereotypically feminine academic task, and the kind of help participants preferred to offer them. Study 2 further explored perceptions of male versus female students who exhibited long-term failure in a gender-stereotypical versus non-stereotypical academic task, perceptions of their intellectual and social abilities, feelings toward them, attributions of their need, and the preferred way of helping. Our findings indicate that women failing in a stereotypically masculine domain may expect others to give them dependency- rather than autonomy-oriented help, and judge their traits and abilities in an unflattering manner. In other words, gender achievement stereotypes create a social context where helping interactions reproduce power and status discrepancies.

Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching (MIST): A Tool to Measure the Frequencies of Research-Based Teaching Practices in Undergraduate Science Courses

The Scientific Teaching (ST) pedagogical framework provides various approaches for science instructors to teach in a way that more closely emulates how science is practiced by actively and inclusively engaging students in their own learning and by making instructional decisions based on student performance data. Fully understanding the impact of ST requires having mechanisms to quantify its implementation. While many useful instruments exist to document teaching practices, these instruments only partially align with the range of practices specified by ST, as described in a recently published taxonomy. Here, we describe the development, validation, and implementation of the Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching (MIST), a survey derived from the ST taxonomy and designed to gauge the frequencies of ST practices in undergraduate science courses. MIST showed acceptable validity and reliability based on results from 7767 students in 87 courses at nine institutions. We used factor analyses to identify eight subcategories of ST practices and used these categories to develop a short version of the instrument amenable to joint administration with other research instruments. We further discuss how MIST can be used by instructors, departments, researchers, and professional development programs to quantify and track changes in ST practices.

Plenty of moustaches but not enough women: cross sectional study of medical leaders

OBJECTIVES

To draw attention to sex related disparities in academic medical leadership by investigating the representation of female leaders compared with leaders with moustaches.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

Academic medical departments in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinical department leaders (n=1018) at the top 50 US medical schools funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportions of female leaders and moustachioed leaders across institutions and specialties (n=20). Additionally, the moustache index: the proportion of women compared with the proportion of moustaches, analyzed with multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Women accounted for 13% (137/1018) of department leaders at the top 50 NIH funded medical schools in the US. Moustachioed leaders accounted for 19% (190/1018). The proportion of female department leaders ranged from 0% (0/20) to 26% (5/19) across institutions and 0% (0/53) to 36% (19/53) across specialties. Only seven institutions and five specialties had more than 20% of female department leaders. The overall moustache index of all academic medical departments studied was 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Only six of 20 specialties had more women than moustaches (moustache index >1).

CONCLUSIONS

Moustachioed individuals significantly outnumber women as leaders of medical departments in the US. We believe that every department and institution should strive for a moustache index ≥1. Known, effective, and evidence based policies to increase the number of women in leadership positions should be prioritized.

Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening

This study compared two forms of accountability that can be used to promote diversity and fairness in personnel selections: identity-conscious accountability (holding decision makers accountable for which groups are selected) versus identity-blind accountability (holding decision makers accountable for making fair selections). In a simulated application screening process, undergraduate participants (majority female) sorted applicants under conditions of identity-conscious accountability, identity-blind accountability, or no accountability for an applicant pool in which white males either did or did not have a human capital advantage. Under identity-conscious accountability, participants exhibited pro-female and pro-minority bias, particularly in the white-male-advantage applicant pool. Under identity-blind accountability, participants exhibited no biases and candidate qualifications dominated interview recommendations. Participants exhibited greater resentment toward management under identity-conscious accountability.

Choosing between two semi-finalists: On academic performance gap, sex category, and decision question

We use an application-files experimental design to investigate a new topic in the assessment of candidates for junior-engineering jobs. Our focus is on two semi-finalists, a man and a woman, who show clearly different but still good levels of academic record. We keep the gap between those levels constant, but vary the sex category of the better performer. We also include control conditions in which the two have similar records. Each assessor's task was to choose either one applicant or neither, and to rate both in competence and suitability. The control-group competence ratings indicate no gender bias by either men or women; the experimental-conditions competence data are consistent with the candidates' records as predicted, but also show women minimizing the record of the better-performing male candidate. Choice and suitability, on the other hand, reveal a preference for the female applicant across respondents and conditions, as anticipated given the more open nature of those two questions, while still reflecting the academic records. Findings and their interpretation are presented in detail.

Twenty years and still counting: including women as participants and studying sex and gender in biomedical research

BACKGROUND

This paper chronicles attempts in the United States over the past 20 years to fully represent women in clinical trials and ensure the study of sex and gender in biomedical research. We maintain that productive science with the aim of serving the public health requires examining the influence of sex and gender on health outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This section provides a historical perspective on the changes in recommendations and requirements of both the National Institutes of Health - the world's largest single funder of biomedical research - and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration - the world's most influential regulator of drugs and medical devices - for the acceptable conduct of research as it relates to sex and gender. We also cite all reports by the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Congress' General Accountability Office issued from 1990 to the present on the inclusion of sex and gender in research, and selected high-impact published studies that illustrate and document the paucity of, yet the need for, inclusion of females and consideration of sex and gender in research across an array of biomedical disciplines. The key message of this paper is that it has been 20 years since the first requirements to include women as well as men in clinical trials and analyze results by sex were mandated by a U.S. federal law, yet not nearly enough progress has been made. Recent signs of potential change in both policy and practice of scientific inquiry suggest much more progress may be within reach. However, awaiting a cultural shift to allow the study of sex and gender to be embraced is not seen as an effective strategy for change. Rather, specific instrumental recommendations are offered for how to include the study of sex and gender in research so as to increase our understanding and promotion of health for the benefit of all.

Patterns of Feedback on the Bridge to Independence: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of NIH Mentored Career Development Award Application Critiques

BACKGROUND

NIH Mentored Career Development (K) Awards bridge investigators from mentored to independent research. A smaller proportion of women than men succeed in this transition. The aim of this qualitative study was to analyze reviewers' narrative critiques of K award applications and explore thematic content of feedback provided to male and female applicants.

METHOD

We collected 88 critiques, 34 from 9 unfunded and 54 from 18 funded applications, from 70% (n = 26) of investigators at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with K awards funded between 2005 and 2009 on the first submission or after revision. We qualitatively analyzed text in the 5 critique sections: candidate, career development plan, research plan, mentors, and environment and institutional commitment. We explored thematic content within these sections for male and female applicants and for applicants who had received a subsequent independent research award by 2014.

RESULTS

Themes revealed consistent areas of criticism for unfunded applications and praise for funded applications. Subtle variations in thematic content appeared for male and female applicants: For male applicants criticism was often followed by advice but for female applicants it was followed by questions about ability; praise recurrently characterized male but not female applicants' research as highly significant with optimism for future independence. Female K awardees that obtained subsequent independent awards stood out as having track records described as "outstanding."

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study suggests that K award reviewer feedback, particularly for female applicants, should be investigated as a potential contributor to research persistence and success in crossing the bridge to independence.