implicit bias in academia: a challenge to the meritocratic

Implicit bias in academia: A challenge to the meritocratic principle and to women’s careers – and what to do

about it

LERU paperJadranka Gvozdanović

Katrien MaesTomas Brage, Karin Gilland-Lutz, Brigitte Mantilleri, Jane Norman

and the LERU Thematic Group Gender

Overview• Executivesummary• Aimsofthepaper

– Whatisimplicitbias?– Theimpactofimplicitgenderbiasonworkingconditions– Verticalsegregation– Genderpaygap– Part-timepositions– Precariouscontracts

• Theimpactofimplicitgenderbiasonrecruitmentandcareeradvancementprocesses– Advertisingpositions– Selectioncommittees– Assessmentmethods– Biasinthelanguageofevaluation

• Theimpactofimplicitgenderbiasonresearchfunding• Summaryaboutbiasinassessmentplaces• Tacklinggenderbias

– Leadership,visionandstrategy– Structuralmeasures– Effectiveimplementation

• Conclusionsandrecommendations2

Decades of awareness, but too little

improvement

• Researchorganisationsandbusinessesstillloosetoomuchoffemalepotential.

• OnlyverymodestprogresssinceHennig&Jardim(1977)establishedthatwomenfallshortoftheircareerobjectivesbecausetheyfailtounderstandtherulesofbehavior,thestyleofcommunicationsandthemodeofrelationshipsinenterprises.

• Awarenessdevelopmentfrom“fixingthewomen”to“fixingthestructures”causedonlyminimalimprovements(cf.e.g.Valian’s1998Whysoslow?).

3

European universities lose female potential

(She figures 2015)

4

Slow progress

• Strikinggenderinequalitiespersistwhenitcomestocareeradvancementandparticipationinacademicdecision-making(ShefiguresChapter6).

• In2013,womenmadeuponly21%ofthetop-levelresearchers(gradeA),showingverylimitedprogresscomparedto2010(20%).

• AtgradeClevel,thedifferencewithmenstandsat10percentagepoints,whileatgradeAlevelitreaches58percentagepoints.

5

Women are academically as capable as men

• Underthesamecircumstances,femaleacademicsperform

equallywell(Ceci&Williams2011)

• Amongbeginningresearcherstherearenosignificantgendered

differencesinproductivity,buttenyearslaterinscientificcareers,

maleresearchersproducemorepublications,yetthecitation

indicesremainroughlythesame(VandenBesselaar&

Sandström,2016).

6

Women are as capable leaders as men

• 2014(EU-28):20%femaleheadsofhighereducationinstitutionsvs.15.5%in2010(EU-27).

• Femaleleadersarebetterattakinginitiative,practicingself-development,exhibitinghighintegrityandhonesty,drivingforresults,developingandmotivatingothers,organizingteam-work,establishingstretchgoals,championingchange,solvingproblems,communicatingpowerfullyandprolifically,connectingthegrouptotheoutsideworld,innovating,andinprofessionalexpertise;

• Maleleadersoutscore(toamuchsmallerextent)femaleleadersonly onstrategicthinking(Zenger&Folkman2012,researchdataon7,280leaders)

7

Why not at the top?

• Femalestudentshavebettergraduationresultsthanmalestudents(Shefigures2015)

• Intheperiod2010-2014,femaleresearchersinGermanyhadahigherfull-weightedcitationimpactfactorthanmalesinBusiness,ManagementandAccounting,Nursing,DecisionScience,EarthandPlanetarySciences,PhysicsandAstronomy,andtheArtsandHumanities(MappingGenderintheGermanResearchArea,p.15)andhigherproductivityinEnergy,Engineering,ComputerScience,MaterialScience,theEarthandPlanetarySciences,andPhysicsandAstronomy.

• Highercitationimpactofgender-mixedresearchteams(MGGR,20).

8

FemaleCEOsin2009andnow

• Comparedto3%CEOwomenin2009,thereare6,4%bynow– Fortune500statistics,cf.http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/fortune-women-ceos/

• Thisequalsanincreaseofnotmorethanhalfapercentagepointperyear.

9

What hampers womens’ progression in

academic careers?

• Alargebodyofresearchpointstoimplicitbiasasasignificantimpedimenttowomen’sadvancementinanacademiccareer.

• Biasisskewedinformationprocessingundertheinfluenceofcontextandaccumulatedexperience;itmakesuspaymoreattentiontoconfirminginformationanddiscarddisconfirminginformation.

• Implicitbiasplaysaroleinprocesseswhereimportantcareer-impactingdecisionsaremade,i.e.inacademicrecruitment,retentionandadvancement,aswellasintheallocationofresearchfunding.

10

Biased judgement of identical competence, hirability,

mentoring, Moss-Racusin, 2012

• 2016-2017:BiasdiscussedatTGGENDmeetings– draftpaperdeveloped

• 14July– 25August2017:ForcommenttoBoD+,PGRESE,TGCARE,SON

• 15September:RevisedpaperfordiscussionatBoD+

• October:Finalrevisions

• 18November:SubmittedtotheRAforapprovaltopublish

11

Adequate salary? (Moss-Racusin, 2012.Science faculty’s subtle gender

biases favor male students.PNAS)

• 2016-2017:BiasdiscussedatTGGENDmeetings– draftpaperdeveloped

• 14July– 25August2017:ForcommenttoBoD+,PGRESE,TGCARE,SON

• 15September:RevisedpaperfordiscussionatBoD+

• October:Finalrevisions

• 18November:SubmittedtotheRAforapprovaltopublish

12

Bias in recruitment and evaluation processes

• Researchshowsthatfemalepsychologists(Steinpreisetal.,1999)andfemalenaturalscientistsinSTEMMdepartments(Moss-Racusinetal.,2012)arejustaslikelytodiscriminateagainstfemalecandidatesastheirmalecounterparts(whenassessingCVswithrandomisedfemaleversusmalenames).

• Steinpreisetal. (1999)showthatnegativebiasespeciallyaffectedwomenattheearlycareerstages.

• Importanceofin-grouployaltyandacademicnetworks(cf.Zogmaisteretal.,2008).

13

Bias in working conditions:

gender pay gap

• Genderpaygapreferstodifferencesinpayforthesameorsimilarworkthatcannotbeexplainedbyanythingotherthanemployees’gender,takingintoaccountrelevantfactorssuchaslevelsofeducation/qualification,yearsofexperience,responsibility,etc.

• Persistentpaygapofaround20%inEuropeandbeyond.

14

15

Precarious and part-time positions

• Thereisasystematic3.5%discrepancybetweenmaleandfemaleresearchersonprecariouscontractsinEurope;thiscombineswithotherdisadvantageswomenfacetobecomepartofalargerproblem.

• Disadvantageousworkingcircumstancesenablelesspublicationproductivity,combinedwithlesshigh-profilecitations(VandenBesselaar&Sandström,2017).

• Lowerproductivityleadstolessresearchmoneyandlowerchancesforaleadingroleinacademia.

16

Vicious circles introduced by bias

VandenBesselaar&Sandström,2017

17

Leadership, vision and strategy

• Keyareasforaction:• Leadershipbasedonmeritocracyandensuring

meritocracyintheorganisation.• ->Accessibilityofleadershiptowomen.• Expectationsonleadership:• ->Involvementinchangeprocesses• ->Strategyfortheentireorganisation.

18

Institutional measures

• Assignresponsibilities,monitorthedevelopmentsandhavetargetedaction.

• Raisegeneralawareness,havementoringandtrainingprograms.

• Identifyproblemareasandhavestrategyandresourcestotacklethem.

• Havetransparentproceduresandminimisepossibilitiestofloutthemeritocraticprinciple.

19

Tools to debias selection processes

• Making application and selection procedures fully transparent,with the relevant criteria determined at the outset;

• Critically reviewing the language of advertisements,recommendations and evaluations;

• Prioritising research quality (by criteria such as innovation,originality and methodological rigour, not just bibliometrical data)over quantity;

• Using partially anonymised CV evaluation in two rounds: a firstround listing formal qualifications, and a second round ofqualitative evaluation;

• Briefing selection committees about bias pitfalls;• Including external observers and evaluators in these processes.• Critically evaluating all selection and promotion procedures.

20

Recommendations to research institutions,

funders and policy makers

• R1. Monitor career development and assign clear responsibilities.• R2. Make plans to correct gender bias established by monitoring.• R3. Offer training for recognising and mitigating bias.• R4. Institutionalise transparent recruitment processes involvingexternal observers and evaluators.

• R5. Evaluate the language of recommendations and evaluations.• R6. Eliminate gender pay gap.• R7. Compensate employees for parental leave.• R8. Monitor precarious contracts and part-time positions for anygender-based differences and correct any inequalities.

• R9. Undertake positive action towards a proper representation ofwomen in all leading positions.

21

Best-practiceexamples

• Best-practiceexamplesfromLERUuniversities:

• Field-specificmeasuresandplans• Monitoringandadjustment• Flexibilityandresponsibility• LearningfromtheotherLERUuniversities.

22

References

Ahlqvist,V.,Andersson,J.,Söderqvist,l.&TumponeJ.(2015).Agenderneutralprocess?Aqualitativestudyoftheevaluationoftheresearchgrantapplications2014.Stockholm:SwedishResearchCouncil.Ceci,S.J.&W.M.Williams(2011).Understandingcurrentcausesofwomen’sunderrepresentationinscience.PNAS(ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences) 108(8):3157–3162.Hennig,Margaret– AnneJardim(1977)TheMenagerialWoman:TheSurvivalManualforWomeninBusiness.AnchorPress.Moss-Racusin,C.A.,Dovidio,J.F.,Brescoli,V.L.,Graham,M.J.&J.Handelsman(2012).Sciencefaculty’ssubtlegenderbiasesfavourmalestudents,PNAS 109(41)16474-16479.She Figures 2015. Brussels: European Commission.Valian,Virginia(1998).Whysoslow?TheAdvancementofWomen. TheMITPress.VandenBesselaar,PeterandUlfSandström.(2016).Genderdifferencesinresearchperformanceanditsimpactoncareers.Scientometrics2016,106:143-162.VandenBesselaar,P.,Sandström,U.(2017)Viciouscirclesofgenderbias,lowerpositions,andlowerperformance:Genderdifferencesinscholarlyproductivityandimpact.PLoSONE12(8):e0183301.VanderLee,R.&Ellemers,N.(2015).GendercontributestopersonalresearchsuccessintheNetherlands.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences 112(40),12349-12353.Wennerås,C.,&Wold,A.(1997).Nepotismandsexisminpeer-review.Nature,387,341–343.Zenger, J. & Folkman, J. (2012). Are women better leaders than men? Harvard Business ReviewZogmaister, C., Arcuri, L., Castelli, L. & Smith, E.R. (2008). The Impact of Loyalty and Equality on Implicit IngroupFavoritism. In: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11, 4, 493-512.

23