Equitable Letters for Space and Physics

Yes, bias is a problem:

Gender bias exists in letters of recommendation, and it is reflected in the language used to describe and evaluate female versus male candidates. Professional organizations such as AGU are becoming more aware of this issue, and are pursuing avenues to address it. The following studies document this issue and discuss the impact on the hiring process and gender disparity within academic science.

• A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants (Schmader et al., 2007)

  Gender stereotypes could bias how recommenders describe female compared to male applicants. Text analysis software was used to examine 886 letters of recommendation, and found that recommenders used significantly more standout adjectives to describe male as compared to female candidates.

• Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality (Gaucher et al., 2011)

  The authors took 493 advertisements for male-dominated occupations and 262 for female-dominated occupations and analyzed the different applications to identify which language was coded male or female in those applications.

• Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences (Madrea et al., 2009)

  The authors investigated differences in agentic and communal characteristics in letters of recommendation for men and women for academic positions and whether such differences influenced selection decisions in academia. The results indicated that women were described as more communal and less agentic than men, and that communal characteristics have a negative relationship with hiring decisions in academia that are based on letters of recommendation.

• Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012)

  The authors conducted a randomized double-blind study to investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science.

• Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience (Dutt et al., 2016)

  The authors examine the relationship between applicant gender and two outcomes of interest: letter length and letter tone. The results reveal that female applicants are only half as likely to receive excellent letters versus good letters compared to male applicants.

• Implicit bias in letters of recommendation for an undergraduate research internship (Houser et al., 2018)

  The authors' study of the letters of recommendation to Houser's REU program found that letters written for students who were male, White, from research universities - and more often accepted to the REU - describe the productivity of the students with greater certainty and include a greater number of quotes from student work. Letters about others (e.g. women, people of color, students from non-research universities) include more positive emotion and describe the insight of the student, but include more discrepancy and tentative statements.

• Raising Doubt in Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Gender Differences and Their Impact (Madera et al., 2019)

  This current study examines differences in the number of doubt raisers that are written in letters of recommendations for candidates applying for assistant professor positions, and the impact of these doubt raisers on university professors who provided evaluations of recommendation letters. The results show that recommenders use more doubt raisers in letters of recommendations for women compared to men and that the presence of certain types of doubt raisers in letters of recommendations results in negative outcomes for both genders.

• The Presence of Gender Bias in Letters of Recommendations Written for Urology Residency Applicants (Filippou et al., 2019)

  Of 460 letters evaluated, letters for male applicants are written in a more authentic tone compared to letters written for female applicants. Letters written for male applicants contain significantly more references to personal drive, work, and power than letters written for female applicants. Significant differences are maintained on multivariable analysis when controlling for race and Step 1 score of the applicant. Letters with references to power were significantly more likely to be associated with an applicant who matched into urology than an applicant who did not match.

• In this 2016 newspaper article from The Daily Texan, "Study reveals implicit gender bias in recommendation letters," author Laura Zhang summarizes a five-year study (Dutt et al. 2016) of 1,000 letters of recommendation for postdoctoral fellowships in the geosciences. It found that female applicants were only half as likely to receive "excellent" letters compared to male applicants, for example, describing applicants as having a "thorough understanding of the subject" versus being a "brilliant scientist and role model" or a "trailblazer." The author attributes this to implicit or unconscious gender bias.

• Bibliography of Gender Bias Studies (Savonick and Davidson, 2017)

  This is a helpful bibliography of resources that is useful for tracking and recognizing gender bias in academia. These studies supplement anecdotal evidence and lived experience with empirical evidence of gender bias.

• Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women (Sheltzer and Smith, 2014)

  This is article that studies the mentorship/advocacy role in the biological sciences; specifically comparing the employment patterns of high achieving male faculty members to their collegues. The authors find that "The dearth of women who are trained in these laboratories likely limits the number of female candidates who are most competitive for faculty job searches."

• Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines (Leslie et al., 2015)

  This is an article that explores the correlation between the perceived innate talents needed to be successful in a discipline with the gender diversity in that discipline. The authors found a strong correlation between expectations of brilliance and anti-diversity in both STEM disciplines and the humanities. Thus, in the fields where raw talent and brilliance are thought to be required, women (who are generally stereotyped as not having talent) are under represented in the field.