Promise and pitfalls of a gender-blind faculty search

BioScience

Volumn 63, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 611-612

  Jones, Cynthia S ^a   Urban, Mark C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883168736     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.8.3     Document Type: Note

References (6)

1. Adamo SA. 2013. Attrition of women in the biological sciences: Workload, motherhood, and other explanations revisited. BioScience 63: 43-48.
2. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review 94: 991-1013.
3. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16474-16479.
4. Raymond J. 2013. Sexist attitudes: Most of us are biased. Nature 495: 33-34.
5. Shen H. 2013. Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature 495: 22-24.
6. Trix F, Psenka C. 2003. Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse and Society 14: 191-220.