Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience

Nature Geoscience

Volumn 9, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 805-808

  Dutt, Kuheli ^a   Pfaff, Danielle L ^b   Bernstein, Ariel F ^b   Dillard, Joseph S ^b   Block, Caryn J ^b  

^a Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING; FEMALE; GENDER DISPARITY; HIGHER EDUCATION; MALE; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

CENTRAL AMERICA; NORTH AMERICA; SOUTH AMERICA;

EID: 84994289069     PISSN: 17520894     EISSN: 17520908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2819     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Valian, V. Why So Slow? The Advancement ofWomen (MIT Press, 1998).
2. Hill, C., Corbett, C. & St. Rose, A. American Association of UniversityWomen. Why So Few?Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (AAUW, 2010).
3. Holmes, M. A., O'Connell, S. & Dutt, K. Women in the Geosciences: Practical, Positive Practices Towards Parity (AGU Special Publication Series, Wiley, 2015).
4. Goulden, M., Frasch, K. & Mason, M. A. Staying Competitive: Patching America's Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences (University of California at Berkeley; Berkeley Center on Health, Economic and Family Security; and the Center for American Progress, 2009).
5. Postdocs at Federally Funded R&D Centers (National Science Foundation, 2015); http://www. nsf. gov/statistics/2015/nsf15312
6. Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (National Science Foundation, 2015); http://www. nsf. gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/tables. cfm
7. National Academy of Sciences Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential ofWomen in Academic Science and Engineering (National Academies, 2007).
8. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. & Handelsman, J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16474-16479 (2012).
9. Wenneras, C. &Wold, A. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature 387, 341-343 (1997).
10. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P. & Zingales, L. How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4403-4408 (2014).
11. Sheltzer, J. M. & Smith, J. C. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10107-10112 (2014).
12. Madera, J., Hebl, M. & Martin, R. Gender and letters of recommendation for academics: Agentic and communal di-erences. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1591-1599 (2009).
13. Trix, F. & Psenka, C. Exploring the color of glass: letters of Recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse Soc. 14, 191-220 (2003).
14. Schmader, T., Whitehead, J. &Wysocki, V. H. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 57, 509-514 (2007).
15. Morgan, W. B., Elder, K. B. & King, E. B. The emergence and reduction of bias in letters of recommendation. J. Appl. Psychol. 43, 2297-2306 (2013).
16. Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M. & Freeland, E. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347, 262-265 (2015).
17. Allum, J. Phase II: Final Applications and Initial O-ers of Admission. Findings from the 2014 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey (Council of Graduate Schools, 2014).
18. Judge, T. A. & Higgins, C. A. A-ective disposition and the letter of reference. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 75, 207-221 (1998).
19. Hofmann, D. A. & Gavin, M. B. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. J. Manage. 24, 623-641 (1998).
20. Ibarra, H. Paving an alternative route: gender di-erences in managerial networks. Soc. Psychol. Q. 60, 91-102 (1997).
21. Heilman, M. E. &Wallen, A. S. Wimpy and undeserving of respect: penalties for men's gender-inconsistent success. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 64, 664-667 (2010).
22. Stewart, A. J., Malley, J. E. & LaVaque-Manty, D. Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing AcademicWomen (Univ. Michigan Press, 2007).
23. Ri-e, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F. G. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005).
24. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. & Bracken, C. C. Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum. Commun. Res. 28, 587-604 (2002).
25. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. & Bracken, C. C. Practical Resources for Assessing and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Content Analysis Research Projects (2010); http://matthewlombard. com/reliability/index-print. html
26. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174 (1977).