↓ Skip to main content

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 47,638)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
355 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2015
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1418878112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy M. Williams, Stephen J. Ceci, Williams, Wendy M, Ceci, Stephen J

Abstract

National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,491 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 355 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 25 7%
United Kingdom 9 3%
Germany 4 1%
Canada 4 1%
Australia 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 300 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 125 35%
Researcher 62 17%
Student > Master 37 10%
Student > Bachelor 32 9%
Professor 22 6%
Other 77 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 78 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 17%
Social Sciences 50 14%
Unspecified 24 7%
Physics and Astronomy 20 6%
Other 121 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1801. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2017.
All research outputs
#470
of 8,659,099 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#25
of 47,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18
of 204,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2
of 1,011 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,659,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 204,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,011 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.