/
equity.bib
86 lines (74 loc) · 5.56 KB
/
equity.bib
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
@article{williams_national_2015,
title = {National hiring experiments reveal 2: 1 faculty preference for women on {STEM} tenure track},
shorttitle = {National hiring experiments reveal 2},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
author = {Williams, Wendy M. and Ceci, Stephen J.},
year = {2015},
pages = {201418878}
}
@article{isaac_interventions_2009,
title = {Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: a systematic review},
volume = {84},
shorttitle = {Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring},
number = {10},
journal = {Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges},
author = {Isaac, Carol and Lee, Barbara and Carnes, Molly},
year = {2009},
pages = {1440}
}
@article{carnes_effect_2015,
title = {Effect of an {Intervention} to {Break} the {Gender} {Bias} {Habit} for {Faculty} at {One} {Institution}: {A} {Cluster} {Randomized}, {Controlled} {Trial}},
volume = {90},
issn = {1040-2446},
shorttitle = {Effect of an {Intervention} to {Break} the {Gender} {Bias} {Habit} for {Faculty} at {One} {Institution}},
url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310758/},
doi = {10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552},
abstract = {Purpose
Despite sincere commitment to egalitarian, meritocratic principles, subtle gender bias persists, constraining women’s opportunities for academic advancement. The authors implemented a pair-matched, single-blind, cluster-randomized, controlled study of a gender bias habit-changing intervention at a large public university.
Method
Participants were faculty in 92 departments or divisions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Between September 2010 and March 2012, experimental departments were offered a gender bias habit-changing intervention as a 2.5 hour workshop. Surveys measured gender bias awareness; motivation, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations to reduce bias; and gender equity action. A timed word categorization task measured implicit gender/leadership bias. Faculty completed a worklife survey before and after all experimental departments received the intervention. Control departments were offered workshops after data were collected.
Results
Linear mixed-effects models showed significantly greater changes post-intervention for faculty in experimental vs. control departments on several outcome measures, including self-efficacy to engage in gender equity promoting behaviors (P = .013). When ≥ 25\% of a department’s faculty attended the workshop (26 of 46 departments), significant increases in self-reported action to promote gender equity occurred at 3 months (P = .007). Post-intervention, faculty in experimental departments expressed greater perceptions of fit (P = .024), valuing of their research (P = .019), and comfort in raising personal and professional conflicts (P = .025).
Conclusions
An intervention that facilitates intentional behavioral change can help faculty break the gender bias habit and change department climate in ways that should support the career advancement of women in academic medicine, science, and engineering.},
number = {2},
urldate = {2018-12-03},
journal = {Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges},
author = {Carnes, Molly and Devine, Patricia G. and Manwell, Linda Baier and Byars-Winston, Angela and Fine, Eve and Ford, Cecilia E. and Forscher, Patrick and Isaac, Carol and Kaatz, Anna and Magua, Wairimu and Palta, Mari and Sheridan, Jennifer},
month = feb,
year = {2015},
pmid = {25374039},
pmcid = {PMC4310758},
pages = {221--230}
}
@article{ceci_women_2018,
title = {Women in {Academic} {Science}: {Experimental} {Findings} {From} {Hiring} {Studies}},
volume = {53},
issn = {0046-1520},
shorttitle = {Women in {Academic} {Science}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1396462},
doi = {10.1080/00461520.2017.1396462},
abstract = {Although women are underrepresented in the most mathematically intensive fields, the gender gap in these fields has narrowed over the past 2 decades. In my E. L. Thorndike address I summarized the temporal trends in sex differences for 8 fields and considered factors that drive both the underrepresentation of women and its recent narrowing. I reviewed evidence concerning sex differences in mathematical and spatial aptitude, biases in hiring, funding, publishing, remuneration, and promotion, and gendered preferences. I conclude that the most important causes of underrepresentation appear to occur before women matriculate in college and are concerned with ability-related beliefs, stereotypes, and preferences starting in early elementary school, which by the end of high school have reduced the size of the potential pool. By the time women reach graduate school, there is evidence that they are as successful as their male counterparts in being interviewed and hired for tenure-track positions, funded, and published.},
number = {1},
urldate = {2018-12-03},
journal = {Educational Psychologist},
author = {Ceci, Stephen J.},
month = jan,
year = {2018},
pages = {22--41}
}
@article{ceci_why_2015,
title = {Why {So} {Few} {Women} in {Mathematically} {Intensive} {Fields}?},
journal = {Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource},
author = {Ceci, Stephen J. and Williams, Wendy M.},
year = {2015},
pages = {1--12}
}
@article{ceci_women_2015,
title = {Women have substantial advantage in {STEM} faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men},
volume = {6},
journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
author = {Ceci, Stephen J. and Williams, Wendy M.},
year = {2015},
pages = {1532}
}