Professors’ gender biases in assessing applicants for professorships

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Heike Solga, A. Rusconi, Nicolai Netz
{"title":"Professors’ gender biases in assessing applicants for professorships","authors":"Heike Solga, A. Rusconi, Nicolai Netz","doi":"10.1093/esr/jcad007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Recent evidence suggests that women are more likely to be selected for professorships when they apply. This female advantage may be partly due to the widely promoted gender-equality policy of having a substantial female quota in selection committees. Yet, research has rarely considered whether male and female committee members evaluate applicants for professorships differently. We address this research gap based on a large factorial survey experiment with German university professors from different disciplines. We asked these professors to rate how qualified hypothetical applicants are for full professorships and the likelihood of inviting these applicants for a job interview. We find that female applicants have an modest advantage both in their perceived qualifications and in their likelihood of being invited—with no differences between the male and female professors assessing them. Importantly, however, the female advantage in invitation does not apply to highly qualified female applicants but only to female applicants with low and mediocre perceived qualifications—again, there is no difference between male and female professors. Moreover, our analyses do not indicate a Matilda effect, that is, we do not find a co-authorship penalty for female applicants.","PeriodicalId":48237,"journal":{"name":"European Sociological Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that women are more likely to be selected for professorships when they apply. This female advantage may be partly due to the widely promoted gender-equality policy of having a substantial female quota in selection committees. Yet, research has rarely considered whether male and female committee members evaluate applicants for professorships differently. We address this research gap based on a large factorial survey experiment with German university professors from different disciplines. We asked these professors to rate how qualified hypothetical applicants are for full professorships and the likelihood of inviting these applicants for a job interview. We find that female applicants have an modest advantage both in their perceived qualifications and in their likelihood of being invited—with no differences between the male and female professors assessing them. Importantly, however, the female advantage in invitation does not apply to highly qualified female applicants but only to female applicants with low and mediocre perceived qualifications—again, there is no difference between male and female professors. Moreover, our analyses do not indicate a Matilda effect, that is, we do not find a co-authorship penalty for female applicants.
教授在评估教授职位申请人时的性别偏见
最近的证据表明,女性在申请时更有可能被选为教授。这种女性优势的部分原因可能是广泛推行的性别平等政策,即在选拔委员会中有大量女性配额。然而,研究很少考虑男性和女性委员会成员对教授职位申请人的评价是否不同。我们在对来自不同学科的德国大学教授进行大型析因调查实验的基础上解决了这一研究差距。我们要求这些教授对假设申请人获得正式教授职位的资格以及邀请这些申请人参加面试的可能性进行评分。我们发现,女性申请人在其感知的资格和被邀请的可能性方面都有适度的优势——评估她们的男性和女性教授之间没有差异。然而,重要的是,女性在邀请方面的优势并不适用于高素质的女性申请人,而只适用于资历较低和一般的女性申请人——同样,男性和女性教授之间没有区别。此外,我们的分析没有表明玛蒂尔达效应,也就是说,我们没有发现女性申请人的合著惩罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
9.40%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: European Sociological Review contains articles in all fields of sociology ranging in length from short research notes up to major reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信