Key Takeaways
- A landmark 2012 study showing bias against women in science has been contradicted by new research
- The replication study with 1,300 professors found female applicants were rated slightly higher than male counterparts
- The new findings challenge long-held assumptions about gender bias in STEM fields
A major study that claimed to prove bias against women in science has been debunked by new research that found the opposite result. The original 2012 experiment, cited over 4,600 times, suggested professors favored male applicants – but a rigorous replication now shows female candidates may actually have a slight advantage.
The Original Study and Its Findings
In the 2012 experiment, 127 science professors evaluated identical CVs with different gendered names. Researchers found “John” was rated as more competent, hireable, and deserving of higher salary than “Jennifer.” This study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that “the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.”
The Replication Study Results
Researchers from Rutgers University conducted a much larger version of the experiment, involving nearly 1,300 professors from over 50 American institutions. Using the same application materials with gendered names, they found the female applicant was ranked marginally more capable, more appealing to work with, and more hireable than her male counterpart. She was also deemed worthy of a higher salary.
The researchers stated their findings “challenge the longstanding narrative that women are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics” due to hiring bias.
Publication Challenges and Journal Response
Lead authors Nathan Honeycutt and Lee Jussim revealed their replication study was initially rejected by Nature Human Behaviour. Dr. Honeycutt told The Times: “We can’t know for certain but [that is our suspicion] given the nature of their feedback and pushback” that reviewers agreed with the original results.
The study was eventually accepted by the journal Meta-Psychology. Erika Pastrana, vice-president of Nature Research Journals, defended their decision-making process: “Decisions by our editors to accept or reject replication studies are based solely on whether the research meets our editorial criteria, including standards for methodological rigour. Our decisions are not driven by a preferred narrative.”
