NextSTEPS Bibliography
Filter by Category
COVID-19, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Publishing

Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., García-Costa, D., Farjam, M., & Mehmani, B. (2021). Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PloS One, 16(10), e0257919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257919

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.
Link
COVID-19, Gender/Sex, Publishing

Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., García-Costa, D., Farjam, M., & Mehmani, B. (2021). Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PloS One, 16(10), e0257919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257919

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.
Link
COVID-19, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Publishing, Race/Ethnicity

Staniscuaski, F., Kmetzsch, L., Soletti, R. C., Reichert, F., Zandonà, E., Ludwig, Z. M., Lima, E. F., Neumann, A., Schwartz, I. V. D., Mello-Carpes, P. B., Tamajusuku, A. S. K., Werneck, F. P., Ricachenevsky, F. K., Infanger, C., Seixas, A., Staats, C. C., & de Oliveira, L. (2021). Gender, race and parenthood impact academic productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: From survey to action. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 663252. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663252

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is altering dynamics in academia, and people juggling remote work and domestic demands – including childcare – have felt impacts on their productivity. Female authors have faced a decrease in paper submission rates since the beginning of the pandemic period. The reasons for this decline in women’s productivity need to be further investigated. Here, we analyzed the influence of gender, parenthood and race on academic productivity during the pandemic period based on a survey answered by 3,345 Brazilian academics from various knowledge areas and research institutions. Productivity was assessed by the ability to submit papers as planned and to meet deadlines during the initial period of social isolation in Brazil. The findings revealed that male academics – especially those without children – are the least affected group, whereas Black women and mothers are the most impacted groups. These impacts are likely a consequence of the well-known unequal division of domestic labor between men and women, which has been exacerbated during the pandemic. Additionally, our results highlight that racism strongly persists in academia, especially against Black women. The pandemic will have long-term effects on the career progression of the most affected groups. The results presented here are crucial for the development of actions and policies that aim to avoid further deepening the gender gap in academia.
Link
(Workplace) Climate, Diverse teams/perspectives, Grad Workshop, Race/Ethnicity

Starck, J. G., Sinclair, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2021). How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(16), e2013833118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013833118

It is currently commonplace for institutions of higher education to proclaim to embrace diversity and inclusion. Though there are numerous rationales available for doing so, US Supreme Court decisions have consistently favored rationales which assert that diversity provides compelling educational benefits and is thus instrumentally useful. Our research is a quantitative/experimental effort to examine how such instrumental rationales comport with the preferences of White and Black Americans, specifically contrasting them with previously dominant moral rationales that embrace diversity as a matter of intrinsic values (e.g., justice). Furthermore, we investigate the prevalence of instrumental diversity rationales in the American higher education landscape and the degree to which they correspond with educational outcomes. Across six experiments, we showed that instrumental rationales correspond to the preferences of White (but not Black) Americans, and both parents and admissions staff expect Black students to fare worse at universities that endorse them. We coded university websites and surveyed admissions staff to determine that, nevertheless, instrumental diversity rationales are more prevalent than moral ones are and that they are indeed associated with increasing White–Black graduation disparities, particularly among universities with low levels of moral rationale use. These findings indicate that the most common rationale for supporting diversity in American higher education accords with the preferences of, and better relative outcomes for, White Americans over low-status racial minorities. The rationales behind universities’ embrace of diversity have nonlegal consequences that should be considered in institutional decision making.
Link
(Workplace) Climate, Diverse teams/perspectives, Grad Workshop, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Race/Ethnicity

Starck, J. G., Sinclair, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2021). How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(16), e2013833118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013833118

It is currently commonplace for institutions of higher education to proclaim to embrace diversity and inclusion. Though there are numerous rationales available for doing so, US Supreme Court decisions have consistently favored rationales which assert that diversity provides compelling educational benefits and is thus instrumentally useful. Our research is a quantitative/experimental effort to examine how such instrumental rationales comport with the preferences of White and Black Americans, specifically contrasting them with previously dominant moral rationales that embrace diversity as a matter of intrinsic values (e.g., justice). Furthermore, we investigate the prevalence of instrumental diversity rationales in the American higher education landscape and the degree to which they correspond with educational outcomes. Across six experiments, we showed that instrumental rationales correspond to the preferences of White (but not Black) Americans, and both parents and admissions staff expect Black students to fare worse at universities that endorse them. We coded university websites and surveyed admissions staff to determine that, nevertheless, instrumental diversity rationales are more prevalent than moral ones are and that they are indeed associated with increasing White–Black graduation disparities, particularly among universities with low levels of moral rationale use. These findings indicate that the most common rationale for supporting diversity in American higher education accords with the preferences of, and better relative outcomes for, White Americans over low-status racial minorities. The rationales behind universities’ embrace of diversity have nonlegal consequences that should be considered in institutional decision making.
Link
Teaching

Steele, C. M. (2011). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us (issues of our time). WW Norton & Company. https://books.wwnorton.com/books/Whistling-Vivaldi

Diverse teams/perspectives, Funding & Awards, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Hiring, Promotion, & Tenure, Race/Ethnicity, Strategies for Improvement

Stewart, A. J., & Valian, V. (2018). An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity and excellence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9766.001.0001

Link
Teaching

Stewart, A. J., Valian, V. (2018). An Inclusive Academy. The MIT Press.

Link
Teaching

Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M. & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on black and white athletic performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77, 1213. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1213

Link
Race/Ethnicity, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias

Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213-1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1213

Two experiments showed that framing an athletic task as diagnostic of negative racial stereotypes about Black or White athletes can impede their performance in sports. In Experiment 1, Black participants performed significantly worse than did control participants when performance on a golf task was framed as diagnostic of "sports intelligence." In comparison, White participants performed worse than did control participants when the golf task was framed as diagnostic of 'natural athletic ability." Experiment 2 observed the effect of stereotype threat on the athletic performance of White participants for whom performance in sports represented a significant measure of their self-worth. The implications of the findings for the theory of stereotype threat (C. M. Steele, 1997) and for participation in sports are discussed.
Link
Diverse teams/perspectives, Race/Ethnicity, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias, Teaching

Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). “She does have an accent but…”: Race and language ideology in students' evaluations of mathematics instructors on RateMyProfessors.com. Language in Society, 44(1), 35-62.

Nonnative English speakers (NNESs) who teach at English-medium institutions in the United States (US) have frequently been the subject of student complaints. Research into language ideologies concerning NNESs in the US suggests that such complaints can be understood as manifestations of a broader project of social exclusion operating, in part, through the ideological construction of the NNES as incomprehensible Other. The present study explores the extent to which such ideological presuppositions and exaggerative performances are observable in students' evaluations of 'Asian' mathematics instructors on the website RateMyProfessors. com (RMP). A mixed methodological approach combining statistical analysis of numeric RMP ratings, quantitative corpus linguistic techniques, and critical discourse analysis was employed. Findings confirm the presence of disadvantages related to 'Asian' instructors' race and language. However, RMP users' discourse is shown to be less overtly discriminatory and instead to reproduce dominant language ideology in subtle, previously undescribed ways.
Link
Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Publishing, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias, Strategies for Improvement

Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12708-12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114

Peer review may be “single-blind,” in which reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, or “double-blind,” in which this information is hidden. Noting that computer science research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals, we study these two reviewing models in the context of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, a highly selective venue (15.6% acceptance rate) in which expert committee members review full-length submissions for acceptance. We present a controlled experiment in which four committee members review each paper. Two of these four reviewers are drawn from a pool of committee members with access to author information; the other two are drawn from a disjoint pool without such access. This information asymmetry persists through the process of bidding for papers, reviewing papers, and entering scores. Reviewers in the single-blind condition typically bid for 22% fewer papers and preferentially bid for papers from top universities and companies. Once papers are allocated to reviewers, single-blind reviewers are significantly more likely than their double-blind counterparts to recommend for acceptance papers from famous authors, top universities, and top companies. The estimated odds multipliers are tangible, at 1.63, 1.58, and 2.10, respectively.
Link
Funding & Awards, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Hiring, Promotion, & Tenure

Treviño, L. J., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Mixon, F. G. (2018). Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. Journal of Management, 44(3), 972-1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599216

This study analyzes differential appointments by gender to the rank of named professorship based on a sample of 511 management professors. This sample represents approximately 90% of our original survey sample of faculty at Tier 1 American research universities, with 10 or more years of experience since receiving their PhD, and whose contact information we could obtain online. Contrary to the tenets of the meritocratic evaluation model, we find that, after controlling for research performance and other factors, women are less likely to be awarded named professorships, particularly when the endowed chair is awarded to an internal candidate. Furthermore, we find that women derive lower returns from their scholarly achievements when it comes to appointments to endowed chairs. Our study suggests that a masculine-gendered environment dominates management departments, leading to shifting standards when it comes to the highest senior appointments in academe.
Link
Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Hiring, Promotion, & Tenure, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias, Teaching

Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191-220. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926503014002277

This study examines over 300 letters of recommendation for medical faculty at a large American medical school in the mid-1990s, using methods from corpus and discourse analysis, with the theoretical perspective of gender schema from cognitive psychology. Letters written for female applicants were found to differ systematically from those written for male applicants in the extremes of length, in the percentages lacking in basic features, in the percentages with doubt raisers (an extended category of negative language, often associated with apparent commendation), and in frequency of mention of status terms. Further, the most common semantically grouped possessive phrases referring to female and male applicants (`her teaching,' `his research') reinforce gender schema that tend to portray women as teachers and students, and men as researchers and professionals.
Link
Teaching

Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow?: The advancement of women. MIT press.

Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias

Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Link
Teaching

Van der Lee, R. & Ellemers, N. (2015). Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 12349–12353. https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1510159112

Link
Funding & Awards, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Hiring, Promotion, & Tenure, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias

Van der Lee, R., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(40), 12349-12353. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510159112

Women remain underrepresented in academia as they continue to face a leadership gap, salary gap, and funding gap. Closing the funding gap is of particular importance, because this may directly retain women in academia and foster the closing of other gaps. In this study, we examined the grant funding rates of a national full population of early career scientists. Our results reveal gender bias favoring male applicants over female applicants in the prioritization of their “quality of researcher” (but not “quality of proposal”) evaluations and success rates, as well as in the language use in instructional and evaluation materials. This work illuminates how and when the funding gap and the subsequent underrepresentation of women in academia are perpetuated.
Link
COVID-19, Gender/Sex, Publishing

Viglione, G. (2020). Are women publishing less during the pandemic? Here's what the data say. Nature, 581(7809), 365-367. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01294-9 

Link
COVID-19, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Race/Ethnicity

Walsh, B. A., Woodliff, T. A., Lucero, J., Harvey, S., Burnham, M. M., Bowser, T. L., Aguirre, M., & Zeh, D. W. (2021). Historically underrepresented graduate students' experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Family Relations, 70(4), 955-972. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12574

Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of historically underrepresented graduate students, more than half of whom were enrolled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This focus group study represents an initial stage in developing an intervention for historically underrepresented graduate students and their families.
Background: Underrepresentation of graduate students of color in STEM has been attributed to a myriad of factors, including a lack of support systems. Familial support is an endorsed reason for persisting in graduate school. It is unclear what historically underrepresented graduate students' experiences are during uncertain times, such as a pandemic.
Method: Focus groups were conducted online using a videoconferencing platform during the COVID-19 pandemic. Five focus groups included: historically underrepresented doctoral students (n = 5), historically underrepresented master's students (n = 6), academic faculty (n = 7), administrator, administrative faculty, and academic faculty (n = 6), and families of historically underrepresented doctoral students (n = 6). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results: Historically underrepresented graduate students experienced difficulties in accessing resources, adjustments to home and family life, amplification of existing nonfinancial issues, and expressed both fears of and hopes for the future.
Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing inequalities in access to resources as well as nonfinancial family support.
Implications: This study may help normalize historically underrepresented graduate students' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings include ideas for informing families about graduate school that can enlighten family support efforts for historically underrepresented graduate students and their families.
Link
Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Publishing, Strategies for Improvement

Webb, T. J., O’Hara, B., & Freckleton, R. P. (2008). Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(7), 351–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.003

Link
Diverse teams/perspectives, Hiring, Promotion, & Tenure, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias

White-Lewis, D. K. (2020). The facade of fit in faculty search processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 833-857. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1775058

Various concerns regarding the vitality and racial/ethnic com- position of the academic profession have prompted new study of faculty search committees and hiring paradigms, most nota- bly examining the term “fit” in candidate appraisals. Yet no study utilizes a candidate evaluation framework to investigate whether or not faculty members truly assess for fit, or if these assessments stifle diversification processes, especially in light of pervasive institutional efforts to reform faculty hiring. This study uses a critical person-environment fit framework and multiple case study methods to investigate how faculty search commit- tee members individually evaluate and collectively select pro- spective early-career faculty. Results indicate that fit, as system of assumptions, practices, and tactics designed to evaluate and select candidates based on organizational needs, was minimal in faculty searches. Instead, faculty relied heavily on idiosyn- cratic preferences to evaluate research, teaching, and service credentials, which also contained criterion that directly and indirectly averted diversity. Findings reveal how the review and selection of candidates is as much, if not more, about individual committee preferences than organizational demands or congruence.
Link
(Workplace) Climate, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Race/Ethnicity, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias

Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2015). Double jeopardy? Gender bias against women of color in science. The Center for Work, Life, Law. Retrieved February 3, 2020 from https://worklifelaw.org/publications/Double-Jeopardy-Report_v6_full_web-sm.pdf

(Workplace) Climate, Gender/Sex, Group Disparities & intergroup relations, Hiring, Promotion, & Tenure, LGBTQ+, Race/Ethnicity, Schemas/Stereotypes/Evaluation Bias, Strategies for Improvement

Willis, L. M., Mehta, D., & Davis, A. (2020). Twelve principles trainees, PIs, departments, and faculties can use to reduce bias and discrimination in STEM. ACS Central Science, 6(12), 2294-2300. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.0c01120

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence demonstrating that people from marginalized groups, including women, racialized and Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ individuals, continue to face substantial discrimination in STEM, manifested as both overt bias and unconscious bias. These biases result in discrimination against individuals in marginalized groups, and independent biases collectively contribute to a culture that systematically discriminates against people from marginalized groups. Representation from marginalized groups in postsecondary degrees in natural science and engineering has not substantially improved in over a decade. A set of 10 concrete principles are presented that trainees, principle investigators, departments, and faculties can use to enhance the participation and lived experiences of people in marginalized groups in STEM.
Link
Teaching

Witteman, H. O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S. & Tannenbaum, C. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet, 393, 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32611-4 (used in Activity A3)

Link