Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder
Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1510649112
复制
发表时间：
2015-10-27
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Smith, Jessi L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Handley, Ian M.;Brown, Elizabeth R.;Smith, Jessi L.
科学家接受的训练是在没有偏见和主观性的情况下评估和解释证据。因此，越来越多的证据表明，在科学、技术、工程和数学（STEM）领域存在对女性或偏袒男性的性别偏见，这是具有挑衅性的，并引发了性别偏见在多大程度上可能导致女性在STEM领域代表性不足的问题。在某种程度上，说明STEM中性别偏见的研究被认为是有说服力的，科学文化可以开始解决这种偏见。然而，男性和女性对这种实验证据的接受程度是一样的吗？这个问题通过三个随机双盲实验进行了测试，其中两个涉及普通公众的样本（n = 205和303），一个涉及大学STEM和非STEM教师的样本（n = 205）。在所有实验中，参与者阅读了一篇报道STEM背景下性别偏见的真实期刊摘要（或一篇报道实验3中没有性别偏见的修改摘要），并评估研究的整体质量。实验结果表明，男性对性别偏见研究的评价不如女性，值得关注的是，这种性别差异在STEM教师中尤为突出（实验2）。这些结果表明，男性，尤其是STEM领域的男性教师，相对不愿意接受STEM领域性别偏见的证据。这一发现是有问题的，因为扩大STEM中代表性不足的人（包括女性）的参与，必然需要广泛的意愿（特别是大多数人）承认，在转变成为可能之前存在偏见。
Scientists are trained to evaluate and interpret evidence without bias or subjectivity. Thus, growing evidence revealing a gender bias against women-or favoring men-within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) settings is provocative and raises questions about the extent to which gender bias may contribute to women's underrepresentation within STEM fields. To the extent that research illustrating gender bias in STEM is viewed as convincing, the culture of science can begin to address the bias. However, are men and women equally receptive to this type of experimental evidence? This question was tested with three randomized, double-blind experiments-two involving samples from the general public (n = 205 and 303, respectively) and one involving a sample of university STEM and non-STEM faculty (n = 205). In all experiments, participants read an actual journal abstract reporting gender bias in a STEM context (or an altered abstract reporting no gender bias in experiment 3) and evaluated the overall quality of the research. Results across experiments showed that men evaluate the gender-bias research less favorably than women, and, of concern, this gender difference was especially prominent among STEM faculty (experiment 2). These results suggest a relative reluctance among men, especially faculty men within STEM, to accept evidence of gender biases in STEM. This finding is problematic because broadening the participation of underrepresented people in STEM, including women, necessarily requires a widespread willingness (particularly by those in the majority) to acknowledge that bias exists before transformation is possible.