A recent psychology study claimed that sexism was not a factor in women's under-representation in STEM. We show that the study's methodology was highly flawed and that the data do not match the researchers' conclusions. Another issue is that two of the study's authors are also editors of the journal in which the study was published, which has led to further criticism given the gaps in analysis.
Sexism in Academic Science
A few days a go, +The New York Times published an Op-Ed by two psychology professors who argue that “Academic Science Isn’t Sexist.” On our blog, we look at the various problems with this article which is based on a review study conducted by the authors. The biggest issue is that the way they measure gender inequality does not match the data they have available. The researchers fail to account for institutional factors that impact on women's under-representation in STEM.

STEM workers, like all people, are impacted by socio-economic issues. The researchers have failed to engage with evidence of how parents, teachers, the media and other social influences discourage girls from pursuing STEM careers. Studies show that girls and boys perform equally well in STEM-related tests throughout school, but negative stereotypes, a lack of role models, and discrimination make it harder for women to succeed.

Research shows, for example, that male researchers are less likely to take women on as summer interns and students, and that hiring committees prefer male candidates even when women have the same qualifications and years of experience.

The researchers have also failed to account for issues of race, sexuality, disability and other forms of exclusion that further disadvantage minority women. 

We show why an Op-Ed such as this, published in a widely-read newspaper such as the New York Times, is damaging to diversity in science,. It gives the impression to the lay public that inequality is not a problem, and therefore undermines the struggle for progress.

Head over to our blog to read more about the scientific evidence we've used to critique this study, and the various other problems with their methodology: http://www.stemwomen.net/sexism-in-academic-science/

#stemwomen   #science   #mathematics   #stem   #womeninstem   #intersectionality  
Shared publiclyView activity