IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v10y2020i2p31-d338741.html

Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Torsten Skov

    (Independent Scientist, 2860 Søborg, Denmark)

Abstract

Implicit or unconscious bias is commonly proposed to be responsible for women’s underrepresentation in academia. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and discuss the evidence supporting this proposition. Publications about unconscious/implicit gender bias in academia indexed in Scopus or psycInfo up to February 2020 were identified. More than half were published in the period 2018–2020. Studies reporting empirical data were scrutinized for data, as well as analyses showing an association of a measure of implicit or unconscious bias and lesser employment or career opportunities in academia for women than for men. No studies reported empirical evidence as thus defined. Reviews of unconscious bias identified via informal searches referred exclusively to studies that did not self-identify as addressing unconscious bias. Reinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies were common in these reviews. More empirical evidence about unconscious gender bias in academia is needed. With the present state of knowledge, caution should be exercised when interpreting data about gender gaps in academia. Ascribing observed gender gaps to unconscious bias is unsupported by the scientific literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Torsten Skov, 2020. "Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:31-:d:338741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/2/31/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/2/31/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jevin D West & Jennifer Jacquet & Molly M King & Shelley J Correll & Carl T Bergstrom, 2013. "The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-6, July.
    2. Jory Lerback & Brooks Hanson, 2017. "Journals invite too few women to referee," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 455-457, January.
    3. Dion, Michelle L. & Sumner, Jane Lawrence & Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, 2018. "Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 312-327, July.
    4. Van den Brink, Marieke, 2011. "Scouting for talent: Appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(12), pages 2033-2040, June.
    5. Patricia E Salerno & Mónica Páez-Vacas & Juan M Guayasamin & Jennifer L Stynoski, 2019. "Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Luke Holman & Claire Morandin, 2019. "Researchers collaborate with same-gendered colleagues more often than expected across the life sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou, Sifan & Chai, Sen & Freeman, Richard B., 2024. "Gender homophily: In-group citation preferences and the gender disadvantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    2. Tahmooresnejad, Leila & Turkina, Ekaterina, 2022. "Female inventors over time: Factors affecting female Inventors’ innovation performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    3. Alexander Tekles & Katrin Auspurg & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Same-gender citations do not indicate a substantial gender homophily bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Jenine K Harris & Merriah A Croston & Ellen T Hutti & Amy A Eyler, 2020. "Diversify the syllabi: Underrepresentation of female authors in college course readings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.
    6. Philbin, Morgan M. & Everett, Bethany G. & Auerbach, Judith D., 2024. "Gender(ed) science: How the institutionalization of gender continues to shape the conduct and content of women's health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(S1).
    7. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    8. Andersen, Jens Peter & Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, 2018. "Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 950-959.
    9. Lokman Tutuncu & Rahman Dag, 2024. "A gender gap in the manuscript review time of Turkish national journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7783-7803, December.
    10. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    11. Maria-Victoria Uribe-Bohorquez & Juan-Camilo Rivera-Ordóñez & Isabel-María García-Sánchez, 2023. "Gender disparities in accounting academia: analysis from the lens of publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3827-3865, July.
    12. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    13. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    14. Kjersten Bunker Whittington & Molly M. King & Isabella Cingolani, 2024. "Structure, status, and span: gender differences in co-authorship networks across 16 region-subject pairs (2009–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 147-179, January.
    15. Manuel Goyanes & Marton Demeter & Nataša Simeunović Bajić & Homero Gil Zúñiga, 2025. "Gender disparities in first authorship: examining the Matilda effect across communication, political science, and sociology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2947-2961, May.
    16. Julie Fortin & Bjarne Bartlett & Michael Kantar & Michelle Tseng & Zia Mehrabi, 2021. "Digital technology helps remove gender bias in academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4073-4081, May.
    17. Abdelghani Maddi & Yves Gingras, 2021. "Gender Diversity In Research Teams And Citation Impact In Economics And Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1381-1404, December.
    18. Andrews, Mary E. & Mattan, Bradley D. & Richards, Keana & Moore-Berg, Samantha L. & Falk, Emily B., 2022. "Using first-person narratives about healthcare workers and people who are incarcerated to motivate helping behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    19. Yining Wang & Qiang Wu & Liangyu Li, 2024. "Examining the influence of women scientists on scientific impact and novelty: insights from top business journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3517-3542, June.
    20. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:31-:d:338741. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.