This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/opinion/gender-science-study.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Men Call Their Own Research ‘Excellent’ Men Call Their Own Research ‘Excellent’
(about 4 hours later)
Women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the highest levels. Only one out of four full professors at American research institutions is a woman, despite the fact that equal numbers of men and women earn doctoral degrees in science each year. In the life sciences, women are less likely either to receive major grant funding or to be promoted to full professor — and they are paid less even when they produce the same amount of scholarly output as men.Women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the highest levels. Only one out of four full professors at American research institutions is a woman, despite the fact that equal numbers of men and women earn doctoral degrees in science each year. In the life sciences, women are less likely either to receive major grant funding or to be promoted to full professor — and they are paid less even when they produce the same amount of scholarly output as men.
We’ve identified another, much less discussed component of gender disparity in science: Men are much more likely than women to heap praise on their own research and emphasize its importance.We’ve identified another, much less discussed component of gender disparity in science: Men are much more likely than women to heap praise on their own research and emphasize its importance.
In a study published in the British Medical Journal, we analyzed the titles and abstracts of more than six million life science articles. We suspected that scientific teams led by men might frame their research findings in more flattering light, by using terms like “novel,” “excellent” and “unique” to describe their results. In a study published in The British Medical Journal, we analyzed the titles and abstracts of more than six million life science articles. We suspected that scientific teams led by men might frame their research findings in more flattering light, by using terms like “novel,” “excellent” and “unique” to describe their results.
Indeed, they do. In the most highly cited scientific journals, male-led scientific teams were up to 21 percent more likely than women-led teams publishing comparable studies to use positive adjectives to frame their research findings.Indeed, they do. In the most highly cited scientific journals, male-led scientific teams were up to 21 percent more likely than women-led teams publishing comparable studies to use positive adjectives to frame their research findings.
That matters. Scientists use titles and abstracts to screen articles, to decide what to read. Positive presentation of research findings by male scientists may then draw more attention from others in the scientific community. Sure enough, we found that the greater use of positive spin by male-led teams was linked to more citations.That matters. Scientists use titles and abstracts to screen articles, to decide what to read. Positive presentation of research findings by male scientists may then draw more attention from others in the scientific community. Sure enough, we found that the greater use of positive spin by male-led teams was linked to more citations.
Since citations to scientific research often serve as a key metric in hiring, promotion, pay and funding decisions, these differences in self-promotion may also translate into gender disparities on many levels.Since citations to scientific research often serve as a key metric in hiring, promotion, pay and funding decisions, these differences in self-promotion may also translate into gender disparities on many levels.
Our analysis accounted for several factors that might reasonably justify the positive framing of research findings by male scientists. For example, if male scientists disproportionately did research in newer scientific areas, the greater use of positive terms to describe their research might make sense.Our analysis accounted for several factors that might reasonably justify the positive framing of research findings by male scientists. For example, if male scientists disproportionately did research in newer scientific areas, the greater use of positive terms to describe their research might make sense.
But we found no evidence that male scientists’ more frequent use of spin stemmed from their science being more novel or innovative.But we found no evidence that male scientists’ more frequent use of spin stemmed from their science being more novel or innovative.
It’s well recognized that men and women use language differently. Some studies in the general population suggest that men use more assertive language and women more tentative language when communicating.It’s well recognized that men and women use language differently. Some studies in the general population suggest that men use more assertive language and women more tentative language when communicating.
Studies in the sciences have reached similar conclusions. A textual analysis of approximately 7,000 research grant proposals to the Gates Foundation found that despite grant reviewers not knowing the identity of the applicant, women received lower application scores. The gap could be explained entirely by the gender differences in how applicants framed their research.Studies in the sciences have reached similar conclusions. A textual analysis of approximately 7,000 research grant proposals to the Gates Foundation found that despite grant reviewers not knowing the identity of the applicant, women received lower application scores. The gap could be explained entirely by the gender differences in how applicants framed their research.
There are still unanswered questions: Do women choose to refrain from presenting their research more positively, or are they held to different standards by reviewers and editors who govern the scientific peer review process? Our research, of course, cannot determine the best amount of positive framing for research. But it does raise questions the scientific community — both men and women — may need to reflect on.There are still unanswered questions: Do women choose to refrain from presenting their research more positively, or are they held to different standards by reviewers and editors who govern the scientific peer review process? Our research, of course, cannot determine the best amount of positive framing for research. But it does raise questions the scientific community — both men and women — may need to reflect on.
Across most occupations, the way in which individuals “sell” themselves to others is one factor in advancement. Although we focused on scientists, our findings shed new light on how men and women stake claims about accomplishments, scientific or otherwise, and how those differences might combine with other forms of gender inequality to influence career outcomes.Across most occupations, the way in which individuals “sell” themselves to others is one factor in advancement. Although we focused on scientists, our findings shed new light on how men and women stake claims about accomplishments, scientific or otherwise, and how those differences might combine with other forms of gender inequality to influence career outcomes.
Anupam B. Jena is a professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard University. Marc Lerchenmueller is a professor of technological innovation and management at the University of Mannheim. Olav Sorenson is a professor of management and sociology at Yale University.Anupam B. Jena is a professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard University. Marc Lerchenmueller is a professor of technological innovation and management at the University of Mannheim. Olav Sorenson is a professor of management and sociology at Yale University.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.