El otro día hablábamos sobre cómo era posible que las mujeres, superando a los varones en más de un 10% en cuanto a licenciaturas en materias como derecho o ciencias económicas, se veía que quedaban desempleadas en mayor porcentaje que los hombres. Yo me resistía a pensar que fuera por motivaciones personales, como algún usuario argumentaba, o por los procesos de contratación, donde algunos indicaban que se realizan diferentes pruebas con finalidad de cribar por determinados patrones de conducta-respuesta "psicométricos".
Total, acabamos discutiendo de muchas cosas y no llegamos a ningún punto concreto, por lo que he seguido revisando y buscando información al respecto y he encontrado este "experimento" en el que ante una plaza en una universidad presentan dos C.V. exactamente iguales, con la única diferencia del género del candidato.
Os dejo a continuación el contenido para que entre todos podamos ver si existe o no la discriminación en el mundo laboral en estos días y ya de paso si se ofrece el mismo salario a un hombre con una determinada experiencia que a una mujer.
Como buen@s eolian@s supongo que no afectará la barrera idiomática.
ABSTRACT
... A 2012 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology indicates that training scientists and engineers at current rates will result in a deficit of 1,000,000 workers to meet United States workforce demands over the next decade (1). To help close this formidable gap, the report calls for the increased training and retention of women, who are starkly underrepresented within many fields of science, especially among the professoriate (2⇓–4). Although the proportion of science degrees granted to women has increased (5), there is a persistent disparity between the number of women receiving PhDs and those hired as junior faculty (1⇓⇓–4). This gap suggests that the problem will not resolve itself solely by more generations of women moving through the academic pipeline but that instead, women’s advancement within academic science may be actively impeded.
With evidence suggesting that biological sex differences in inherent aptitude for math and science are small or nonexistent (6⇓–8), the efforts of many researchers and academic leaders to identify causes of the science gender disparity have focused instead on the life choices that may compete with women’s pursuit of the most demanding positions. Some research suggests that these lifestyle choices (whether free or constrained) likely contribute to the gender imbalance (9⇓–11), but because the majority of these studies are correlational, whether lifestyle factors are solely or primarily responsible remains unclear. Still, some researchers have argued that women’s preference for nonscience disciplines and their tendency to take on a disproportionate amount of child- and family-care are the primary causes of the gender disparity in science (9⇓–11), and that it “is not caused by discrimination in these domains” (10). This assertion has received substantial attention and generated significant debate among the scientific community, leading some to conclude that gender discrimination indeed does not exist nor contribute to the gender disparity within academic science (e.g., refs. 12 and 13).
Despite this controversy, experimental research testing for the presence and magnitude of gender discrimination in the biological and physical sciences has yet to be conducted. Although acknowledging that various lifestyle choices likely contribute to the gender imbalance in science (9⇓–11), the present research is unique in investigating whether faculty gender bias exists within academic biological and physical sciences, and whether it might exert an independent effect on the gender disparity as students progress through the pipeline to careers in science. Specifically, the present experiment examined whether, given an equally qualified male and female student, science faculty members would show preferential evaluation and treatment of the male student to work in their laboratory. Although the correlational and related laboratory studies discussed below suggest that such bias is likely (contrary to previous arguments) (9⇓–11), we know of no previous experiments that have tested for faculty bias against female students within academic science.
...
Current Study
In addition to determining whether faculty expressed a bias against female students, we also sought to identify the processes contributing to this bias. To do so, we investigated whether faculty members’ perceptions of student competence would help to explain why they would be less likely to hire a female (relative to an identical male) student for a laboratory manager position. Additionally, we examined the role of faculty members’ preexisting subtle bias against women. We reasoned that pervasive cultural messages regarding women’s lack of competence in science could lead faculty members to hold gender-biased attitudes that might subtly affect their support for female (but not male) science students. These generalized, subtly biased attitudes toward women could impel faculty to judge equivalent students differently as a function of their gender.
The present study sought to test for differences in faculty perceptions and treatment of equally qualified men and women pursuing careers in science and, if such a bias were discovered, reveal its mechanisms and consequences within academic science. We focused on hiring for a laboratory manager position as the primary dependent variable of interest because it functions as a professional launching pad for subsequent opportunities. As secondary measures, which are related to hiring, we assessed: (i) perceived student competence; (ii) salary offers, which reflect the extent to which a student is valued for these competitive positions; and (iii) the extent to which the student was viewed as deserving of faculty mentoring.
Our hypotheses were that: Science faculty’s perceptions and treatment of students would reveal a gender bias favoring male students in perceptions of competence and hireability, salary conferral, and willingness to mentor (hypothesis A); Faculty gender would not influence this gender bias (hypothesis B); Hiring discrimination against the female student would be mediated (i.e., explained) by faculty perceptions that a female student is less competent than an identical male student (hypothesis C); and Participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women would moderate (i.e., impact) results, such that subtle bias against women would be negatively related to evaluations of the female student, but unrelated to evaluations of the male student (hypothesis D).
Results
A broad, nationwide sample of biology, chemistry, and physics professors (n = 127) evaluated the application materials of an undergraduate science student who had ostensibly applied for a science laboratory manager position. All participants received the same materials, which were randomly assigned either the name of a male (n = 63) or a female (n = 64) student; student gender was thus the only variable that differed between conditions. Using previously validated scales, participants rated the student’s competence and hireability, as well as the amount of salary and amount of mentoring they would offer the student. Faculty participants believed that their feedback would be shared with the student they had rated (see Materials and Methods for details).
Student Gender Differences.
The competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring scales were each submitted to a two (student gender; male, female) × two (faculty gender; male, female) between-subjects ANOVA. In each case, the effect of student gender was significant (all P < 0.01), whereas the effect of faculty participant gender and their interaction was not (all P > 0.19). Tests of simple effects (all d > 0.60) indicated that faculty participants viewed the female student as less competent [t(125) = 3.89, P < 0.001] and less hireable [t(125) = 4.22, P < 0.001] than the identical male student (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Faculty participants also offered less career mentoring to the female student than to the male student [t(125) = 3.77, P < 0.001]. The mean starting salary offered the female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of $30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01] (Fig. 2). These results support hypothesis A.
In support of hypothesis B, faculty gender did not affect bias (Table 1). Tests of simple effects (all d < 0.33) indicated that female faculty participants did not rate the female student as more competent [t(62) = 0.06, P = 0.95] or hireable [t(62) = 0.41, P = 0.69] than did male faculty. Female faculty also did not offer more mentoring [t(62) = 0.29, P = 0.77] or a higher salary [t(61) = 1.14, P = 0.26] to the female student than did their male colleagues. In addition, faculty participants’ scientific field, age, and tenure status had no effect (all P > 0.53). Thus, the bias appears pervasive among faculty and is not limited to a certain demographic subgroup.
Mediation and Moderation Analyses.
Thus far, we have considered the results for competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring separately to demonstrate the converging results across these individual measures. However, composite indices of measures that converge on an underlying construct are more statistically reliable, stable, and resistant to error than are each of the individual items (e.g., refs. 34 and 35). Consistent with this logic, the established approach to measuring the broad concept of target competence typically used in this type of gender bias research is to standardize and average the competence scale items and the salary conferral variable to create one composite competence index, and to use this stable convergent measure for all analyses (e.g., refs. 36 and 37). Because this approach obscures mean salary differences between targets, we chose to present salary as a distinct dependent variable up to this point, to enable a direct test of the potential discrepancy in salary offered to the male and female student targets. However, to rigorously examine the processes underscoring faculty gender bias, we reverted to standard practices at this point by averaging the standardized salary variable with the competence scale items to create a robust composite competence variable (α = 0.86). This composite competence variable was used in all subsequent mediation and moderation analyses.
Evidence emerged for hypothesis C, the predicted mediation (i.e., causal path; see SI Materials and Methods: Additional Analyses for more information on mediation and the results of additional mediation analyses). The initially significant impact of student gender on hireability (β = −0.35, P < 0.001) was reduced in magnitude and dropped to nonsignificance (β = −0.10, P = 0.13) after accounting for the impact of student composite competence (which was a strong predictor, β = 0.69, P < 0.001), Sobel’s Z = 3.94, P < 0.001 (Fig. 3). This pattern of results provides evidence for full mediation, indicating that the female student was less likely to be hired than the identical male because she was viewed as less competent overall.
...
Conclusions
The dearth of women within academic science reflects a significant wasted opportunity to benefit from the capabilities of our best potential scientists, whether male or female. Although women have begun to enter some science fields in greater numbers (5), their mere increased presence is not evidence of the absence of bias. Rather, some women may persist in academic science despite the damaging effects of unintended gender bias on the part of faculty. Similarly, it is not yet possible to conclude that the preferences for other fields and lifestyle choices (9⇓–11) that lead many women to leave academic science (even after obtaining advanced degrees) are not themselves influenced by experiences of bias, at least to some degree. To the extent that faculty gender bias impedes women’s full participation in science, it may undercut not only academic meritocracy, but also the expansion of the scientific workforce needed for the next decade’s advancement of national competitiveness (1).
...
Muy recomendable leerlo entero con sus notas y enlaces correspondientes.De manera científica también puede verse que existe un sutil sesgo no intencionado, incluso entre aquellos entrenados para ser objetivos.
Cómo hoy estoy generoso voy a poner otro ejemplo, para que se vea que el sesgo inconsciente se da, puede a que no sea conscientemente.
Orquesta Sinfónica de Boston
Esta orquesta, fundada hace 125 años, es un ejemplo de igualdad en el acceso al empleo para mujeres y hombres. En un principio, las pruebas de selección para entrar a formar parte de la orquesta, se realizaban de modo “convencional”, es decir, a través de audiciones.
Sin embargo, tras dichas pruebas, la mayoría de contratados eran hombres. A partir de entonces, se comenzó a realizar la selección de miembros de la orquesta de otro modo muy peculiar, pero que responde al principio de centrarse sólo en datos objetivos. El procedi-
miento que se llevaba a cabo era el siguiente: el candidato debía tocar una determinada pieza musical, pero las personas encargadas de realizar la selección no podían ver quién estaba tocando, ya que entre ellos y los candidatos se colocaba una sábana. De este modo, sólo era posible escuchar a las personas, y decidir únicamente en función de sus habilidades como músicos. Desde que esta práctica
de selección se puso en marcha, el 40% de las personas que forman parte de la orquesta son mujeres.
¿Magia? No, eliminación del sesgo eliminando la variable a discriminar. ¿Algo en común con el anterior ejemplo? Algun@s dirán, ¡no es representativo! Otr@s aceptarán la evidencia. Ahora ya es más fácil entender por qué hay menos mujeres en puestos de responsabilidad.
![[+risas]](/images/smilies/nuevos/risa_ani3.gif "más risas")
![[decaio]](/images/smilies/nuevos2/decaido.gif "decaido")
D, es por ley, todas las personas en el mismo puesto de trabajo cobran lo mismo (en la misma empresa obvio), la diferencia no es ya inverosimil entre sexos si no entre individuos, puedes tener pluses como antiguedad pero vale ![[maszz]](/images/smilies/nuevos2/dormido.gif "otro q duerme")
![[beer]](/images/smilies/nuevos2/brindando.gif "brindis")
![[alien]](/images/smilies/nuevos2/alien.gif "alien")
siempre a lo bueno, nos ha jodido, de la mierda no os quejais.
