The central question of the study was whether the faculty of academic science exhibited gender bias against the female students, which may have contributed to the gender disparity that is notable in academic science. The primary variable in the study was the group of faculty staff from various research-intensive universities who had an opportunity to rate either a male or female student as competent for a laboratory manager position. Other variables that would help evaluate the issue included competence, hire-ability, willingness to mentor, and salary conferral. The study has four hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that the faculty’s perceptions and treatment of the students would provide a clue on gender bias in favor of the male student with regards to the variables such as competence, hire-ability, and salary conferral. The second hypothesis was that the gender of the faculty members would not affect gender bias. Thirdly, preformed perceptions that female students are less competent would mediate hiring discrimination against the female student.
The article did well to present background information on the issue of gender bias in academic science through the review of related literature. The study noted that more personnel in the areas of science and engineering, for instance, will be required in the near future. It means that more students need to be enrolled in the respective fields. It should suggest that more female students are admitted to such fields and given similar treatment as their male counterparts to counter the looming shortage successfully. However, as cited by the existing literature on the topic, there are far fewer females than males in science faculties. The use of credible and peer-reviewed sources is evident throughout the article to provide the necessary background information on the topic.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Method
A total of one hundred and twenty-seven participants were used in the study. These comprised of faculty members from departments of biology, chemistry, and physics at public and private research-intensive universities in the U.S. The participants consisted of both males and females in an almost uniform number. Sixty-three of the participants received materials assigned male while sixty-four of them received materials assigned as female. Given the sample size (the number of female and male materials to be assessed by the faculty) and the number and diversity of the faculty participants, it is clear that the study worked keenly to get rid of any case of bias that might have occurred during the research. The sample size used was arguably the correct amount, and the additional female material worked to give more consideration to the female student.
The faculty participants were presented with variables such as competency, hire-ability, salary, and willingness to mentor, as guidelines upon which they would assess the male and the female student. The study did well to provide measures such as coefficients to illustrate the assessments of the faculty and the likelihood of either of the students being recommended.
The research design was in the form of a randomized double-blinded study where the faculty participants were made to believe that they were actually assessing real students for a real laboratory managerial post. The participants were randomly assigned either a male or female material or name who was to be evaluated for the position of lab manager. The study was well designed to test all the hypotheses of the study. The participants were to use the various variables such as competency presented above to assess the likelihood of either student getting the position of the lab manager.
Results
All the hypotheses for the study were analyzed in relation to the assessment of the participants through the use of the variables. The study used measures to analyze the likeability of either student being recommended for the manager position as well as the reason behind the gender bias against female students. The study found that the gender of the faculty participant did not affect the gender bias against the female student. This is because even female faculty participants considered the male student for the manager position. The main reason for considering the male student over the female student was that the female student was viewed as less competent for the post. Also, faculty participants’ preexisting perceptions of females and subtle gender bias, was found to undermine their support for the female student.
Discussion and Conclusion
All the hypotheses were put against the results and tested to provide the answers to the research questions. After a proper analysis of the results against the research hypotheses, the study concluded that the major reason behind the gender bias that exists in academic science is the preexisting perception of faculty members that female students are less competent. The study was quite successful in achieving its mandate, given the methodology that was used. Being that the faculty participants believed that they were assessing real students for an actual laboratory manager position, the results received from the study were quite genuine and factual. The study did not indicate any limitation but suggested that more research needed to be conducted to shed more light on the issue of gender bias in academic science.
