1. Implicit bias, stereotype threat, and women in academia Havi Carel & Richard Pettigrew Department of Philosophy University of Bristol

2. Are women bad at philosophy?

3. Need to look to Climate within discipline/institutions – E.g. sexist attitudes are tolerated, encouraged, or turned a blind eye to Processes such as marking, hiring, promotion, reviewing Good-willed, committed egalitarians might contribute to this climate

4. Implicit Bias and Stereotype Threat Cognitive processes, often unconscious, which influence our judgments, actions, and performances Arise from internalised associations between conceptions of the different groups and specific attributes

5. Implicit bias Perceiving individuals, and assessing and interpreting their actions and performances, in accordance with the attributes associated to the social class under which one identifies them e.g. Woman pilot Gay male child minder

6. Two features of IB You might have those attitudes unbeknownst to you even if you are sincerely and explicitly committed to equality Not solely directed to members of social classes other than your own, but also to members of your own group and yourself

7. Examples Behavioural Ecology introduced anonymous refereeing - led to a 33% increase in articles authored by women (Burden et al from Saul) 238 academic psychologists (118 male, 120 female) evaluated a curriculum vitae randomly assigned a male or a female name. Both male and female participants gave the male applicant better evaluations for teaching, research, and service experience and were more likely to hire the male than the female applicant (two to one) (Moss-Racusin et al 2012) References for medical staff - pronounced differences in the way in which they were written, depending on gender

8. Analysis of reference letters for MDs Trix and Peaska (2003) ‘Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty’, Discourse & Society, 14(2): 191-220

9. Stereotype Threat Exclusively self-directed. It consists in the operation of schemas in such a way that they sabotage your performance to make it fit the stereotype Esp. in a context where social class is negatively associated, and membership of that group is made salient – E.g. ‘Now it’s the girl’s turn to throw’

10. Two features of ST Subtle ways of making membership identity salient have a greater effect than blatant ones The more one cares about the activity in question, the worse the effects of ST

11. Examples Asian girls sit a maths test: if ‘girl’ identity is made salient performance is ‘significantly worse’ than if their Asian identity is made salient Black and white men play golf in order to test their ‘natural athletic ability’: white men perform ‘a lot worse’ (3 strokes more, 22-24 stroke course) than if they are not made think they are tested. Performance of black men unaffected If they are told that the game is to test their ‘sports strategic intelligence’, performance of white men is unaffected, but performance of the black men is dramatically affected, taking around 5 more strokes

12. IB and ST interact Where IBs that others hold towards you are clearly manifested, ST will be triggered The schemas that trigger IB and ST more often are: race, gender, sex, accents, sexual orientation, age, physical disability IB and ST can serve useful functions: they can enable us to cope with our limited epistemic resources (IB), and act as self-protective mechanisms (ST). But they can also be very damaging in a variety of ways

13. Case study: philosophy Considered a masculine discipline Women and their work tend to be: – overlooked – undervalued In talks/classes women’s contributions tend to be – Overlooked – Attributed to men – Interpreted uncharitably (“She’s confused”) – Women less often called upon to answer – Women more frequently interrupted

14. Publications in journals 81% of philosophy journals don’t anonymise submissions to editors (2010) 93% of editors ‘desk reject’ papers 22% (mean) of papers rejected this way 12.36% of papers published in top journals in 2002-2007 were by women (26% women in the profession)

15. Also … Women underrepresented in conferences, research seminars, reading lists, course topics, and less cited This affects a woman’s CV negatively: she won’t have as many publications, won’t have been invited to speak at as many conferences, references won’t be as glowing. Even if she does manage to get her CV on a par with that of a male applicant her CV will be rated lower than that of her male peer

16. Effects of IB and ST Underperformance Lowered ambitions Altered aspirations Distancing from one’s group Result: women leaving philosophy What can we do?

17. What we have done: climate Increased visibility of women philosophers (Susan Hurley CR; seminar series) External climate review with female PGs Pre-talk discussions for women in dept Adopted BPA/SWIP good practice guidelines

18. What we have done: climate Designated member of staff More women staff Raise awareness of IB and ST: talked to – Students in philosophy & other depts – Faculty of Arts staff (next Science) – SU staff

19. What we have done: process Anonymise as much as we can: exams, CVs, writing samples, submissions Write to them! Mentoring scheme Seminar on promotion procedures

20. Proposals for climate change 1.Greater transparency in promotion/ progression procedure 2.Greater anonymisation and other bias- reducing strategies in hiring 3.Faculty- or university-level endorsement of equality-promoting guidelines 4.IB and ST training for staff & students 5.Climate surveys and data collection