There is much talk about the impact of unconscious bias at work, but a new study illustrates exactly how this unconscious bias can hold women back. Although the study, published this week in The Lancet highlights gender bias in the health sciences, women in a wide range of work environments will surely relate. Basically, the findings reveal that when equally qualified men and women are compared, and their potential evaluated, men get the advantage. Here are the specifics of how it plays out in the scientific community.
Study Reveals Gender Bias
The study researchers looked at almost 24,000 scientific grant applications to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) which provides about $1 billion in science grants each year. This anecdote illustrates their research findings.
John and Jane are equally talented scientists who both have equally promising ideas on how to cure Alzheimer’s disease. They both apply for a grant to fund their research. What happens? It turns out it depends on the way the grant application is reviewed. CIHR has two methods of reviewing grants. The first method reviews the potential of the proposed research (what are the chances this idea will result in a cure for Alzheimer’s?) and the second method examines the potential of the researcher (given his/her experience, how likely is this researcher to actually find a cure for Alzheimer’s).
If John and Jane apply for a grant where the proposed research is evaluated, they have an equal chance of being funded. However, if they apply for a grant where the potential of the researcher is evaluated, then John has a significantly better shot at getting the grant than does Jane. In fact, John is 1.4 times more likely to be funded than Jane, even controlling for differences in field of research and age. In public health, where women file more grant applications than men do, male researchers were awarded more than twice as many grants as women.
This type of bias plays out in organizations every day. Men are seen as having more potential, so they are given more opportunities. It’s not a conscious thing. Those doling out the grants or opportunities don’t consciously desire to give men an advantage. Instead, it’s unconscious reaction to a lifetime of seeing mostly men in leadership roles, in boardrooms and in lab coats.
Women Must Work Harder For Recognition
Women frequently report that they must work harder than men to get the same recognition. There is ample academic research and anecdotal evidence to support this idea that women feel that they must work harder than their male counterparts. This study validates why women continuously feel they must put in that extra effort. If John and Jane are equally promising, then John will win more recognition. Jane has to be better than John to obtain the same level of credibility.
Small Advantages Translate Into Large Opportunities
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this study is that when John gets funding and Jane does not, John’s advantage doesn’t stop there. The study authors speculate how this funding will allow John to hire extra researchers who may publish a few extra papers, which will make John more likely to receive funding the next time he applies for a grant. In other words, one small advantage can translate into a whole career of greater opportunity for John.
The corporate equivalent would be providing John a shot to work with a new high-profile client or manage the development of a promising new product. Once that client or project is under his belt, he is more likely to obtain access to better opportunities in the future.
The Solution Is Objective Criteria
Blind evaluations would be the optimal solution to this problem. If you don’t know the gender of the applicant, you can’t be gender biased. However, most work environments and application processes don’t lend themselves well to blind evaluations. For example, most managers already know know the gender of their employees. Grant applicants often submit their publication lists, which naturally contain their names, which typically reveal their gender.
Therefore, the ultimate solution to this problem can be summed up by the title of the study, “Funders Should Evaluate Projects, Not People.” When the criteria is objective, like the quality of work or the potential of a research program, then women fare just as well as men. However, when the evaluation criteria become more subjective, we open the door for unconscious bias to seep in. Therefore, we should focus on objective criteria, and not subjective evaluations of someone's potential.
Awareness of the problem is yet another key aspect to eradicating it. Researchers Jennifer Raymond and Miriam Goodman should be acknowledged for bringing attention to this particular bias. Understanding how the bias against women works, how it plays out in the real world will hopefully lead evaluators to question their gut reactions and dig deeper.
