Raising Doubt in Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Gender Differences and Their Impact
The extent of gender bias in academia continues to be an object of inquiry, and recent research has begun to examine the particular gender biases emblematic in letters of recommendations. This current two-part study examines differences in the number of doubt raisers that are written in 624 authentic letters of recommendations for 174 men and women applying for eight assistant professor positions (study 1) and the impact of these doubt raisers on 305 university professors who provided evaluations of recommendation letters (study 2). The results show that both male and female recommenders use more doubt raisers in letters of recommendations for women compared to men and that the presence of certain types of doubt raisers in letters of recommendations results in negative outcomes for both genders. Since doubt raisers are more frequent in letters for women than men, women are at a disadvantage relative to men in their applications for academic positions. We discuss the implications and need for additional future research and practice that (1) raises awareness that letter writers are gatekeepers who can improve or hinder women’s progress and (2) develops methods to eliminate the skewed use of doubt raisers.
KeywordsLetters of recommendation Gender schemas Discrimination Sex roles Academia
This paper was funded by an NIH Grant (1R01GM088530).
- Aamodt, M. G., Nagy, M. S., & Thompson, N. (1998). Employment references: Who are we talking about?, Paper presented at the International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Aguirre Jr, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 27, Number 6. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104–1342.Google Scholar
- APPIC (2005). Members survey: APPIC predoctoral internship members. http://www.APPIC.Org
- Broughton, W., & Conlogue, W. (2001). What search committees want. Profession, 39–51.Google Scholar
- Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie classification. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
- Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2015). Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1532.Google Scholar
- Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Crockett, W. H. (1988). Schemas, affect, and communication. In L. Donohew, H. Sypher, & E. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect. Lawrence Erlbaum Association: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Deo, M. E. (2014). Looking forward to diversity in legal academia. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 29(2), 352.Google Scholar
- Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
- Fuerstman, D., & Lavertu, S. (2005). The academic hiring process: A survey of department chairs. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(4), 731–736.Google Scholar
- Gatewood, R., & Feild, H. (2001). Human resource selection: Application forms, training and experience evaluations, and reference checks (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Roche, M.Google Scholar
- Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Hebl, M. R., Madera, J. M., & King, E. B. (2007). Exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance: Manifestation and solutions (pp. 127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Hebl, M. R., Tickle, J., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Awkward moments in interactions between nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In T. Heatherton, R. Kleck, M. Hebl, & J. Hull’s (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
- Johnson, M., Elam, C., Edwards, J., Tayor, D., Heldberg, C., Hinkley, R., & Comeau, R. (1998). Medical school admission committee members’ evaluations of and impressions from recommendation letters. Academic Medicine, 73, S41–S43. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199810000-00040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Knouse, S. B. (1983). The letter of recommendation: Specificity and favorability of information. Personnel Psychology, 36, 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb01441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- LaCroix, P. P. (1985). Sex in recs: gender bias in recommendation writing. Journal of College Admission, 109, 24–26.Google Scholar
- Landrum, R., Jeglum, E., & Cashin, J. (1994). The decision-making process of graduate admissions committees in psychology. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 239–248.Google Scholar
- Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1996). Language and stereotyping. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193–226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2004). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers, NSF 04-323, Project Officer, Alan I. Rapoport (Arlington, VA).Google Scholar
- Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC 2001): A computerized text analysis program. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical and nonlinear modeling [computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- Rubini, M., & Menegatti, M. (2014). Hindering women’s careers in academia gender linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 0261927X14542436.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Commerce (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Executive summary. Economics and Statistics Administration. ESA Issue Brief #04-11. August Retrieved on 1/10/2015 at url: http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf.
- U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2015). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144), characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
- Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
- Westring, A. F., Speck, M. R. M., Sammel, M. D., Scott, M. P., Tuton, L. W., Grisso, J. A., & Abbuhl, S. (2012). A culture conducive to women’s academic success: Development of a measure. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(11), 1622–1631. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826dbfd1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Once again, the origins of sex differences. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1062–1063. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1062.
- Yost, E., Winstead, V., Cotten, S. R., & Handley, D. M. (2013). The recruitment and retention of emerging women scholars in stem: Results from a national web-based survey of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 19(2), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2013003021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar