Equal respect for equal work — not for women scientists

Women’s contributions to science are less acknowledged than men’s — a bias known as the Matilda effect.

How do you identify unconscious biases or discrimination faced by women in science?

In 2013, Knobloch-Westerwick and colleagues wanted to provide evidence for the occurence of ‘the Matilda Effect’ in science, a term coined to describe the general bias against acknowledging the achievements of women and the perceived credibility of their scientific work. Using an experimental study, the authors examined the way unknown biases influence how people feel about women’s research contributions.

243 graduate students were asked to examine and assess identical research abstracts about scientific work. Abstracts were randomly paired with a ‘typical male or female’-sounding author name. The work was also categorized as either belonging to a ‘typical feminine or masculine’ research area or a neutral one.

Abstracts with typical male-sounding authors were ranked higher and were rated to be of higher quality than the work of female-sounding authors. This pattern was repeated for research topics that appeared ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. Respondents also indicated a stronger desire to work with male researchers than with female researchers. These results were the same for respondents of all genders.

The results confirm that the Matilda effect occurs in science. Unconscious gender biases make it more difficult for women in science to gain equal respect for equal work.

Join our mailing list to receive new WinSights articles on research-backed resources for inclusive science.

Study Details

Sample size(s): N = 243

Participants: Graduate students in communication programs at the PhD (72%) and MA (25%) levels Gender proportion: 70% female, 30% male Age: 28.55 Ethnicity: 75% American, 4% Chinese, 3% Korean

Design: Quantitative, experimental

Reference:

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554701247268.

Summarized by WinSights team members: Emily Ana Butler, Bianca Dreyer, Catherine Palm & Zoe Campbell