Hello,
Jennifer Steinbachs wrote:
> abs wrote:
> > Don't you think gender-neutral naming is a
> > patch/bandaid on the greater
> > issue of stereotype and bias? This is not a critisism.
> In publishing my (few) scientific articles, I have often
> wondered if I should publish under initials or under my
> full name. There are a number of studies (I don't have
> the refs. off the top of my head) demonstrating that
> papers with obvious female names are less cited that
> those with obvious male names. This is an important
> issue because, here in the US anyway, university faculty
> tenure is often linked to the number of citations one
> receives.
> On the other hand, does one really want to hide behind
> initials? And then, sooner or later, people will know
> the name that goes with those initials...
I do not know how reliable these studies are. There are AFAIK still much
more men in science than women. So the statement "men are more often
cited than women" simply has to be true because of statistics.
If that's the point with these studies, I'd fall into a conspiracy
theory: one might say the studies have been written by radical feminists
to pretend oppression of women in science <g,d&r> :-)
Seriously. If the percentages have been cleaned out, then it's also
obvious why women are less often cited. As any psychologist knows, there
is a slight tendency to perceive statements of gender peers as more
compentent [1]. Even if the tendency is about 1 or 5 percent, then on
the big scale (=cumulated data in studies) it shows as a gender bias.
"Local logical decisions turn into global arbitrary decisions."
Christian
[1] You surely don't want me to explain that one.
Trust me. *g*
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
