Major Replication Study Overturns Landmark Gender Bias Findings
A foundational 2012 study that claimed to reveal widespread gender bias against women in science has been seriously challenged. New research, involving a much larger sample, has found the opposite to be true, throwing years of accepted wisdom into question.
The Original Experiment and Its Surprising Reversal
The original study, published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved 127 science professors who were asked to evaluate identical fictional CVs. The only difference was the name on the application: one was 'John', the other 'Jennifer'. The 2012 results concluded that 'John' was consistently rated as more competent, hireable, and deserving of a higher salary.
This influential paper was cited over 4,600 times, shaping academic discourse and institutional policies aimed at combating gender bias in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).
However, a team from Rutgers University in New Jersey decided to put these findings to the test. Led by researchers Nathan Honeycutt and Lee Jussim, they re-ran the experiment on a much larger scale. They presented the same application materials to nearly 1,300 professors from more than 50 American institutions.
The outcome was starkly different. This time, the female applicant, 'Jennifer', was ranked as marginally more capable and appealing to work with. She was also considered the more hireable candidate and was deemed worthy of a higher salary than her male counterpart.
Publication Challenges and Academic Pushback
The journey to publishing these contradictory results was not straightforward. The lead authors revealed that their submission was rejected by the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Dr Honeycutt expressed his suspicion that this rejection was a form of pushback, stating, "We can’t know for certain but [that is our suspicion] given the nature of their feedback and pushback". He suggested the journal's reviewers may have been too aligned with the original study's conclusions.
In contrast, a spokesperson for the Nature Research Journals, Erika Pastrana, defended the decision, asserting that "Decisions by our editors to accept or reject replication studies are based solely on whether the research meets our editorial criteria... Our decisions are not driven by a preferred narrative."
Ultimately, the replication study found a home and has been accepted for publication by the journal Meta-Psychology.
Implications for the Future of Women in STEM
The researchers behind the new study believe their findings directly challenge the long-standing narrative used to explain why women are under-represented in certain scientific fields. They argue that the scientific community must be open to such contradictory evidence to ensure research integrity.
This case highlights the critical importance of replication in science—the process of repeating a study to verify its results. When a highly influential paper is contradicted by a more robust follow-up, it forces a re-evaluation of both the original findings and the policies they may have inspired.
The debate this research ignites is sure to continue, underscoring the complex and evolving understanding of gender dynamics within the world of academic science.
