TY - JOUR
T1 - Women in philosophy : problems with the discrimination hypothesis
AU - SESARDIC, Neven
AU - DE CLERCQ, Rafael
PY - 2014/12
Y1 - 2014/12
N2 - A number of philosophers attribute the underrepresentation of women in philosophy largely to bias against women or some kind of wrongful discrimination. They cite six sources of evidence to support their contention: (1) gender disparities that increase along the path from undergraduate student to full-time faculty member; (2) anecdotal accounts of discrimination in philosophy; (3) research on gender bias in the evaluation of manuscripts, grants, and curricula vitae in other academic disciplines; (4) psychological research on implicit bias; (5) psychological research on stereotype threat; and (6) the relatively small number of articles written from a feminist perspective in leading philosophy journals. In each case, we find that proponents of the discrimination hypothesis, who include distinguished philosophers in fields such as philosophy of science, metaphysics, and philosophy of language, have tended to present evidence selectively. Occasionally they have even presented as evidence what appears to be something more dubious—for example, studies supporting the discrimination hypothesis based on data that have been reported “lost” under suspicious circumstances. It is not the aim of this paper to settle the question of the causes of female underrepresentation in philosophy. Rather, we argue that, contrary to what many philosophers claim, the overall information available does not support the discrimination hypothesis.
AB - A number of philosophers attribute the underrepresentation of women in philosophy largely to bias against women or some kind of wrongful discrimination. They cite six sources of evidence to support their contention: (1) gender disparities that increase along the path from undergraduate student to full-time faculty member; (2) anecdotal accounts of discrimination in philosophy; (3) research on gender bias in the evaluation of manuscripts, grants, and curricula vitae in other academic disciplines; (4) psychological research on implicit bias; (5) psychological research on stereotype threat; and (6) the relatively small number of articles written from a feminist perspective in leading philosophy journals. In each case, we find that proponents of the discrimination hypothesis, who include distinguished philosophers in fields such as philosophy of science, metaphysics, and philosophy of language, have tended to present evidence selectively. Occasionally they have even presented as evidence what appears to be something more dubious—for example, studies supporting the discrimination hypothesis based on data that have been reported “lost” under suspicious circumstances. It is not the aim of this paper to settle the question of the causes of female underrepresentation in philosophy. Rather, we argue that, contrary to what many philosophers claim, the overall information available does not support the discrimination hypothesis.
KW - Stereotype Threat
KW - Gender Disparity
KW - Stanford Encyclopedia
KW - Feminist Philosophy
KW - Female Applicant
UR - https://www.nas.org/articles/women_in_philosophy_problems_with_the_discrimination_hypothesis
UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/1888
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84917737624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s12129-014-9464-x
DO - 10.1007/s12129-014-9464-x
M3 - Journal Article (refereed)
SN - 0895-4852
VL - 27
SP - 461
EP - 473
JO - Academic Questions
JF - Academic Questions
IS - 4
ER -