Recommendation Letters of Faculty Candidates for Positions in Chemistry and

Biochemistry at UAVicki Wysocki (vwysocki@email.arizona.edu)Department of ChemistryDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics

Toni SchmaderDepartment of Psychology

Inspired by published study

Exploring the color of glass: letters ofrecommendation for female and malemedical faculty

FRANCES TRIX AND CAROLYN PSENKAWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

Discourse and Society, 2004, Vol 14(2): 191–220

Reason for concern?Chemical & Engineering News, 2005, 44, 38–39. (% Female Fac in Chemistry)

2000 2005

All Ranks 10% 13%

Full 6 9

Associate 21 21

Assistant 18 21

UA Faculty Search 2003-2004

Applicants

Chem Biochem Men: 236 165 71

Women: 46 25 21

Percentage 19% 15% 30%

Women

Wysocki Research Group

Nationally (Chemistry) Women

Ph.D. 33%

M.S. 46%

Methods Letters transcribed and analyzed with LIWC

(Linguistic Inquiry Word Count) to count the number of standard word categories.

Counts for each applicant were averaged within category and across letter writers to create aggregate variables. Categories with very low frequencies were not included.

Categories Examined # of letters Word count Achievement words (e.g., try, goal, win) Communication words (e.g,, talk, share) Positive feelings (e.g., happy, joy) Negative emotions (e.g., hate, worthless) Tentative words (e.g., maybe, perhaps) Certainty words (e.g., always, never)

Additional Categories Grindstone traits

hardworking, motivated, effort Ability traits

smart, talented, able Standout adjectives

best, superior, excellent Research terms

experiment, funding, studies Teaching terms

teaching, mentor, educate

Differences in Qualifications? No

# of publications

# of presentations

# of fellowships

Yrs in Ph.D.

# of postdocs

Yrs in postdocs

Yrs since PhD

US News Rank*

NSF Rank*

Gender differences in # and language?

Chem Biochem# of letters Yes (3.3/3.8) NoLength of letters No NoAchievement No NoCommunication No NoPositive feelings No NoNegative feelings No NoTentative words No NoCertainty words No No

How do linguistic categories created correlate with one another?

more standout words (best, superior, excellent)significantly more ability wordssignificantly fewer grindstone words

more language about teaching less language about research more tentative language (maybe, perhaps)

How do linguistic categories created correlate with one another?

Among Women:

If more grindstone words (hardworking, effort)marginally less language about research

If more ability words (smart, talented) less language about teaching

How are qualification variables related to being interviewed or offered a position?

None of the qualification variables correlate with being invited or offered a job except…... those who received invitations tended to be

out of grad school for fewer years among men, those who are given job offers

have significantly more fellowships

How are linguistic variables related to the applicant’s status?

those with longer letters of recommendation are more likely to be invited for an interview

“Additional Categories” showed difference Grindstone traits

hardworking, motivated, effort Ability traits

smart, talented, able Standout adjectives

best, superior, excellent Research terms

experiment, funding, studies Teaching terms

teaching, mentor, educate

Were there gender differences in how letter writers described candidates?

Chem Biochem

Grindstone traits No No

Ability traits No No

Standout adj. Yes No

Research terms No No

Teaching terms No No

(excellent, superior, best)

Women less likely to be interviewed?

NO

if they applied

consider statistics of small number of applicants

consider that women in department questioned why women weren’t on the interview schedule

Conclusions

Search committees should be aware that letters may have differences (male vs female candidates) in spite of similar qualifications

The Greatest Threat to theMathematical and Physical Sciences

The Face of American Science

Is Not the Face of America

Henry Blount, NSF

2005 GRC (14%F)