This month the American Economic Association published a survey finding that black women, compared to all other groups, had to take the most measures to avoid possible harassment, discrimination and unfair or disrespectful treatment. Sixty-two percent of black women reported experiencing racial or gender discrimination or both, compared to 50 percent of white women, 44 percent of Asian women and 58 percent of Latinas. Twenty-nine percent and 38 percent of black women reported experiencing discrimination in promotion and pay, respectively, compared to 26 percent and 36 percent for whites, 28 percent and 36 percent for Asians and 32 percent and 40 percent for Latinas.
“I would not recommend my own (black) child to go into this field,” said one of the black female respondents. “It was a mistake for me to choose this field. Had I known that it would be so toxic, I would not have.”The report is available here, and it makes for sobering reading. It was based on a survey sent to all current and recent (within nine years) members of the American Economic Association, and received over 10,000 responses (a response rate of 22.9%). It collected responses to a mixture of closed-ended and open-ended questions about the general climate in economics, experiences of discrimination, avoidance behaviour, exclusion and harassment. Here's some highlights (actually, they're more like lowlights):
Women very clearly have a different perception of the climate in the economics profession... It is particularly notable that, when asked about satisfaction with the overall climate within the field of economics, men were twice as likely as women to agree or strongly agree with the statement “I am satisfied with the overall climate within the field of economics” (40% of men vs. 20% of women). This large gender disparity is consistent across a variety of related statements about the field broadly: women are much less likely to feel valued within the field, much less likely to feel included socially, and much more likely to have experienced discrimination in the field of economics...
Female respondents are also much more likely to report having experienced discrimination or unfair treatment as students with regard to access to research assistantships, access to advisors, access to quality advising, and on the job market...
When we examine experiences of discrimination in academia... we see that, again, women face significantly more discrimination or unfair treatment than men along all dimensions (again, this gap is larger than the gap in discrimination faced by non-whites relative to whites). Most notably, women are much more likely to report personal experiences of discrimination or unfair treatment in promotion decisions and compensation, 27% and 37% respectively, compared to only 11% and 12% for men. Women are also significantly more likely to report personal experiences of discrimination or unfair treatment in teaching assignments and service obligations, course evaluations, publishing decisions and funding decisions...
Personal experiences of discrimination are also quite common among women working outside of academia...
...close to a quarter of female respondents report not having applied for or taken a particular employment position to avoid unfair, discriminatory or disrespectful treatment, compared to 12% of male respondents...And that's just from the bits relating the women. This bit also caught my attention, as it is both negative and affects everyone:
Experiences of exclusion are strikingly common in economics, both among male and female respondents... For example, 65% of female respondents report feeling of social exclusion at meetings or events in the field; 63% report having felt disrespected by economist colleagues; 69% report feeling that their work was not taken as seriously as that of their economist colleagues; 59% report feeling that the subject or methodology of their research was not taken seriously. The corresponding shares among men are smaller but still strikingly large: 40%, 38%, 43% and 40%, respectively.It's also not entirely bad (depending on how you look at it):
More than 80% of female respondents and 60% of male respondents agree that economics would be a more vibrant discipline if it were more inclusive...As the New York Times article suggests, there are also a lot of intersectional issues, with minority ethnic groups, non-heterosexual and non-binary genders, all facing similar and overlapping issues of discrimination and exclusion.
The problems seem larger than other disciplines, and the report provides some comparisons. However, it is worth noting that the issues have been made very visible of late, and that might affect people's responses to questions such as those in this survey. It was interesting to note, for example, that both self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives reported discrimination on the basis of their political beliefs.
Notwithstanding the issues with the survey though, it does highlight that there is a problem (as if we didn't know), and provides a baseline to which we can compare as we try to improve the culture within the profession. Read the report though, and you'll get a sense of just how much work needs to be done.
Read more:
- Could closing the gender gap in economics be as simple as providing students with information?
- Why we should care about the gender gap in economics
- Justin Wolfers on why we should care about the gender gap in economics
- Female representation in economics
- CORE on 'missing women in economics'
- More on the gender gap in economics
- The gender gap in economics
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/11/06/disproportionalities-whose-fault/
ReplyDeleteThere's a pretty important difference between arguing that disproportionality proves discrimination, and recognising that the culture of your profession is unsupportive of, or even hostile towards, some population groups. Note that my post does the latter.
DeleteYes, I am/was aware that you were not this time arguing from disproportionality. A blog I follow linked to the article and I remembered skimming over yours a few days prior and I passed it on by way of a 'comment'. It was actually not intended to be particularly apt or argumentative. But now that I'm here :)
ReplyDeleteI have also now glanced at the Report. 10,000plus is an impressive sounding sample. Invalidated (fatally so in my opinion) however by the fact that it is self selected, not random. Further, given the AEA does not know the characteristics (race,religion,sex,etc) of its members it is impossible to judge the extent (potentially gross) to which self-selection has distorted the sample. The analyses carried out on the sample cannot, therefore, validly be extrapolated as being applicable to the membership as a whole. (The authors of the Report describe metrics which are purported to provide a degree of assurance that the sample is representative. I find them totally unconvincing - tendentious even).
In summary the Report IMO is no better than anecdote(not evidence that "your profession is unsupportive of, or even hostile towards, some population groups") and simply an exercise in virtue signalling by the AEA (looks to be an expensive exercise to boot).
OT : I have ordered a copy of "a short history of drunkeness etc." thank you. If you are ever in Mbne with time on your hands I'll shout a couple of Fosters and you can try persuading me that my above assessment is wrong!
Cheers - Colin