Except that the Ceci/Williams study is (a) more recent (b) has a much larger sample size and (c) shows a larger effect. It is also arguably a much better designed study.
Yet, Moss-Racusin gets cited a lot more.
Because it fits the dominant narrative, whereas the better Ceci/Williams study contradicts the dominant narrative.
More here:
Scientific Bias in Favor of Studies Finding Gender Bias --
Studies that find bias against women often get disproportionate attention.
The effect is wider and stronger than that: These findings are especially striking given that other research shows it is more difficult for scholars to publish work that reflects conservative interests and perspectives. A 1985 study in the American Psychologist, for example, assessed the outcomes of research proposals submitted to human subject committees. Some of the proposals were aimed at studying job discrimination against racial minorities, women, short people, and those who are obese. Other proposals set out to study "reverse discrimination" against whites. All of the proposals, however, offered identical research designs. The study found that the proposals on reverse discrimination were the hardest to get approved, often because their research designs were scrutinized more thoroughly. In some cases, though, the reviewers raised explicitly political concerns; as one reviewer argued, "The findings could set affirmative action back 20 years if it came out that women were asked to interview more often for managerial positions than men with a stronger vitae." [1,2]
Meaning that, first, such research is less likely to be proposed (human subject committees are drawn from researchers, so they share biases), then it is less likely to be funded, and finally, it receives less attention.
[2] Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994
Yeah, one glaring example of this effect is the NSFGears project.
The researchers studied why people leave engineering. Their first report, Stemming the Tide, reported on women. It was published and very widely reported. The reporting was largely inaccurate, because the claims that were made were that women were leaving due to discrimination.
If you actually looked at the numbers, that was totally false. The number 1 reason was "didn't like engineering", followed by "too few chances for advancement" and "wanted to start a family".
And of course, being promoted to management was als considered "leaving engineering". But whatever.
That wasn't the kicker. The kicker was that they did a follow-up study on why men left engineering. And it turns out it's for pretty much exactly the same reasons!
Our early analysis suggests that men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving. Namely, that there were little opportunities for advancement, perceptions of a lack of a supportive organization, lost interests in the field, and conflicts with supervisors. One key difference between men and women was women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family
Ba da dum.
And yes, you guessed it: deafening silence. More than a decade later, nothing has been published. My guess is that they can't get it published. It's the same researchers, same topic, at least the same relevance, presumably same quality of work. But it doesn't fit the narrative.
I contacted the principal investigator a number of years ago, and she said to wait a little, they were in the process of getting things published. Since then: crickets.
Of course, you truncated only the last sentence of the analysis summary, which contradicted your narrative:
As we dug deeper into this relationship, we found that these women often attempted to make accommodations at work in order to meet their care-giving responsibilities only to be met with resistance from the work environment.
When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination.
2. There is no contradiction (II)
The point I was making was about what gets published. It didn't get published.
3. There is no contradiction (III)
Please look again at the introductory sentence of the report: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving
"Roughly the same rates for the same reasons".
I repeat: "roughly the same rates for the same reasons".
That it isn't exactly the same rates and not exactly the same reasons is not a contradiction, because "exactly" wasn't claimed. It is added nuance and details that does not in any way shape or form contradict the original finding.
And it isn't "my narrative", it is what the researchers found. So it ain't a "narrative", it is the empirical data, and it isn't "mine", it is the reality as found by those researchers.
disparate impact, judicial theory developed in the United States that allows challenges to employment or educational practices that are nondiscriminatory on their face but have a disproportionately negative effect on members of legally protected groups.
For example, if a company's policy is "No employee is allowed to pump breast milk anywhere on premises, even behind closed doors, regardless of gender," it disproportionately impacts women even if men are also banned from the same activity.
Perhaps I am aware that, to add the part of the article you left out:
However, civil rights advocates have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time.
So it's a fairly fringe legal theory with little impact.
There are lots of fringe theories, for example some claim that the earth is flat. I don't have to accommodate all of them.
Disparate impact is illegal, so it's not a "fringe legal theory".
If you don't see anything wrong with my example of disparate impact, how about a hypothetical company policy that has a dress code of short hair for all engineers regardless of gender? More women than men would quit, seeing the policy as draconian and controlling (or be fired for non-compliance), while men who already have short hair wouldn't find the policy onerous or difficult.
"federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time."
Also your source.
3. Off topic
a) The research I cited was not about fringe legal theories but about reality in the world.
b) I am not interested in your hypotheticals that have nothing to do with that research, nothing to do with the publishing bias against research showing no bias against women or bias against men, and probably also nothing to do with the actual legal theory of disparate impact.
It adds context, but doesn't contradict anything - the resistance they faced was to actions that their male peers didn't attempt, so it doesn't imply any kind of disparate treatment.
The comment implied that women left engineering because they preferred taking care of children over working as engineers. The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it. If young children exist and are neglected, then society blames the mother, not the father. A responsible mother has no choice but to choose family over career if she can't choose both. Young humans cannot survive on their own without being cared for by adult humans.
> The comment implied that women left engineering because they preferred taking care of children over working as engineers.
That turns out not to be the case.
1. It wasn't "implied"
There were no implications, things were said straight out.
2. It wasn't "the comment" that didn't imply this
This was a statement by the researchers quoted verbatim.
3. It wasn't "the" reason
As the researchers stated: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving
So wanting to take care of children wasn't "the" reasons, and it wasn't even the main reason. It was one where men and women actually diverged, whereas for the most part they gave the same reasons.
4. Non-accomodation was a factor
> The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it.
That is also not true as written. First, the researchers write "often", which you leave out. Second the researchers write "resistance", you write "didn't allow". Those are not the same thing.
Third, the report clearly states "women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family". Wanted. Not "were forced to by societal pressures".
And of course those pressures are identical for men and women, if not stronger for men. When I started working part time in order to have time for my daughter, there was an almost immediate attempt to push me out, stopped only by my team revolting, and it was made clear to me that I would not be advancing, that my career was if not over than at least dead in the water.
And at some level that is actually correct. Once I had my daughter, my job was not just not my #1 priority, I physically did not have the same amount of time to give. This is not some evil discriminatory society, it is physics. The day has so many hours. So companies that often demand total dedication from their employees (especially in the US) simply won't get it from a caregiver.
Now I don't agree that that is a legitimate demand. But it is a common one that is made equally of all employees, non-discriminatorily.
Choosing family over career is a legitimate choice. It happens to be my choice. But it is a choice, and one I personally would make again and again, even though the punishment society doles out to men for that choice is much, much harsher.
Because it fits the dominant narrative, whereas the better Ceci/Williams study contradicts the dominant narrative.
More here:
Scientific Bias in Favor of Studies Finding Gender Bias -- Studies that find bias against women often get disproportionate attention.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201906...