Explanations of the gender gap in philosophy

被引:14
|
作者
Thompson, Morgan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Hist & Philosophy Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
来源
PHILOSOPHY COMPASS | 2017年 / 12卷 / 03期
关键词
IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST; STEREOTYPE THREAT; SEX-DIFFERENCES; WOMEN; METAANALYSIS; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.1111/phc3.12406
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Recently, researchers have begun to empirically investigate the gender gap in philosophy and provide potential explanations for the underrepresentation of women in philosophy relative to their representation in other disciplines. This empirical research as well as research on the gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields has shed light on a priori, armchair explanations of the gender gap. For example, implicit bias and stereotype threat may contribute much less to the philosophy gender gap than previously thought. However, new candidate contributing factors have emerged. Drawing on the theoretical resources concerning fixed mindsets in response to difficult tasks, a new theory suggests that practitioners in various fields, including philosophy, hold the belief that success in their fields requires natural brilliance (a brilliance-based field-specific ability belief). Further, the extent to which members of a field hold that belief predicts the diversity of the members of that field. Initial findings suggest that among the set of students who hold these beliefs, women are disproportionately disinterested in continuing in philosophy. Other hypotheses seem plausible, such as the idea that lay people hold gendered schemas about philosophy, but require more empirical support to be partial explanations. Future empirical research should focus on these plausible hypotheses, replications of previous findings, and investigating the effects of intersectionality within the gender gap.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Tracing the origins of the STEM gender gap: The contribution of childhood spatial skills
    Tian, Jing
    Ren, Kexin
    Newcombe, Nora S.
    Weinraub, Marsha
    Vandell, Deborah Lowe
    Gunderson, Elizabeth A.
    DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2023, 26 (02)
  • [32] Can Stereotype Threat Explain the Gender Gap in Mathematics Performance and Achievement?
    Stoet, Gijsbert
    Geary, David C.
    REVIEW OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 16 (01) : 93 - 102
  • [33] A collective action approach to improving attitudes and self-efficacy towards gender equality among male STEM academics
    Petzel, Zachary W.
    Farrell, Lynn
    Mccormack, Teresa
    Turner, Rhiannon N.
    Rafferty, Karen
    Latu, Ioana M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION, 2024, 39 (03) : 3161 - 3184
  • [34] An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap in Mathematics
    Fryer, Roland G., Jr.
    Levitt, Steven D.
    AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL-APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2010, 2 (02) : 210 - 240
  • [35] A NEW INSIGHT INTO THE GENDER GAP IN MATH
    Sohn, Kitae
    BULLETIN OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, 2012, 64 (01) : 135 - 155
  • [36] Considering the gender gap in heart failure
    Lin, Felice
    Greenberg, Barry
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE, 2020, 22 (01) : 12 - 15
  • [37] Risky business: Assessing risk preference explanations for gender differences in religiosity
    Roth, Louise Marie
    Kroll, Jeffrey C.
    AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, 72 (02) : 205 - 220
  • [38] The confidence gap predicts the gender pay gap among STEM graduates
    Sterling, Adina D.
    Thompson, Marissa E.
    Wang, Shiya
    Kusimo, Abisola
    Gilmartin, Shannon
    Sheppard, Sheri
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2020, 117 (48) : 30303 - 30308
  • [39] Women and ‘the philosophical personality’: evaluating whether gender differences in the Cognitive Reflection Test have significance for explaining the gender gap in Philosophy
    Christina Easton
    Synthese, 2021, 198 : 139 - 167
  • [40] The student confidence gap: Gender differences in job skill self-efficacy
    Papyrina, Veronika
    Strebel, Judi
    Robertson, Bruce
    JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 2021, 96 (02) : 89 - 98