Recommendation Letters of Faculty Candidates for Positions in Chemistry and Biochemistry at UA

1. Recommendation Letters of Faculty Candidates for Positions in Chemistry and Biochemistry at UA Vicki Wysocki(vwysocki@email.arizona.edu) Department of Chemistry Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics Toni Schmader Department of Psychology

2. Inspired by published study Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty FRANCES TRIX AND CAROLYN PSENKA WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY Discourse and Society, 2004, Vol 14(2): 191–220

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

4. UA Faculty Search 2003-2004 Applicants Chem Biochem • Men: 236 165 71 • Women: 46 25 21 Percentage 19% 15% 30% Women

5. Wysocki Research Group Nationally (Chemistry) Women Ph.D. 33% M.S. 46%

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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

9. Differences in Qualifications?No

10. Gender differences in # and language? ChemBiochem # of letters Yes (3.3/3.8) No Length of letters No No Achievement No No Communication No No Positive feelings No No Negative feelings No No Tentative words No No Certainty words No No

11. How do linguistic categories created correlate with one another? • more standout words (best, superior, excellent) • significantly more ability words • significantly fewer grindstone words • more language about teaching • less language about research • more tentative language (maybe, perhaps)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. “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

16. 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)

17. 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

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

19. The Greatest Threat to the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Henry Blount, NSF The Face of American Science Is Not the Face of America

20. 2005 GRC (14%F)