Gender Statements From the Status of Women in the Philosophy Profession Committee Professional philosophy has a poor track record with regard to reflecting the diversity of wider human society in its ranks, both in Australasia and internationally, and compared to other Humanities disciplines. The AAP has been compiling a series of Notes designed to address this. AAP Statement on Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness (2017) Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness (henceforth: SET) can play a significant role in hiring and promotions for academic philosophers in Australasia. Yet a number of recent empirical studies seem to show that SET are poor measures of teaching effectiveness. For instance (Braga et al, 2004) found that a 1-standard-deviation increase in university teachers’ effectiveness in boosting student performance reduces students’ evaluations of their professors’ teaching quality by about half of a standard deviation, on average, and that student evaluations improve when the weather gets warmer, and deteriorate on rainy days. (Bassett et al, 2015) shows that students often pay very little attention to the questions, as they ‘agree’ to patently false claims inserted in their questionnaires (e.g. 24% agreed that “the instructor was late or absent for all class meetings”, while 28% agreed that “the instructor never even attempted to answer any student questions related to the course”). Secondly, studies show that marked biases exist in students’ appraisal of teaching performance. For instance, in (Basow and Silberg, 1987) over 1,000 male and female college students of 16 male and female professors evaluated their instructors in terms of teaching effectiveness. It was found that male students gave female professors significantly poorer ratings than male professors on all of the six teaching evaluation measures; their ratings of female professors were poorer than those of female students on four measures, while female students also evaluated female professors less favourably than male professors on three measures. (Martin, 2016) documents a similar effect across two large political science departments, finding it particularly marked in large courses. (Mitchell and Martin, 2018) demonstrates that even for entirely online courses, a male instructor administering an identical course as a female instructor receives higher ordinal scores in teaching evaluations, even when questions are not instructor-specific. (Boring et al, 2016) and (Boring, 2017) also demonstrate (drawing on data from French Universities) that bias exists, is statistically significant (sufficiently to cause more effective female instructors to get lower SET than less effective male instructors), that male students in particular discriminate in favour of male instructors, and that the bias affects how students rate even putatively objective aspects of teaching, such as how promptly assignments are graded. (Boring et al, 2016) concludes:
The AAP is concerned about the possibility that philosophers from under-represented groups may be unfairly disadvantaged by these performance instruments. If this is the case, it is not entirely clear what remedy might best be applied, as SET policies often differ between institutions and are largely determined in upper levels of administration. Nevertheless, we here offer some suggestions: 1. First and foremost, develop a more multidimensional approach to evaluating pedagogy. For instance, staff might develop a ‘teaching portfolio’ which includes syllabi and teaching materials; peer teaching observations; solicited letters from a significant number of students; and a personal narrative of pedagogical practice and development. The AAP urges all members of our profession, particularly senior members and those involved in employment and promotion decisions, to be aware of these concerns and alert to ways in which, if there is a problem of equity in this regard, it might be justly addressed. Further Resources Sylvia d’Apollonia and Philip C. Abrami. “Navigating student ratings of instruction.” American Psychologist 52.11 (1997): 1198 Jonathan Bassett, Amanda Cleveland, Deborah Acorn, Marie Nix, Timothy Snyder (2017). “Are they paying attention? Students’ lack of motivation and attention potentially threaten the utility of course evaluations.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(3) (2017): 431-442. Susan A. Basow, Nancy T. Silberg. “Student Evaluations of College Professors: Are Female and Male Professors Rated Differently?” Journal of Educational Psychology 79(3) (1987): 308–14. Anne Boring (2017). “Gender Biases in Student Evaluations of Teaching.” Journal of Public Economics 145 (2017): 27–41. Anne Boring, Kellie Ottoboni, Philip Stark, “Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness”,ScienceOpen Research (published online 6 January 2016), DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1 Michela Braga, Marco Paccagnella, and Michele Pellizzari. “Evaluating Students’ Evaluations of Professors." Economics of Education Review 41 (2014): 71-88. Charles R. Emery, Tracy R. Kramer, and Robert G. Tian. “Return to academic standards: a critique of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness.” Quality Assurance in Education 11.1 (2003): 37-46. Lisa Martin. “Gender, Teaching Evaluations, and Professional Success in Political Science”. PS: Political Science & Politics,49(2) (2016): 313-319. Kristina Mitchell and Jonathan Martin. “Gender Bias in Student Evaluations”. PS: Political Science & Politics: 1-5 (published online 6 March 2018), DOI: 10.1017/S104909651800001X Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. “Student Evaluations of Teaching” https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/student-evaluations/ Committee for the Status of Women in the Philosophy Profession: Statement on Insecure Work (2017) Insecure work - casual and limited term contract work - is increasingly prevalent within academic philosophy in Australasia. Yet insecure work stands as an obstacle to career advancement within philosophy. Insecure appointments are often made at the lowest level regardless of experience; and pathways from insecure to secure employment are lacking. Many insecure positions are teaching-intensive, and lack the career opportunities of positions with a research component. In particular, teachers on hourly rates are expected to undertake any research outside of their paid hours; they face economic uncertainty from semester to semester; and their labour may be taken for granted beyond the strict terms of their employment. The majority of those in insecure work in academia are women.1 Factors explaining this inequality appear to include:
The AAP is concerned about the possibility that female philosophers are unfairly disadvantaged by insecure employment practices. While the larger industrial framework is determined at upper levels of administration in higher education institutions, members of our profession do retain control of some details of its implementation. Possible suggestions for best practice include the following:
The AAP urges all members of the profession – particularly senior members and those involved in administration and employment decisions – to be aware of these concerns and and to be alert to ways in which, where there is a problem of equity in this regard, it might be justly ameliorated. 1Strachan et al, 2006; Gottschalk & McEachern, 2010. The situation in philosophy not currently known, but is under investigation by the Australian Academy for the Humanities through an ARC Linkage Learned Academies Special Project. See also Zheng 2018 for an analysis of the gendered ethos of the contemporary academy. Further Resources
As the low level of women’s participation at all levels of employment in Philosophy has been identified as a problem, the AAP urgently recommends that gender should be prioritised as a consideration in recruitment, and especially that care be taken to eliminate implicit bias in hiring processes. History In 1982 the AAP made a statement asking departments to implement the affirmative action policies developed by FAUSA. At that time the AAP’s recommendations included:
In 2007 the ‘Improving the Participation of Women in the Philosophy Profession’ project was commissioned to collect data on the participation of women in Philosophy and to prepare a report based on collected information. The report acknowledged that more work needed to be done to facilitate structural change so that women are given fair consideration as job candidates. The report made a number of recommendations to improve recruitment of women, including:
Current recommendations Over thirty years since FAUSA’s affirmative action recommendations were communicated to philosophers working in Australasia, there has been insufficient progress in representation of women in Philosophy employment. We need to take advantage of the significant recent research in this area. Particularly, evidence suggests that even people who view themselves as egalitarian and progressive may be affected by implicit gender bias: i.e., bias that is not necessarily undertaken consciously, but which nonetheless allows appointment committee members to be unduly swayed by stereotypes regarding women’s capacities, as well as expectations concerning how philosophers are supposed to look, their appropriate manner of presentation and discursive style, and the areas of philosophy that are considered to be serious and important (see Saul; Haslanger). In addition to previous recommendations that there should be more women (and especially senior women) on hiring committees, and that departments should proactively recruit women and adopt gender targets, there are also strategies that should be used specifically to address implicit bias. The AAP strongly recommends that hiring committees work with University human resources departments to engage a checklist approach to managing and counteracting potential gender bias, including:
Finally, note that not all positions are advertised (e.g. conversion from fixed-term to continuing employment; employment associated with the award of fellowships such as DECRAs; casual appointments including teaching by HDR students) and applying the above recommendations to non-advertised positions may not be possible. In light of this, departments should undertake regular reviews of their hiring patterns to non-advertised positions to check for patterns suggestive of gender bias, and take steps to address any biases identified. Further Resources
download AAP Note on Hiring (2015)
Philosophy has a poor track record with regard to gender balance, both in Australasia and internationally. Compared to other Humanities disciplines, Philosophy has a significantly smaller proportion of women in continuing positions (including, in particular, senior continuing positions). For instance in Australia in 2009, females comprised only 28% of full-time continuing Philosophy staff, and the largest group of female staff (~15) were employed at the lecturer B (Lecturer) level, while the largest group of male staff (~40) were employed at the lecturer D/E (Associate Professor/Professor) level (Bishop et al, in Hutchison and Jenkins (eds.) 2013, pp. 232-3). Moreover, compared to other disciplines, Philosophy has significantly higher attrition rates for women at all levels: end of first year; end of bachelor’s degree; end of Honours year; end of higher degree by research; end of post-doctoral fellowship; and end of non-continuing position. The AAP is concerned about this data, and is compiling a series of Notes designed to address different factors that may explain the drop off in women's participation at all levels of the profession. One factor has been brought to particular prominence in the past twelve months by a series of distressing allegations in the UK and the US concerning predatory sexual behaviour by more senior, higher status male philosophers towards more junior, lower status female philosophers - allegations which are currently in various stages of investigation. Such behaviour can cause its targets to seriously doubt their own philosophical abilities and, in many cases, destroy their love of philosophy. The blog What It Is Like to be a Woman in Philosophy is playing a valuable role in raising awareness of how such behaviours can discourage women from pursuing our discipline. Although its evidence is anecdotal and submitted anonymously, the number and the consistency of the stories accumulating there invites serious reflection. The AAP is extremely concerned about these matters and urges everyone engaged in philosophy in Australasia to educate themselves about the issues involved. It urges all Australasian philosophers not to engage in, or support, behaviour targeted at more junior or lower status philosophers that is (or may be perceived to be) sexually predatory. It particularly urges senior male philosophers to challenge any colleagues they feel might be engaged in predatory sexual behaviour, to offer support to any junior philosophers they perceive might be on the receiving end of such behaviour (with tact and sensitivity to their needs and wishes), and to show leadership in their own sphere of influence in creating a philosophical environment that is equally welcoming to any gender. The AAP is extremely concerned about these matters and urges everyone engaged in philosophy in Australasia to educate themselves about the issues involved. It urges all Australasian philosophers not to engage in, or support, behaviour targeted at more junior or lower status philosophers that is (or may be perceived to be) sexually predatory. It particularly urges senior male philosophers to challenge any colleagues they feel might be engaged in predatory sexual behaviour, to offer support to any junior philosophers they perceive might be on the receiving end of such behaviour (with tact and sensitivity to their needs and wishes), and to show leadership in their own sphere of influence in creating a philosophical environment that is equally welcoming to any gender. Further Resources
Download AAP Note on Predatory Sexual Behaviour (2014) Note on Non-Discriminatory Language (2008) AAP encourages its members to be aware of the need to use non-discriminatory language in preparing papers, and advises consultation of the guidelines on the website of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. |
