Recommendation Letters of Faculty Candidates for Positions in Chemistry and Biochemistry at UA Vicki Wysocki Department of Chemistry Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics Toni Schmader Department of Psychology

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

Reason for concern? Chemical & Engineering News, 2005, 44, 38–39. (% Female Fac in Chemistry) All Ranks10%13% Full69 Associate21 Assistant1821

UA Faculty Search Applicants Chem Biochem Men: Women: Percentage 19% 15% 30% Women

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

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.

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)

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

Differences in Qualifications? No # of publications # of presentations # of fellowships Yrs in Ph.D. # of postdocs Yrs in postdocs Yrs since PhD US News Rank* NSF Rank*

Gender differences in # and language ? Chem Biochem # of lettersYes (3.3/3.8)No Length of lettersNoNo AchievementNoNo Communication NoNo Positive feelingsNoNo Negative feelingsNoNo Tentative wordsNoNo Certainty wordsNoNo

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)

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

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

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

“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

Were there gender differences in how letter writers described candidates? Chem Biochem Grindstone traits NoNo Ability traits NoNo Standout adj. YesNo Research terms NoNo Teaching terms NoNo (excellent, superior, best)

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

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

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

2005 GRC (14%F)