Unconscious Bias: The Facts, the Lesson, and the Reason for Hope

By Rachel Gardner

Bias: Beyond the Buzzword

We’ve all heard the stories of bias against women in tech, whether through first hand accounts or media reports. However, having been fortunate enough not to have experienced any overt sexism, I wasn’t sure what this looked like. At a talk hosted by the Vice Provost for Graduate Education, Jo Handelsman, former Associate Director for Science at the White House and a long-time advocate for diversity in STEM, explained the science behind the subject.

As Handelsman explained, with something as nebulous as bias, it is easy to condemn others as biased, while holding yourself (or your workplace) to be unprejudiced. This is especially true of scientists and technologists, whose profession is based upon analytical reasoning and data analysis. This inability to recognize personal bias has led to blame-shifting and inaction across companies and research institutions. Frustrated by this phenomenon, Handelsman and her colleagues set out to find the hard data that would convince the STEM community.

Jennifer or John

In 2012 study at Yale, Corinne Moss-Racusin (a student of Handelsman’s) sent 127 scientists a student description, and asked several questions, including perceived competence and potential salary of the prospective lab manager. The only difference in descriptions was the student name: either Jennifer or John.

Once Jo pointed it out, the common claim that “we only hire the best [based on the evidence]” is simply not true. However, more surprising yet is how universal our unconscious biases are. Being a woman or minority had no effect on the level of demonstrated bias.

The implication that even someone who has struggled to reach her position in a STEM field could still discriminate against others of her background can be hard to truly accept. For me personally, it was difficult to have to consider that for all my own “empowerment,” I could just as easily be biased. As Jo pointed out, “our belief in our own objectivity is so ingrained it’s amazing.”

Universality of Bias: Groundwork for a Broader Discussion

This has broad implications. First and foremost, we must establish selection criteria before reviewing applications and consider blind reviews where possible. It’s easy to see why a hiring committee would need to take these steps, but I believe this is critical for a selection process of any kind, no matter how informal. It’s impossible to tell what kind of cumulative effect these decisions will have, whether it’s the middle school science fair or a college research position. This is something even casual club selection processes must take into account, a fact I’m uncomfortably aware of as I now look back on my own role in past club application cycles.

However, there’s hope to be had as well. If you find yourself doubting or left out (as most of us sometimes do), really consider the possibility that it isn’t just you. It’s one thing to get angry at an off-color comment, but it can be hard to recognize the collective influence of manifestations of micro-bias. Just because you didn’t grow up with Legos or didn’t win the science fair doesn’t mean you belong in STEM any less. While sometimes it can feel like everyone around you knows more or has been coding longer, that may simply be because they had a different set of opportunities early on.

Finally, the universality of biases means the conversation around inclusion in STEM isn’t a one-sided “men should treat us better.” Everyone, regardless of background, is complicit in some form, so we need to have a unified discussion and awareness of our unconscious biases. To me, this provides hope that we can meet in the middle and address our shortcomings together. That way we can get back to building, exploring and innovating. After all, isn’t that what this is supposed to be about?

References

Handelsman, Jo. “The Fallacy of Fairness: Confronting Bias in Academic Science.” 17 Oct. 2017, Stanford.

Moss-Racusin, Corinne A, et al. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 41, 9 Oct. 2012, pp. 16474–16479.