gender bias 16v markers Flashcards
understanding bias
Gender-biased research may create misleading assumptions about female behaviour, fail to challenge negative stereotypes and validate discriminatory practices. In any domain in which men set the standard of normalcy, as Carol Tavris (1993) puts it, ‘it becomes normal for women to feel abnormal’. Thus, gender bias in research is not just a methodological problem but may have damaging consequences which affect the lives and prospects of real women. One example is the medical category of premenstrual syndrome which, feminist commentators have claimed, medicalises and pathologises female emotions, such as anger, in order to delegitimise them.
That said, many modern researchers are beginning to recognise the effect their own values and assumptions have on the nature of their work (known as reflexivity). Rather than seeing such bias as a problem that may threaten the objective status of their work, they embrace it as a crucial aspect of the research process. For instance, in their study of the lack of women in executive positions in accountancy firms, Claire Dambrin and Caroline Lambert (2008) include reflection on how their gender-related experiences influence their reading of events. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that complete objectivity in psychological research is not possible. Researchers are human beings and cannot stand outside of their social and cultural experience, and maintain a ‘critical distance’ from themselves and their subject matter.
This suggests that gender bias may add an extra dimension to research if psychologists are up front about it in their work.
Biological versus social explanations
One limitation is that gender differences are often presented as fixed and enduring (i.e. alpha bias) when they are not.
Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin (1974) presented the findings of several gender studies which concluded that girls have superior verbal ability whereas boys have better spatial ability. Maccoby and Jacklin suggested that these differences are ‘hardwired’ into the brain before birth. Such findings become widely reported and seen as facts. In fact Daphna Joel et al (2015) used brain scanning and found no such sex differences in brain structure or processing. It is possible that the data from Maccoby and Jacklin was popularised because it fitted existing stereotypes of girls as ‘speakers’ and boys as doers’
This suggests that we should be wary of accepting research findings as biological facts when they might be explained better as social stereotypes.
Counterpoint
However, this does not mean that psychologists should avoid studying possible gender differences in the brain. For instance, research by Madura Ingalhalikar et al. (2014) suggests that the popular social stereotype that wornen are better at multitasking may have some biological truth try it. It seems that a woman’s brain may benefit from better connections between the risit and, the left hemisphere than in a man’s brain (research on gender stereotypes is discussed on page 149).
This suggests that there may be biological differences but we still should be wary of exaggerating the effect they may have on behaviour.
*
Sexism in research
Another limitation is that gender bias promotes sexism in the research process.
Women remain underrepresented in university departments, particularly in science.
Although psychology’s undergraduate intake is mainly of women, lecturers in psychology departments are more likely to be men (Murphy et al. 2014). This means research is more likely to be conducted by men and this may disadvantage participants who are women. - For example, a male researcher may expect women to be irrational and unable to complete complex tasks (Nicolson 1995) and such expectations are likely to mean that women underperform in research studies
This means that the institutional structures and methods of psychology may produce findings that are gender-biased.
Gender-biased research
A further limitation is that research challenging gender biases may not be published.
Magdalena Formanowicz et al. (2018) analysed more than 1000 articles relating to gender bias published over eight years. They found that teases rch on gender bias is fined less often and is published by less prestigious journals. The consequence of this is that fewer scholars become aware of it or apply it within their own work. The researchers argued that this still held true when gender bias was compared with other forms of bias, such as ethnic bias, and when other factors were controlled, such as the gender of the author(s) and the methodology used.
This suggests that gender bias in psychological research may not be taken as seriously as other forms of bias
