Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Sexism in STEM: Don’t base conclusions on flawed data

Timothy Lahey, MD
Physician
January 16, 2015
Share
Tweet
Share

Sexism is a major problem in education around sciences, technology and engineering. The first step in addressing this problem is awareness.

A new study suggests many men deny that sexism is a problem in STEM fields. A study in Psychology of Women Quarterly says that that among 423 respondents in an online forum, men were more likely to suggest sexism isn’t a problem even when confronted with evidence it is.

Wow, men are really clueless. Let’s get out the cattle prods.

Or … maybe not.

A closer reading of the study reveals the way it was conducted could lead to bias. Not bias in the sense of being sexist, but biased in the statistical sense of the word, i.e. that the authors’ conclusions may not be valid.

Here’s why.

It turns out the authors collected 831 responses from an online forum regarding articles on sexism in STEM fields. We don’t know who responded, and how they might differ from those that didn’t. Were non-sexist men less likely to opine, leaving the sexist trolls to exhibit the dark side of their humanity? Probably — but we just can’t be sure because the information isn’t there.

From out of those 831 responses, the authors analyzed data only from the 423 in which the respondent’s sex could be inferred from their response. If the respondent said, “As a man, I am aggrieved that women are scientists,” then their sexist response was included. If a man wrote, “Go women in science!” without indicating his sex, his response was thrown out. Thus, importantly, the authors did not systematically evaluate the major variable of interest – respondent sex – and as a result their analyses were potentially biased to include people who mention their sex when writing about sexism.

If, for instance, male sexists are more likely to mention that they are men, then the study conclusions are completely invalid. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t.

The authors do cop to some of the study limitations, though not this one. They write, regarding study limitations, that the study approach,

… necessitated the usage of a non-random, self- selected sample of commenters … Commenters were limited to those who had access to the Internet, were sufficiently interested in bias in STEM to read an article on the topic, read one of our three selected articles, and decided to leave a comment. As such, although our sample may be representative of the focal underlying population of individuals who are interested in such issues, as well as read and comment on such articles, these commenters may not be representative of other groups.

True enough, but how can the authors conclude they know how aware men (or rather men online) are of sexism in STEM if they do not even know how many of the original 831 respondents are men? Similarly, how can they conclude that men are more likely to be skeptical of sexism in STEM fields if they cannot compare all men’s responses to all women’s responses.

Short answer: They can’t.

What is sad is that the authors can cite a bevy of other articles that do suggest some men in STEM fields are sexist, and that some men deny sexism. I don’t doubt it: I’ve seen both.

Here’s a random sampling of anonymized Twitter commentary about the findings:

ADVERTISEMENT

5

I would guess that the lived experience of these and other commentators, like mine, supports the idea that some men disregard sexism even when it’s staring them in the face.

From there, when a study comes along that supports that already-held belief, Twitter lights up. Even if the study itself is pretty poor proof.

We should continue to call out and fight sexism in STEM fields. It is pernicious, archaic, and it must go. While fighting that noble fight, which we are winning, we should not undermine the effort by basing conclusions on flawed data.

Timothy Lahey is an infectious disease physician and medical ethicist who blogs at [M U R M U R S].  

Prev

In the airport for a routine flight. And an adventure with urine and an AED.

January 16, 2015 Kevin 8
…
Next

One way to change MOC: Targeted education and testing

January 16, 2015 Kevin 3
…

Tagged as: Medical school

Post navigation

< Previous Post
In the airport for a routine flight. And an adventure with urine and an AED.
Next Post >
One way to change MOC: Targeted education and testing

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Timothy Lahey, MD

  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Will the attempt to police HIV transmission be effective?

    Timothy Lahey, MD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    After a Creutzfeldt-Jakob exposure, should patients be told?

    Timothy Lahey, MD

More in Physician

  • Why we fund unproven autism therapies

    Ronald L. Lindsay, MD
  • How your past shapes the way you lead

    Brooke Buckley, MD, MBA
  • How private equity harms community hospitals

    Ruth E. Weissberger, MD
  • The U.S. health care crisis: a Titanic parallel

    Aaron Morgenstein, MD & Corinne Sundar Rao, MD & Shreekant Vasudhev, MD
  • Interdisciplinary medicine: lessons from the cockpit

    Ronald L. Lindsay, MD
  • How Acthar Gel became a $250,000 drug

    Bharat Desai, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The flaw in the ACA’s physician ownership ban

      Luis Tumialán, MD | Policy
    • Gen Z, ADHD, and divided attention in therapy

      Ronke Lawal | Conditions
    • The therapy memory recall crisis

      Ronke Lawal | Conditions
    • Reclaiming physician agency in a broken system

      Christie Mulholland, MD | Physician
    • A urologist explains premature ejaculation

      Martina Ambardjieva, MD, PhD | Conditions
    • Why medical organizations must end their silence

      Marilyn Uzdavines, JD & Vijay Rajput, MD | Policy
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why you should get your Lp(a) tested

      Monzur Morshed, MD and Kaysan Morshed | Conditions
    • Rebuilding the backbone of health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The dismantling of public health infrastructure

      Ronald L. Lindsay, MD | Physician
    • The flaw in the ACA’s physician ownership ban

      Luis Tumialán, MD | Policy
    • The decline of the doctor-patient relationship

      William Lynes, MD | Physician
    • Rethinking cholesterol and atherosclerosis

      Larry Kaskel, MD | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • Gen Z, ADHD, and divided attention in therapy

      Ronke Lawal | Conditions
    • Innovation in medicine: 6 strategies for docs

      Jalene Jacob, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why we fund unproven autism therapies

      Ronald L. Lindsay, MD | Physician
    • Early-onset breast cancer: a survivor’s story

      Sara Rands | Conditions
    • Why mocking food allergies in movies is a life-threatening problem [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why we need to expand Medicaid

      Mona Bascetta | Education

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The flaw in the ACA’s physician ownership ban

      Luis Tumialán, MD | Policy
    • Gen Z, ADHD, and divided attention in therapy

      Ronke Lawal | Conditions
    • The therapy memory recall crisis

      Ronke Lawal | Conditions
    • Reclaiming physician agency in a broken system

      Christie Mulholland, MD | Physician
    • A urologist explains premature ejaculation

      Martina Ambardjieva, MD, PhD | Conditions
    • Why medical organizations must end their silence

      Marilyn Uzdavines, JD & Vijay Rajput, MD | Policy
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why you should get your Lp(a) tested

      Monzur Morshed, MD and Kaysan Morshed | Conditions
    • Rebuilding the backbone of health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The dismantling of public health infrastructure

      Ronald L. Lindsay, MD | Physician
    • The flaw in the ACA’s physician ownership ban

      Luis Tumialán, MD | Policy
    • The decline of the doctor-patient relationship

      William Lynes, MD | Physician
    • Rethinking cholesterol and atherosclerosis

      Larry Kaskel, MD | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • Gen Z, ADHD, and divided attention in therapy

      Ronke Lawal | Conditions
    • Innovation in medicine: 6 strategies for docs

      Jalene Jacob, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why we fund unproven autism therapies

      Ronald L. Lindsay, MD | Physician
    • Early-onset breast cancer: a survivor’s story

      Sara Rands | Conditions
    • Why mocking food allergies in movies is a life-threatening problem [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why we need to expand Medicaid

      Mona Bascetta | Education

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...