The Science and Art of Recommendation Letters for Female Faculty - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Science and Art of Recommendation Letters for Female Faculty Pauline M. Maki, PhD Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology Associate Director Center for Research on Women & Gender Director, Women’s Mental Health Research Program University of Illinois at Chicago

Overview • Gatekeeping practices, including letters of recommendation, serve to control access to particular positions and societal benefits that accrue with those positions • Gatekeepers for faculty positions in medical school are overwhelmingly male • Letter writers are also male Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Letters of Recommendation for Male & Female Faculty in a Medical School • Explored letters of recommendation for male and female applicants • Mid-1990s • All applicants were successful • 312 letters for 103 faculty positions • Positions were for both clinical and research, mostly at assistant professor levels Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Findings Male/Female Differences 1. Length 2. Percentage lacking in basic features 3. Percentage doubt raisers 4. Frequency of status terms Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #1 Length of Letters • Longer letters are more impactful • No differences in average length • 253 for versus 227 for • But differences at extremes • High end: 8% versus 2% (>50 lines) • Low end: 10% versus 6% (<10 lines) Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #2 Lack of Basic Features 1. Commitment of a relationship of recommender with applicant 2. Some specificity of focus and record of application 3. Some evaluation or comparison of traits and accomplishments of the applicant • Minimal assurance: missing one of these • 6% vs 15% Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #2 Example of Minimal Assurance “I am writing in support of Sarah Gray MD’s application for the position of Associate Professor of Nephrology in your department. I have worked closely with Dr. Gray both as her chairman and as a fellow faculty member doing pediatric nephrology for the past three years. She is a superb clinician and academician. I truly enjoyed working with her. Your gain is my loss. I believe that you will find that she will be a genuine adjunct to your faculty. If you require more specific information, please do not hesitate to notify me. Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #3 Percent Doubt Raisers Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #3 Percent Doubt Raisers Negative Language “While Sarah has not done a lot of bench type research….” Hedges “It appears that her health and personal life are stable.” Potentially Negative “As an independent worker she requires only a minimum amount of supervision” Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #3 Doubt Raisers Unexplained “Now that she has chosen to leave the laboratory” Faint praise “She worked hard on projects that she accepted” Irrelevancy “She is quite close to my wife” Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #4 Status Terms Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #4: “His” and “Her” Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Finding #4 “His” and “Her” Trix F., Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty Discourse and Society: 14(2): 191-220..

Gender Stereotypes: Agentic and Communal Behaviors • 624 letters of recommendation and 194 applicants for eight junior faculty positions • 1998 to 2006 • Southern university in the United States Madera et al. Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences: 94, No. 6, 1591–1599.

Gender Stereotypes: Agentic and Communal Behaviors • Agentic behaviors • speaking assertively • influencing others • initiating tasks • Communal behaviors • being concerned with the welfare of others (i.e., descriptions of kindness, sympathy, sensitivity) • helping others • accepting others’ direction • maintaining relationships Madera et al. Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences: 94, No. 6, 1591–1599.

Findings: Importance of Agency • Women were described as more communal and less agentic than men • Communal characteristics had a negative relationship with hiring decisions in academia that are based on letters of recommendation Madera et al. Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences: 94, No. 6, 1591–1599.

Gender Stereotypes: But Gender of Letter Writer Matters Madera et al. Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences: 94, No. 6, 1591–1599.

Factor synthesis for descriptions of male and female students: linguistic analysis of medical student performance evaluations (2009) • Male: “Works eagerly, responsibly, and above expectations toward becoming an outstanding, insightful specialist” • Female: “Works hard and enthusiastically; asks insightful questions befitting a specialist but would be exceptional in Family Medicine which requires less initiative and responsibility” Isaac, C. et al. Do Students’ and Authors’ Genders Affect Evaluations: A Linguistic Analysis of Medical Student Performance Evaluations Acad Med 2011; 86(1):59:66

Take Home Message: What to Include 1. Commitment of a relationship to applicant 2. Specificity of focus and record • Her Titles • Her Research & Her Scientific Focus • Her Skills, Ability, and Career (not just training, teaching) 3. Evaluation/comparison of traits, successes • Her Accomplishments and Achievements • Her Agentic Behaviors Over Communal • She initiated • She influenced

Take Home Message: What to Avoid 1. Doubt raisers 2. Grindstone adjectives 3. References to personal life