[m-watson]

Man that is not a great headline from Inside Higher Ed. In the discussion section the authors explicitly layout that this is a specific slice they are looking at not all of Academic Science.

"Before we summarize our findings below, we reiterate a caveat noted throughout this article: The failure to support specific claims of bias does not deny the possibility that broader, systemic barriers against women in the academy exist and/or that significant bias existed before 2000. We did not examine systemic claims of bias, such as the tenure schedule that imposes inflexible time-career paths or structural societal norms that burden women with greater responsibilities outside of their academic jobs or that penalize women for negotiating forcefully for wage increases or seeking outside offers. Other scholars have identified a myriad of such systemic barriers. But when it comes to specific claims about biased grant reviewers, search committee members, journal editors, and letter writers, the claims of antifemale bias were not supported, and in one case (tenure-track hiring), the data actually supported the opposite conclusion—that of pro-female hiring bias. This pro-female hiring advantage has continued after the closing of our inclusionary period, 2020 (Henningsen et al, 2021; Solga et al., 2023)."

[PragmaticPulp]

That reads largely like a standard academic paper disclaimer. It’s standard to include a statement about things the authors didn’t explore as a way to set the context and also head off trivial objections. It’s unreasonable to expect them to have surveyed everything everywhere, so highlighting the boundaries of where they stopped is reasonable.

The part at the end hints that they did find bias, but in the opposite direction of what was assumed:

> But when it comes to specific claims about biased grant reviewers, search committee members, journal editors, and letter writers, the claims of antifemale bias were not supported, and in one case (tenure-track hiring), the data actually supported the opposite conclusion—that of pro-female hiring bias. This pro-female hiring advantage has continued after the closing of our inclusionary period, 2020 (Henningsen et al, 2021; Solga et al., 2023)."

[m-watson]

I get your point but I wouldn't call it an academic paper disclaimer, it is giving you the scope/breadth of their research. That is why I took the whole paragraph, they are saying they found a bias in hiring. That is a specific slice of "Academic Science," that the HigherEd article is calling out but only a slice. That is why the

"We did not examine systemic claims of bias, such as the tenure schedule that imposes inflexible time-career paths or structural societal norms that burden women with greater responsibilities outside of their academic jobs or that penalize women for negotiating forcefully for wage increases or seeking outside offers. Other scholars have identified a myriad of such systemic barriers. "

part is important, it specifically is saying there has been a lot of work showing systemic barriers but they are not researching that part. This isn't a critique of their research but of the summary articles headline and what some people seem to be taking away from that headline. Even in the HigherEd piece it says there are concerns and this research is to help identify where there has been progress and where we need to focus.

[v0idzer0]

Headlines ignoring nuance is the standard these days. If it makes you feel better, there’s way more articles that draw the opposite conclusion based on far shakier evidence

[ttpphd]

Thanks for spotlighting this. It is encouraging to see people seriously engage with the writing and surface the nuanced words of the researchers themselves.