Jan 16, 2015 - disciplines including 9 social sciences, 9 humanities, and 12 STEM disciplines (Table S1) ... Survey admi
www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262/suppl/DC1
Supplementary Materials for Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines Sarah-Jane Leslie,* Andrei Cimpian,* Meredith Meyer, Edward Freeland *Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected] (S.-J.L.) or
[email protected] (A.C.) Published 16 January 2015, Science 347, 262 (2014) DOI: 10.1126/science.1261375 This PDF file includes Materials and Methods Figs. S1 and S2 Tables S1 to S8 References
Supplementary Materials for
Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions Across Academic Disciplines Sarah‐Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, Edward Freeland correspondence to:
[email protected] or
[email protected] This PDF file includes: Materials and Methods Figures S1‐S2 Tables S1‐S8
1
Materials and Method Participants: Participants were recruited by email invitation. Participants’ email addresses were obtained by searching online departmental directories of universities in the United States. We obtained email addresses for professors, graduate students, and post‐doctoral fellows/researchers in 30 target disciplines including 9 social sciences, 9 humanities, and 12 STEM disciplines (Table S1). The target disciplines were selected so as to include a wide range of fields across the entire academic spectrum, and to provide a representative sample of the cross‐field variability in female representation. Participants received an initial email, then a reminder email approximately one week later (Table S5). In an initial round of data collection, members of departments in 9 geographically‐diverse universities (5 private, 4 public) received invitations. Every professor, graduate student, and post‐doctoral fellow in the selected departments was sent a survey invitation (as long as their email address was listed in their department’s online directory). To safeguard the anonymity of our respondents, we cannot disclose the identity of the universities surveyed. As some fields are small and close‐knit, identifying the particular departments that were included in our survey would be ethically problematic, given the sensitive nature of some of our questions. After the initial round of data collection,1 we emailed additional university members of 4 of the 30 disciplines due to a low number of respondents (70 hours). c Responses to these items were given on a 10‐point scale (1 to 10, each number corresponding to a 10% increment). For the Selectivity question, there were two additional options for “don’t know” and “no Ph.D. program”. d Response to these items were given on a 7‐point scale (1 = never involved to 7 = highly involved).
10
Table S3: Correlations among the main variables in the study of academics Variable 1. FEM
1 —
2 .36
3 ‐.40
4 ‐.50
5 ‐.60
6 ‐.40
7 ‐.50
8 ‐.32
9 ‐.03
10 .34
11 .30
12 ‐.18
13 .57
14 ‐.53
15 ‐.67
16 .74
17 ‐.05
2. AFR
—
.16
‐.08
‐.54
‐.40
‐.46
