Back to Blog

IWB Book Club: Equity for Women in Science (Tips for Being a Good Ally in and Around Academia)

4/23/2025 9:14 am

This is the second entry in a series based on the book Equity for Women in Science. For the first entry in this series about being a good ally in an institutional setting, see our previous blog here.

 

Avoid Gender Segregation in Meetings

From small group meetings to national and international conferences, representation is key. If there are decisions being made, then there should be diversity in that room. Many of us have had the experience of being one of the only women in a meeting, and this is even more common for people with other marginalized or intersecting identities. We need to be in the room to share our opinions, voice concerns that others may miss, and take an active role in making decisions. But just being there–and even speaking up–may not be enough. Women can be talked over or have their contributions minimized, and even co-opted, by men in the room by rephrasing what was mentioned into something that sounds like their own idea. This happened in the Obama administration’s staff meetings until a group of female staffers created a “strategy they named ‘amplification’: when a woman made a key point, other women would repeat it, giving credit to its author” (1).

 

In addition to the individual-level strategies of getting ourselves represented in meetings, we have more power than we think to influence the gender balance of a future meeting. We can bring a friend, or suggest an up-and-comer’s name for service on committees, boards, and panels. We can also suggest names of more diverse voices for seminar and conference speakers. IWB and other groups are interested in ending all “manels,” or panels, often at conferences, made up entirely of men. One tool from IWB you can use is our Public Member Directory, where you can find IWB members who may be willing to serve as speakers, reviewers, or invited guests for events and conferences. In their role as allies, men should pay attention to the gender balance in meetings and on panels and make disparities known. There is great power in being nominated for a role and refusing to serve unless there are women, or members of any underrepresented group, added to the roster. But please also be aware of the cultural taxation that occurs by making underrepresented individuals spend a disproportionate amount of time on service just to make things look balanced (2).

 

 

Avoid gendered language, biases, and stereotypes when writing and reading letters of recommendation, including letters for positions, promotion and tenure, and nominations for awards

Recommendation and referee/external evaluation letters play a critical role in a scientist's career, affecting hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. Gendered biases negatively affect the evaluation of women's work and their scientific ability (3). In recommendation and evaluation letters, women are less likely to be described as leaders (4). Letters for women also tend to contain fewer standout, agentic, and ability words (4,5). These weaker letters, as well as implicit biases on the part of the reviewers, affect the outcome of applications (6-9). For example, an analysis of nearly 24,000 grant applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research found that gender disparities in funding rates were explained by poorer assessments of the principal investigator, not the quality of the science (8). 

 

Some tips for writing recommendation and evaluation letters to avoid gendered language, biases, and stereotypes:

  • Refer to the candidate by their professional title and surname, not their first name.
  • Consider the relative frequency with which you use standout, ability, grindstone and communal words; a screening tool like the Gender Bias Calculator may be useful as a first pass assessment.
  • Emphasize accomplishments more than effort
  • Discuss the quality and impact of their work beyond bibliometrics
  • Recognize non-traditional forms of scholarship and service work (e.g., science communication, community outreach/teaching, etc)
  • Check out this infographic (10) for more tips

 

Provide resources when sexual harassment and gender discrimination are reported.

Harassment and gender discrimination are defined by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.” (11) Each university/workplace/organization will have different offices tasked with responding to these issues, but the information should be made freely accessible and easily findable. There are varying responses an individual might pursue after experiencing sexual harassment/gender discrimination, including, but not limited to:

  • Providing basic documentation without making a report
  • Directly confronting the responsible party
  • Making a report to a supervisor or university office

If someone reports an experience of sexual harassment/gender discrimination to you, the first step is to tell them you believe their story – do not offer suggestions as to why the behavior may have occurred or try to explain away the negative actions that took place (e.g., avoid “Are you sure he meant it that way? I’ve never heard him say anything like that before around me.”). Next, let them guide the process. Not every incident or individual will want or require a full and formal report. Your job as an ally is to ensure that the person who was harmed can take action that is right for them to correct the situation (whatever that means). A few examples of ways you can help may include:

  • Find resources they request
  • Help to create documentation or timelines
  • Provide support or witness accounts to administrators and supervisors

 

 

Authors

Olivia Bruce, PhD (Stanford University)

Caitlin Banks, PhD (Kennedy Krieger Institute and Johns Hopkins University)

Hannah Dimmick, PhD (University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus)

IWB Book Club Participants

 

 

References

  1.     White House women want to be in the room where it happens - The Washington Post [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 18]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/13/white-house-women-are-now-in-the-room-where-it-happens/
  2.     Negussie JBJ Nakisha Castillo,Natalie V Nagthall,Hawani. Inside Higher Ed. [cited 2025 Mar 18]. Invisible Labor and Emotional Currency. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/diversity/2023/10/06/impacts-cultural-taxation-minoritized-faculty-opinion
  3.     Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, & Huge M. The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication. 2013;35(5):603–625.
  4.       Magua W, Zhu X, Bhattacharya A, Filut A, Potvien A, Leatherberry R, et al. Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers’ Critiques. J Womens Health. 2017 May;26(5):560–70.
  5.     Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants. Sex Roles. 2007;57(7–8):509–14.
  6.     van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12349–53.
  7.     Eaton AA, Saunders JF, Jacobson RK, West K. How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles. 2020;82:127-141.
  8.       Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):531–40.
  9.     Tamblyn R, Girard N, Qian CJ, Hanley J. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. CMAJ. 2018 Apr 23;190(16):E489–99.
  10.     TRIX F, PSENKA C. Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty. Discourse Soc. 2003 Mar 1;14(2):191–220.
  11.     National Academies of Sciences E. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine - FAQ [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Mar 18]. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24994/sexual-harassment-of-women-climate-culture-and-consequences-in-academic