A resource provided by VIDA, Critical Management Studies Women’s Association
We have compiled this checklist to assist colleagues in avoiding gendered language when writing references for applicants for academic jobs, research positions, awards and grants. Of course, language may also be affected in other ways; by for example race, class, disability and sexuality; and we offer this as an initial resource and as a prompt for further reflection. The checklist draws on academic research and practical advice on writing references. For example, a study published in Nature Geoscience suggests that references for male applicants for a postdoctoral research position at a highly-ranked US university were twice as likely to use language which described them as excellent candidates – e.g. ‘scientific leader’ or ‘trailblazer’, compared to women who were described as ‘very productive’ and ‘very knowledgeable’ (Dutt et al., 2016).
References for women are 16% shorter than those written for men. They omit important details, use stereotypical language and are less likely to refer to the candidate’s research, ability and career as opposed to her teaching experience and her training (Trix and Psenka, 2003). References are a significant part of how applicants are seen and subconscious practice in preparing these is one of the reasons why women hold a very small percentage of professorial posts compared to men even though they are almost equally represented in completing PhDs (Schmader et al., 2007; Madera et al., 2009).
Structure of reference
Check the reference against any guidance on qualifications or skills that are required by the position or examples of experience that the candidate has provided for you. Research suggests that references for men applying for faculty posts are more likely to be organised according to requirements of the person specification and job description.
Language
Consider descriptions of the candidate that are used in the reference for gendering: Do they appropriately portray the candidate – do they come across as being just ‘good’ or ‘excellent’? Research shows that women researchers are rarely described as excelling (Kuo, 2016). Toni Schmader et al. (2007) suggest that standout adjectives – like ‘outstanding’ or ‘the most gifted’ tend to be used more in references for men. References for women are often written less as strong endorsements or recommendations and more like ‘minimal assurance’ (www.csw.ariona.edu; Trix and Psenka, 2003). They also often lack a stated commitment to the applicant or detailed comments (Trix and Psenka, 2003).
Check that your descriptions of the applicant strengths are not gendered or stereotyped? For example, ‘caring’, ‘compassionate’, ‘nurturing’ and ‘helpful’ are often used to describe women as opposed to words such as ‘confident’, ‘ambitious’ and ‘independent’. Traditionally feminine descriptions can downplay a candidate’s qualities. Madera et al. (2009) point out that the first set of adjectives are more ‘communal’ – social or emotive – in orientation than the second set which are more ‘agentic’ or assertive. Agency is “related to higher status and success in the workplace” (p. 1592). Their research in the discipline of psychology suggests that communal characteristics in references affected perceptions of candidates’ ‘hireability’. Relatedly, interpersonal skills make a difference to a candidate’s suitability for a job, but avoid overstressing them in references for women. Women are often described as caring when they could also be “technically skilled, deeply knowledgeable, and resourceful” (Barker, 2010).
Avoid describing effort (for example, ‘hard working, ‘conscientious’ ‘reliable’ or ‘diligent’) and replace with descriptions of ability, success, impact or excellence. References for men tend to stress their accomplishments. Lecia Barker (2010) suggests that terms referring to effort imply that the candidate has a ‘strong work ethic’ but not that they are necessarily capable of doing the job. Quantify success where possible by referring to the candidate’s specific research, publication and leadership accomplishments.
Overall, you need to highlight the qualities most valued by the hiring panel and outlined in the criteria.
Accomplishments
Consider whether there are any additional aspects of the candidate’s successes that have been left out. In particular, focus on research and publications. For example, men’s references are four times more likely to refer specifically to their publications – subject, outlet and its standing (www.cws.arizona.edu). References also typically stress men’s role as researchers and professionals and women’s role as teachers (Trix and Psenka, 2003).
Avoid references to the candidate’s personal life. Research suggests that this is seven times more likely to happen in references written for women, and it detracts from their workplace achievements. Furthermore, do not mention race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.
Check instances where you have compared the candidate to others – are these accurate or could they be phrased more favourably?
Tone
Is the reference appropriately formal in tone? We recommend that title and surname are used to refer to the candidate – not their first name – regardless of their gender.
Are there any statements that could seem to raise doubt about the candidate? This is more typical for letters written for women. Examples include phrases like ‘It appears that …’ and ‘While she has not done X’ (Barker, 2010). Rewrite these to be less tentative.
Finally, run your reference through this website to see whether the reference you have written contains words that might be read as gendered: www.tomforth.co.uk/genderbias
References
The University of Arizona Commission on the Status of Women (n.d.) Avoiding gender bias in referencing writing accessed www.csw.arizona.edu/LORbias
Barker, L. (2010) Avoiding Unintended Gender Bias in Letters of Recommendation (Case Study 1) NCWIT.org.
Dutt, K. et al. (2016) Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience, Nature Geosci. 9, 805–808 accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2819
Kuo, M. (2016) Recommendation Letters Reflect Gender Bias accessed at http://www.science.mag/careers
Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R. & Martin, R. C. J. (2009) Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1591–1599
Schamader, T., Whitehead, J. and Wysocki, V. (2007) A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants. Sex Roles. 57, 7-8: 509-514.
Trix, F. and Psenka, C. (2003) Exploring the color of glass. Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse and Society. Vol 14 (2): 191-220
VIDA 