nrc.nl
Sexism and Bias in Dutch Academia: Two PhD Candidates Detail Experiences
Two female PhD candidates describe experiences of sexism and bias in Dutch universities, highlighting discouragement, sexist remarks, devaluation of applied research, and questioning the originality of their work based on gender stereotypes.
- What specific actions can universities take to address systemic sexism and create a more inclusive environment for researchers from underrepresented groups?
- A former PhD candidate at TU Delft, Rachel Los, detailed a culture of discouragement, sexist remarks, and undermining within academia in her thesis. This is corroborated by another PhD candidate's experience at Leiden University, who faced sexist emails and dismissal of their 'applied' research, despite programming skills exceeding colleagues'.
- How does the devaluation of certain research fields, particularly those traditionally associated with women, contribute to a culture of sexism and undermining in academia?
- The experiences of Los and the Leiden PhD candidate highlight a systemic issue within academia: the devaluation of certain fields and expertise, often affecting women and those from minority backgrounds. This devaluation is exemplified by questioning the originality of their work based on gender stereotypes rather than merit, demonstrating a lack of understanding of what constitutes valuable scientific contribution.
- What are the long-term consequences of failing to address systemic bias and discrimination within the scientific community on the advancement of scientific knowledge and innovation?
- The future of science depends on fostering a more inclusive environment. Addressing 'complexity machismo', where the perceived difficulty of a field is used to justify bias, is crucial. Universities must actively implement measures to counter sexism, promote interdisciplinary collaboration, and recognize diverse contributions equally, moving beyond superficial responses to deeper systemic change.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the issue through the personal experiences of the author and Rachel Los, highlighting the negative aspects of the academic culture. While this approach makes the issue relatable and impactful, it might not represent the entirety of the academic landscape. The use of phrases like "man-made swamp" and "sexistische drek" sets a negative and critical tone from the outset.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotionally charged language ("sexistische drek", "man-made swamp", "ondermijning") to describe the experiences of sexism in academia. While this language effectively conveys the author's feelings, it also risks alienating readers who may not share the same perspective. Using more neutral language could broaden the article's appeal. For example, instead of "sexistische drek", the author could use "sexist remarks" or "sexist behaviors.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the experiences of the author and Rachel Los, potentially omitting other perspectives on sexism and discrimination in academia. While acknowledging limitations of scope, the analysis might benefit from including examples of initiatives or policies aimed at improving inclusivity within scientific institutions. The lack of data on the prevalence of these issues across different scientific fields could also be considered an omission.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but it implies a dichotomy between overtly sexist actions and more subtle forms of discrimination. The author suggests that the latter is more prevalent and insidious. While this is a valid point, exploring the interconnectedness of overt and subtle biases would provide a more nuanced analysis.
Gender Bias
The article focuses heavily on gender bias in the sciences. The author's personal experiences and those of Rachel Los are used to illustrate the prevalence of sexism. While the article does not explicitly use gender stereotypes, the repeated emphasis on the experiences of women in a male-dominated field could be interpreted as highlighting a gender imbalance. The article suggests improvements by recommending that scientists should be more open to the experiences of others, regardless of whether they share those experiences.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a culture of sexism and discrimination against women in academia, hindering their progress and creating an unwelcoming environment. Specific instances of sexism, undermining, and microaggressions are described, illustrating a clear negative impact on gender equality in STEM fields. The author