Women choose more precise words than men when applying for grant funding, but guess who’s more successful? – Fiona Murray

MIT Sloan Associate Dean for Innovation Fiona Murray

MIT Sloan Associate Dean for Innovation Fiona Murray

From MarketWatch

Women scientists are less likely to win funding for grants, even when they’re evaluated anonymously, according to a recent working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The apparent driving force: Women’s penchant for using “narrow” words in their grant proposals, versus men’s tendency toward “broad” words.

The researchers, who analyzed 6,794 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant proposals spanning a decade, also found that the text-based criteria that drove reviewers’ selections didn’t necessarily weed out weaker proposals. In fact, study co-author Julian Kolev told MarketWatch, “Grant awards that were based on broad language actually ended up, fairly often, underperforming the awards proposals that had narrower language.”

The Gates Foundation is known for its efforts to improve health in developing countries. It has a $50.7-billion endowment and is the largest private charity in the world.

“Broad” words were words that appeared across many different topic areas, Kolev said, while “narrow” words were ones that appeared predominantly in one or two topic areas.

For example, “bacteria,” “detection” and “control” were broad words that might appear in proposals on a range of topics, like malaria, reproductive and neonatal health, and tuberculosis. On the other hand, narrow words like “contraceptive,” “oral” and “brain” were more topic-specific.

Read More »

Algorithmic bias or fairness: the importance of the economic context – Catherine Tucker

MIT Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management and Professor of Marketing Catherine Tucker

From the Shorenstein Center

As a society, we have shifted from a world where policy fears are focused on the ubiquity of digital data, to one where those concerns now center on the potential harm caused by the automated processing of this data. Given this, I find it useful as an economist to investigate what leads algorithms to reach apparently biased results—and whether there are causes grounded in economics.

Excellent work from the discipline of computer science has already documented apparent bias in the algorithmic delivery of internet advertising [1]. Recent research of mine built on this finding by running a field test on Facebook (and replicated on Google and Twitter), which revealed that an ad promoting careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) was shown to between 20 and 40 percent more men than women across different age groups [2]. This test accounted for users from 190 different countries, with the ad displayed to at least 5,000 eyeballs in each country. In every case, the ad was specified as gender-neutral in terms of who it should be shown to.

When my team and I investigated why it was shown to far more men than women, we found that it is not because men use these internet sites more than women. Nor is it because women fail to show interest or click on these types of ads—thereby prompting the algorithm to respond to a perceived lack of interest. (In fact, our results showed that if women do see a STEM career ad, they are more likely than men to click on it.) Nor does it seem to echo any cultural bias against women in the workplace. The extent of female equality in each of the countries as measured by the World Bank was found to be empirically irrelevant for predicting this bias.

Instead, we discovered that the reason this variety of ad is shown to more men than women is because other types of advertisers actually seem to value the opportunity to get their ads in front of female (rather than male) eyeballs—and they’ll spend more to do it. Some advertisers’ willingness to pay more to show ads to women means that an ad which doesn’t specify a gender target is shown to fewer women than men. In essence, the algorithm in this case was designed to minimize costs and maximize exposure, so it shows the ad in question to fewer expensive women than what amounts to a greater number of relatively cheaper men.

Read More »

Opinion: Why Wall Street’s discrimination against women has no future – Lotte Bailyn

MIT Sloan Professor Emerita Lotte Bailyn

MIT Sloan Professor Emerita Lotte Bailyn

From Market Watch

We are well-accustomed by now to the ways in which women are mistreated and discriminated against on Wall Street.

Over the past decade, nearly every major bank — from Goldman Sachs GS to Morgan Stanley MS, Citigroup C— has settled a sex discrimination suit. News reports have exposed in lurid detail just how badly women are underpaid; the degree to which they face hostility from their male peers; and how they are subjected to a demeaning environment and made to feel inferior.

The latest gender bias suit, filed by Megan Messina, a senior fixed-income banker, is against Bank of America. The suit accuses BofA of vastly underpaying her and other women. In addition, Messina said her boss made her feel unwelcome in his “’bro’s club’,” and subjected her to questions like, “Have your eyes always been that blue?” The suit also accuses the bank of misconduct, and describes alleged instances of front-running trades and withholding information from clients.

Read More »