There are certain corridors in academia where natural brilliance—an innate, high level of intelligence or talent—is considered to be the main ingredient for success. A researcher at the University of Illinois has raised the question of why women are underrepresented in these fields.
A new study by U of I psychology professor Andrei Cimpian and Princeton University philosophy professor Sarah-Jane Leslie focused on a broad swath of academic disciplines, including those in the sciences, the humanities, social sciences, and math, and found that fields that placed a high premium on brilliance also saw lower participation by women.
The study found the same imbalance existed along racial lines. African Americans were also underrepresented in fields where natural brilliance is considered key to success, although this particular study, published in Science and cited in numerous media reports, focuses largely on the gender gap.
The researchers are still investigating the mechanisms that give rise to this phenomenon. One explanation, Cimpian says, is that practitioners in the fields that focus on cultivating brilliant individuals are discriminating against women and African Americans based on pervasive stereotypes that portray these groups as having lower capacity for intellectual brilliance.
In addition, Cimpian adds, some women and African Americans may have internalized these societal stereotypes and decided they would not succeed in fields that required brilliance. A combination of the two is certainly plausible, he says.
The team surveyed more than 1,800 graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and faculty members in 30 academic disciplines and, among other things, asked them what qualities were required for success in their fields. Across the board, in the sciences, technology, engineering, and math (the so-called STEM fields), as well as in the humanities and social sciences, women, and, along racial lines, African Americans, were found to be underrepresented in those disciplines whose practitioners put a premium on innate intelligence and talent.
Respondents were asked to rate their agreement—and how they believed others in their field would rate their agreement—with statements concerning what is required for success in their field, such as, “Being a top scholar of [discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught.” An analysis of the responses revealed statistically significant gender and racial gaps along the belief lines.
For example, in physics and computer science, where practitioners were found to place a high premium on natural brilliance, women earned less than 20 percent of all PhDs in the United States, according to the study. In economics and philosophy, where natural brilliance was also highly valued, women earned less than 35 percent of all PhDs.
Meanwhile, in molecular biology and neuroscience, where natural brilliance is less equated with success, women earn approximately half of PhDs. Similarly, women earned more than 70 percent of PhDs in psychology and art history.
The study found little evidence for factors that have previously been proposed to explain gaps in participation. The team tested hypotheses that might help explain women’s underrepresentation in some fields (alternative hypotheses in regards to African Americans are being examined in ongoing work): one, that women avoid careers that require them to work long hours; two, that women are less able than men to get into highly selective fields; and three, that women are outnumbered by men in fields that require analytical, systematical reasoning.
“We found that none of these three alternative hypotheses was able to predict women’s representation across the academic spectrum,” Leslie says. “A strong emphasis on brilliance among practitioners of particular fields was the best predictor of women’s underrepresentation in those fields.”
The researchers also found no compelling evidence that the gap can be explained by actual intellectual differences.
“Are women and African Americans less likely to have the natural brilliance that some fields believe is required for top-level success?” the researchers wrote in Science. “Although some have argued that this is so, our assessment of the literature is that the case has not been made that either group is less likely to possess innate intellectual talent.”
