In Search of Token Women in Academia

Women faculty in predominantly male departments at a large university were interviewed and responded to paper-and-pencil instruments in a test of Laws' analysis of the necessity for the „token women” adaptation to their marginality for success in academia. By multiple criteria, three clusters were identified: (a) token women, who accepted academia as a meritocracy, were aware of little sex discrimination and belonged to no feminist group; (b) non-token women, who disagreed with academia as a meritocracy and were aware of sex discrimination; and (c) women with mixed or moderate orientations. (Membership in feminist groups was found in the latter two clusters.) Women in the three clusters did not differ significantly by academic rank or marital status and only marginally by age and longevity in academia. As predicted, however, they did differ by tenure status. Contrary to Laws' analysis, token women were not more likely to have had a sponsor, which was significantly related only to rank. Women in the three clusters were equally accurate in recognizing male-female status discrepancies. Their differing definitions of sex discrimination were revealed in differential bias when choosing among alternatives of indeterminate correctness. Token women minimized such discrepancies, in line with beliefs attributing them to women, rather than the system. Others maximized such discrepancies.
The university faculty has traditionally been a man's world, except in those fast-disappearing enclaves considered „women's fields” (e.g., home economics). Today, faculty women are tallied on affirmative action reports in columns for persons with „minority characteristics.”     

Sex Bias in Clinical Judgment: Later Empirical Returns

This paper updates an earlier review of research on sex bias in psychological evaluation and psychotherapy. The experimental analogue continues to dominate the literature and to return a resoundingly negative verdict. This evidence, however, is often discounted on the grounds of the analogue's transparency and clinical impoverishment. Naturalistic data have likewise failed to support claims of widespread sex bias, but have nonetheless whetted suspicions that gender and sex role attributes affect circumscribed clinical decisions. These correlational field studies are often dismissed, however, on the basis of their inadequate control for potential confounds. This empirical deadlock is discussed within the context of the sexual politics of research and of methodological preference in particular. The interpretive gerrymandering that has plagued this literature is linked to an unwillingness to be open about the sex role heritage of research strategies themselves and the deep personal and political investments at stake.