Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-6
From Theory to Practice and Back: How the Concept of Implicit Bias was Implemented in Academe,and What this Means for Gender Theories of Organizational Change
Implicit bias is one of the most successful cases in recent memory of an academic concept being translated into practice. Its use in the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program—which seeks to promote gender equality in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) careers through institutional transformation—has raised fundamental questions about organizational change. How do advocates translate theories into practice? What makes some concepts more tractable than others? What happens to theories through this translation process? We explore these questions using the ADVANCE program as a case study. Using an inductive, theory-building approach and combination of computational and qualitative methods, we investigate how the concept of implicit bias was translated into practice through the ADVANCE program and identify five key features that made implicit bias useful as a change framework in the academic STEM setting. We find that the concept of implicit bias works programmatically because it is (1) demonstrable, (2) relatable, (3) versatile, (4) actionable, and (5) impartial. While enabling the concept’s diffusion, these characteristics also limit its scope. We reflect on implications for gender theories of organizational change and for practitioners.
AckerJoan. 1989 . Doing comparable worth: Gender, class, and pay equity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
2.
AckerJoan. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society20 (4): 441–64.
3.
AhmedSara. 2012. On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4.
AlegriaSharla. 2019. Escalator or step stool? Gendered labor and token processes in tech work. Gender & Society33 (5):722–45.
5.
BacchiCarol Lee. 1999. Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BezrukovaKaterinaSpellChester S.PerryJamie L.JehnKaren A.2016. A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin142 (11): 1227–74.
7.
BilimoriaDianaLiangXiangfen. 2012. Gender equity in science and engineering: Advancing change in higher education. New York: Routledge.
8.
BirdSharon R.2011. Unsettling universities’ incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case-study approach. Gender, Work & Organization18 (2): 202–30.
9.
BloemraadIreneSilvaFabianaVossKim. 2016. Rights, economics, or family? Frame resonance, political ideology, and the immigrant rights movement. Social Forces94 (4): 1647–74.
10.
BrittonDana M.2017. Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society31 (1): 5–27.
11.
CarnesMollyDevinePatricia G.ManwellLinda BaierByars-WinstonAngelaFineEveFordCecilia E.ForscherPatrickIsaacCarolKaatzAnnaMaguaWairimuPaltaMariSheridanJennifer. 2015. Effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine90 (2): 221–30.
12.
CorneilleMayaLeeAnnaAllenSherriceCannadyJessicaGuessAlexia. 2019. Barriers to the advancement of women of color faculty in STEM: The need for promoting equity using an intersectional framework. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal38 (3): 328–48.
13.
CorrellShelley J.2017. SWS 2016 Feminist Lecture: Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational change. Gender & Society31 (6):725–50.
14.
CulpepperDawnKilmerSarahO’MearaKerry AnnMisraJoyaJaegerAudrey J.2020. The terrapin time initiative: A workshop to enhance alignment between faculty work priorities and time-use. Innovative Higher Education45 (2): 165–79.
15.
DeAroJessieBirdSharonRyanShermaine Mitchell. 2019. NSF ADVANCE and gender equity: Past, present and future of systemic institutional transformation strategies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal38 (2): 131–39.
16.
DevinePatricia G.ForscherPatrick S.CoxWilliam T.L.KaatzAnnaSheridanJenniferCarnesMolly. 2017. A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology73: 211–15.
17.
DobbinFrankKalevAlexandra. 2018. Why doesn’t diversity training work? The challenge for industry and academia. Anthropology Now10 (2): 48–55.
18.
FerreeMyra MarxZippelKathrin. 2015. Gender equality in the age of academic capitalism: Cassandra and Pollyanna interpret university restructuring. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society22 (4): 561–84.
19.
ForscherPatrick S.LaiCalvin K.AxtJordan R.EbersoleCharles R.HermanMichelleDevinePatricia G.NosekBrian A.2019. A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology117 (3): 522–59.
20.
FoxMary Frank. 2008. Institutional transformation and the advancement of women faculty: The case of academic science and engineering. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 23, edited by SmartJohn C.New York: Springer Publishing Company.
21.
GreenwaldAnthony G.LaiCalvin K.2020. Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology71: 419–45.
HuntValerie H.MorimotoShaunaZajicekAnnaLisnicRodica. 2012. Intersectionality and dismantling institutional privilege: The case of the NSF ADVANCE program. Race, Gender, & Class19 (1-2): 266–90.
24.
HutchinsHolly M.KovachJamison V.2019. ADVANCING women academic faculty in STEM careers: The role of critical HRD in supporting diversity and inclusion. Advances in Developing Human Resources21 (1): 72–91.
25.
JenkinsFiona. 2018. Perceiving and challenging gender inequalities in academia. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Gender Equality in Higher Education, Dublin, Ireland.
26.
LaursenSandra L.De WeldeKristine. 2019. The changer and the changed: Evolving theories and practices of change in ADVANCE calls for institutional transformation. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal38 (2): 140–59.
27.
LombardoEmanuelaVerlooMieke. 2009. Stretching gender equality to other inequalities: Political intersectionality in European gender equality policies. In The discursive politics of gender equality: Stretching, bending, and policymaking, edited by LombardoEmanuelaMeierPetraVerlooMieke. New York: Routledge.
28.
McCallLeslie. 2013. The undeserving rich: American beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and redistribution. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
29.
McCallLeslieBurkDerekLaperrièreMarieRichesonJennifer A.2017. Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114 (36): 9593–98.
30.
MertonRobert K.1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science159 (3810): 56–63.
31.
MillerCandaceRoksaJosipa. 2020. Balancing research and service in academia: Gender, race, and laboratory tasks. Gender & Society34 (1): 131–52.
32.
MorimotoShauna A.ZajicekAnna M.HuntValerie H.LisnicRodica. 2013. Beyond binders full of women: NSF ADVANCE and initiatives for institutional transformation. Sociological Spectrum33 (5): 397–415.
33.
NakamuraBrent K.EdelmanLauren B.2019. Bakke at 40: How diversity matters in the employment context. UC Davis Law Review52: 2627–79.
34.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. 2007. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35.
NielsenMathias Wullum. 2021. Gender in academic recruitment and selection. In The gender sensitive university: A contradiction in terms? edited by DrewEileenCanavanSiobhán. London: Routledge.
36.
RhotonLaura A.2011. Distancing as a gendered barrier: Understanding women scientists’ gender practices. Gender & Society25 (6): 696–716.
37.
RidgewayCecilia L.CorrellShelley J.2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society18 (4): 510–31.
38.
StewartAbigailValianVirginia. 2018. An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity and excellence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
SturmSusan P.2006. The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender29 (2): 247–334.
40.
TavoryIddoTimmermansStefan. 2014. Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
ValianVirginia. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
Van den BrinkMariekeBenschopYvonne. 2012. Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization19 (1): 71–92.
43.
VerlooMieke, ed. 2007. Multiple meanings of gender equality: A critical frame analysis of gender policies in Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press.
44.
WynnAlison T.2020. Pathways toward change: Ideologies and gender equality in a Silicon Valley technology company. Gender & Society34 (1): 106–30.
45.
ZippelKathrinFerreeMyra Marx. 2019. Organizational interventions and the creation of gendered knowledge: US universities and NSF ADVANCE. Gender, Work & Organization26 (6): 805–21.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
