This article develops a framework for understanding the role of gender in negotiations of expert authority and tests the new approach with an analysis of legal disputes about expert witness credibility (N = 435). Content-coded data from patent infringement, civil rights, and medical malpractice lawsuits in U.S. district courts indicate that lawyers’ challenges to expert witnesses’ credibility reflect widely held cultural beliefs about gender and certain kinds of expertise: whereas women are more likely than men to be challenged as unqualified to testify, men are more likely than women to be contested as irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, although highly credentialed women and men have equal chances of overcoming credibility challenges, women with fewer credentials are substantially more likely than men to be excluded from court. Overall, findings suggest that women must clear a higher bar than men to demonstrate their credibility as expert witnesses. Moreover, this study indicates that disputes about expert witness credibility are a site where stereotypes about gender and expertise are reproduced in the justice system.
AckerJoan. 2006. “Inequality Regimes Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations.” Gender & Society20(4):441–64.
2.
BrownDavidBillsDavid. 2011. “An Overture for the Sociology of Credentialing: Empirical, Theoretical, and Moral Considerations.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility29(1):133–38.
3.
CarsonClara. 2004. The Lawyer Statistical Report: The U.S. Legal Profession in 2000. Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation.
4.
CechErin. 2013. “Ideological Wage Inequalities? The Technical/Social Dualism and the Gender Wage Gap in Engineering.” Social Forces91(4):1147–82.
5.
CharlesMariaBradleyKaren. 2009. “Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology114(4):924–76.
6.
ColeSimonRachelDioso-Villa. 2009. “Investigating the ‘CSI Effect’ Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law.” Stanford Law Review. 61: 1335-1376.
7.
CoontzPhyllis. 1995. “Gender Bias in the Legal Profession: Women See It, Men Don’t.” Women & Politics15(2):1–22.
8.
CorrellShelley. 2001. “Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-assessments.” American Journal of Sociology106(6):1691–730.
9.
CorrellShelleyRidgewayCecilia. 2006. “Expectation States Theory.” Pp. 29–51 in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by DelamaterJohn. New York: Springer.
10.
DiekmanAmandaBrownElizabethJohnstonAmandaClarkEmily. 2010. “Seeking Congruity between Goals and Roles: A New Look at Why Women Opt Out of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers.” Psychological Science21(8):1051–57.
11.
DixonLloydGillBrian. 2002. “Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law8:251–308.
12.
EaglyAliceWoodWendyDiekmanAmanda. 2000. “Social Role Theory of Sex Differences and Similarities: A Current Appraisal.” Pp. 123–174 in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, edited by EckesThomasTrautnerHanns. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
EpsteinCynthia Fuchs. 2000. “Women in the Legal Profession at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century: Assessing Glass Ceilings and Open Doors.” University of Kansas Law Review49:733–60.
14.
FromePamelaEcclesJacquelynne. 1998. “Parents’ Influence on Children’s Achievement-related Perceptions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74 (2):435–52.
15.
GiddensAnthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
GierynThomas. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
GormanElizabeth. 2006. “Work Uncertainty and the Promotion of Professional Women: The Case of Law Firm Partnership.” Social Forces85(2):864–90.
18.
HarrisRebecca. 2008. Black Robes and White Coats: The Puzzle of Judicial Decisions Making and Scientific Evidence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
19.
HenleyMegan. 2015. “Alternative and Authoritative Knowledge: The Role of Certification for Defining Expertise among Doulas.” Social Currents2(3):260–79.
20.
HullKathleenNelsonRobert. 2000. “Assimilation, Choice, or Constraint? Testing Theories of Gender Differences in the Careers of Lawyers.” Social Forces79(1):229–64.
21.
JasanoffSheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
KayFionaGormanElizabeth. 2006. “Women in the Legal Profession.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science4:299–332.
23.
KayFionaMasuchChristiCurryPaula. 2014. Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario. Law Society of Upper Canada.
24.
KuManwai. 2011. “When Does Gender Matter? Gender Differences in Specialty Choice among Physicians.” Work and Occupations38(2):221–62.
25.
LongJ. Scott, ed. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
LueptowLloydGarovich-SzaboLoriLueptowMargaret. 2001. “Social Change and the Persistence of Sex Typing: 1974–1997.” Social Forces80(1): 1–36.
28.
MaXinJohnsonWillis. 2008. “Mathematics as the Critical Filter: Curricular Effects on Gendered Career Choices.” Pp. 55–83 in Gender and Occupational Outcomes: Longitudinal Assessments of Individual, Social, and Cultural Influences, edited by WattHelenEcclesJacquelynne. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
MerlinoMaraMurrayColleenRichardsonJames. 2008. “Judicial Gatekeeping and the Social Construction of the Admissibility of Expert Testimony” Behavioral Sciences & the Law26(2):187–206.
30.
National Science Board. 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. NSB 14-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
31.
National Science Foundation. 1994. Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1994. NSF 94-333HL. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
32.
NosekBrianBanajiMahzarinGreenwaldAnthony. 2002. “Math= male, me= female, therefore math≠ me.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(1):44–59.
PoulinAnne Bowen. 2013. “Experience-based Opinion Testimony: Strengthening the Lay Opinion Rule.” Pepperdine Law Review39(3):551–618.
35.
ReeseAlex. 2013. “Employee and Inventor Witnesses in Patent Trials: The Blurry Line between Expert and Lay Testimony.” Stanford Technology Law Review16(2):423–52.
36.
RhodeDeborah. 2001. “Gender and the Profession: The No-problem Problem.” Hofstra Law Review30:1001–13.
37.
RidgewayCecilia. 2009. “Framed before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations.” Gender & Society23(2):145–60.
38.
RidgewayCecilia. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
RidgewayCeciliaCorrellShelley. 2004. “Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations.” Gender & Society18(4):510–31.
40.
RidgewayCeciliaSmith-LovinLynn. 1999. “The Gender System and Interaction.” Annual Review of Sociology25(1):191–216.
41.
RothLouise Marie. 2016. “A Doctor’s Worth: Bonus Criteria and the Gender Pay Gap among American Physicians.” Social Currents. 3: 3-23.
42.
SandefurRebecca. 2007. “Staying Power: The Persistence of Social Inequality in Shaping Lawyer Stratification and Lawyers’ Persistence in the Profession.” Southwestern University Law Review36:539–56.
43.
SchweitzerNicholasSaksMichael. 2007. “The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction about Forensic Science Affects the Public’s Expectations about Real Forensic Science.” Jurimetrics47(3):357–64.
44.
SeymourElaineHewittNancy. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
45.
ShapinSteven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-century England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
WagnerDavidBergerJoseph. 1997. “Gender and Interpersonal Task Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts.” Sociological Perspectives40(1):1–32.
47.
WilderGita. 2007. Women in the Legal Profession: Findings from the First Wave of the After the JD Study. Washington, DC: The NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.
48.
WilliamsChristineMullerChandraKilanskiKristine. 2012. “Gendered Organizations in the New Economy.” Gender & Society26(4):549–73.
49.
WilliamsJoan. 1999. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press.
