Philosophers’ volume 16, no. 6 1. When do women leave philosophy? Imprint march 2016 In 2012 in the United States, for every 100 men graduating with a col- lege degree, 141 women graduated.1 For decades now, more women have been enrolled in American universities than men. Yet, during these same decades, the proportion of women who major in philos- ophy has remained stagnant, hovering below one-third. So, while al- WHY DO WOMEN LEAVE most 60% of college graduates are now women, only 30% of philoso- phy majors are women (Department of Education, 2013; Paxton et al., 2012). In the humanities, religion and theology (35.6%) is the closest PHILOSOPHY? SURVEYING major to philosophy when it comes to the underrepresentation of fe- male majors. Among all majors, the only ones with similarly low ratios are economics (31%), physics (19.7%), computer science (22%), and en- gineering (20%).2 STUDENTS AT THE With women getting just 30% of philosophy bachelor’s degrees, it’s no surprise that the ratio of women to men is so low among philos- ophy graduate students (30%) and professors (20.7%) (Paxton et al., INTRODUCTORY LEVEL 2012; Norlock, 2012).3 The underrepresentation and treatment of fe- male graduate students and professors in philosophy has, for good rea- son, received increasing attention in recent years. But there has been limited discussion, and very few empirical investigations, of why so Morgan Thompson∗, Toni Adleberg†, Sam many women say goodbye to philosophy just after being introduced to it. In this article, we offer our initial attempts to gather data to test Sims‡, Eddy Nahmias§ various hypotheses aimed at answering this question and to suggest

University of Pittsburgh∗, University of California, San Diego†, 1. Project was conceived by TA and MT; survey was written and data collected ‡ § by MT, TA, and EN; statistical analyses were conducted and described by SS; Florida State University , Georgia State University paper was written by MT and EN. 2. Data compiled by Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and accessed via WebCASPAR (https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/) using the 2013 © 2016, Thompson, Adleberg, Sims, and Nahmias NCEJ data set. 3. There is no systematic data on the gender proportion of graduate school ap- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons plicants or of first-year graduate students in philosophy. The number of faculty Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License includes both full-time and part-time instructors. Women make up only 17% of full-time faculty in philosophy departments (Norlock, 2012). The proportion of female graduate students in philosophy is lower than all fields except for music theory and composition, physics, and engineering and roughly equal to mathematics and religious studies (Healy, 2011). thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

some ways to increase the number of women who continue in philoso- Men and women likely enter college and their introductory philos- phy after their introductory courses, ideally while also improving the ophy classes with different opinions about, and levels of interest in, philosophy classroom for all students.4 the philosophy major.6 However, because philosophy is rarely taught Paxton, Figdor, and Tiberius( 2012) investigated the underrepresen- in high school in the U.S., most students’ first exposure to the sub- tation of women across various levels in the profession. In their sam- ject is in their introductory college course, and most students likely ple of over 50 universities, they examined potential drop-off points in choose to major in philosophy — or not to — only after taking such women’s representation in philosophy: between introductory courses a course. Hence, introductory philosophy courses are likely to be the and majoring, between majoring and going to graduate school, and most significant point in turning students toward, or away from, phi- between attending graduate school and becoming a faculty member. losophy. For these reasons, we primarily examine hypotheses focused They found that the only statistically significant drop-off in women’s on college-level courses, though some of them may be useful in influ- representation was between the introductory courses (43%) and ma- encing perceptions of philosophy at the pre-college level. We focus on joring in philosophy (35%). This finding suggests that women dispro- what happens in the Introduction to Philosophy classroom because we portionally drop out of philosophy after taking one or two courses. At believe that this is one of the most useful places to intervene on various Georgia State University (GSU), where we did our research, we found a factors that may increase the number of women who want to continue similar trend. Although women take Introduction to Philosophy (55%) in philosophy. We think intro-level instructors are in a unique position at a rate proportional to women’s undergraduate enrollment at GSU to set the tone for students regarding what philosophy is, how it is (60%), women make up a significantly smaller proportion of philoso- done, and what it is good for. We also believe that finding ways to phy majors (38–41% from 2006–2011).5 make introductory courses more interesting and appealing to women

4. The initial focus of our research was on gender disparities in philosophy, 6. See Baron, Dougherty, and Miller( 2015) for evidence that women in Aus- but we also used our study to examine hypotheses for why Blacks are less tralia enter introductory philosophy classrooms already less interested in ma- likely than Whites to major in philosophy, presumably one of the contributing joring compared to men. In work examining why women are less interested factors to the dismally low proportion of Black graduate students and faculty in philosophy than men before college, Dobbs( 2015) reports data from the in philosophy (see Botts et al. 2014). Our initial data suggest that there are Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) showing that from 2004–2009, out some overlapping problems and solutions to the gender and race disparities, of over 2 million students (55.7% women) enrolling in U.S. colleges and uni- but we also think there are important differences. Finally, there may be some versities, 4,838 men and 2,463 women declared philosophy as their intended problems and solutions uniquely impacting Black women. Issues regarding major (totaling just 0.33% of the students surveyed). Hence, of the (very few) race are discussed in a separate paper, see Thompson, Bright, and Kummerfeld students entering college with the intention to major in philosophy, only 33.7% (ms). For a discussion of one empirical test for intersectional hypotheses, see are women. Very few high schools teach philosophy, with the exception of some Bright, Malinksy, and Thompson( 2015). private schools and International Baccalaureate programs that offer a course 5. Interestingly, the proportion of women philosophy majors at GSU has called Theory of Knowledge. A few high schools offer Philosophy clubs, and trended upward since 2011 and is currently at 52%, explained by a roughly there exist some excellent outreach programs (e.g., the Outreach Program at the proportional increase in the number of women majoring and decrease in the University of North Carolina, Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization number of men majoring. This period corresponds to the period when we de- (PLATO), High-Phi, Ethics Bowl). Aymelek( 2015) and Chan et al. (ms.) pro- veloped and carried out the research discussed below, including more discus- vide qualitative evidence that women who continue in philosophy were often sion among the instructors of Introduction to Philosophy about attempts to exposed to philosophy before beginning introductory coursework. We discuss increase the diversity of the major and the proportion of women on the syl- in Section 5 possibilities for altering the image and gender schema of philos- labus and showing a presentation on the value of philosophy in every Intro ophy such that it might influence students’ impressions of the discipline even class (see Section 4.4 below). before they get to college.

philosophers’ imprint - 2 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? will likely improve the courses for everyone and that it is the most sulting in a looping effect (Saul, 2013) — the speculative mechanism effective way to increase the number of women in philosophy at all by which fewer women continue in philosophy due to the already low career stages. number of women in the field, which in turn perpetuates the low num- bers of women in the field. When talented women leave philosophy 2. Why it’s problematic that women leave philosophy (opting instead to study psychology, sociology, literature, education, Before we consider what causes, and what might be done about, the etc.), the philosophy profession loses out on the high quality of work underrepresentation of women in philosophy, we want to say a little that would have been performed by those individuals had they contin- about why it is problematic. ued in philosophy. First, women may be underperforming in philosophy or simply Some feminist philosophers have argued that diversifying the de- avoiding philosophy classes altogether because of stereotype threat, mographics of philosophy will bring with it more diversity in philo- which occurs when implicit or explicit stereotypes about one’s self- sophical content and methods. It is an empirical question whether identified group (e.g., gender or race) influence one’s performance. women philosophers disproportionately prefer certain areas of philos- Psychological research shows that women experience stereotype threat ophy, methodologies, or topics. But if these philosophers are correct, (see Section 5) in a number of contexts, especially when they are un- then philosophy may be missing out on a variety of fruitful method- derrepresented, which in turn makes women perform worse than they ologies, arguments, and research questions. otherwise would. To the extent that stereotype threat applies to women Given the importance of retaining women in philosophy for peda- in philosophy (for arguments, see Schouten, 2015), women may be pro- gogical and professional reasons, we need a better understanding of ducing work of lesser quality than they would otherwise be able to why women leave philosophy when they do. To achieve this, we be- produce. When women are preoccupied (either consciously or uncon- gin with the assumptions that philosophy should be enjoyable and sciously) with worries about confirming stereotypes about women in useful for most students — though part of our project is to consider a given area, they feel more stressed in those settings, are less moti- ways to make it more appealing — and that taking more philosophy vated, and are less able to devote their full attention and effort to the courses, getting a minor, or obtaining a major (or second major) in tasks of responding in class discussions, writing papers, and prepar- philosophy would be better for some students than their alternatives. ing presentations. This consequence is unfair to women students. It is Obviously, the philosophy major or minor is important for the very also evidence of a pedagogical problem, since instructors should aim few students, including women, who might go on to graduate school to connect with and help all of their students. For students in intro- or careers in philosophy. But for many other students, philosophy may ductory philosophy courses, stereotype threat may result from the low serve them better than other courses or majors for a wide variety of proportion of women authors and instructors in philosophy, because careers.7 Philosophy courses may also improve students’ quality of life of a schema of philosophy as male (see below), or because of the as- sociation of philosophy with logic and mathematics, a field in which 7. Many recent articles and sources of data have highlighted the practical benefits of an undergraduate degree in philosophy, includ- stereotype threat has been shown to exist (Steele, 1997; Maloney et al., ing improved skills for a variety of careers, higher test scores for 2013). graduate programs, and higher salaries and salary increases relative to other majors. See, for instance, this article showing the lifetime Furthermore, stereotyped individuals tend to avoid situations in earnings gain for philosophy majors relative to other majors: http: which stereotype threat could arise (McKinnon, 2014), potentially re- //www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/11/20/surprise-

philosophers’ imprint - 3 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? by providing methods for approaching questions of great importance though we suspect that some of the factors are not related directly to them and their society. Philosophy encourages investigation of ques- to sex discrimination, especially as they contribute to women’s leav- tions about how we should live our lives, which may provide meaning ing philosophy after their initial exposure to it. On this model, there and enrich the individual’s life. It also provides people with the tools to will not be a single factor that explains why philosophy has such a analyze important debates in the real world, such as economic inequal- badly disproportionate gender balance in comparison to fields like neu- ity, abortion, climate change, conflicts between science and religion, roscience, psychology, political science, English, and biology. Rather, or whether race is a biologically real category. Though some may dis- a number of factors in common with other fields, along with some agree with us about the value of philosophy courses for students, we unique to philosophy, interact to constitute philosophy’s substantial find it entirely plausible that, to the extent that philosophy is valuable, underrepresentation problem. it should be just as valuable for women as for men. Indeed, the Perfect Storm Model can help make sense of the puz- Finally, we find it plausible that it would be valuable to both stu- zling fact that roughly 50 or 60 years ago, every academic field had sim- dents and teachers of philosophy to have a more diverse set of philos- ilarly disproportionate gender ratios, but philosophy is now decades ophy students in their courses at all levels (regardless of whether that behind most of these fields in overcoming the problem. In some cases diversity results in different philosophical methodologies or projects), relevant differences can be found. For example, English departments and that it would benefit philosophy, and perhaps society in general, responded to the underrepresentation of women and minorities in to have more women major in philosophy. their field in part by broadening the canon to include more women and non-European authors in a way that has not occurred in philos- 3. The perfect storm ophy and has been resisted by some philosophers (see Dotson, 2012 Given the harmful effects of the underrepresentation of women in phi- on philosophy’s culture of justification vs. a culture of praxis). But in losophy and the lack of focus on the early exit of women from philos- other cases, the differences are harder to discover. Why, for instance, ophy, we decided to investigate some potential factors that may con- have history and biology both managed to alter their demographics so tribute to this drop-off after initial philosophy courses. Of course, the that roughly half their majors are women, while philosophy has not? disproportional loss of women in philosophy at various stages surely Very few of the factors that have already been addressed in other fields results from many causes, interacting in complex ways. Here, we agree or of those potentially unique to philosophy have been empirically ex- with Louise Antony’s Perfect Storm Model (2012, p. 231), which “seeks plored in the field of philosophy. to explain women’s low representation within philosophy as a kind of In the following sections, we discuss our empirical studies that ex- interaction effect among familiar kinds of sex discrimination that are plore some of these factors. However, we begin here with consideration operative throughout society, but that take on particular forms and of some factors that we did not or could not explore with our studies, force as they converge within the academic institution of philosophy,” some of which may have a direct or indirect influence on women’s willingness to continue in philosophy after their initial course(s). humanities-degrees-provide-great-return-on-investment/. We mention one possibility only to set it aside. When describing (Alas, one explanation for philosophy majors’ higher earnings, relative to our concerns about the relatively low number of women pursuing phi- those majors in other humanities, is the higher proportion of men with philosophy degrees combined with the fact that, on average, men have higher losophy, a few philosophers and blog discussants have suggested that salaries than women.) the primary explanations may have something to do with the “inher-

philosophers’ imprint - 4 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? ent” nature of philosophy, or of women, or some combination of the suggested that implicit bias may be one factor for women’s initial drop- two. We are highly dubious about such claims for a number of reasons off in philosophy. We find this claim plausible, but our study focused — for instance, the implausible essentialist assumptions about philos- on other potential factors. ophy and gender. But more importantly, even if one could somehow make sense of the claim that a “natural” proportion of women philoso- 3.1 Grade Discrepancy between Philosophy and Other Introductory Courses phy majors would be about 30%, it would be impossible to know that Another factor that might lead women to leave philosophy is if they re- without first exploring and ruling out the many other factors that may ceive grades in philosophy courses lower than the grades they receive contribute to such a disproportionate ratio. So, our project of motivat- in other courses. (Indeed, if women receive lower grades than men rel- ing such an exploration and taking some initial steps is required, even ative to overall grades, this may be in part due to implicit biases of if one starts with the rather bizarre views described in this paragraph. instructors.) In general, students who receive worse than usual grades Discrimination and harassment against women in a given field is are more likely to switch majors, whereas students who receive better likely to drive women away from that field. The frequent discussion of than usual grades are more likely to continue in that major (Arcidi- sexual harassment and gender discrimination in philosophy suggests acono, 2004). Other research suggests that women rely more heavily that these factors have surely led some women to leave the field. Obvi- than men on grades to assess their performance in some field-specific ously, these incidents are unjust, in some cases illegal, and they must tasks (Correll, 2001). In STEM fields and economics, women who re- end. However, we will focus on other factors for women’s underrep- ceive B’s are less likely to continue taking courses compared to women resentation. Many departments likely do not have a culture of sexual who receive A’s, whereas there is no such difference for men (Rampell, harassment or overt discrimination and yet still have few women ma- 2014). There is also evidence that women have better overall GPAs than jors. These departments may have other forms of harm (e.g., Rowe, men (Chee et al., 2005). So, if women and men receive on average the 2008; Brennan, 2013 on the effects of micro-aggressions). We will not same grades in introductory philosophy courses, then it is evidence pursue the issue of explicit gender discrimination further in this paper, that, on average, women are performing worse than men compared to in part because we did not attempt to collect data about it from our their performance in other fields, and as a result, they may be more participants, though these issues may be important in combating cli- likely than men to stop taking philosophy courses. mate problems in philosophy (see Saul, 2014 on informal responses to In AppendixC we report results of a study examining grades in all and responsibilities concerning instances of sexual harassment). Introduction to Philosophy courses at GSU offered over 13 semesters One prominent hypotheses about women’s underrepresentation in (a total of 8,918 students, 4,655 women and 4,263 men). We found that, philosophy is that implicit bias (among other factors) causes women while men and women received on average the same grades in In- to leave the field. This hypothesis suggests that instructors may have tro, women’s grades were lower relative to their overall GPA (since implicit biases against women in their courses, which cause them to women’s overall GPAs were higher than men’s). This gender difference devalue work done by these students, call on these students less often in grade discrepancy had an influence on the fact that fewer women, in class, or fail to mentor these students to the same extent as men. relative to men, took philosophy courses after their Intro course ac- Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes about members of a particular cording to university enrollment records (see AppendixC). 8 We do group, which affect the way that an individual with bias interacts with or makes decisions concerning members of that group. Saul( 2013) has 8. We also found that, in our climate surveys, women and men reported no

philosophers’ imprint - 5 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? not, however, have data to support various hypotheses that might ex- ness to continue in philosophy. We examined the following factors (in plain why women, compared to men, received lower grades in Intro the order discussed below): confidence in philosophical skills, com- relative to their other courses. While implicit biases of instructors and fort and sense of belonging in the classroom, dislike of the method of perhaps even other students may play a role, we suspect more signif- thought experiments, philosophical issues seen as irrelevant, percep- icant contributors include that, because women, in general, identified tions of philosophy major as useless, aggressiveness of class discussion, less than men did with the topics or methods in the Intro class (see lack of strong opinions or different opinions from peers, the presence Section 4.1 and Section 4.3), women may have accordingly put less of women role models, proportion of women authors on syllabi, and effort into the class relative to their other courses than did men.9 Fur- holding brilliance-based field-specific ability beliefs. Our goal was to thermore, women reported feeling less confident in their philosophical get feedback from a large and diverse sample of students in Introduc- abilities compared to men (see Section 4.2), which may have caused tion to Philosophy courses, but we begin with the caveat that future women to perform worse in their philosophy courses. Women may research will be required to see if similar results are found with phi- also have experienced stereotype threat in philosophy in a way that losophy students at other universities. Furthermore, we did not carry caused some to perform worse in their philosophy course relative to out our survey on students taking introductory courses in other fields, their other courses. which will be necessary to test for similarities and differences in results Some of the factors described above are likely to be a part of the between philosophy and other fields. Perfect Storm of contributing factors that influence women to drop out The climate survey was filled out by 1,540 undergraduates (798 of philosophy at disproportionate rates. To test the impact of some women, 686 men, and 56 who did not report gender) using Scantrons other potential factors, we conducted climate surveys involving over a during one of the last few class sessions of their Introduction to Philos- thousand students in dozens of sections of Introduction to Philosophy ophy course at Georgia State University in Fall of 2012 or Fall of 2013. during two semesters. Both surveys had nearly a 70% response rate, with non-response due primarily to absence on the day the survey was administered (1,050 4. A climate survey of students in Introduction to Philosophy total undergraduates received grades in Introduction to Philosophy in courses Fall 2012, and 1,187 students in Fall 2013; IRB protocol also allowed stu- We designed a climate survey to test a number of hypotheses that have dents to opt out). One survey was administered in 34 sections of Intro been suggested in the literature, and a few hypotheses of our own, (with 16 different instructors, 3 women) in Fall 2012 and included 35 regarding factors in Introduction to Philosophy courses that might dif- questions about students’ experience in and perceptions of the course ferentially influence women and men, and their interest in and willing- and philosophy, as well as some demographic questions about demo- graphic categories such as race and gender, and five open-ended ques- difference in their expected grade (see Q55 in AppendixA), which suggests that tions. Another survey was administered in 27 sections (with 14 differ- women are aware that they are getting grades that are, on average, lower than ent instructors, 3 women) in Fall 2013, and it included the exact same they expect based on their overall GPA. Furthermore, there was a marginally significant trend towards women reporting less satisfaction with their expected 35 questions as the 2012 survey plus an additional 20 questions de- grade than men (Q40). signed to test further hypotheses and the demographic questions but 9. Most instructors in Intro at GSU use anonymous grading methods for most major assignments, so any effects of implicit bias would presumably be mini- no open-ended questions (see AppendixA for survey questions). 724 mized in those classes. students (385 women and 323 men) took the 2012 version of the climate

philosophers’ imprint - 6 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? survey, and 816 students (413 women and 363 men) took the 2013 ver- in addition to factors. For these analyses, as an indicator of likelihood sion. of taking more philosophy after Intro, we calculated a new variable, Since some of our survey questions are related to each other, some Willingness to Continue, by averaging two survey items: ’I plan to of them likely measure the same aspects of students’ experience in take another philosophy course after this one’ (Q11) and ’I would Intro. In other words, different questions might cluster together into consider majoring in philosophy’ (Q12).11 The rest of this section is groups that are highly correlated with each other and measure the a brief primer on the statistical analyses used below that might be use- same latent variable that explains people’s responses to that group of ful to those without background in statistics (see also note 13, note 18, questions. Factor analysis is a statistical method of looking for such AppendixA, and AppendixB). 12 In this article, we test a number of latent variables or “factors.” We conducted a factor analysis on the hypotheses about the relationships between gender, IdentificationWith- questions from our longer 2013 survey. Note that factor analysis can Philosophy, Willingness to Continue, other factors, various individual separate factors that may seem conceptually related given that the survey items, and so on. Each hypothesis is about the relationship be- questions load onto different factors. tween some variable, such as gender, and some other variable, such as We found seven factors that a subset of the survey questions appear IndentificationWithPhilosophy. We test each hypothesis by conducting an to measure, which we then used for some of the analyses described analysis involving the variables the hypothesis considers. The result of below (see AppendixB for details). 10 Based on the questions correlated each analysis has a p-value, which indicates the probability of getting with each factor, we interpreted these factors as: that result given that the null hypothesis is true. For our analyses, the null hypothesis is always that some variable has no real relationship 1. IdentificationWithPhilosophy with some other variable. For example, if we conduct an analysis to 2. PerceivedInstructorFairness test the relationship between gender and IdentificationWithPhilosophy, 3. PerceivedStudentRespect then the null hypothesis is that gender has no real relationship with 4. AlternativeClassroomPreference IdentificationWithPhilosophy. The p-value of the result of this analysis is 5. ComfortSpeaking the probability of getting this result if gender had no real relationship 6. Field-SpecificAbilityBelief and with IdentificationWithPhilosophy. If this p-value is low enough, we can 7. GenderAndRaceGapBelief. reject this null hypothesis and conclude that gender does have some Since we could not collect data in this study on whether students real relationship with IdentificationWithPhilosophy. We decide whether signed up for more philosophy courses after this Intro course, we used IdentificationWithPhilosophy as one indicator of how likely stu- = dents would be to continue in philosophy. We looked for gender dif- 11. Cronbach’s α .792 for Q11 and Q12, indicating reliable internal consis- tency. When testing hypotheses about factors, we used IdentificationWithPhilos- ferences in IdentificationWithPhilosophy, and then conducted other anal- ophy as an indicator of likelihood of continuing in philosophy. When testing yses to see which of the other factors explain those gender differences. hypotheses about individual questions, we used Willingness to Continue as an indicator of likelihood of continuing in philosophy. The reason for having two We also wanted to test some hypotheses using individual questions indicators of likelihood of continuing was that factor analysis normally makes all questions load onto all factors to some degree. So testing correlations be- tween individual questions and factors (like IdentificationWithPhilosophy) would 10. We follow the convention in the subfield of causal graph theory of present- be improper. ing variable names (in this case, factors) as italicized without spaces. 12. We thank a referee at this journal for the suggestion to include this material.

philosophers’ imprint - 7 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? a p-value is low enough by seeing if the p-value is below some thresh- tinue measure, and while the mean responses to these questions sug- old, and if it is, then this result is statistically significant. For testing gest that most students do not plan to continue in philosophy, women one hypothesis alone, the conventional significance threshold is .05, so expressed less willingness to continue than men.14 a p-value must be less than or equal to .05 for a result to be statistically Since students’ scores in IdentificationWithPhilosophy and Willing- significant. Testing multiple hypotheses increases the likelihood of get- ness to Continue reflect gender differences in the likelihood of contin- ting a statistically significant result even if one or more of the null uing in philosophy after Intro, we investigated what might contribute hypotheses are true. To keep this false positive rate from increasing, to the gender differences on these measures. In the following sections, we use the Sidak formula to calculate a lower significance threshold we describe how we tested a number of different hypotheses about the (see AppendixA for the Sidak-corrected p-values we used when com- explanation of these gender differences and the results of these analy- paring gender differences in responses to individual survey items and ses. note 13 for p-values we used when making other comparisons). 4.2 Sense of belonging, comfort, and confidence 4.1 Gender differences in variables measuring identification with philosophy One hypothesis is that, compared to men, women feel less comfortable and willingness to continue and confident in the philosophy classroom. This hypothesis has been One of the purposes of our climate surveys was simply to get infor- explored in other disciplines. A mere sense of social belonging can in- mation about what students think about philosophy and the way it fluence people’s goals and motivations, but only for people with at is taught in Intro courses (at one university) and whether and how least some identification with the field (e.g., who felt the field was im- women and men perceive the course differently. For this purpose the portant to them) (Walton et al., 2012). Good, Rattan, and Dweck( 2012) responses to many of the questions, and the gender differences (or lack found that merely priming the stereotype that women are worse than of differences) to these questions, as reported in AppendixA, are use- men at mathematics causes students who have a fixed mindset about ful to examine. For instance, in response to Q2–Q4, on average students mathematical skill to report a lower sense of belonging to the field agreed that they enjoyed the course and that they find philosophy in- than those students who either were men or had a malleable mind- teresting and relevant, but on average women agreed to a significantly set (as described in Section 4.7). While social belonging is very im- lower degree than men. Indeed, significant gender differences were portant for students’ persistence and confidence in a field, Cheryan, found for all of the other questions that make up factor 1, Identification- Plaut, Davies, and Steele( 2009) have shown that even physical cues WithPhilosophy, including those that ask about students’ perception of in the environment can lower individuals’ sense of belonging. Partic- their abilities in philosophy (Q5,Q30,Q31), about their sense of how ipants were asked to wait in a room filled with either stereotypical well they fit in philosophy (Q7,Q9,Q10), and about whether they are interested in taking more philosophy or majoring (Q11,Q12) (see Ap- pendixA). 13 The last two questions make up the Willingness to Con- A, we corrected our significance threshold for multiple comparisons. We used a Sidak correction with n = 16 for hypotheses tested outside AppendixA, which would make our significance threshold .0032. We considered p-values at 13. We conducted a simple linear regression with gender as a predictor of Iden- or below this threshold to be significant. tificationWithPhilosophy, and found that women score significantly lower on this 14. We conducted a simple linear regression with gender as a predictor of Will- factor than men (β = −.212, t(739) = −5.902, p < .001). Since we conducted 16 ingness to Continue, and found that women score significantly lower than men analyses in addition to the t-tests on gender differences described in Appendix (β = −.165, t(1479) = −6.427, p < .001).

philosophers’ imprint - 8 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? computer science items (e.g., Star Wars posters, video games) or non- Women scored significantly lower than men on the factor ComfortS- stereotypical items (e.g., art, nature posters), but asked not to pay at- peaking.17 To see if gender differences in comfort speaking in the class- tention to the contents of the room (as it was being used by another room partially “mediate,” or account for, why women score lower than group on campus). They were then asked to fill out surveys about their men in IdentificationWithPhilosophy, we conducted a mediation analysis feelings toward computer science under the guise of a Career Develop- with ComfortSpeaking as a mediator of the effect of gender on Identifica- ment Centre survey. Women felt less interested than men in computer tionWithPhilosophy.18 We found that ComfortSpeaking is a partial media- science in the stereotypical room, but there was no difference in in- tor of the effect of gender on factor 1, indicating that gender differences terest in the non-stereotypical room. In another study, Cheryan et al. in comfort speaking in the philosophy classroom partly explain why asked participants to choose a team to work with in their hypothetical women score lower than men in IdentificationWithPhilosophy.19 employer’s company, and women consistently chose the team in the It will be important to carry out further research to determine if non-stereotypical room despite both teams’ containing all women. these gender differences in sense of belonging, comfort, and confidence We asked several questions to gauge students’ level of comfort in are particularly significant in philosophy or which, if any, other sub- the classroom, as well as their sense of belonging and their sense of jects have introductory courses that show similar gender differences in confidence in their abilities. Women agreed less than men that they these factors. We now turn to a few hypotheses that we have reason to have a lot in common with the typical philosophy major (Q7) and with believe are more specific to philosophy. their philosophy instructor (Q9), that people like them can be success- ful in philosophy (Q10), that they are confident in their ability to talk 17. We found a significant correlation between gender and ComfortSpeaking (r = about philosophy (Q31), and that they are confident in their ability to −.114, p = .002), which is equivalent to step 2 of the Baron and Kenny method 15 described in note 18. do well on papers and exams (Q32). 18. A mediator is a variable that explains or accounts, at least in part, for the However, students also generally felt comfortable with their instruc- effect of one variable on another. For example, we found that gender is a signifi- cant predictor of IdentificationWithPhilosophy. When we call some other variable tors as both discussion leaders and evaluators. Both men and women a “mediator” of the effect of gender on IdentificationWithPhilosophy, we mean agreed that they felt comfortable asking the instructor questions after that this other variable accounts for the effect of gender on IdentificationWith- class or in office hours (Q15), that the instructor made an effort to Philosophy. So ComfortSpeaking is a mediator of the effect of gender on Identifica- tionWithPhilosophy just in case ComfortSpeaking accounts for the effect of gender involve all students regardless of race or gender (Q16), and that the on IdentificationWithPhilosophy. If ComfortSpeaking accounts for all of the effect instructor treated all students with respect regardless of race or gen- of gender on IdentificationWithPhilosophy, then ComfortSpeaking is a “full” medi- ator of this effect. If ComfortSpeaking accounts for some, but not all, of the effect der (Q17,Q18). Students generally reported feeling that the instructor of gender on IdentificationWithPhilosophy, then ComfortSpeaking is a “partial” me- graded them fairly too (Q24). Finally, there was no gender difference diator of this effect. We looked for full and partial mediators by following the on the factor PerceivedInstructorFairness.16 three steps that Baron and Kenny( 1986) recommend, and by using the Sobel test. 19. In step 3 of the Baron and Kenny method, we found that both gender (β = −.167, t(738) = −5.042, p < .001) and ComfortSpeaking (β = .394, t(738) = 11.889, p < .001) were significant predictors of IdentificationwithPhilos- 15. See AppendixA, Table 1, which indicates significant gender differences for ophy. Since gender was still a significant predictor of IdentificationwithPhilosophy these questions for both the 2012 and 2013 surveys (though, for Q7 and Q10, the even when controlling for ComfortSpeaking, it was not a full mediator of the ef- 2012 results indicate trends that are not significant when corrected for multiple fect of gender on IdentificationwithPhilosophy. Using the Sobel test, however, we comparisons). found that ComfortSpeaking was a partial mediator of the effect of gender on 16. See AppendixA and AppendixB for means and p-values. IdentificationwithPhilosophy (z = 3.013, p = .003, effect size rβ = −0.045).

philosophers’ imprint - 9 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

4.3 Thought experiments and other methods in Intro classes Buckwalter and Turri( 2016) suggest a different explanation for One set of hypotheses suggests that some of the unique methods used how thought experiments in Intro classes might have a disproportion- in the philosophy classroom may be disproportionately unappealing ate effect on whether women continue in philosophy. Women, more to women. Perhaps women are less likely to hold similar philosophical than men, may simply find the methodology of using thought experi- intuitions as men, such that when thought experiments are used in phi- ments and intuitive responses to them less interesting or valuable, or losophy classrooms, women may feel out of place. Alternatively, it may they may prefer the methodologies used in other fields. Buckwalter be the very method of thought experiments, rather than a difference and Turri examined participants’ responses to scenarios about inves- in prompted intuitions, that helps to explain the gender gap. Perhaps tigations run by teams or an individual about knowledge or about women are more likely than men to find the method of thought experi- human selfishness using either the distinctive methodology of psy- ments used in many philosophy courses to be ineffective or unsatisfac- chology (i.e., observation) or one methodology particular to philoso- tory for answering philosophical questions. These hypotheses have the phy (i.e., thought experiments). They found that, although all partic- benefit of applying specifically to philosophy among the humanities ipants preferred observational methods to the use of thought exper- and other subjects. iments, women preferred observational methods more strongly than Buckwalter and Stich( 2013) conducted one of the earliest empiri- men. Their results also showed that women valued research questions cal investigations of the initial drop-off of women in philosophy. They pursued by a group of researchers as opposed to a lone researcher, presented evidence for gender differences in philosophical intuitions whereas men had no preference based on the number of investigators. in response to 14 scenarios, such as the Trolley Problem and a Gettier Buckwalter and Turri’s results suggest interesting potential factors case, and suggested that women may feel, or be made to feel by their in- in women’s early exit from philosophy. If philosophical thought exper- structors, that they have the wrong intuitions, leading them to lack con- iments are often used in introductory philosophy classes and women fidence in their own philosophical skills or feel alienated in the class- prefer observational methods over methods that rely on intuitions, room. If so, this might be a plausible explanation for why some women then perhaps this causes some women to migrate away from philos- stop taking philosophy after Introductory courses. Although Buckwal- ophy and towards fields that use observational methods, such as psy- ter and Stich presented an interesting hypothesis and provided data to chology. On this hypothesis women may even enjoy investigating philo- support it, further studies have failed to replicate gender differences sophical questions just as much as men, but it is the method of using on the thought experiments presented in their papers (Adleberg et al., thought experiments that they find uninteresting or unfruitful. Buck- 2015; Seyedsayamdost, 2015; Chernykhovskaya, ms). Beyond the em- walter and Turri suggest that all students, perhaps especially women, pirical problems with their results, others have noted problems with would likely be more interested in philosophy if it were introduced us- Buckwalter and Stich’s argument (Antony, 2012; Adleberg et al., 2015). ing fewer thought experiments and, conversely, using more scientific We conclude that if gender differences in philosophical intuitions ex- work, including experimental philosophy.20 ist, then they likely play a very minimal role in women’s exodus from philosophy, and it would be more fruitful to consider alternative hy- potheses. 20. This hypothesis is complicated by the fact that women are also underrep- resented in some STEM fields that use experimentation and observation (e.g., physics and economics).

philosophers’ imprint - 10 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

To explore whether the use of thought experiments might dispro- men in whether they report that they would have enjoyed the course portionately discourage women from continuing to enroll in philoso- more if there had been more discussion (Q50,Q51), or more discus- phy classes, the 2013 climate survey asked students whether they liked sion of real-world problems (Q53), and only marginal trends towards “the method philosophers use of testing our intuitions in response women wanting more non-philosophy texts (Q54). Together, most of to ’thought experiments’ (imaginary situations)” (Q36). The mean re- these questions (Q50–53) make up factor 4, AlternativeClassroomPrefer- sponses suggest agreement to this question, though women agreed less ence, and we found no gender differences on this factor (p=0.84).22 than men that they liked the method of testing intuitions with thought Overall, these results suggest that some women may be leaving phi- experiments (see AppendixA). losophy after their first classes partly because they do not like some To see if this difference helps to explain why women scored lower of the specific methods used in philosophy courses, or like them less than men in Willingness to Continue in philosophy, we used the Baron than men do. and Kenny( 1986) method to conduct a mediation analysis with Q36 as a mediator of the effect of gender on Willingness to Continue. We 4.4 Perceptions of philosophy as irrelevant or useless found that Q36 partially mediates the effect of gender on Willingness Another way that the methods or content of philosophy classes may to Continue, suggesting this difference in responses does partially ex- impact women’s interest in the subject involves the stereotypical per- plain why women are less willing to continue in philosophy than ception of philosophy as irrelevant or useless. Philosophy is often seen men.21 as an impractical major that will not help students get a job.23 To the This result provides some support for Buckwalter and Turri’s hy- extent that people recognize certain questions as philosophical, those pothesis. However, we should also note that men agreed more than questions are often viewed as irrelevant or esoteric. It may be that women on our Q37, which asked if the students would prefer phi- women hold these stereotypes about philosophy more strongly than losophy more if it used scientific experiments (see AppendixA). It men, or that women’s perceptions of these issues impact their desire would also be interesting to know the extent to which Intro courses to study philosophy more than for men. Our surveys included several use thought experiments and the degree to which they present the questions aimed to explore these hypotheses. philosophers’ or the (majority of) students’ intuitions as a type of evi- We asked whether students believed that the topics that philoso- dence. phers discuss are relevant to their lives (Q4), and in both 2013 and 2012 Finally, we did not find evidence of differences between women and surveys we found that women agreed that the topics are relevant at a significantly lower level than men (see AppendixA). As we discussed above, both men and women may have preferred to read more newspa- 21. In step 1 of the Baron and Kenny method, gender significantly predicted per articles, literature, etc. in their philosophy course (Q54), and such Willingness to Continue (β = −.165, t = −6.427, p < .001). In step 2, gender significantly predicted scores on Q36 (β = −.105, t = −2.920, p = .004). In step readings may offer one way to increase the relevance of philosophy 3, both gender (β = −.145, t = −4.347, p < .001) and Q36 (β = .351, t = 10.504, p =< .001) predicted Willingness to Continue. The effect size of the indirect path was (−.105)(.351) = −0.037. Since the effect of gender on Willingness to 22. Note, however, that while the means for most of these questions were near Continue was still significant even when controlling for Q36 in step 3,Q36 was or below the midpoint, both women and men tended to agree that they would not a full mediator of the effect of gender on Willingness to Continue. Using have enjoyed more discussion of how philosophical issues relate to real-world the Sobel test, however, we found that Q36 was a partial mediator of gender on problems (Q53). See below. Willingness to Continue (z = 2.813, p = .005). 23. See, e.g., “Does Philosophy Matter?” in The New York Times, August 1, 2011.

philosophers’ imprint - 11 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? for all students, perhaps especially women. Or perhaps when students philosophy to be a useful major were more likely to report wanting to find their course syllabi populated mostly by authors who are different continue taking philosophy classes.25 from them (e.g., in gender, race, religion, etc.), this impacts their sense of relevance (see Section 4.6 and AppendixD). 4.5 Aggressive, Strong, or Different Opinions Students primarily choose majors in fields that match their interests, Another set of hypotheses concerns the manner in which students en- that allow students to maintain a high GPA, and that offer lucrative, gage in philosophical discussions in the classroom. It may be that the autonomous careers after graduation (Beggs et al., 2008; Malgwi et al., sometimes aggressive nature of discourse in philosophical discussions 2005). We used Q34 to measure the latter — the perceived usefulness of discourages women more than men from participation or interest in a philosophy major for getting a job. Women perceived philosophy to philosophy. Alternatively, the strength with which students hold their be less useful then men, but the differences were not significant when views on philosophical topics may affect students’ desire to engage in corrected for multiple comparisons (see AppendixA). There were no philosophical discussion. Finally, the extent to which students feel their significant gender differences in questions that asked about the im- views on philosophical topics differ from others’ in the classroom may portance of majoring in a subject useful for getting a job (Q41), with correspond to an increase in those students’ willingness to engage in agreement very high. philosophical debate — the student may feel that their ideas must be To see whether the stereotype that philosophy is useless could be defended against the status quo and, since they are one of the few stu- counteracted, we created a 10-minute presentation on the value of phi- dents in the room who hold that view, they must be the ones to defend losophy, which included information about careers for philosophy ma- it. jors, the high mid-career income and income growth of philosophy One pedagogical factor that might influence women to leave philos- majors (vs. other majors), high test scores, etc. In roughly half the sec- ophy more than men involves the argumentative atmosphere in some tions of Intro in Fall 2013, instructors showed this presentation and philosophy classes. The hypothesis is not that women cannot handle or discussed the value of the philosophy major. We found a significant dislike argumentation (in the technical sense), but rather that women difference in student responses to Q34 on the usefulness of the major are socialized to avoid public confrontation and arguing (in the col- between those sections that included the presentation and those that loquial sense). Further, this hypothesis predicts that women who act didn’t. We found that students who viewed the presentation perceived aggressively during philosophical discussions will not reap the ben- philosophy to be a more useful major than those who didn’t, but we efits of this behavior to the same extent as men who act within the did not find that the presentation affected the gender gap in percep- aggression norm and may even experience backlash for acting within tions of usefulness.24 We did, however, find that students who found the norm (Rudman and Glick, 2001; Rudman and Fairchild, 2004). The norm is that men are aggressive, so it is more surprising and less accepted when woman act in the same aggressive manner (Moulton, 24. For students who viewed the presentation, the means and standard errors 1983). If the idea of philosophical competence is associated with argu- for Q34 were M = 3.22, SE = .060, while for students who did not view the presentation, they were M = 2.66, SE = .036. This difference was significant mentative behaviors, then philosophically competent women may be (t(1521) = −7.852, p < .001). We conducted a 2x2 ANOVA to see if viewing the presentation affected women’s responses to Q34 differently from those of men, but we did not find a significant interaction effect (F(1, 1470) = 0.301, 25. For Q34, students who viewed philosophy as a useful major scored higher p = .583). on Willingness to Continue (β = .462, t(1526) = 20.37, p < .001).

philosophers’ imprint - 12 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? more likely to be seen as aggressive compared to philosophically com- ingness to Continue, so the extent to which men and women take them- petent men. So, under this hypothesis, even women who “play by the selves to have strong philosophical opinions also partly explains why rules of the game” may be viewed or treated negatively. women score lower than men in Willingness to Continue.26 We asked students whether they thought classroom discussions Finally, students may not enjoy philosophy classes if they feel their were “too combative” (Q19) and whether they felt “uncomfortable with opinions differ from other students’ or from their instructors’. Q25 the confrontational nature of some philosophical discussions” (Q39). asked whether students often had different opinions from the instruc- There were no differences in responses between women and men, and tor, and there was no difference between responses from women and students tended not to think that classroom discussions were too com- men (see AppendixA). Q 26 asked whether students believed their bative or confrontational (see AppendixA). Hence, our evidence does opinions differed from the opinions of other students in the class. Here, not support the hypothesis that women find Intro classes to involve women agreed less than men (significant only in the 2012 survey), so overly aggressive or confrontational discussions. Further, in general, men more than women believed their philosophical opinions differed students regardless of gender felt that the other students in their phi- from other students’. To see if this gender difference in responses to losophy course treated each other with respect. There was no signifi- Q26 helps to explain differences in Willingness to Continue, we con- cant gender difference in PerceivedStudentRespect. ducted a mediation analysis with Q26 as a mediator of the effect of However, we did not have any questions directly testing a related gender on Willingness to Continue. Q26 was a partial mediator of the possibility: that men in Intro classes dominate class discussions and effect of gender on Willingness to Continue.27 That is, women reported may be called on more by instructors, which women notice and dis- less of a difference between their own opinions and those of others in like (see Chan et al. (ms.) for qualitative evidence of this phenomenon). the class, and this gender difference in responses to Q26 partly ac- Even if instructors sometimes try to "shut down" domineering students counts for the difference between men and women in Willingness to or find ways to balance class discussions, they may also implicitly or explicitly reward students who contribute to discussions (there is, af- ter all, no inconsistency between talking too much in class and often 26. In step 2 of the Baron and Kenny method, gender was a significant predictor raising interesting points or questions). This phenomenon of overly dis- of Q35 scores (β = −.116, t(1476) = −3.248, p = .001). In step 3, gender (β = −.139, t(1474) = −4.189, p < .001) and Q35 (β = .369, t(1474) = 11.125, cursive (and perhaps over-indulged) male students may be particularly p < .001) were both significant predictors of Willingness to Continue. The effect problematic in philosophy courses. The topics are often controversial, size of the indirect path is (−.116)(.369) = −0.043. Since gender was still a significant predictor of Willingness to Continue even when controlling for Q35, students often feel passionate about their views and have had limited it was not a full mediator of the effect of gender on Willingness to Continue. opportunities to discuss them in academic settings, and it is not always Using the Sobel test, however, we found that Q35 was a partial mediator of the = = obvious what counts as a correct, or cogent, answer to each question. effect of gender on Willingness to Continue (z 3.118, p 0.002). 27. In step 2 of the Baron and Kenny method, gender was a significant predictor Another possibility is that women have less strongly held opinions of Q26 scores (β = −.096, t(1477) = −3.725, p<.001). In step 3, gender (β = about these philosophical topics than men. Women did report less −.150, t(1475) = −5.894, p < .001) and Q26 (β = .144, t(1475) = 5.638, p < .001) were both significant predictors of Q26. The effect size of the indirect agreement than men with Q35, which asks whether they have strong path is (−.096)(.144) = −0.014. Since gender was still a significant predictor opinions about the philosophical issues discussed in the class (see Ap- of Willingness to Continue even when controlling for Q26, it was not a full mediator of the effect of gender on Willingness to Continue. Using the Sobel pendixA). We conducted another mediation analysis and found that test, however, we found that Q26 was a partial mediator of the effect of gender Q35 was a significant partial mediator of the effect of gender on Will- on Willingness to Continue (z = 3.108, p = 0.002).

philosophers’ imprint - 13 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Continue. This result may suggest that some men like having and be- tinue in philosophy. We did not find evidence that instructor gender ing able to express their distinct opinions on philosophical issues. affected women’s Willingness to Continue any differently than men’s in either 2013 or 2012.28 However, our analysis included only three 4.6 Schemas and syllabi: The perception of philosophy as a male discipline women instructors each year out of a total of 14 in 2013 (21.4%) and 16 Schemas are mental constructs that include abbreviated information in 2012 (18.8%). We have an absence of evidence but not evidence of and characteristics about someone’s concept of an individual or group an absence of the effect. Given that Paxton, Figdor, and Tiberius( 2012) of people. These schemas give rise to expectations about people’s be- found that the proportion of women faculty members in a department havior and bias observers to interpret behaviors in line with their positively correlated with the proportion of women undergraduate ma- schemas (Valian, 1998). Schemas can clash when certain individuals jors at the same institution, further research will be necessary to deter- fit into disparate groups, like male nurses or female soldiers. These in- mine whether the presence of demographically similar role models in- dividuals tend to be ignored or shut out of the relevant profession, or fluences students’ perceptions of philosophy and women’s willingness instead the schemas will be resolved (e.g., those men are feminine) or to continue taking philosophy courses. the individuals will be accepted as exceptions (i.e., tokens). Haslanger Another way that women may get the idea that the schemas for (2008) has argued that the schemas for ’woman’ and ’philosopher’ ’philosopher’ and ’woman’ clash is through the philosophers whose clash, such that women philosophers tend to be ignored, treated as work is read in their class. A number of philosophers have suggested masculine, or seen as tokens. We examined the effects of women’s rep- that female students may be reacting to the small number of women on resentation in the philosophy classroom on female students’ willing- syllabi (Calhoun, 2015). Dotson( 2011) also suggests that this problem ness to continue in philosophy. may be exacerbated in courses that focus on (traditional) history of That women were more likely than men to perceive philosophy to philosophy. be a male discipline was supported by gender differences in Genderan- However, at the time of our survey, no one had provided empirical dRaceGapBelief (t(739) = −5.566, p < 0.001). Women were less likely evidence that women notice this underrepresentation or that it might than men to think that there are roughly the same number of female be a contributing factor to women leaving philosophy. We investigated philosophy professors or majors as male philosophy professors or ma- this hypothesis in our study. First, we looked at the actual represen- jors and were more likely to disagree that the proportion of women tation of women authors on introductory course syllabi. In Fall 2012, and non-white authors on syllabi were fair (see AppendicesA andB). women made up, on average, only 10% of the authors read in the Intro One way that women may get the idea that the schemas for ’philoso- courses at GSU. Although it is quite low, we don’t think this number is pher’ and ’woman’ clash is based on the gender of their instructors, anomalous, based on the proportions of women authors in philosophy given that their instructors are likely the first authority figures in phi- journals and intro texts. Only 12% of papers published in philosophy losophy to whom the students have been exposed. If the instructor of journals are authored by women (West et al., 2013). We examined 18 in- introductory philosophy courses significantly affects students’ schema troductory textbooks published between 2000 and 2011 and found that of ’philosopher’, we might expect the gender of their instructor to influ- there were less than 7% women authors on average. Worse still, when ence their willingness to continue in philosophy. We examined whether instructor gender made a difference to women’s willingness to con- 28. The interaction effect of student gender and instructor gender on Willing- ness to Continue was not significant (β = −.024, t(704) = −.111, p = .911).

philosophers’ imprint - 14 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? women were included, their articles disproportionately discussed is- We also conducted an experiment on the effect of gender ratio on sues concerning gender and/or treated as falling outside the scope of the syllabus by increasing that ratio in most sections for Fall 2013. Grad- mainstream philosophy: abortion, feminist critiques of science, sexism, uate students (but not professors) teaching Introduction to Philosophy etc. In all, 44% of the articles included by women discussed such issues, at GSU that semester were required to include at least 20% women while another 17% were written by Ayn Rand (see AppendixD, Table among the authors assigned to students (most syllabi in 2013 sections 3). Masto( 2013) ran a similar analysis on introductory syllabi from 22 ended up with ratios between 20% and 30%, with a range of 5% to different universities and found that 8% of authors were women, while 39%). We found that students’ perception of the fairness of the gender 31 of 57 courses did not include any female authors at all.29 ratio of authors on their course syllabus was responsive to the actual We used Q27 on the climate survey to measure the extent to which number of women authors on the syllabus — that is, mean responses students believed that there was a “fair proportion” of women authors to Q27 were higher among both men and women in sections that in- on the course syllabus.30 Both men and women tended to disagree, cluded at least 20% women authors compared to sections that did not. with women disagreeing significantly more than men in both years’ However, even in the sections with higher proportions of women au- surveys (see AppendixA). To see if this gender difference in responses thors, women continued to disagree more strongly than men that there to Q27 helps to explain why women score lower in Willingness to Con- was a “fair proportion” of women read in the class.32 tinue than men, we conducted a mediation analysis with Q27 as a We then combined the data from both years’ surveys to see if the mediator of the effect of gender on Willingness to Continue. We found percentage of women authors on the syllabus affected Willingness to that students’ perceptions of the proportion of women on the syllabus Continue. Even though women’s ratings of fairness improved with the partially mediated the effect of gender on Willingness to Continue, so addition of more women authors to their courses, we did not find it partially explains why women score lower than men on Willingness that the percentage of women authors affected Willingness to Continue to Continue.31 for women or men, nor that this percentage affected Willingness to Continue differently for women than for men.33 29. A recent Oxford University Press introductory textbook is being promoted as having the highest proportion of women (24%), though it contains many arti- cles by some of the same women (e.g., Susan Wolf, Linda Zagzebski, and Judith Jarvis Thomson), and no women are represented in the “Historical Sources” predictor of Willingness to Continue even when controlling for Q27, it does sections. OUP promotes it in the following way: “While most other widely not fully mediate the effect of gender on willingness. By using the Sobel test, used introductory philosophy anthologies contain fewer than five articles however, we found that Q27 was a partial mediator the effect of gender on authored by women, Exploring Philosophy, Fifth Edition, includes more than Willingness to Continue (z = 3.3306, p < 0.001). thirty, thus reflecting the major role of women in contemporary philosophy” 32. For students who took sections with at least 20% women authors, M = 2.91, (https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/exploring-philosophy- SE = .037. For students who took sections with fewer than 20% women authors, 9780190204419?q=cahn%20exploring%20philosophylang=en&cc= M = 2.38, SE = .048. This difference was significant (t(1307.657) = −8.830, us). p < .0001). Women who took sections with more than 20% women authors 30. This question was worded so that students could interpret “fair” to refer to (M = 2.68, SE = .065) still gave lower responses to Q27 than men who took number and/or appropriateness. these sections (M = 3.20, SE = .070). This gender difference was significant 31. In step 2 of the Baron and Kenny method, gender was a significant predictor (t(616) = 5.434, p < .0001). of Q27 (β = −.178, t(1478) = −6.961, p < .001). In step 3, gender (β = −.147, 33. There was no significant main effect of percentage of women authors on t(1476) = −5.654, p < .001) and Q27 (β = .098, t(1476) = 3.793, p < .001) Willingness to Continue (β = .029, t(1530) = 1.141, p = .254), nor was there were both significant predictors of Willingness to Continue. The effect size of a significant interaction effect of student gender and percentage of women au- the indirect path is (−.178)(.098) = −0.017. Since gender was still a significant thors on Willingness to Continue (β = −.018, t(1472) = −.198, p = .843).

philosophers’ imprint - 15 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Hence, we found that the proportion of women on the syllabus are less responsive to training and possibly innate, and to the extent had an influence on students’ perceptions about whether there was a that they think that mathematical skills are malleable, they will think fair proportion of women, even more so for women than men. Further, that with sustained practice and effort, one can improve and develop students’ perception of this proportion had an effect on women’s will- those skills. Researchers have also found that holding a fixed mindset ingness to continue in philosophy. One might then expect that increas- can impede performance during difficult tasks (Blackwell et al., 2007). ing the proportion of women on introductory syllabi would increase On the other hand, individuals with growth mindsets in a field seek all students’ — but especially women’s — willingness to continue in out challenges, try multiple strategies, and persist longer in the face of philosophy. However, the actual proportion of women on the syllabus, challenges (O’Rourke et al., 2014). when increased from rates of roughly 10% to rates of roughly 20%, did Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, and Freeland( 2015) propose a related the- not itself influence women’s reports of their willingness to continue. ory to explain women’s underrepresentation across a variety of fields These seemingly counterintuitive results are possible because correla- — the field-specific ability belief (FAB) theory. Rather than students’ tions are not always transitive. While we were somewhat surprised perceptions about their own abilities, the FAB theory suggests that en- by this null effect, it does not show that increasing the proportion tire fields are perceived as requiring skills that require more fixed in- of women on the syllabus is ineffective at increasing the number of tellectual talents for success (“natural brilliance”) rather than abilities women who want to continue in philosophy, since the 20% figure is that can be developed by hard work and dedication. The FAB theory still a significant minority of authors. If students perceive this minority suggests that different fields range in the degree to which people in as indicative of a male schema for philosophy, then the extra 10% or so that field perceive success as requiring raw intellectual talent. It pre- may not be substantial enough to alter that schema. It would be inter- dicts that because women are stereotyped as lacking raw intellectual esting to test the effect of teaching an introductory course with closer talent, they will be underrepresented in fields where members view to equal gender representation (controlling for factors such as instruc- such talent as necessary to success. Leslie et al. found evidence that tor gender) to see whether it had an impact on women’s interest in the extent to which professionals held “brilliance” field-specific abil- philosophy. In any case, the current representation of women authors ity beliefs about their field negatively correlated with the proportion in textbooks and on syllabi (roughly 10%) is not a fair representation of women who obtained PhDs in that field, including philosophy (in- of the (low) proportion of professional women philosophers (nearly deed, philosophy had the highest “brilliance” FAB score among all 20%), and we think there are a number of reasons to include more fields, including STEM fields). women and minority philosophers on introductory syllabi, whether or There may be various ways that the stereotyped view of women not doing so initially draws more women to philosophy. as lacking raw talent in a field cause women’s underrepresentation within that field. Leslie et al. tested a few: that women are viewed as 4.7 Fixed mindsets and field-specific ability beliefs less equipped for the field-specific work than men, that women are not Carol Dweck’s mindset theory holds that individuals view particular welcomed in such fields, that the general public shares the academics’ traits along a spectrum from more fixed (brilliance-based) to more re- ability beliefs about a field, that women face more challenges in that sponsive to effort (malleable). For instance, to the extent that individu- field, and that academics infer their field-specific ability beliefs from als think that mathematical skills are fixed, they will think those skills women’s representation in the field. They found evidence for the first three of these effects and not for the last two. In particular, brilliance-

philosophers’ imprint - 16 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? based FABs may cause women to be underrepresented when those but this relationship was significantly stronger for women than for beliefs lead members of that field to discriminate against women enter- men.36 Hence, students’ field-specific ability beliefs about philosophy ing and remaining in it, induce stereotype threat among women in the impact their sense of belonging and willingness to continue in philoso- field, or affect women’s sense of belonging in the field (for evidence of phy, and this impact is even stronger in women than men. Given Leslie this last mechanism, see Bian et al., ms). Since their study is primarily et al.’s data on the general public’s FAB scores about philosophy, it is about brilliance-based field-specific beliefs of academics as they affect plausible that college students think that philosophy requires natural the proportion of women obtaining PhDs, it is not obvious how the brilliance more than most other subjects. If so, our results suggest that FAB theory might be applied to explain the early drop-off in philoso- this view of philosophy would lead women, more than men, to feel phy after introductory courses (though see Bian et al. ms. on student they do not belong in philosophy and to be more likely to stop taking perceptions of FAB and internships). However, if students perceive a philosophy courses. subject as requiring natural brilliance, perhaps because of its popular perception or because of the way instructors present it, then women 5. Suggestions for improving the philosophy classroom may feel less welcome in that field right from the introductory level. Our climate survey study is one of the first systematic empirical investi- We added some of the same FAB statements used by Leslie et al. to gations of a number of hypotheses for women’s underrepresentation in our 2013 survey to see whether student responses to them provide any philosophy at the undergraduate level. However, it has several impor- information about the low proportion of women pursuing philosophy. tant limitations. First, the student population at GSU and the climate We did not find that student gender predicts responses to the ques- in Intro philosophy classes there may be different from those at other tions about FAB (it is not part of the FAB theory that these beliefs about institutions in ways that limit the generalizability of some of our re- a field differ by gender).34 We then tested whether the factor Field- sults. Second, our results are based on self-reported responses, so they SpecificAbilityBelief, which measures the perceived field-specific ability may not always accurately gauge students’ attitudes, and we were un- beliefs about philosophy, affects IdentificationWithPhilosophy differently able to examine the impact of factors like implicit bias or stereotype for women than for men, and we found that it did.35 For both men and threat. Third, we cannot rule out some important hypotheses based women, positive scores in (or brilliance-based) Field-SpecificAbilityBelief on this study alone. For example, we do not know whether increasing had a significant negative correlation with IdentificationWithPhilosophy, the number of women instructors would encourage women students to continue taking philosophy courses, because there were only a few 34. We conducted a linear regression with gender as a predictor of the five women instructors in our sample. We also cannot determine whether questions that make up the factor Field-SpecificAbilityBelief, and found that gen- students enter the college philosophy classroom with a schema clash der did not significantly predict Field-SpecificAbilityBelief (β = −.014, t(740) = −3.047, p = .697). 35. To test for an interaction effect of gender and Field-SpecificAbilityBelief on IdentificationWithPhilosophy, we conducted a multiple regression with 36. We conducted a multiple regression with Field-SpecificAbilityBelief as a pre- gender, Field-SpecificAbilityBelief, and the product of gender and Field- dictor of IdentificationWithPhilosophy for men only, and then we conducted the SpecificAbilityBelief as predictors of factor IdentificationWithPhilosophy. We found same analysis again for women only. For men, Field-SpecificAbilityBelief was that the product of gender and Field-SpecificAbilityBelief was a significant pre- a significant predictor of IdentificationWithPhilosophy (β = −.188, t(343) = dictor of factor 1 (β = −.346, t(737) = −3.047, p = .002), which suggests an −3.548, p < .001). For women, Field-SpecificAbilityBelief was a much stronger interaction effect of gender and Field-SpecificAbilityBelief on IdentificationWith- significant predictor of IdentificationWithPhilosophy (β = −.403, t(394) = Philosophy. −8.749, p < .001).

philosophers’ imprint - 17 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? between ’philosopher’ and ’woman’, because our survey was only and Turri, 2016). We suspect that encouraging and highlighting more given once at the end of an introductory philosophy course; this interdisciplinary philosophical projects and philosophy’s relevance to schema clash and some of the other problems leading women away a wide range of problems will make it a more attractive subject for from philosophy may occur even before any introductory courses most students and will make more women want to major in philoso- (Baron et al., 2015; Dobbs, 2015). Finally, we did not run a climate phy. survey in introductory courses in other disciplines, so we cannot know Similarly, students may find philosophy more attractive if they how many of the gender differences we found might also occur in come to see it as practical and useful. Our study provides evidence that these other courses, even in fields where women go on to major at many students worry that philosophy is not a practical major (Section much higher rates. Because selecting a major is typically a zero-sum 4.4). By including a 10-minute presentation about what students who game, it is important to understand what other fields may be doing major in philosophy can go on to do, we increased students’ perception (e.g., in their introductory courses) that lead women to choose them as of the usefulness of a philosophy degree and their identification with majors, including cases where women choose those majors over phi- the field. While we did not find that this presentation alone affected the losophy. Further studies aiming to build on our results, correct these gender gap in students’ willingness to continue in philosophy, it may limitations, and test other hypotheses are crucial as we aim to under- boost the raw number of women majoring in philosophy. When com- stand why philosophy has a disproportionately low number of women bined with other interventions to improve the philosophy classroom, undergraduate majors and what might be done about it. there may be a decrease in the gender gap. Future research should Our study does, however, provide evidence that women’s experi- examine the effects of multiple interventions, since lone interventions ences in and perceptions of introductory courses in philosophy help are unlikely to single-handedly close the gender gap. In addition to to explain why women do not continue in philosophy. Given the low including such a presentation in introductory philosophy courses, de- proportion of women majors across the country, we expect that the sig- partments should consider more guidance for majors on preparing nificant gender differences we found in sense of belonging and iden- themselves for finding and applying for various careers and gradu- tification with philosophy after the Introduction to Philosophy course ate schools. Philosophy departments should also evaluate the ways will generalize (Section 4.1). Our study also provides evidence for a that the philosophy major, its value, and its practical applications are number of plausible factors for the early loss of women in philoso- presented on the department’s website.37 phy while casting doubt on some other hypotheses. In what follows, Our results also suggest that efforts should be made to improve we will offer suggestions for improving the philosophy classroom in women’s sense that they belong in philosophy (Section 4.2). Re- ways that may encourage women who are interested in philosophy to searchers in other fields have suggested some methods to improve stu- continue taking philosophy courses. dents’ sense of belonging and identification with a subject. Cheryan Because our study found that women are less likely than men to en- joy the use of thought experiments as philosophical methodology (Sec- 37. See note 5. Calhoun( 2015) argues that the types of jobs departments sug- gest philosophy majors are preparing for are themselves gendered — usu- tion 4.3), it might be appropriate for instructors to incorporate a wider ally managerial or administrative positions. She suggests instead that more variety of philosophical methodologies and sources in their classes departments include job options such as parenting, teaching, writing, and activism on their websites. See, for instance, https://www.hofstra.edu/ (e.g., experimental philosophy, scientific readings relevant to philoso- Academics/Colleges/hclas/PHI/phi_phidegree.html and http:// phy, and perhaps also relevant literature or media articles) (Buckwalter whatcanidowiththismajor.com/major/philosophy/.

philosophers’ imprint - 18 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? et al.( 2013) found that physical cues can communicate to women future philosophy courses (Section 4.6), which may be explained by the whether or not they belong in the classroom. One way to promote small number of women instructors in our sample. However, Cheryan feelings of belonging among women would be to make sure that de- et al.( 2013) also found that (at least in computer science) the gender partment fliers, websites, promotional materials, etc. show demograph- of peer role models did not influence the recruitment of women com- ically diverse people (Calhoun, 2009). It is also important to use a va- puter science majors. Rather, for women who were not already iden- riety of examples that are not gender-specific, especially in Intro, logic, tified with a given field, exposure to non-stereotypical role models in and critical thinking courses. Instructors could incorporate a wider set the field — regardless of gender — significantly impacted women’s of examples dealing with non-gendered popular topics, like current interest in the field. So, women exposed to peer role models interested political decisions and comedy movies, instead of using examples that in non-computer-science-stereotypical shows or movies (e.g., American are stereotyped as appealing more to men than to women (e.g., video Beauty vs. Star Wars) were more interested in taking computer science games, science fiction movies, sports). courses, and their sense of belonging in the field was improved, com- It is also important to encourage students to focus on what they pared to women exposed to stereotypical computer science majors. If value and consider unique about themselves (Gresky et al., 2005). Cheryan and colleagues’ findings hold for philosophy as well, then this Value affirmation exercises can reduce the risk of stereotype threat and suggests that male philosophy instructors can be just as influential and increase the sense of belonging in a field for women and minority stu- supportive for the women students in their classes as female philoso- dents (Cohen et al., 2006). For example, Walton et al.( 2015) provided phy instructors, and hence increase the recruitment of women into the incoming engineering students with stories from upper-level engineer- field. It also suggests that women philosophy professors need not be ing students about how they learned to find balance between their assigned to teach introductory courses or spend large amounts of time academic and social lives as well as how to incorporate projects they mentoring women students in order to decrease the gender gap, which identified with into their everyday lives. They then asked students to would relieve this potential burden on women faculty members. How- apply the upper-level students’ messages to their own lives and then ever, other evidence suggests that the number of women leaders and each write a personal letter to a future incoming engineering student. course instructors to whom students are exposed (at a women’s college Walton et al. found that this value affirmation exercise decreased the vs. a coed college) affects students’ automatic gender stereotypes (Das- gap in women’s and men’s first-year GPA. Exercises like these, or other gupta and Asgari, 2004). In fact, students in classes that were taught interventions to increase students’ sense of belonging, might similarly by male faculty members in male-dominated disciplines experienced improve performance and retention in philosophy, especially among an increase in stereotypic beliefs only at coed colleges. Both studies women and minorities. may be consistent with our results, as well as the Paxton, Figdor, and One way to increase sense of belonging is to ensure that students Tiberius( 2012) finding that the proportion of women faculty members have role models they identify with. The lack of women philosophy in a department positively correlates with the proportion of women instructors may discourage women students from feeling they belong majors. Having a good proportion of women faculty and instructors in philosophy. We find it plausible that increasing the proportion of may improve the retention of women students in the major, while the women teaching philosophy will increase the proportion of women ma- gender of Intro instructors may be neutral with respect to recruitment joring in philosophy (see below). However, we did not find evidence of women students. that the gender of instructor impacts women’s intentions to enroll in Women may also identify more with philosophy if they are exposed

philosophers’ imprint - 19 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? to more women philosophers in reading and discussion. Though our faced with challenging problems and tend to lose confidence when study did not find that a small boost in the proportion of women au- solving them. Other work suggests that appropriate framing of critical thors on introductory syllabi increased female students’ intentions to feedback (i.e., as reflecting the instructor’s high standards and their continue taking philosophy courses (Section 4.6), combining this inter- confidence in students’ abilities to meet those standards) can help im- vention with other interventions may alleviate a schema clash between prove effort and performance (Cohen and Steele, 2002; Yeager et al., ’woman’ and ’philosopher’. It may also require a more significant in- 2014). crease in the proportion of women authors to have this effect. Given Bian et al. (ms.) suggest that instructors should be aware of the the textbook ratios presented in AppendixD, it may be difficult to ways in which they can communicate fixed-mindset messages, espe- create Intro syllabi that approach a balance between male and female cially when using words such as ’brilliant’ or ’genius’ as praise. Some authors when instructors use textbooks. The 20% figure may simply be philosophers have already suggested that philosophy currently has a insufficient to alter the perception, especially by women, that philoso- “genius” culture built around praising those students and philosophers phy is male-dominated, in both its historical and contemporary canon who think quickly on their feet, know the philosophical jargon, or are (note that women continued to disagree with Q27, while men’s mean able to phrase their questions in particular ways (see Schwitzgebel, response was at the midpoint). Further, when women authors made 2010 for reflections on “seeming smart”; Jennings, 2012 on “genius”; up only 10% of authors assigned, all students felt that there was not a and Schliesser, 2013 on “boy-wonders”). If such language and stereo- fair proportion of women authors. So, many students may prefer to see types can be kept out of the Intro classroom, it might prevent some more women authors assigned in their philosophy courses. Instructors women from feeling less comfortable or less competent than they actu- should also consider ways to add diverse authors to their syllabi in ally are. In any case, the empirical data from our study, reinforcing that order to present philosophy as relevant to a wider range of students. of Leslie et al.( 2015) and others, suggests that preventing students in Another factor that may diminish students’ identification with phi- philosophy classes from developing brilliance-based FABs is one way losophy is the overwhelming prevalence of the belief that philosophy to prevent women from leaving the field. Working to counteract these requires innate talents or brilliance, as compared to other disciplines beliefs about philosophy among the general population will also help (Leslie et al., 2015). We found support for this hypothesis, and we prevent women from feeling they don’t belong in philosophy before found that the negative effect of brilliance-based FABs on identifica- they even take any courses in it (Dougherty et al., 2015). tion with philosophy was more significant in women than men (Sec- While our study is an important first step in examining and address- tion 4.7). There are a number of relatively easy ways philosophers can ing the gender underrepresentation in philosophy, there are a number counteract the message that philosophy requires brilliance as opposed of opportunities for further research. Saul( 2013) states that she is ex- to hard work, and these strategies will benefit most students in phi- amining the prevalence of stereotype threat in philosophy. If she or losophy courses, not just women. Dweck( 2008) reports that teaching others find evidence that women face stereotype threat in the philoso- students that their brains are like muscles that gain strength through phy classroom and as a result underperform, then this could explain practice can be effective in closing the gender gap in math performance. our finding of a gender difference in the discrepancy between a stu- Dweck also emphasizes the importance of praising students based on dent’s overall GPA and their grade in Intro. As other departments in their effort and strategy rather than innate intelligence when solving the U.S. and in other countries empirically explore the factors driving problems. Students praised for their intelligence have difficulty when the underrepresentation of women in philosophy at their own institu-

philosophers’ imprint - 20 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? tions, a more complete picture of the problem should arise (Aymelek, ophy majors remains stagnant at less than one-third. Furthermore, we 2015; Chan, Doggett, and Sirkel, Chan et al.; Dougherty et al., 2015). As think majoring in philosophy can be useful and worthwhile for many this picture develops, proposed and tested interventions will be very women undergraduates, the vast majority of whom would not go on important in addressing underrepresentation. Beyond quantitative sur- to graduate school in philosophy. Hence, our field should avoid turn- veys and experiments, it would be beneficial to engage in serious qual- ing women away from philosophy for bad reasons — for instance, by itative research to gather testimonial evidence from undergraduates in over-emphasizing particular methodologies, by instilling a lack of con- the philosophy classroom, especially women who choose not to take fidence in women, by engendering the idea that philosophy requires any more philosophy courses. As we gather more evidence about stu- abilities that cannot be developed with practice, by promoting a gen- dents’ experiences in the undergraduate philosophy classroom across dered schema of philosophy, and so on. We certainly do not advocate different kinds of universities, we can build a more complete picture changes that would decrease the number of men who want to major in of which factors influence women’s decisions not to take more philos- philosophy. Rather, our hope is to find ways to improve introductory ophy classes after introductory courses and begin to address them. courses in philosophy that would keep it at least as attractive to men while making it more attractive to women. We think this goal is both 6. Conclusion worthwhile and achievable. In this paper we have taken initial steps in studying some of the po- tential problems that lead women disproportionately to say goodbye Acknowledgements to philosophy after being introduced to it and in offering some poten- We are incredibly grateful for the support and participation of the fac- tial solutions. One of our main goals is to encourage others to use our ulty members — particularly Tim O’Keefe, Sandy Dwyer, and George methods and perhaps some of our survey materials, and to develop Rainbolt — and the graduate student instructors at Georgia State Uni- new methods, to study these issues, including more study of what versity. We thank Casey Landers and Jay Spitzley for helping to run works and doesn’t work in other fields. Ideally, philosophers will begin the climate survey. We thank Jason Shepard for helpful comments to experiment with new syllabi, assignments, and teaching methods in concerning statistical analyses. We thank the audiences at: the Im- their philosophy courses to encourage and inspire more students, es- plicit Bias, Philosophy and Psychology conference at the University pecially those currently underrepresented in philosophy, to recognize of Sheffield and the Leverhulme Trust, which funded this conference; the value of philosophy. the Diversity in Philosophy conference at the University of Dayton; For those, like us, who think that it is not good for the students in the 2013 Society for Philosophy and Psychology conference at Brown our courses or for philosophy as a field that fewer than a quarter of University; the 2014 Central American Philosophical Association meet- philosophy professors and graduate students are women, it would be ing and the Committee on the Status of Women, which sponsored beneficial to increase the proportion of women who apply to graduate the panel; the University of North Carolina Workshop on the Recruit- school, who enter the professoriate, and who publish in philosophy. ment and Retention of Minority Undergraduates in Philosophy; and While a variety of initiatives — including preventing all forms of ha- Georgia State University. For helpful discussion and/or comments rassment and discrimination — are required to prevent women from on earlier drafts, we thank Crystal Aymelek, Frédéric-Ismaël Banville, leaving the field at later stages, it will be impossible to increase the Guillaume Beaulac, Susan Blake, Stephen Bloch-Schulman, Liam Kofi proportion of women philosophers if the proportion of women philos- Bright, Stuart Brock, Wesley Buckwalter, Sin Yee Chan, David Colaço,

philosophers’ imprint - 21 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Chris Dobbs, Tyler Doggett, Tom Dougherty, Carrie Figdor, Stacey a particular question). Significance (Two-tailed) of t-tests comparing Goguen, Jill Gordon, Josh Hancox, Carole Lee, Yena Lee, Sarah-Jane the means of women and men appears on the second line in italics. Leslie, Mariska Leunissen, Shane Reuter, Jenny Saul, Eric Schwitzgebel, The statistic for effect size is Cohen’s d. One way of interpreting Riin Sirkel, Quayshawn Spencer, Jordan Taylor, John Turri, Virginia these effect sizes is that an effect size of |d| ≥ .8 indicates a large Valian, Manuel Vargas, Robin Zheng, and two anonymous reviewers effect, |d| ≥ .5 indicates a medium effect, and |d| ≥ .2 indicates a small for this journal. Thank you to Nora Boyd, Julia Bursten, and especially effect (Cohen, 1992). In the table below, positive values of d indicate Mike Miller for LaTeX help. that women scored higher than men on some question, and negative values of d indicate the opposite. Appendix A. Climate survey questions, mean response values by gender, standard error (SE), effect size, and statistical significance of p < t-tests of gender differences in mean response values * .05 ** p < .01 For all questions except the last, we asked students to rate their agree- *** p < .00093 ment with statements on the following scale (hence, mean response values below 3 indicate some degree of disagreement, while mean re- sponse values above 3 indicate some degree of agreement): (For the 2013 survey, this is the Sidak-corrected value for multi- ple comparisons, because there were 55 questions analyzed for gender differences; for the 2012 results with 35 questions, *** represents the 1 = strongly disagree Sidak-corrected value of p < .0015). 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree

For questions 1–55, the mean responses, standard error (SE), and ef- fect size from the 2013 survey appear on the first line. Analyses for this survey were carried out on the 776 participants who reported gender (413 women and 363 men, though some tests included fewer partici- pants if some did not answer a particular question). Significance (Two- tailed) of t-tests comparing the means of women and men appears on the first line. For questions 1–34 (and Q55), the results from the 2012 survey are on the second line in italics. Analyses for this survey were carried out on the 708 participants who reported gender (385 women and 323 men, though some tests included fewer participants if some did not answer

philosophers’ imprint - 22 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Table 1: Survey questions, mean response values by gender, standard error (SE), effect size, and statistical significance of t-test of gender differences in mean response value. First line is 2013 result; second Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- (italicized) line is 2012 result. Size d Tailed) 7. I think I would 2.939 0.059 Men Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- have a lot in 2.802 0.063 -0.308 0.00002* Size d Tailed) common with a 2.595 0.055 -0.225 0.00294** 1. Philosophy, as 3.843 0.055 typical philosophy Women 2.548 0.057 Men introduced in this 3.858 0.058 -0.231 0.0013** major. course, was what I 3.581 0.06 -0.14 0.06146 8. I have a lot in 3.2 0.049 Women Men expected it to be. 3.696 0.063 common with the 3.102 0.053 -0.235 0.00118** 3.956 0.053 other students in 2.978 0.047 0.035 0.063769 Men Women 2. I enjoyed this 3.926 0.061 -0.345 0.00000*** this class. 3.135 0.046 course. 3.569 0.06 -0.201 0.00771** 9. I have a lot in 3.025 0.051 Women Men 3.696 0.06 common with my 3.087 0.049 -0.288 0.00007*** 4.022 0.052 philosophy 2.741 0.049 -0.227 0.00276** Men Women 3. Philosophy is 3.975 0.063 -0.375 0.00000*** instructor. 2.867 0.049 interesting to me. 3.613 0.058 -0.243 0.00127*** 10. I think that 3.804 0.053 Women Men 3.688 0.063 people like me can 3.663 0.063 -0.291 0.00006*** 4. The topics that 3.689 0.055 be successful in 3.494 0.055 -0.19 0.01223 Men Women philosophers 3.69 0.063 -0.235 0.00116** philosophy. 3.452 0.056 discuss are relevant 3.433 0.055 -0.248 0.00108*** 2.831 0.065 Women 11. I plan to take Men to my life. 3.403 0.06 2.814 0.074 -0.33 0.00000*** another philosophy 3.45 0.056 2.416 0.062 -0.283 0.0002*** Men class after this one. Women 5. I think I am good 3.401 0.059 -0.351 0.00000*** 2.435 0.069 at philosophy. 3.063 0.056 -0.235 0.00197** 2.371 0.064 Women 12. I would Men 3.149 0.056 2.251 0.071 -0.352 0.00000*** consider majoring 6. I think that most 2.789 0.054 1.954 0.057 -0.258 0.0007*** Men in philosophy. Women of the people in this 2.792 0.061 0.203 0.00000*** 1.935 0.059 class are better at 3.007 0.055 0.175 0.02078* philosophy than I Women 2.979 0.053 am.

philosophers’ imprint - 23 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Size d Tailed) Size d Tailed) 13. I felt 3.881 0.053 17. I felt that the 4.745 0.028 Men comfortable asking 3.87 0.06 -0.276 0.00013*** instructor treated Men 4.804 0.032 and answering 3.58 0.058 -0.19 0.0116* all students with -0.081 0.25892 questions during Women 3.654 0.061 equal respect, 4.697 0.033 -0.087 0.25067 class. regardless of Women 4.753 0.031 14. I felt 3.939 0.052 students’ gender. Men comfortable 3.978 0.058 -0.225 0.00175** 18. I felt that the 4.765 0.026 expressing my 3.697 0.057 -0.214 0.00461** instructor treated Men 4.827 0.03 opinions in this Women 3.745 0.058 all students with -0.093 0.19423 class. equal respect, 4.71 0.032 -0.087 0.24807 15. I felt 4.238 0.045 regardless of Women 4.779 0.028 comfortable Men 4.232 0.052 students’ race. approaching the -0.172 0.01793* 19. I felt that the 2.233 0.053 Men instructor to ask 4.073 0.052 -0.058 0.44213 classroom 2.3 0.048 0.095 0.18885 questions during 4.177 0.05 discussion was too 2.328 0.048 -0.089 0.24395 Women Women class or during combative. 2.219 0.049 office hours. 20. I felt that the 4.322 0.039 Men 16. I felt that the 4.571 0.039 students in the class 4.246 0.042 -0.09 0.21261 instructor made 4.693 0.037 treated each other 4.25 0.042 0.018 0.81444 Men Women efforts to get all with respect. 4.26 0.04 students involved -0.007 0.92466 21. I felt that the 4.539 0.032 Men in discussions, 4.566 0.037 -0.035 0.64025 male students 4.554 0.036 -0.141 0.04917* without regard to 4.67 0.034 treated the female 4.445 0.035 -0.21 0.00567** Women the students’ race students with Women 4.413 0.035 or gender. respect.

philosophers’ imprint - 24 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Size d Tailed) Size d Tailed) 22. I felt that the 4.486 0.038 28. Of the authors 2.875 0.051 Men Men female students 4.542 0.036 -0.053 0.4628 we read in this 2.495 0.056 -0.337 0.00000*** treated the male 4.449 0.034 -0.131 0.08241 class, a fair 2.54 0.05 -0.241 0.0015*** students with Women 4.457 0.032 proportion were Women 2.252 0.051 respect. non-white authors. 23. I felt that the 4.424 0.04 29. It seems that 2.596 0.058 Men instructor took my 4.495 0.043 -0.144 0.04602* people are just Men 2.586 0.063 comments and 4.308 0.049 -0.122 0.10807 either good or bad 0.265 0.00024*** Women questions seriously. 4.401 0.04 at philosophy and 0.186 0.01421* 4.208 0.049 there is not much 2.91 0.063 24. I felt that the Men Women 4.337 0.05 -0.03 0.68143 that they can do to 2.801 0.06 instructor graded 4.18 0.048 -0.002 0.98177 change that. me fairly. Women 4.336 0.045 30. This class has 3.972 0.052 Men 25. In this class I 3.271 0.048 helped me improve 3.985 0.048 -0.238 0.00099** Men often had different 3.195 0.055 -0.016 0.82287 my ability to 3.724 0.054 -0.153 0.04209* Women opinions from the 3.256 0.049 -0.044 0.56224 evaluate arguments. 3.842 0.051 Women instructor. 3.515 0.051 31. I feel confident 3.903 0.054 Men 26. In this class I 3.465 0.047 in my ability to talk 3.864 0.056 -0.413 0.00000*** Men often had different 3.446 0.056 -0.126 0.0832 about philosophical 3.442 0.059 -0.297 0.00009*** opinions from most 3.349 0.047 -0.263 0.00051*** issues with other Women of the other Women 3.184 0.05 students. 3.553 0.055 students. 27. Of the authors 3.008 0.058 32. I feel confident 3.734 0.058 Men Men we read in this 2.567 0.055 -0.437 0.00000*** in my ability to 3.789 0.06 -0.284 0.00009*** class, a fair 2.523 0.055 -0.303 0.00007*** perform well on 3.416 0.056 -0.319 0.00003*** Women proportion were Women 2.233 0.056 papers and exams 3.43 0.06 women authors. in class.

philosophers’ imprint - 25 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Size d Tailed) Size d Tailed) 37. I would like 3.033 0.056 33. No matter how 4.127 0.048 Men Men philosophy more if good or bad you 4.229 0.051 it used scientific -0.27 0.00019*** are at philosophy, -0.147 0.04286* experiments to test Women 2.735 0.056 you can always get 3.985 0.051 -0.181 0.01709* predictions. better by working Women 4.055 0.051 38. I feel like there hard. are no objective 3.092 0.061 34. I think 2.994 0.063 Men Men answers to 0.073 0.31317 philosophy would 2.755 0.068 -0.09 0.21624 philosophical be a useful major 2.885 0.062 -0.18 0.01702* Women questions and that 3.176 0.057 for getting a job. 2.54 0.059 Women frustrates me. 35. I have strong 3.556 0.053 Men 39. I am opinions about the uncomfortable with Men 2.303 0.058 philosophical issues -0.235 0.00121* the confrontational 0.138 0.05595 we discussed in this Women 3.307 0.054 nature of some class. philosophical Women 2.461 0.058 36. I like the discussions. method 40. I am satisfied 3.524 0.06 philosophers use of Men 3.869 0.054 Men with the grade I -0.178 0.00138* testing our expect to get in this 3.308 0.063 intuitions in -0.211 0.0036** Women class. response to 41. It is important 4.164 0.052 ’thought Men to me to major in a experiments’ Women 3.648 0.053 subject that I think 0.087 0.23121 (imaginary will be useful in Women 4.252 0.052 situations). getting a job.

philosophers’ imprint - 26 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Size d Tailed) 42. My family 2.773 0.066 Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Men would disapprove if Size d Tailed) I told them I plan to -0.172 0.01743* 46. I think that major in Women 2.554 0.064 when it comes to 3.546 0.053 Men philosophy. philosophy, the 43. Personally, I most important -0.029 0.6918 think that being a Men 3.479 0.056 factors for success top scholar of -0.032 0.65623 are motivation and philosophy requires sustained effort; Women 3.517 0.049 a special aptitude 3.444 0.056 raw ability is Women that just can’t be secondary. taught. 47. Because of the 44. I think that if number of women 2.437 0.052 Men you want to 3.097 0.056 authors we read in Men succeed in this class, I feel like 0.126 0.08013 philosophy, hard -0.023 0.74626 philosophy is a work alone just subject more 2.574 0.058 Women won’t cut it; you 3.071 0.058 appropriate for Women need to have an men than women. innate gift or talent. 48. I’d guess that 45. I think that with there are about as Men 3.133 0.055 the right amount of Men 3.346 0.058 many female -0.377 0.00000*** effort and 0.076 0.29568 philosophy majors dedication, anyone as male philosophy Women 2.735 0.053 can become a top 3.431 0.057 majors. Women scholar in philosophy.

philosophers’ imprint - 27 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- Size d Tailed) Question Gender Mean SE Effect Sig. (Two- 49. I’d guess there Size d Tailed) are about as many Men 3.072 0.051 53. I would have female philosophy -0.226 0.00178** enjoyed this class 3.474 0.055 professors as female Men more if we had professors in other Women 2.846 0.051 more discussion of -0.013 0.86049 fields. how the 50. I would have philosophical issues 3.459 0.059 enjoyed this class Men 2.839 0.054 Women relate to real-world more if there had -0.103 0.15612 problems. been more chances 54. I would have for me to express Women 2.732 0.053 enjoyed this class 2.809 0.063 my opinions. Men more if we had read 51. I would have more 0.186 0.01032* enjoyed this class Men 2.718 0.053 non-philosophy more if there had -0.068 0.34946 texts (such as been more chances literature, Women 3.041 0.064 for me to hear my 2.649 0.052 Women newspaper articles, classmates express etc.). their opinions. 55. Expected grade 4.218 0.037 52. I would have in this class? Men 4.230 0.043 enjoyed this class Men 2.84 0.062 (5=A-range; -0.089 0.24587 more if there had -0.12 0.095 4=B-range; 4.156 0.038 -0.089 0.23242 been more chances 3=C-range; Women 4.162 0.038 for me to work with 2.694 0.062 Women 2=D-range; 1=F). my classmates in small groups.

philosophers’ imprint - 28 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Appendix B. Factor analysis |r| = 0.5 or greater. Table 2 below lists the 33 questions that loaded To explore whether the questions from the 2013 climate survey might onto one of these seven factors (21 questions did not load onto any of measure a smaller number of common variables, we conducted an ex- the seven factors with correlations of |r| = 0.5 or greater). ploratory factor analysis on questions 1–54 of the survey (see Fabrigar Based on the questions correlated with each factor, we interpreted et al., 1999; Nadelhoffer et al., 2014 for reviews). Factor analysis is a these factors as (see Section 4): method of finding a relatively small number of not-directly-measured 1. IdentificationWithPhilosophy (i.e., latent) variables that account for the variation of a larger set of 2. PerceivedInstructorFairness measures. We used the generalized least squares method of factor ex- 3. PerceivedStudentRespect traction to avoid relying on the assumption that all communalities 4. AlternativeClassroomPreference were equal to 1, and we used the direct oblimin method of factor rota- 5. ComfortSpeaking tion because we did not expect factors to be uncorrelated. 6. Field-SpecificAbilityBelief and We conducted this factor analysis several times before settling on 7. GenderAndRaceGapBelief. the number of factors to extract. First, we extracted all factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which left us with 14 factors. However, Agreement with the 11 questions that loaded on factor 1 seems to most of these factors explained very little variance in the questions, express a positive attitude towards and identification with philosophy, and many of these factors had only one or two questions load onto so we interpreted factor 1 as a measure of IdentificationWithPhilosophy. them with |r| greater than 0.4. So we decided that we should extract (For all factors, we also interpret lower response values to indicate the fewer than 14 factors. converse attitude — e.g., a negative attitude toward philosophy for A common method for deciding how many factors to extract is factor 1.) There was a significant gender difference in factor 1, with to find a cusp on a scree plot. However, there were two noticeable women agreeing less than men (p < 0.001). cusps on the scree plot of the eigenvalues for these factors. One cusp Agreement with the three questions that loaded onto factor 2 seems suggested we should extract 10 factors, and the other cusp suggested to express the belief that the instructor treated students fairly, regard- we should extract six factors. Rather than choose between extracting 10 less of students’ gender or race. There was no gender difference in this and extracting six factors, we conducted this factor analysis five more factor, PerceivedInstructorFairness (p = 0.282). times, extracting 10, nine, eight, seven, and six factors to see how the Agreement with the three questions that loaded onto factor 3 seems factors resulting from each of these analyses would look. to express the belief that students in the class treated each other with Finally, we decided that seven factors were the right number to ex- respect. There was no gender difference in this factor, PerceivedStuden- tract. We decided on seven factors for three reasons. First, each of these tRespect (p = 0.068). seven factors had correlations of |r| = 0.5 or greater with at least some Agreement with the four questions that loaded onto factor 4 seems questions. Second, no questions loaded onto more than one of these to express the preference that the instructor had taught the course factors with correlations of |r| = 0.5 or greater. Third, each of these fac- differently, especially to include more discussion among the students. tors had a highly plausible conceptual interpretation, described below, There was no gender difference in this factor, AlternativeClassroomPref- based on the content of the questions that loaded with correlations of erence (p = 0.84). Agreement with the two questions that loaded onto factor 5 seems

philosophers’ imprint - 29 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? to express feeling comfortable speaking up in class. There was a gender Questions Factors and Correlations (r) difference in this factor, ComfortSpeaking, with women agreeing less 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 than men (p = 0.002). Q31 Confident in ability to .599 Higher agreement on Q43 and Q44 and lower agreement on Q33, talk phil Q45, and Q46 loaded onto factor 6, and these responses seem to ex- Q9 Lots in common with .583 phil instructor press belief in brilliance-based and innate field-specific ability beliefs Q10 People like me can be .564 (FAB) regarding philosophy. There was no gender difference in this successful in phil factor, Field-SpecificAbilityBelief (p = 0.697). Q30 Class helped improve .505 Agreement with the four questions that loaded onto factor 7 seems my ability to express belief in disproportionate gender and race representation Q17 Instructor respect re- -.993 in philosophy. There was a gender difference in this factor, GenderAn- gardless of gender dRaceGapBelief, with women agreeing more than men (p < 0.001). Q18 Instructor respect re- -.886 gardless of race Q16 Instructor involved all -.586 Table 2: Questions and correlations for factors. students Q21 Men treated women -.900 Questions Factors and Correlations (r) with respect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q22 Women treated men -.863 Q3 Philosophy is interest- .804 with respect ing Q20 Students treated each -.765 Q7 Lots in common with .767 other with respect typical phil major Q50 Enjoyed more if more .753 Q12 Would consider phil .747 chance to express major opinions Q11 Plan to take another .738 Q51 Enjoyed more if more .743 phil class chance to hear others’ opinions Q2 I enjoyed this course .723 Q52 Enjoyed more if more .567 Q5 I am good at phil .679 work in small groups Q4 Phil topics relevant to .611 Q53 Enjoyed more if re- .547 my life lated to real-world problems Q14 Comfortable express- .887 ing opinions in class Q13 Comfortable ask- .870 ing and answering questions Q44 Need innate talent to .730 succeed philosophers’ imprint - 30 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Questions Factors and Correlations (r) other grades, we calculated a variable called Grade Discrepancy by sub- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 tracting each student’s overall Grade Point Average (GPA), including Q45 With effort anyone can -.727 courses taken after Intro, from the numerical value of that student’s In- be top scholar in phil tro grade. Hence, a positive Grade Discrepancy entails an Intro grade Q43 Top scholar in phil re- .606 that is better than the student’s overall GPA, while a negative Grade quires special aptitude Discrepancy indicates an Intro grade that is worse than the student’s Q46 Motivation, sustained -.583 effort to succeed overall GPA. Because students typically get lower grades in their upper- Q33 Can get better in phil -.506 level courses than their lower-level courses such as Intro, there was a by working hard positive Grade Discrepancy across all students (M = 0.25, SE = 0.021). Q28 Fair proportion of non- .694 However, women had lower grade discrepancies than men,39 which white authors is unsurprising given that their Intro grades do not differ from men’s Q27 Fair proportion of .663 even though women had significantly better overall GPAs than men.40 women authors This finding suggests that more women than men are receiving lower Q48 As many female as .570 grades in Intro than they are used to receiving in their courses in gen- male phil majors eral, presumably including many intro-level courses in other fields be- Q49 As many female profs .542 in phil as other fields ing considered as potential majors. To see if this difference in Grade Discrepancy helped to explain why women are less likely than men to continue in philosophy, we Appendix C. Grades study conducted a mediation analysis with Grade Discrepancy as a mediator At our request, Georgia State University provided us with data on of the effect of gender on another variable, Continuing in Philosophy, all students who took Introduction to Philosophy (Intro) from the fall representing whether a student completed at least one more philoso- semester of 2009 to the fall semester of 2013 (13 semesters). The Uni- phy class after Intro. We found that Grade Discrepancy is a partial me- versity provided each student’s gender, overall grade point average, diator of the effect of gender on Continuing in Philosophy, so Grade grade in Intro, and philosophy courses taken after Intro. Our sample Discrepancy partly explains why women are less likely than men to 41 included 8,918 students for whom gender status was available (4,655 continue in philosophy. women and 4,263 men). First, we looked at gender differences in Intro grades. We found 39. For women, M = .20, SE = 0.028. For men, M = .30, SE = 0.030. This difference was significant (t(6676) = 2.574, p < .01). 38 no significant difference in the grades of men and women. To mea- 40. For women, M = 2.30, SE = 0.022. For men, M = 2.19, SE = 0.023. This sure how much each student’s Intro grade differed from that student’s difference was significant (t(7281.035) = −3.544, p < .001). 41. In step 1 of the Baron and Kenny method, we conducted a logistic regres- sion and found that gender was a significant predictor of Continuing in Philos- ophy (exp(B)= .591, Wald(1)=38.253, p < .001). In step 2, we conducted a linear 38. We converted letter grades to the numerical values according to the same regression and found that gender was a significant predictor of Grade Discrep- rules used for calculating GPA (A = 4.0, A- = 3.7, etc.). For women, M = 2.46, ancy (β = −.031, t(6677) = −2.574, p = .01). In step 3, we conducted a multiple SE = 0.018. For men, M = 2.49, SE = 0.019. This difference was not significant logistic regression and found that gender (exp(B) = 0.636, Wald(1) = 20.310, (t(8875) = 0.980, p = .327). p < .001) and Grade Discrepancy (exp(B) = 1.174, Wald(1) = 31.105, p < .001)

philosophers’ imprint - 31 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

Appendix D. Table with proportion of women authors in Introduc- Table 3: Proportion of women authors in introductory philosophy text- tion to Philosophy textbooks books. We examined 18 Introduction to Philosophy textbooks that were pub- lished between 2000 and 2011. These books were selected in part be- cause many of them are widely used in introductory courses and in part because they were available to us in the department at GSU. We tallied the number and percent of articles written by women and the percent of articles written by women about feminism, sexism, abortion, Articles Book Title by Women or feminist critiques of some area of philosophy. We counted each co- by Women Feminism, etc. Year Published Number of Total by Women about Percent of Articles Percent of Articles author separately and did not include any introductions written by the Number of Articles author of the book (for some textbooks this would have increased the percent of women authors). New and Old World Philoso- 2000 134 22 16.42 13.64 phy: Introductory Readings

Voices of Wisdom: A Mul- 2004 63 10 15.87 70 ticultural Philosophy Reader (5th Ed)

The Philosophical Journey: 2010 66 7 10.6 71.43 An Interactive Approach (5th Ed)

First Philosophy: Fundamen- 2002 50 5 10 60 tal Problems and Readings in Philosophy

Philosophy: A Text with Read- 2007 42 4 9.52 0 ings

Introducing Philosophy: A 2008 176 14 7.95 71.43 Text with Integrated Read- ings (9th Ed) were both significant predictors of Continuing in Philosophy. Since gender was still a significant predictor of Continuing in Philosophy when controlling for Exploring Philosophy: An In- 2011 105 8 7.62 37.5 Grade Discrepancy, Grade Discrepancy did not fully mediate the effect of gen- troductory Anthology (4th der on Continuing in Philosophy. Using the Sobel test, however, we did find that Grade Discrepancy was a significant partial mediator of the effect of gen- Ed) der on Continuing in Philosophy (z = −2.34107975, p = 0.019).

philosophers’ imprint - 32 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? Articles Book Title by Women by Women Feminism, etc. Year Published Number of Total by Women about Percent of Articles Percent of Articles Number of Articles

Doing Philosophy: An Intro- 2010 30 2 6.67 0 Articles Book Title by Women duction through Thought Ex- by Women Feminism, etc. Year Published Number of Total periments (4th Ed) by Women about Percent of Articles Percent of Articles Number of Articles Philosophy and Contempo- 2003 60 4 6.67 75 Reason and Responsibility: 2001 70 3 4.29 66.67 rary Issues (9th Ed) Readings in Some Basic Prob- Philosophy: The Quest for 2009 84 5 5.95 60 lems of Philosophy (11th Ed) Truth (7th Ed) Classics of Philosophy (3rd 2011 73 1 1.37 0 Introduction to Philosophy: 2010 70 4 5.71 25 Ed) Classical and Contemporary Philosophy: History and Prob- 2002 76 1 1.32 0 Readings (5th Ed) lems (6th Ed) Classic Philosophical Ques- 2000 56 3 5.36 100 Core Questions in Philoso- 2008 19 0 0 N/A tions (10th Ed) phy: A Text with Readings Great Philosophical Argu- 2011 80 4 5 75 (5th Ed) ments: An Introdcution to Total Percentages: 6.94 43.86 Philosophy

Philosophy for the 21st 2003 111 5 4.5 20 Century: A Comprehensive Reader

philosophers’ imprint - 33 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

References Inequities : The Case of Women in Philosophy. In F. Jenkins and Adleberg, T., M. Thompson, and E. Nahmias (2015). Do Men and K. Hutchinson (Eds.), Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?, Women have Different Philosophical Intuitions? Further Data. Philo- pp. 180–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press. sophical Psychology 28(5), 615–641. Bright, L. K., D. Malinksy, and M. Thompson (2015). Causally Inter- Antony, L. (2012). Different Voices or Perfect Storm: Why are There preting Intersectionality Theory. Philosophy of Science 83(1), 60–81. so Few Women in Philosophy? Journal of Social Philosophy 43(3), 227– Buckwalter, W. and S. Stich (2013). Gender and Philosophical Intuition. 255. In J. Knobe and S. Nichols (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy, Volume 2, Arcidiacono, P. (2004). Ability Sorting and the Returns to College Ma- pp. 307–346. Oxford University Press. jor. Journal of Econometrics 121(1–2), 343–375. Buckwalter, W. and J. Turri (2016). Perceived Weakness of Philosophi- Aymelek, C. N. L. (2015). Women in philosophy: A qualitative assess- cal Inquiry: a Comparison to Psychology. Philosophia. ment of experiences at the undergraduate level. PSU McNair Scholars Calhoun, C. (2009). The Undergraduate Pipeline Problem. Hypa- Online Journal 9(1). tia 24(2), 216–223. Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986). The Moderator–Mediator Vari- Calhoun, C. (2015). Precluded Interests. Hypatia 30(2), 475–485. able Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strate- Chan, S., T. Doggett, and R. Sirkel. Report on Gender and Philosophy gic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Enrollments at UVM. Psychology 51(6), 1173–1182. Chee, K. H., N. W. Pino, and W. L. Smith (2005). Gender differences Baron, S., T. Dougherty, and K. Miller (2015). Why is There Female in the academic ethic and academic achievement. College Student Under-representation Among Philosophy Majors? Evidence of a Pre- Journal 39(3), 604–618. university Effect. Ergo 2(14). Chernykhovskaya, Y. (ms). Why So Few Women Philosophers? Do Beggs, J. M., J. H. Bantham, and S. Taylor (2008). Distinguishing the Gender Differences in Philosophical Intuition Account for Women’s Factors Influencing College Students’ Choice of Major. College Stu- Underrepresentation in Philosophy Departments? Master’s thesis, dent Journal 42(2), 381–394. Rutgers University. Bian, L., A. Cimpian, and S. Leslie (ms.). ”You Need to be a Genius Cheryan, S., B. J. Drury, and M. Vichayapai (2013). Enduring influence to Do That!" Messages about Intellectual Talent Discourage Women of stereotypical computer science role models on women’s academic from Pursuing Educational and Professional Opportunities. aspirations. Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(1), 72–79. Blackwell, L. S., K. H. Trzesniewski, and C. S. Dweck (2007). Implicit Cheryan, S., V. C. Plaut, P. G. Davies, and C. M. Steele (2009). Ambient Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Belonging: How Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. Child Develop- Computer Science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6), ment 78(1), 246–263. 1045–1060. Botts, T. F., L. K. Bright, M. Cherry, G. Mallarangeng, and Q. Spencer Cohen, G. L., J. Garcia, N. Apfel, and A. Master (2006). Reducing the (2014). What is the State of Blacks in Philosophy? Critical Philosophy Racial Achievement Gap: a Social-psychological Intervention. Sci- of Race 2(2), 224–242. ence 313(5791), 1307–1310. Brennan, S. (2013). Rethinking the Moral Significance of Micro- Cohen, G. L. and C. Steele (2002). A Barrier of Mistrust: How Negative Stereotypes Affect Cross-race Mentoring. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improv-

philosophers’ imprint - 34 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

ing Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education, Healy, K. (2011). Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded in the U.S. pp. 305–331. Oxford: Academic Press. to Women in 2009, Selected Disciplines. Accessed at: http: Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1), 155–159. //kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2011/02/04/gender- Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the Career Choice Process: the Role divides-in-philosophy-and-other-disciplines/. of Biased Self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology 106(6), 1691– Jennings, C. D. (2012). Ugh, "Genius" Again? Accessed at: 1730. http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/10/carolyn-dicey- Dasgupta, N. and S. Asgari (2004). Seeing is Believing: Exposure to jennings-guest-post-ugh-genius-again.html. Counterstereotypic Women Leaders and its Effect on the Malleabil- Leslie, S., A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland (2015). Expectations ity of Automatic Gender Stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions Across Academic Disci- Psychology 40(5), 642–658. plines. Science 347(6219), 262–265. Department of Education (2013). National Center for Education Statis- Malgwi, C. A., M. A. Howe, and P. A. Burnaby (2005). Influences tics, Higher Education General Information Survey. on Students’ Choice of College Major. Journal of Education for Busi- Dobbs, C. (2015). Pre-College Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation ness 80(5), 275–282. in Philosophy. Master’s thesis, Georgia State University. Maloney, E. A., M. W. Schaeffer, and S. L. Beilock (2013). Mathemat- Dotson, K. (2011). Concrete Flowers: Contemplating the Profession of ics Anxiety and Stereotype Threat: Shared Mechanisms, Negative Philosophy. Hypatia 26(2), 403–409. Consequences and Promising Interventions. Research in Mathematics Dotson, K. (2012). How is this Paper Philosophy? Comparative Philoso- Education 15(2), 115–128. phy 3(1), 3–29. Masto, M. (2013). How Few Women Authors are There in Intro Dougherty, T., S. Baron, and K. Miller (2015). Why Do Female Students Philosophy Courses? Accessed at: http://www.newappsblog. Leave Philosophy? The Story from Sydney. Hypatia 30(2), 467–474. com/2013/06/how-few-women-authors-are-there-in- Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement. New intro-philosophy-courses-.html. York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Institute for Advanced McKinnon, R. (2014). Stereotype Threat and Attributional Ambiguity Study, Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. for Trans Women. Hypatia 29(4), 857–872. Fabrigar, L. R., D. T. Wegener, R. C. Macallum, and E. J. Strahan (1999). Moulton, J. (1983). A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method. Dor- Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological drecht, Holland: D. Reidel. Research. Psychological Methods 4(3), 272–299. Nadelhoffer, T., J. Shepard, E. Nahmias, C. Sripada, and L. T. Ross Good, C., A. Rattan, and C. S. Dweck (2012). Why Do Women Opt (2014). The Free Will Inventory: Measuring Beliefs About Agency Out? Sense of Belonging and Women’s Representation in Mathemat- and Responsibility. Consciousness and Cognition 25, 27–41. ics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(4), 700–717. Norlock, K. J. (2012). Gender Perception as a Habit of Moral Percep- Gresky, D. M., L. L. Ten Eyck, C. G. Lord, and R. B. McIntyre (2005). tion: Implications for Philosophical Methodology and Introductory Effects of Salient Multiple Identities on Women’s Performance Under Curriculum. Journal of Social Philosophy 43(3), 347–362. Mathematics Stereotype Threat. Sex Roles 53(9–10), 703–716. O’Rourke, E., K. Haimovitz, C. Ballweber, C. Dweck, and Z. Popovi´c Haslanger, S. (2008, may). Changing the Ideology and Culture of Phi- (2014). Brain Points: a Growth Mindset Incentive Structure Boosts losophy: Not by Reason (Alone). Hypatia 23(2), 210–223. Persistence in an Educational Game. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Con-

philosophers’ imprint - 35 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016) thompson, adleberg, sims, and nahmias Why Do Women Leave Philosophy?

ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14), 3339–3348. tellectual Identity and Performance. The American Psychologist 52(6), Paxton, M., C. Figdor, and V. Tiberius (2012). Quantifying the Gender 613–629. Gap: an Empirical Study of the Underrepresentation of Women in Thompson, M., L. Bright, and E. Kummerfeld (ms). Why do Black Stu- Philosophy. Hypatia 27(4), 949–957. dents Leave Philosophy? A Survey of Students at the Introductory Rampell, C. (2014). Women Should Embrace the B’s in College to Make Level. More Later. Accessed at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Valian, V. (1998). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. MIT Press. opinions/catherine-rampell-women-should-embrace- Walton, G. M., G. L. Cohen, D. Cwir, and S. J. Spencer (2012). Mere the-bs-in-college-to-make-more-later/2014/03/10/ Belonging: The Power of Social Connections. Journal of Personality 1e15113a-a871-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html. and Social Psychology 102(3), 513–532. Rowe, M. (2008). Micro-affirmations and Micro-inequities. Journal of Walton, G. M., C. Logel, J. M. Peach, S. J. Spencer, and M. P. Zanna the International Ombudsman Association 1(1), 45–48. (2015). Two Brief Interventions to Mitigate a ”Chilly" Climate Trans- Rudman, L. A. and K. Fairchild (2004). Reactions to Counterstereotypic form Women’s Experience, Relationships, and Achievement in Engi- Behavior: the Role of Backlash in Cultural Stereotype Maintenance. neering. Journal of Educational Psychology 107(2), 468–485. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(2), 157–176. West, J. D., J. Jacquet, M. M. King, S. J. Correll, and C. T. Bergstrom Rudman, L. A. and P. Glick (2001). Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes (2013). The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. PloS ONE 8(7), and Backlash Toward Agentic Women. Journal of Social Issues 57(4), e66212. 743–762. Yeager, D. S., V. Purdie-Vaughns, J. Garcia, N. Apfel, P. Brzustoski, Saul, J. (2013). Implicit Bias, Stereotype Threat, and Women in Philos- A. Master, W. T. Hessert, M. E. Williams, and G. Cohen (2014). Break- ophy. Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?, 39–60. ing the Cycle of Mistrust: Wise Interventions to Provide Critical Saul, J. (2014). Stop Thinking So Much About ”Sexual Harassment". Feedback Across the Racial Divide. Journal of Experimental Psychol- Journal of Applied Philosophy 31(3), 307–321. ogy 143(2), 804–824. Schliesser, E. (2013). On Boy-wonders in Philosophy. Ac- cessed at: http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/09/on-boy- wonders-in-philosophy.html. Schouten, G. (2015). The Stereotype Threat Hypothesis: An Assess- ment from the Philosopher’s Armchair, for the Philosopher’s Class- room. Hypatia 30(2), 450–466. Schwitzgebel, E. (2010). On Being Good at Seeming Smart. Accessed at: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2010/03/on- being-good-at-seeming-smart.html. Seyedsayamdost, H. (2015). On Gender and Philosophical Intuition: Failure of Replication and Other Negative Results. Philosophical Psy- chology 28(5), 642–673. Steele, C. M. (1997). A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape In-

philosophers’ imprint - 36 - vol. 16, no. 6 (march 2016)