REVIEWS
“This well-written, persuasive, and important book analyzes an important paradox: why is an institution focused on merit-based evaluation so unsuccessful at promoting meritocracy? It will be read widely by those studying gender and racial inequalities in higher education and STEM.”
— Joya Misra, University of Massachusetts Amherst
“Extremely well-written, and their findings ring painfully true. The authors are very compelling in pointing out the many inconsistencies that otherwise smart people don’t or won’t see. All faculty interested in promoting diversity will engage with this insightful and compelling scholarship.”
— Cathy Nagler, University of Chicago
"Researchers will likely see their own experiences in the book’s rich descriptions of the priorities and pressures of a competitive academic environment. These descriptions, paired with ample quotes from interviewees, make for compelling reading, painting a portrait of STEM faculty who work all the time, are highly engaged with their work, struggle to balance personal and professional obligations, and feel that they are always behind and never enough."
— Science
"The meticulous attention to detail and argument these authors show is essential for potentially disrupting the habitual deflections about the objectivity of scientific merit. This book is required reading for academic administrators, leaders of STEM equity programs, and STEM department chairs. Highly recommended."
— Choice
"This is an important book that deserves attention beyond the context of U.S.-based STEM academia it studies. It is especially impressive for the work it does to substantiate through its empirical research how biased ideas take hold and operate in professional cultures."
— Science and Engineering Ethics
"Misconceiving Merit is a must-read for researchers, students, and academic administrators interested in transforming STEM professions and institutions of higher education in ways that equitably attract, reward, and retain scientists in academia."
— Social Forces
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1: Misperceiving Merit, Excellence, and Devotion in Academic STEM - Mary Blair- Loy, Erin A. Cech
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226820149.003.0001
[meritocracy;STEM;professional culture;science and technology studies;diversity;LGBTQ identity;gender;race and ethnicity;schema of scientific excellence;work devotion schema]
Chapter 1 introduces the book’s core arguments, case university, and data on over 500 professors. Few beliefs are as sacred to scientists, engineers, and mathematicians as the belief that science is a meritocracy. Yet paradoxically, equally productive scientists in our study encounter strikingly different treatment depending on their race/ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, and family responsibilities. Most studies of inequality in STEM focus on illuminating implicit biases and unfair behaviors. In contrast, this book trains its gaze on the widespread, taken-for-granted beliefs within the professional culture of STEM. The authors introduce two cultural models that anchor definitions of merit in STEM and are the focus of their empirical investigation. These are the work devotion schema (which defines work as a calling deserving of single-minded devotion, undistracted by other life events like childrearing) and the schema of scientific excellence (a constellation of characteristics such as “creative brilliance” and “assertive self-promotion" that serve a cultural yardstick for measuring the worthiness of scientists). These schemas create meaning and can spur scientists on to great work. But, as the authors summarize, they also unfairly disadvantage some groups of faculty, discourage diversity, and impede innovation and collaboration, despite STEM faculty’s sincere commitments to objectivity and excellence. (pages x - 18)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
2: The Cultural Construction of Merit in Academic STEM - Mary Blair- Loy, Erin A. Cech
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226820149.003.0002
[schema of scientific excellence;work devotion schema;moralized merit;schema of professional excellence;sociology of professions;science and technology studies;diversity;professional culture;professions;STEM]
Chapter 2 develops the theory around this paradox: STEM faculty revere objectivity and believe they fairly recognize and reward merit, yet many scientists from underrepresented groups are devalued. This chapter builds upon the sociology of professions and Science and Technology Studies to explain how the schema of work devotion (defining work as a calling deserving of single-minded devotion) and the schema of scientific excellence (a constellation of characteristics such as “creative brilliance” and “assertive self-promotion” that serves as a cultural yardstick for measuring up scientists’ worthiness) anchor cultural definitions of merit. The chapter shows that notions of STEM merit and excellence have always been gendered, racialized, and heteronormative. These schemas have roots in ancient Greek ideologies about the rationality and superiority of free, white men and Enlightenment beliefs that scientific knowledge could and should be sealed off from culture and politics. These norms implicitly endorsed a “natural” excellence of those with culturally “unmarked” identities: majority race, heterosexual men. The chapter argues further that current processes of jurisdiction, closure, and socialization incubate and perpetuate these facets of STEM professional culture. It sheds light on how schemas of professional excellence,seemingly objective beliefs about merit, reproduce inequality within professional occupations more broadly. (pages 19 - 38)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
3: The Work Devotion Schema and Its Consequences - Mary Blair- Loy, Erin A. Cech
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226820149.003.0003
[work devotion schema;scientific vocation;motherhood penalty;covering;family devotion schema;flexibility stigma;gender;pay gap;diversity;STEM]
Chapter 3 uses qualitative and quantitative data to demonstrate the reverberating impact of the work devotion schema, which holds that science, as a vocation, requires singular commitment and dedication. This schema is hegemonic: scientists’ broad acceptance of the work devotion mandate varies little by gender, race/ethnicity, LGBTQ status, or family status. Although all STEM faculty feel pressure to conform to the work devotion schema, it particularly disadvantages mothers.Mothers’ caregiving responsibilities are considered deleterious to work devotion, while other non-research activities by faculty, like consulting or administrative responsibilities, are not. Many professors believe that mothers–much more so than fathers--are naturally and inevitably pulled away from devotion to work by a competing, moralized commitment to childrearing. Mothers are often framed as less capable of thinking scientifically in a sustained and creative way. Many mothers, in turn, “cover” or hide their motherhood status. These biases are seen to justify mothers’ career slowdowns and are likely behind the fact that mothers experience a significant pay penalty compared to colleagues with similar levels of productivity. Finally, we find that departments harboring the most stigma against involved caregivers also have reduced job satisfaction and intent to stay among all department members. (pages 39 - 67)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
4: Mismeasuring Merit: The Schema of Scientific Excellence as a Yardstick of Merit - Mary Blair- Loy, Erin A. Cech
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226820149.003.0004
[schema of scientific excellence;creative brilliance;assertive leadership;relational traits;diversity;race and ethnicity;gender;LGBTQ identity;productivity;STEM]
Chapter 4 uses quantitative and qualitative data to elucidate four strands of the cultural schema of scientific excellence. The most highly valued strand is creative brilliance—the ability to combine new discoveries with systematic scientific thinking in ways that drive novel understanding at the boundaries of one’s discipline. The next most valued is assertive leadership, including competitiveness, self-promotion, and risk-taking. Valued for some faculty is a set of relational qualities, which encourage scientists to motivate and grow their teams to advance their research. Finally, a commitment to advancing diversity is devalued and seen by many as distorting scientific inquiry. Counter to the schema’s assumptions, we show that these markers of excellence are not connected to actual scholarly productivity. Even so, the chapter finds that signaling adherence to the schema translates into monetary and social benefits. For instance, faculty with more assertive self-conceptions take home higher salaries and report receiving more respect for their research, even though on average they are no more productive than their colleagues. The schema of scientific excellence is a warped yardstick: it exaggerates the worth of majority group faculty while under-valuing the contributions of many women, Latinx, Black, and/or LGBTQ scientists. (pages 67 - 94)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
5: Defending the Schema of Scientific Excellence, Defending Inequality - Mary Blair- Loy, Erin A. Cech
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226820149.003.0005
[schema of scientific excellence;depoliticization;minority-meritocracy trap;creative brilliance;assertive leadership;diversity;gender;race and ethnicity;LGBTQ identity;inequality]
Chapter 5 analyzesthedata to show how STEM faculty defend this schema as a straight and true yardstick of merit and use it to help justify patterns of inequality. Most believe that their departments and disciplines fairly recognize and reward scientific excellence.When the authors present them with peer-reviewed, statistical evidence to the contrary, they dismiss it and hold fast to their faith in meritocracy. These cultural beliefs ensnare many women and racial/ethnic minority faculty in what the authors call a minority-meritocracy trap. First, to be hired, underrepresented groups must convince evaluators that despite their demographic identity, they are above the hiring bar purely on the basis of their research. Second, minoritized faculty, already often denied full credit for their accomplishments, are not provided with the same collegiality and resources as white and Asian heterosexual men. However, speaking up about these dynamics or even taking note of issues of underrepresentation and marginalization by race, gender, or LGBTQ status is viewed as potentially contaminating the objectivity of STEM. The seemingly noble defense of the definition of excellence from concerns deemed too politicized exacerbates inequality, marginalizes underrepresented groups, and reproduces the dominant status in STEM of heterosexual white and Asian men. (pages 94 - 124)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
6: The Moralization of Merit: Consequences for Scientists and Science - Mary Blair- Loy, Erin A. Cech
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226820149.003.0006
[depoliticization;schema of scientific excellence;work devotion schema;moralized merit;team science;professional culture;diversity;scientific calling;STEM;innovation]
Chapter 6 explains how the work devotion schema and the schema of scientific excellence share cultural roots and together reinforce a white, heteronormatively masculine, and moralized conception of the scientific calling. Many well-intentioned faculty defend the “purity” of scientific excellence and devotion from perceived threats from identity politics and family responsibilities and thereby marginalize and devalue many STEM professionals. This has several negative consequences. First, innovation requires time for reflection, rest, and loved ones, yet work devotion demands grueling hours. Second, the scientific excellence schema valorizes individualistically brilliant, competitive risk-takers. Yet STEM work is now more collaborative, interdisciplinary, and socio-politically engaged than ever. Third, the schema’s devaluation of identities and ideas deemed too politicized limits the contributions of many scientists and unnecessarily constrains STEM professors’ work of mentorship and public engagement. Fourth, diverse perspectives, often stemming from diverse identities, can produce more innovative science but are often marginalized in normative definitions of excellence. The authors close with several suggestions for change. Scientific innovations from diverse and closely connected teams are needed now more than ever to help address the gravest concerns societies face. Biased notions of who can be excellent scientists are bad for science and bad for us all. (pages 124 - 152)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
