Gender bias is a recalcitrant problem in academia and society. However, dissent has been created on this issue. We focus on dissenting studies by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, arguing that they reach conclusions that are unwarranted on the basis of the available evidence and that they ignore fundamental objections to their methodological decisions. Drawing on discussions from other contexts, particularly on manufactured dissent concerning anthropogenic climate change, we conclude that dissent on gender bias substantially contributes to the (...) exacerbation of biases in society and an increasing number of attacks on researchers, making it both epistemically and socially problematic. (shrink)

Although the underrepresentation of women in academic philosophy is well-known and hard to overlook, philosophers started to pay more attention to the actual data on and potential explanations of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy only in the last decade and predominately in anglophone countries. The data I present in this paper deal with introductory logic courses at German universities (gender of textbook authors, gender of logic course instructors, student grades by gender at one university). Two results are particularly noteworthy: (...) For one, logic teaching in Germany is currently predominantly male and even more male than philosophy teaching as a whole. For another, there is no evidence for any differences between grades of female and male students. The student grade data, however, illustrate how statistical phenomena like Simpson's paradox can explain how male students can appear to achieve better grades than female students even if there is no underlying difference: When correcting for students’ major (philosophy vs. STEM), logic grades of male and female students are remarkably similar. Although the scope of the data presented here is limited, they allow to add further details to an emerging map of the profession. I close with some suggestions for avoiding stereotyping logic as “male”. (shrink)

In recent years, the "science of science" has combined computational methods with novel data sources in order to understand the dynamics of research communities. As the name suggests, science of science is primarily focused on science and technology, with less attention to the humanities. However, many of the questions investigated by science of science are also relevant to academic philosophy: To what extent can the discipline be divided into subfields with different methods and topics? How are prestige and credit distributed (...) across the discipline? And how do these factors interact with other factors, such as gender, to shape job market outcomes? In this paper, we provide some empirically-informed answers to these questions by applying computational methods to job market data for Anglophone academic philosophy. We find, first, evidence that is consistent with the analytic-continental divide, but is also consistent with other, more complex ways of organizing academic philosophy into distinct intellectual traditions; second, a clear prestige hierarchy, dividing PhD programs into two distinct prestige categories; and third, evidence that gender, prestige, and country have notable effects on academic job market outcomes for recent philosophy PhDs. (shrink)