ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The present study examined the measurement invariance of the Symbolic Racism Scale (SRS) and the Modern Sexism Scale (MSS) across racial/ethnic and gender groups. Previous psychometric evaluations of the SRS and MSS scores have not examined the equivalence across racial/ethnic and gender groups or have been otherwise statistically inadequate. Therefore, this study sought to fill this gap. METHOD: To establish measurement equivalence across racial/ethnic (Black, Latinx, and white) and gender (women and men) groups, we conducted a measurement invariance analysis of the SRS and the MSS in a large, diverse sample (N = 719). RESULTS: We found that the SRS and MSS were invariant across gender, and the SRS was invariant across racial/ethnic groups. However, the MSS was noninvariant across racial/ethnic groups. Partial invariance testing revealed nonequivalent factor loadings between Black and Latinx participants compared to white participants on an item of the MSS that referenced "unwarranted" attention that women receive from the government and media. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should consider reevaluating the item that reads: "Over the past few years, the government and news media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is warranted by women's actual experiences." Future research is needed to assess how the item is interpreted by Black and Latinx people so it can be modified for use in these communities. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing the validity of the scores in commonly used scales across diverse groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
ABSTRACT
Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.
ABSTRACT
Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines (N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.
