We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

‘Hard-working’ is sexist, says Cambridge don

A Cambridge professor has branded the description of women as “hard-working” or “enthusiastic” in job references as sexist.

Dame Athene Donald, professor of experimental physics at Cambridge and master of Churchill College, said references were often unintentionally written in a “gendered way”, with academics more likely to describe female applicants for research posts or fellowships as “hard-working” or “team players”.

She argued that such descriptions failed to communicate how good candidates actually were, unlike superlatives such as “excellent”, “driven” or “outstanding”, which were often reserved for males.

“If letter writers just sit down and write the first adjectives that come into their heads to describe men and women, the words may be poles apart even if the subjects of the letters are indistinguishable in ability,” she said. “Clearly this can lead to significant detriment to the woman’s progression, even if without a sexist intent.”

She added: “Do you really mean that your star female PhD student is hard-working and conscientious, or was the message you wanted to convey that she was outstanding, goes the extra mile and always exceeds your expectations about what is possible, demonstrating great originality en route? There is an enormous difference in the impact of the two descriptions.”

Advertisement

An analysis of performance reviews at technology firms by Stanford University found that women’s evaluations contained almost twice as much language about their communal or nurturing style, using words such as “helpful” or “dedicated”.

By contrast, men’s reviews contained twice as many references to their technical expertise and vision.

Donald, a former president of the British Science Association, recommended that academics writing references use a gender bias calculator website that highlights words in text that may be perceived as gendered.

She also called for selection panels to receive guidance to make their decisions fairer. Training in “unconscious bias” has been introduced across UK universities in an effort to guard against unintentional discrimination.

However, Professor Alan Smithers, director of the centre for education at Buckingham University, said: “How do we know that academics using these words have unconscious bias? Being a team player and hard worker are very important. It is perfectly possible that candidates do have these strengths and it is important that a referee is able to say so.”