Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • CAREER COLUMN

Stop using anecdotal evidence in conversations about gender

Let data guide discussions on equality, say Juliana Hipólito and Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas.
  1. Juliana Hipólito

    1. Juliana Hipólito is an environmental-services researcher at the Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas

    1. Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas is an early-career researcher studying the impacts of human activities on biodiversity at the Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

In our experience as two Brazilian female scientists, we have seen some colleagues — most of them men — rely on anecdotal evidence to conclude that sexism is not a problem in the academic environment. Quotes such as “There are too many women in my department” and “My superior is a woman” are often used to justify their belief that there is no gender gap in science.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00462-3

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged.

References

  1. Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J. & Drasgow, F. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 17, 425–445 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aycock, L. M. et al. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010121 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van Roosmalen, E. & McDaniel, S. A. Women Health 28, 33–54 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hipólito, J. et al. Neotrop. Entomol. 50, 859–872 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Diele-Viegas, L. M. et al. Nature Hum. Behav. 5, 672–674 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brashears, M. E. Soc. Sci. Res. 37, 400–415 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Araújo, E. B., Araújo, N. A. M., Moreira, A. A., Herrmann, H. J. & Andrade, J. S. Jr PLoS ONE 12, e0176791 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J. & Bergstrom, C. T. PLoS ONE 8, e66212 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maas, B. et al. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12797 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links