Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience


Gender disparities in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, including the geosciences, are well documented and widely discussed1,2. In the geosciences, despite receiving 40% of doctoral degrees, women hold less than 10% of full professorial positions3. A significant leak in the pipeline occurs during postdoctoral years4, so biases embedded in postdoctoral processes, such as biases in recommendation letters, may be deterrents to careers in geoscience for women. Here we present an analysis of an international data set of 1,224 recommendation letters, submitted by recommenders from 54 countries, for postdoctoral fellowships in the geosciences over the period 2007–2012. We examine the relationship between applicant gender and two outcomes of interest: letter length and letter tone. Our results reveal that female applicants are only half as likely to receive excellent letters versus good letters compared to male applicants. We also find no evidence that male and female recommenders differ in their likelihood to write stronger letters for male applicants over female applicants. Our analysis also reveals significant regional differences in letter length, with letters from the Americas being significantly longer than any other region, whereas letter tone appears to be distributed equivalently across all world regions. These results suggest that women are significantly less likely to receive excellent recommendation letters than their male counterparts at a critical juncture in their career.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Valian, V. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Hill, C., Corbett, C. & St. Rose, A. American Association of University Women. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (AAUW, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Holmes, M. A., O’Connell, S. & Dutt, K. Women in the Geosciences: Practical, Positive Practices Towards Parity (AGU Special Publication Series, Wiley, 2015).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Goulden, M., Frasch, K. & Mason, M. A. Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences (University of California at Berkeley; Berkeley Center on Health, Economic and Family Security; and the Center for American Progress, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Postdocs at Federally Funded R&D Centers (National Science Foundation, 2015);

  6. 6

    Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (National Science Foundation, 2015);

  7. 7

    National Academy of Sciences Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (National Academies, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. & Handelsman, J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16474–16479 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature 387, 341–343 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Reuben, E., Sapienza, P. & Zingales, L. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4403–4408 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Sheltzer, J. M. & Smith, J. C. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10107–10112 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Madera, J., Hebl, M. & Martin, R. Gender and letters of recommendation for academics: agentic and communal differences. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1591–1599 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Trix, F. & Psenka, C. Exploring the color of glass: letters of Recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse Soc. 14, 191–220 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Schmader, T., Whitehead, J. & Wysocki, V. H. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 57, 509–514 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Morgan, W. B., Elder, K. B. & King, E. B. The emergence and reduction of bias in letters of recommendation. J. Appl. Psychol. 43, 2297–2306 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M. & Freeland, E. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347, 262–265 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Allum, J. Phase II: Final Applications and Initial Offers of Admission. Findings from the 2014 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey (Council of Graduate Schools, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Judge, T. A. & Higgins, C. A. Affective disposition and the letter of reference. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 75, 207–221 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Hofmann, D. A. & Gavin, M. B. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. J. Manage. 24, 623–641 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Ibarra, H. Paving an alternative route: gender differences in managerial networks. Soc. Psychol. Q. 60, 91–102 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Heilman, M. E. & Wallen, A. S. Wimpy and undeserving of respect: penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 64, 664–667 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Stewart, A. J., Malley, J. E. & LaVaque-Manty, D. Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women (Univ. Michigan Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Riffe, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F. G. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. & Bracken, C. C. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum. Commun. Res. 28, 587–604 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. & Bracken, C. C. Practical Resources for Assessing and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Content Analysis Research Projects (2010);

  26. 26

    Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


K.D. would like to thank S. Pfirman for the discussion and guidelines surrounding the initial stages of this study. D.L.P. would like to thank J. Boyce for assistance with statistical modelling. This paper is contribution number 8044 from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

Author information




K.D. initiated this study; K.D. coded the letters and did a preliminary descriptive analysis; D.L.P. analysed the data; A.F.B. coded a subset of the letters; J.S.D. assisted with statistical analysis; C.J.B. served in an advisory capacity; K.D. and D.L.P. co-wrote the paper, with all authors contributing towards discussing and interpreting the results and refining the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuheli Dutt.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dutt, K., Pfaff, D., Bernstein, A. et al. Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience. Nature Geosci 9, 805–808 (2016).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

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