 Would it be tactful now to raise this topic – or was it actually too late? I consider it might turn out to be distinctly awkward to stand over the supervisor who is about to draft your letter of reference pointing out what they write shouldn’t be gendered and please could they include lots of superlatives. It could be seen as pretty pushy if not downright offensive! Maybe this is something that in general the concerned student should slip into a discussion weeks/months in advance; perhaps it could be brought up in a journal club debate or an Athena Swan workshop. Departments could also circulate information annually to their staff to remind them of the possibility of double standards in adjectives and nouns peppering references. There are plenty of sites now putting out information covering this topic, so it isn’t necessary for every department to reinvent this particular wheel, even if it may still be necessary for each and every one actively to promote this information.
For the reader of such letters of reference it is important to know when someone is described as hard-working because that’s the kindest thing anyone can say, and when the writer actually meant to convey an extremely positive impression but is unaware that their description is gendered and liable to be read in a very differnt way. The more this issue is discussed explicitly, the less women will be unintentionally disadvantaged.
This entry was posted in Women in Science and tagged job-hunting, letters of reference, Madera. Bookmark the permalink.
9 Responses to Do You Want to be Described as Hard Working?
Very insightful post! I often write reference letters (mainly for undergrads), and I always find it such a pity that we as academics don’t *really* get any training in how to write these things properly. Having read a lot of growth mindset books and articles over the summer, hard-working now sounds to me like a very good property for a person to have! However, I see that it can be taken in the wrong light. I hope that if accompanied by the right other adjectives it might convey the intended meaning. Such as “X combines her native ability with hard work to reach a deep understanding of the subject” or some such thing.
My comments were targetted more at references written for researchers – so PhD students or postdocs – than undergraduates. I’m sure for them a ‘hard-working’ comment amplified as you suggested would be entirely reasonable. However I think at any level, if only comments of the hard-working, team-playing and conscientious variety appear, it implies a lack of stellar qualities.
I agree more training might be helpful! The very first serious letter of reference I wrote (for a postdoc), where I did write something I thought was honest and fair, the secretary (this was back in the days when they typed letters!) brought it back to me saying I couldn’t possibly write such comments. I hadn’t realised there was a code….
“hard-working” sounds bad particularly if not accompanied by other superlatives. I think the more senior you become the worse “hard-working” gets. I would think that a “hard-working” student (in comparison to all the lazy people on the course) is a positive description while a “hard-working” postdoc without a mention of her brilliance is a harsh judgment. Even worse: “devoted” (particularly when it is combined with “hard-working”).
Similarly, I think “enthusiastic” is a pretty harsh judgment if not accompanied by other superlatives like “brilliant” (except maybe “hard-working”). “Enthusiastic” is ok for a student (who might sit in a course with lots of unenthusiastic students). For a researcher, it makes her look incompetent (as if she tried hard but she did not achieve anything).
I am not sure about “passionate”.
That website is an excellent resource to check for bias!!!! Absolutely something I want to share with my colleagues!!!
Hear, hear. Many good suggestions in general and likely pitfalls when it comes to implicit gender biases. I will try even harder to write appropriate refence letters for all members.
But I AM hard-working… and I am not creative or top-class. Oh well!!
As someone who has been on many interview committees in math, in the US and in the UK, I am aware of how differently some (many?) people write letters for female candidates as opposed to male candidates. It can be helpful if the interview panel and whoever is involved in ranking the candidates are “reminded” of implicit bias and how is manifests itself. There are implicit bias tests one can take.
One tactic some have used when short-listing candidates is: after making an initial long-list, have the selection committee go back and look again at the long-listed applications submitted by women or anyone else who can be identified as coming from an under-represented group. This can really help the section committee members see past the gender biased choice of adjectives, and I have seen committees then raise many applications from women rise to the top of the long-list, becoming part of the short-list.
Hard-working is not necessarily a negative descriptor for a researcher, as long as it’s accompanied by other descriptors. We need to remember that there are different styles of thinkers; one of the Myers-Briggs divisions is between “intuitive” and “sensing”. Those who are intuitive make big leaps, and I think these people are those often tagged as “brilliant”. Being a “sensing” thinker, in a workshop I attended I told the workshop leader that I was jealous of the “intuitive” thinkers; she told me to wait to see what was to be revealed in our exercises, which showed that the intuitive thinkers are (often) jealous of the sensing thinkers, as we proceed methodically and produce solid results. Creativity does not just come in leaps; I gain insights by my careful probing, and then come to conclusions AND their proofs. This does not make my work less original than that of intuitive thinkers.
As people writing and reading letters, we need to keep in mind implicit bias, and I think it is entirely appropriate to remind others on a selection committee of implicit bias.
I am an IT professional and I am described, in the main, as being “hard-working” and on occasions, as “conscientious”.
I was only vaguely inclined to think that some other adjectives ought to be used to describe me that do not convey an idea of struggle almost as if I J.A.M. it overcoming extreme difficulties that are “naturally” in place for me, in particular, as if I am without the natural aptitude or inbuilt capabilities required to successfully take a project from the point of a problem situation to another of a solution, finally managing to get to the finish line and survive.
It was in passing that I thought these things. Reading this article has caused me to consider again the image conjured by the adjectives used to describe my work ethic. Whilst I do work hard making accomplishments through self-application and perseverance, it would more qualify my position if I was described as being driven, motivated and focused. Attribution of these descriptors is more empowering even to the senses, as well as, being accurate.
To describe me primarily as “hard-working” and “conscientious” is as if I have not matured since my school days when I was described in my school reports with exactly the same adjectives even though as an adult professional my life is reflective of growth, progress and advancement beyond those days. Either that or the world has not evolved in its perception.
Yet, there may be room to apply these considerations to a wider context. Often in expressing appreciation for employees collectively, a manager will say: “Thanks for all your hard work”. Is it possible that to some extent the same mindset is carried over when describing an individual without extending to the effort of specificity, quantification or expansion?
Thanks for this thought-provoking article.<issue_start><issue_comment>Title: Camera permissions on iOS 14 not behaving as expected if user blocks permission
username_0: ## Summary
 If a user denies camera permissions (PERMISSIONS.IOS.CAMERA), `check` and `request` do NOT return `RESULTS.DENIED`. Which is what I expected them to return if the user denies camera permission by pressing "Don't Allow".

It works locally when I test on Xcode with a device running iOS 14. But it breaks and behaves as described when I test in TestFlight. Which is the really strange part.

## Environment info

Library version: 3.0.0-beta.2

## Steps to reproduce

1. Run app in production-like environment (Testflight) on iOS 14
2. Call `check` or `request` to prompt for camera permission
3. Deny permissions by pressing "Don't Allow"

Describe what you expected to happen:

1. User selects "Don't Allow" when prompt for camera permissions
2. I expect to be the promise to resolve with RESULTS.BLOCKED and to be able to handle it accordingly

## Reproducible sample code

Here's where I call `check` and `request`. It's a simple method that checks permissions and requests if necessary. Returns `true` or `false` based on permissions. It's returning  `true` when I expect it to return `false` for permission denied.

```
const checkCameraPermissions = () => {
  const permission = isAndroid
   ? PERMISSIONS.ANDROID.CAMERA
