The Finkbeiner test, named for the science journalist Ann Finkbeiner,[1] is a checklist to help science journalists avoid gender bias in articles about women in science.[2][3] It asks writers to avoid describing women scientists in terms of stereotypically feminine traits, such as their family arrangements.
The Finkbeiner test has been linked to affirmative action, because writing can cause readers to view women in science as different from men in negative or unfair ways.[2] The test helps avoid gender bias in science reporting similarly to various tests that focus on under-representation of marginalized groups in different career fields.[4]
Checklist
edit
The Finkbeiner test is a checklist proposed by freelance journalist Christie Aschwanden to help journalists avoid gender bias in media articles about women in science.[3] To pass the test, an article about a female scientist must not mention:
- That she is a woman
- Her husband's job
- Her childcare arrangements
- How she nurtures her underlings
- How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
- How she is a role model for other women
- How she's the "first woman to ..."[5]
History
editAschwanden formulated the test in a 2013 article for the online magazine Double X Science.[6] She created the test in the spirit of (but was not inspired by) the Bechdel test – used to highlight gender bias in film – in response to the sexist media coverage of women scientists she noticed. She recalled:[3]
Campaigns to recognize outstanding female scientists have led to a recognizable genre of media coverage. Let's call it "A lady who..." genre. You've seen these profiles, of course you have, because they're everywhere. The hallmark of "A lady who..." profile is that it treats its subject's sex as her most defining detail. She's not just a great scientist, she's a woman! And if she’s also a wife and a mother, those roles get emphasized too.
Aschwanden named the test after journalist Ann Finkbeiner, winner of the 2008 AIP Science Communication Award,[1] who had earlier written a post[7] for the science blog The Last Word on Nothing about her decision not to write about the subject of her latest profile, an astronomer, "as a woman".[5]
Both journalists agree that the test "should apply mainly to the sort of general-interest scientist profiles that one might find in The New York Times or the front section of Nature, which are supposed to focus on professional accomplishments".[3] The point of the test is to not overemphasize or privilege the gender of a female scientist. Even Finkbeiner, who vowed to "ignore gender" in her writing, actually tripped up on the tendency to focus on sex; in an astronomer's profile she considered mentioning that the scientist was the "first" to win a certain award. "After a reader urged Finkbeiner to stick to her pledge, she [left out 'the first.']"[3] The tactic of singling out women as "role models" can also distort gender equality in the reception of news reporting. Students indiscriminately cite scholars and mentors of any sex or gender as "great role models"; being a role model is not unique to a person's gender. Thus, emphasizing sex in profiles about members of marginalized groups reinforces their supposed difference, perpetuating gender bias in science.[3]
Reception
editThe test was mentioned in the media criticism of the New York Times's obituary of rocket scientist Yvonne Brill. That obituary, published on 30 March 2013, by Douglas Martin, began with the words: "She made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off from work to raise three children".[8] A few hours after publication the New York Times revised the obituary to address some of the criticisms; the revised version begins "She was a brilliant rocket scientist who followed her husband from job to job..."[8][9]
Another New York Times article, on Jennifer Doudna, published on 11 May 2015,[10] drew similar criticism with reference to the Finkbeiner test.[11] An article in The Globe and Mail on astrophysicist Victoria Kaspi,[12] published on 16 February 2016, drew the same criticism,[13] as did David Quammen's book A Tangled Tree, for giving women scientists, especially Lynn Margulis, short shrift.[14]
Susan Gelman, Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, applauded the move to report on female scientists without emphasising their gender, but questions whether the Finkbeiner test should seek to eliminate all references to personal life, suggesting that the move should be towards asking male scientists about personal issues too.[15] This view is shared by other writers.[16] [17] In addition, Vasudevan Mukunth points out in The Wire that countries in which women are drastically under-represented in science might want to bend the test's rules in hopes of highlighting any systemic barriers: "The test's usefulness rests on the myth of a level playing field—there is none in India."[18] In another post on Last Word on Nothing, Finkbeiner responded to these questions by arguing with herself.[19]
Reversed Finkbeiner
editThe "Reversed Finkbeiner" approach is an exercise in which students are asked to write an article about a male scientist that would fail the Finkbeiner test if it were about a woman.[20][21]
References
edit- ^ a b "Ann Finkbeiner". www.aip.org. 3 March 2017. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- ^ a b "Debate: Why a Test Used to Spot Gender Bias in Science Reports Can Be Myopic". The Wire. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- ^ a b c d e f "The Finkbeiner Test". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- ^ Hickey, Walt; Koeze, Ella; Dottle, Rachael; Wezerek, Gus (27 December 2017). "Creating The Next Bechdel Test". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- ^ a b Brainard, Curtis (22 March 2013). "'The Finkbeiner Test' Seven rules to avoid gratuitous gender profiles of female scientists". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
- ^ Aschwanden, Christie (5 March 2013). "The Finkbeiner Test: What matters in stories about women scientists?". Double X Science. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ Finkbeiner, Ann (17 January 2013). "What I'm Not Going to Do". The Last Word On Nothing. Retrieved 2 April 2013.
- ^ a b Gonzalez, Robert T. (31 March 2013). "The New York Times fails miserably in its obituary for rocket scientist Yvonne Brill". io9. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
- ^ "NewsDiffs | Diffing: Yvonne Brill, a Pioneering Rocket Scientist, Dies at 88". www.newsdiffs.org. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
- ^ Pollack, Andrew (11 May 2015). "Jennifer Doudna, A Pioneer Who Helped Simplify Genome Editing". New York Times. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
- ^ "Problems With How We Talk About Female Scientists « Berman Institute Bioethics Bulletin". bioethicsbulletin.org. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
- ^ Semeniuk, Ivan (16 February 2016). "McGill astrophysicist is first woman to win Canada's top science award". The Globe and Mail.
- ^ Shanahan, Marie-Claire (18 February 2016). "Two stories, same scientist: Gender and coverage of the Herzberg medal". Boundary Vision. Archived from the original on 21 April 2019.
- ^ Check Hayden, Erika (13 August 2018). "A New View of Evolution That Can't Be Represented by a Tree". The New York Times Book Review.
- ^ "Sexism In Science | Common Reader". Common Reader. 23 February 2015. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
- ^ "Asking Questions and the "Finkbeiner Test"". Uncertain Principles. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
- ^ Initiative, Katie Hafner,Carol Sutton Lewis,The Lost Women of Science. "The Feminist Test We Keep Failing: Lost Women of Science Podcast, Season 3 Bonus Episode". Scientific American. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Debate: Why a Test Used to Spot Gender Bias in Science Reports Can Be Myopic – The Wire". The Wire. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
- ^ "The Last Word On Nothing | Arguing with the Finkbeiner Test". www.lastwordonnothing.com. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
- ^ "The Reversed Finkbeiner Test". www.futurescienceleaders.com. Archived from the original on 15 October 2015. Retrieved 14 October 2015.
- ^ "Finkbeiner posts: round 2". genegeek. Archived from the original on 18 August 2015. Retrieved 14 October 2015.