McAfee’s punch line: “Is there a systematic bias in the PGR methodology that leads it to value more male-dominated departments? Well, yes. An unrepresentative and hand-picked advisory board plus unrepresentative and hand-picked evaluators will lead to a slanted take on the value of the work going on in the profession. You don’t have to be a stand-point epistemologist to see this.”
[Update: I’m going to recommend that anyone who wishes to comment on the post do so at Gone Public, where it originally occurred, rather than below the reblog here. To that end (and because I’m not able to moderate comments today), I’ve closed comments below.]
gonepublic: philosophy, politics, & public life
Postscript: November 20, 2004 [updated 2/3/2014]
The 2011 Report:
The list of the Top 51 doctoral programs is included in the 2011 Philosophical Gourmet Report. The 56 members of the Report’s Advisory Board for 2011 included nine females (16.1%) and was based on the reports of 302 evaluators, including 46 women (15.2%).
The 2009 Report:
The 55 members of the Report’s Advisory Board for 2009 included eight females (14.5%) and was based on the reports of 294 evaluators, including 37 women (12.6%).
The 2006-08 Report:
The 56 members of the Report’s Advisory Board for…
View original post 359 more words
One thought on “The PGR’s un-women-friendly epistemology”
I’m not sure I am convinced that that’s underrepresentation. He doesn’t ask junior people to do it, and those numbers strike me as about in line with the percentage of senior folks who are women. Since it is explicitly a reputational ranking, getting an evaluator group that mimics the field demographically seems to be a methodological value. Maybe he fails to do so but these numbers don’t convince me.
Comments are closed.