What a researcher learned after sending out resumes with ‘LGBT indicators’ - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://fusion.net/story/255628/lgbt-women-employment-discrimination-less-callbacks/[/url] [QUOTE]Job hunting is an already stressful process but LGBT women face an additional hurdle, according to new research. Women might be less likely to be called back for a job interview if their resume indicates that they’re LGBT, a [URL="http://srd.sagepub.com/content/2/2378023115621316.full.pdf+html"]study published this week[/URL] found.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]After sending out 1,600 resumes to apply for more than 800 jobs, the study found that women with an “LGBT indicator” on their resume (represented in the study as work experience at an LGBT advocacy group) were about 30% less likely to receive a call-back than women who didn’t have those indicators.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Researcher Emma Mishel, a doctoral student in sociology at NYU, said the study came from a personal place for her, being a queer woman herself with a resume that reflects her work as an LGBT advocate. “When you look at my work history it’s a lot of LGBT organizations, so its pretty obvious that I’m queer,” Mishel told me. “And so I’ve always wondered if that is an issue when I apply to certain jobs.”[/QUOTE] The data source: [url]http://srd.sagepub.com/content/2/2378023115621316.full.pdf+html[/url]

Avoiding this isn't as easy as not including it on your resume, either. Employers will be curious about any large gaps in employment history.

Are people actually shocked by this? The deep south still exists.

[QUOTE=download;49540154]Are people actually shocked by this? The deep south still exists.[/QUOTE] it isn't about shock as much as having data to back up claims, which could be useful in debates of law

[QUOTE=download;49540154]Are people actually shocked by this? The deep south still exists.[/QUOTE] Did you look at the data? Out of the 4 states being studied (New York, Washington D.C., Virginia, and Tennessee) Virginia performed the best with the queer applicant actually getting 1% more callbacks and all the other states were within 1% of each other. From the study: "The results reveal that the effect of being a queer applicant is significantly more negative in New York, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., than in Virginia. In fact, given that Virginia is the reference category in model 3 (containing the interaction), the nonsignificance of the LGBT indicator reveals that there was no discrimination in Virginia. This result is consistent with the descriptive data, as queer-identified résumés led to fewer callbacks than straight-identified résumés in every state except Virginia."

[QUOTE=download;49540154]Are people actually shocked by this? The deep south still exists.[/QUOTE] I don't think the deep south is a problem. I didn't see in the article what jobs they were applying for or what their background degree's or experience are in. The context of this study leaves a lot to be questioned, just because you are LGBT doesn't mean shit if you have a English degree and are applying for a degree with a shit resume or not something your resume reflects experience in. Applying for a job and getting a job is much more complex than a line of what gender you identify as. [editline]16th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49540221]Did you look at the data? Out of the 4 states being studied (New York, Washington D.C., Virginia, and Tennessee) Virginia performed the best with the queer applicant actually getting 1% more callbacks and all the other states were within 1% of each other. From the study: "The results reveal that the effect of being a queer applicant is significantly more negative in New York, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., than in Virginia. In fact, given that Virginia is the reference category in model 3 (containing the interaction), the nonsignificance of the LGBT indicator reveals that there was no discrimination in Virginia. This result is consistent with the descriptive data, as queer-identified résumés led to fewer callbacks than straight-identified résumés in every state except Virginia."[/QUOTE] Don't worry after living 25 years in Virginia, I know an Australian can know more than I do.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540231]The context of this study leaves a lot to be questioned, just because you are LGBT doesn't mean shit if you have a English degree and are applying for a degree with a shit resume or not something your resume reflects experience in. Applying for a job and getting a job is much more complex than a line of what gender you identify as.[/QUOTE] in order to determine a percent loss in call-backs they had to have submitted equivalent resumes to the jobs; a control group

[QUOTE=bitches;49540308]in order to determine a percent loss in call-backs they had to have submitted equivalent resumes to the jobs; a control group[/QUOTE] "This indicator was included by listing a leadership position at an LGBT student organization on one woman’s résumé as part of her work history, implying that she is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (or queer). The other woman’s résumé served as a control and listed a leadership role at a non-LGBT organization in college. " I really wish they would say what the non-LGBT orginization was, Something like RoTC or the like can have a HUGE difference. I mean I could have missed it, but I don't think I saw it in the article.

[QUOTE=The golden;49540366]This is a poor test. The "indicator" they picked basically completely invalidates the results from this. Reason being is that what you put down as previous experience will impact your chances of getting the job if they are not relevant. If I'm applying at a computer repair shop and my resume lists experience with botany and gardening - they're not going to give a shit. This has nothing to do with anti-LGBT and more to do with the fact that "LGBT Advocacy" is simply not relevant to most jobs. In fact I would go as far as to speculate that they may have intentionally chosen jobs which were completely unrelated to LGBT in an attempt to probably get unbiased results but unfortunately that just ruined their test. If your experience isn't relevant to the job then don't shoehorn it in just for the sake of it. It just makes your resume look bad. That has nothing to do with LGBT, it's just basic resume building 101.[/QUOTE] Another big question I have is why the fictitious resumes, and the job positions they applied for aren't posted anywhere. If the resume is fake, why not post it and the position without listing the company's qualifications stripping the company name out of the posting.

I am not up to speed on peer review journals but is it common for articles to be published that are written by PHD of Arts students?

[QUOTE=sgman91;49540221]Did you look at the data? Out of the 4 states being studied (New York, Washington D.C., Virginia, and Tennessee) Virginia performed the best with the queer applicant actually getting 1% more callbacks and all the other states were within 1% of each other. From the study: "The results reveal that the effect of being a queer applicant is significantly more negative in New York, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., than in Virginia. In fact, given that Virginia is the reference category in model 3 (containing the interaction), the nonsignificance of the LGBT indicator reveals that there was no discrimination in Virginia. This result is consistent with the descriptive data, as queer-identified résumés led to fewer callbacks than straight-identified résumés in every state except Virginia."[/QUOTE] Maybe they just did it in North Virginia, which anyone there will tell you that, due to a spacial anomaly, lies between Maryland and Pennsylvania, and never fought for the South during the civil war.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49540433]Maybe they just did it in North Virginia, which anyone there will tell you that, due to a spacial anomaly, lies between Maryland and Pennsylvania, and never fought for the South during the civil war.[/QUOTE] Shouldn't that have then been specified?

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540231]Don't worry after living 25 years in Virginia, I know an Australian can know more than I do.[/QUOTE] Uhh... he was quoting from the source.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49540445]Uhh... he was quoting from the source.[/QUOTE] Virginia is in no way the "deep south", which the article quotes [img]http://i.imgur.com/88I7oC8.png[/img] Tennessee is hardly deep south either. South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi are deep south. Unless you have worked for weeks and driven through them, or grown up traveling through them you'd know the difference.

Interesting read. Seems solid but I think they should have been more specific about what indicators were used. What progressive and Lgbt organizations were used, etc.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49540557]Interesting read. Seems solid but I think they should have been more specific about what indicators were used. What progressive and Lgbt organizations were used, etc.[/QUOTE] They specifically say both the LGBT groups and control groups used in the data link.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49540567]They specifically say both the LGBT groups and control groups used in the data link.[/QUOTE] But lacked to define the skill set of college leadership used, and how it applied to what jobs they were applying to.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540483]Virginia is in no way the "deep south", which the article quotes [img]http://i.imgur.com/88I7oC8.png[/img] Tennessee is hardly deep south either. South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi are deep south. Unless you have worked for weeks and driven through them, or grown up traveling through them you'd know the difference.[/QUOTE] everyone is always shocked when i say im from Georgia, thinking that everyone here has an southern accent. I went into Alabama once and it was fucking horrifying.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49540579]But lacked to define the skill set of college leadership used, and how it applied to what jobs they were applying to.[/QUOTE] I'm on mobile. So I can't check atm, but I'm pretty sure they do answer those as well.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49540567]They specifically say both the LGBT groups and control groups used in the data link.[/QUOTE] Ah, found it (p4). Still, secretarial position vs Leadership position may affect the results.

I feel like there's a lot of grasping at straws to invalid these results in this thread. The study seems pretty straightforward to me.

[QUOTE=DFC;49540651]I feel like there's a lot of grasping at straws to invalid these results in this thread. The study seems pretty straightforward to me.[/QUOTE] EVERY study should be scrutinized. Otherwise, they would be worthless.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49540680]EVERY study should be scrutinized. Otherwise, they would be worthless.[/QUOTE] I completely agree. But... it's hard not to notice a tendency for posters to heavily scrutinize only the studies which make them uncomfortable, whilst readily accepting the studies which align with the beliefs they already hold. I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism but I'm also interested in the motivations for a skepticism that seems curiously selective.

[QUOTE=DFC;49540651]I feel like there's a lot of grasping at straws to invalid these results in this thread. The study seems pretty straightforward to me.[/QUOTE] If you are going to a control group in a scientific study you need to specify the parameters of your control group and non-controlled group in detail. Posting a fictional resume, to a job description is NOT something that you leave out; not to mention the job types they are applying for. This study is basically "I took 2 crows to perform a task with red dye on their wings, they performed it with 55% success rate" "I took 2 crows to perform a task with no dye on their wings, they performed it with 75% success rate" It doesn't mean anything because you don't know what the end goal was(The job position position), the variable(Their background leadership, which will directly effect the choices made), and the date the applications were submitted(they were 2 days apart, for all we know one was submitted on friday at 5PM and the other Monday 8AM). If you are going to do a study you need to define the control group as well as the end result expected and what variables changed to prove/disprove your theory. This has nothing to do with gender, this has everything with it having to be a badly done 'expirement' [editline]16th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49540589]I'm on mobile. So I can't check atm, but I'm pretty sure they do answer those as well.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/m5VSgjs.png[/img] Feel free to because as far as I can see anything retaining to leadership references the LGBT or a "non-LGBT"

[QUOTE=download;49540154]Are people actually shocked by this? The deep south still exists.[/QUOTE] I hate to be rude but, if i seen a dude clearly dressed up as a woman or vice versa, as an interviewer i would recommend the more normal looking type.

[QUOTE=DFC;49540651]I feel like there's a lot of grasping at straws to invalid these results in this thread. The study seems pretty straightforward to me.[/QUOTE] The results are kinda obvious. Gay marriage passed just recently by the narrowist of margins and was met with popular conservative media crying about Christian genocide.

[QUOTE=ridinmybike;49540788]I hate to be rude but, if i seen a dude clearly dressed up as a woman or vice versa, as an interviewer i would recommend the more normal looking type.[/QUOTE] lol i mean call it "rude" but you're literally just admitting to being transphobic

[QUOTE=ridinmybike;49540788]I hate to be rude but, if i seen a dude clearly dressed up as a woman or vice versa, as an interviewer i would recommend the more normal looking type.[/QUOTE] This wasn't per interview it was per call back based on resume. People did not see face to face. Sweet fuck it is even in the title that this is based off resumes

[QUOTE=ridinmybike;49540788]I hate to be rude but, if i seen a dude clearly dressed up as a woman or vice versa, as an interviewer i would recommend the more normal looking type.[/QUOTE] You know, I won't go for the obvious bait, but you would not hire a woman if she didn't wear a dress?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49540594]Ah, found it (p4). Still, secretarial position vs Leadership position may affect the results.[/QUOTE] Both the resumes with and without the LGBT indicator mention past work experience in secretarial positions. The mention of 'leadership positions' was when the author was referencing past papers which explored the same topic. For people who aren't going to bother read the paper: Two fake people were created. Both person A and person B were made with two resumes each - one with and one without the LGBT indicator. So there were four resumes. Pretty much everything was the same on each resume except person A (both their 'queer' and 'non-queer' resumes) was a Cornell student and person B (also, both their queer and non-queer resumes) was a Columbia student. Obviously, the two queer resumes have the work experience with an LGBT organisation at the respective campus, and the two non-queer resumes have the work experience at a progressive organisation at the respective campus. The two LGBT organisations: - Cluster Q, Columbia’s LGBT business association - Haven, Cornell’s LGBTQ student union The two progressive organisations: - Columbia Student Solidarity Network - Cornell Organization for Labor Action Both names are generic, Caucasian names. Person A: Sarah Collins Person B: Ashley Mitchell Also, Columbia and Cornell were chosen for being both similarly and highly ranked. On other matters, resumes to be emailed out were randomised. Eg, the resume from person A could be emailed out before or after the resume of person B (around two business days of difference), and for any job position, it could be either queer person A and non-queer person B, or non-queer person A and queer person B.