References
- [1] Albers, C. J. (2015). Dutch research funding, gender bias, and Simpson’s paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (50), E6828-E6829
- [2] Anderson, S. R., Auquier, A., Hauck, W. W., Oakes, D., Vandaele, W. & Weisberg, H. I. (2009). Statistical methods for comparative studies: techniques for bias reduction, John Wiley & Sons
- [3] Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A. & O’Connell, J. W. (1975) Sex bias in graduate admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science, 187, 398-404
- [4] Conroy, L., Watt, E. & Smith, W. Is there a ‘Leaky Pipeline for Women in Clinical Medical Physics in Canada? World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, June 7-12, 2015, Toronto, Canada, 2015. Springer International Publishing.,1669-1672
- [5] Fenton, N., Neil, M. & Constantinou, A. (2015). Simpson’s Paradox and the implications for medical trials. http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/simpson.pdf (accessed October 1st, 2016)
- [6] Jensen, J. L., Neeley, S., Hatch, J.B. & Piorczynski, T. 2015. Learning Scientific Reasoning Skills May be Key to Retention in Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Pracitce, 1521025115611616
- [7] McAllister, D., Juillerat, J. & Hunter, J. (2016). Funding: What stops women getting more grants? Nature, 529, 466-466
- [8] Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. & Handelsmann, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favour male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479
- [9] Norton, H. J. & Divine, G. (2015). Simpson’s paradox…and how to avoid it. Significance, 12(4), 40-43
- [10] Pearl, J. (2014). Comment: Understanding Simpson’s Paradox. The American Statistician, 68(1), 8-13
- [11] Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge University Press.
- [12] Shaik, F. & Fusulier, B. (2015). Academic Careers and Gender Inequality: Leaky Pipeline and Interrelated Phenomena in Seven European Countries. http://garciaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GARCIA_working_paper_5.pdf (accessed October 15th, 2016)
- [13] Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 13(2), 238-241
- [14] Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. MIT press
- [15] Van Der Lee, R. & Ellemers, N. (2015). Reply to Albers. Acceptance of empirical evidence for gender disparaties in Dutch research funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50), E6830
- [16] Verniers, C., Bonnot, V., Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Martinot, D., Faniko, K., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F.,Sarrasin, O. & Mayor, E. (2015). How gender stereotypes of academic abilities contribute to the maintenance of gender hierarchy in higher education. In Faniko, K., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Sarrasin, O., Mayor, E., (Eds.), Gender and Social Hierarchies. Perspectives from Social Psychology. London: Routledge
- [17] Volker, B. & Steenbeek, W. (2015). No evidence that gender contributes to personal research funding success in the Netherlands: A reaction to van der Lee and Ellemers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(51), E7036-E7037
- [18] West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Corrells, S. J. & Bergstrom, C.T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. Plos ONE, 8(7), e66212
- [19] Yule, G. U. 1903. Notes on the Theory of Association of Attributes in Statistics. Biometrika, 2(2), 121-134