Finkbeiner test

File:Christie Aschwanden at Spotlight Health Aspen Ideas Festival 2015.JPG in 2015]]

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. 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 ..."{{cite news|last=Brainard|first=Curtis|title='The Finkbeiner Test' Seven rules to avoid gratuitous gender profiles of female scientists|url=https://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/finkbeiner_test_gender_gap_fem.php?page=all|access-date=31 March 2013|newspaper=Columbia Journalism Review|date=22 March 2013}}

Aschwanden formulated the test in a 2013 article for the online magazine Double X Science.{{cite news|url=http://www.doublexscience.org/the-finkbeiner-test/|title=The Finkbeiner Test: What matters in stories about women scientists?|last=Aschwanden|first=Christie|date=5 March 2013|newspaper=Double X Science|access-date=31 March 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312212947/http://www.doublexscience.org/the-finkbeiner-test/|archive-date=12 March 2017|url-status=bot: unknown|df=dmy-all}} 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:

{{blockquote|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, who had earlier written a post{{cite web |last=Finkbeiner |first=Ann |url=http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2013/01/17/5266/ |title=What I'm Not Going to Do |date=17 January 2013 |work=The Last Word On Nothing |access-date=2 April 2013}} 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".

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". 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.']" 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.

The 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".{{cite news|last=Gonzalez|first=Robert T.|title=The New York Times fails miserably in its obituary for rocket scientist Yvonne Brill|url=http://io9.com/the-new-york-times-fails-miserably-in-its-obituary-for-464140204|access-date=31 March 2013|newspaper=io9|date=31 March 2013}} 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..."{{Cite web|title = NewsDiffs {{!}} Diffing: Yvonne Brill, a Pioneering Rocket Scientist, Dies at 88|url = http://www.newsdiffs.org/diff/192021/192137/www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/science/space/yvonne-brill-rocket-scientist-dies-at-88.html|website = www.newsdiffs.org|access-date = 14 October 2015}}

Another New York Times article, on Jennifer Doudna, published on 11 May 2015,{{Cite web|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/jennifer-doudna-crispr-cas9-genetic-engineering.html?_r=0|title = Jennifer Doudna, A Pioneer Who Helped Simplify Genome Editing|date = 11 May 2015|access-date = 14 October 2015|work=The New York Times|publisher = |last = Pollack|first = Andrew}} drew similar criticism with reference to the Finkbeiner test.{{Cite web|title = Problems With How We Talk About Female Scientists « Berman Institute Bioethics Bulletin|url = http://bioethicsbulletin.org/archive/the-problem-with-how-we-talk-about-female-scientists|website = bioethicsbulletin.org|access-date = 14 October 2015}} An article in The Globe and Mail on astrophysicist Victoria Kaspi,{{cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcgill-astrophysicist-is-first-woman-to-win-canadas-top-science-award/article28762732/ |title=McGill astrophysicist is first woman to win Canada's top science award |first=Ivan |last=Semeniuk |date=16 February 2016 |work=The Globe and Mail}} published on 16 February 2016, drew the same criticism,{{cite web |url=https://boundaryvision.com/2016/02/18/two-stories-same-scientist-gendered-coverage-of-the-herzberg-medal/ |title=Two stories, same scientist: Gender and coverage of the Herzberg medal |publisher=Boundary Vision |first=Marie-Claire |last=Shanahan |date=18 February 2016 |access-date= |archive-date=21 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421090132/https://boundaryvision.com/2016/02/18/two-stories-same-scientist-gendered-coverage-of-the-herzberg-medal/ |url-status=dead }} as did David Quammen's book A Tangled Tree, for giving women scientists, especially Lynn Margulis, short shrift.{{cite news |work=The New York Times Book Review|first=Erika |last=Check Hayden|authorlink=Erika Check Hayden|title=A New View of Evolution That Can't Be Represented by a Tree |date=13 August 2018| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/books/review/david-quammen-tangled-tree.html |language=en}}

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.{{Cite web|title = Sexism In Science {{!}} Common Reader|url = https://commonreader.wustl.edu/sexism-science/|website = Common Reader|date = 23 February 2015|access-date = 14 October 2015|language = en-US}} This view is shared by other writers.{{Cite web|title = Asking Questions and the "Finkbeiner Test"|url = http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/03/06/asking-questions-and-the-finkbeiner-test/|website = Uncertain Principles|access-date = 14 October 2015|language = en}}{{Cite web |last=Initiative |first=Katie Hafner,Carol Sutton Lewis,The Lost Women of Science |title=The Feminist Test We Keep Failing: Lost Women of Science Podcast, Season 3 Bonus Episode |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-feminist-test-we-keep-on-failing-lost-women-of-science-podcast-season-3-bonus-episode/ |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=Scientific American |language=en}} 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."{{Cite web|url=https://thewire.in/media/debate-test-used-spot-gender-bias-science-reports-can-myopic|title=Debate: Why a Test Used to Spot Gender Bias in Science Reports Can Be Myopic – The Wire|website=The Wire|access-date=2018-04-03}} In another post on Last Word on Nothing, Finkbeiner responded to these questions by arguing with herself.{{Cite web |title=The Last Word On Nothing {{!}} Arguing with the Finkbeiner Test |url=https://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2020/10/12/arguing-with-the-finkbeiner-test-2/ |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=www.lastwordonnothing.com}}

The "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.{{Cite web|title = The Reversed Finkbeiner Test|url = http://www.futurescienceleaders.com/hjones/2015/03/the-reversed-finkbeiner-test/|website = www.futurescienceleaders.com|access-date = 14 October 2015 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015004001/https://www.futurescienceleaders.com/hjones/2015/03/the-reversed-finkbeiner-test/ | archivedate=15 October 2015 }}{{Cite web|title = Finkbeiner posts: round 2|url = http://genegeek.ca/2014/03/finkbeiner-posts-round-2/|website = genegeek|access-date = 14 October 2015|language = en|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150818070646/http://genegeek.ca/2014/03/finkbeiner-posts-round-2/|archive-date = 18 August 2015|url-status = dead}}

{{reflist|30em}}

Category:2013 introductions

Category:Journalism standards

Category:Media bias

Category:Sexism

Category:Women and science

Category:Affirmative action