In professions with “up-or-out” rules, like law and academia, even small setbacks can knock a person off track. These jobs require people to prove their worth within a set period or face being let go. The Covid-19 pandemic made things worse, especially for those with caregiving duties. One study found that women scientists with young children lost 30-40% of their research time due to school and daycare closures.
Women already face challenges in such fields because they take on more caregiving responsibilities. The pandemic raised fears that these roles would become even less diverse. To address this, many universities introduced Covid-19 Impact Statements, allowing tenure-track professors to explain how the pandemic disrupted their work. But some worried these statements could backfire, reinforcing biases rather than helping to level the playing field.
The stories we tell
A study from Northwestern University tested this. It asked more than 600 STEM professors to review fictional tenure applications. These applications included three variations: one with no impact statement, one citing childcare disruptions, and one mentioning lab closures. The candidate’s name was either Jennifer Nelson or Michael Nelson to see if gender played a role in the evaluations.
The results were clear: candidates who included an impact statement received better scores than those who did not. On a six-point scale, applications without a statement averaged 4.54, while those with lab disruptions scored 4.73, and those with childcare disruptions scored 4.87. The type of disruption didn’t matter, nor did the candidate’s gender.
The survey also showed that professors didn’t see these disruptions as a sign of weaker commitment or lower potential. Open-ended responses framed the pandemic as a legitimate, external issue beyond the candidate’s control. This framing seemed to help reviewers evaluate disruptions without triggering biases about caregiving or gender.
Covid-19 Impact Statements appear to have achieved their goal: helping faculty with caregiving duties get fair evaluations. By focusing on the context of the disruptions, the statements encouraged reviewers to take a more balanced view. This suggests that personal narratives, used thoughtfully, can help reduce bias and make high-pressure careers fairer for everyone.
