Signaling Diversity Debt: Startup Gender Composition and the Gender Gap in Joiners’ Interest

REFERENCES

• Abowd, J. M., Kramarz, F., & Woodcock, S. 2008. Econometric analyses of linked employer–employee data. In L. MátyásP. Sevestre (Eds.), The econometrics of panel data: Fundamentals and recent developments in theory and practice: 727–760. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar
• Abraham, M., & Burbano, V. 2021. Congruence between leadership gender and organizational claims affects the gender composition of the applicant pool: Field experimental evidence. Organization Science, 33: 393–413. Google Scholar
• Aguinis, H., Hill, N. S., & Bailey, J. R. 2019. Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods: 24: 678–693. Google Scholar
• Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. 2020. The organizational reproduction of inequality. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 195–230.Link , Google Scholar
• Arin, P., Minniti, M., Murtinu, S., & Spagnolo, N. 2022. Inflection points, kinks, and jumps: A statistical approach to detecting nonlinearities. Organizational Research Methods, 25: 786–814. Google Scholar
• Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.Link , Google Scholar
• Banker, R., Liang, Y., & Ramasubbu, N. 2021. Technical debt and firm performance. Management Science, 67: 3174–3194. Google Scholar
• Barbulescu, R., & Bidwell, M. 2012. Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24: 737–756. Google Scholar
• Brands, R. A., & Fernandez-Mateo, I. 2017. Leaning out: How negative recruitment experiences shape women’s decisions to compete for executive roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 405–442. Google Scholar
• Brush, C., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., & Welter, F. 2019. A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 53: 393–408. Google Scholar
• Burton, D. M., Fairlie, R. W., & Siegel, D. 2019. Introduction to a special issue on entrepreneurship and employment: Connecting labor market institutions, corporate demography, and human resource management practices. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 75: 1050–1064. Google Scholar
• Busenbark, J. R., Graffin, S. D., Campbell, R. J., & Lee, E. Y. 2021. A marginal effects approach to interpreting main effects and moderation. Organizational Research Methods, 25: 147–169. Google Scholar
• Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. 2001. Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20: 115–163. Google Scholar
• Campero, S. 2020. Hiring and intra-occupational gender segregation in software engineering. American Sociological Review, 86: 60–92. Google Scholar
• Campero, S., & Fernandez, R. M. 2019. Gender composition of labor queues and gender disparities in hiring. Social Forces, 97: 1487–1516. Google Scholar
• Campero, S., & Kacperczyk, A. 2020. Asymmetric gender homophily in the startup labor market. In D. TzabbarB. Cirillo (Eds.), Employee inter- and intra-firm mobility, vol. 41: 329–359. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
• Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. 1999. Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 413–423. Google Scholar
• Chapman, D., Uggerslev, K., Carroll, S., Piasentin, K., & Jones, D. 2005. Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 928–944. Google Scholar
• Cheryan, S., & Markus, H. R. 2020. Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127: 1022–1052. Google Scholar
• Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. 2009. Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97: 1045–1060. Google Scholar
• Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143: 1–35. Google Scholar
• Choi, J., Goldschlag, N., Haltiwanger, J. C., & Kim, J. D. 2021, February 1. Early joiners and startup performance. Working Paper no. w28417, NBER. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w28417 Google Scholar
• Chung, S. H. D., & Parker, S. C. 2023. Founder affiliations: Jobseeker reactions and impact on employee recruitment by start-up ventures. Small Business Economics, 61: 259–283. Google Scholar
• Clarke, H. M. 2020. Gender stereotypes and gender-typed work. In K. F. Zimmermann (Ed.), Handbook of labor, human resources and population economics: 1–23. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Google Scholar
• Cohen, L. E., & Broschak, J. P. 2013. Whose jobs are these? The impact of the proportion of female managers on the number of new management jobs filled by women versus men. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 509–541. Google Scholar
• Cohen, L. E., Broschak, J. P., & Haveman, H. A. 1998. And then there were more? The effect of organizational sex composition on the hiring and promotion of managers. American Sociological Review, 63: 711–727. Google Scholar
• Del Carpio, L., & Guadalupe, M. 2021. More women in tech? Evidence from a field experiment addressing social identity. Management Science, 68: 3196–3218. Google Scholar
• DeSantola, A., & Gulati, R. 2017. Scaling: Organizing and growth in entrepreneurial ventures. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 640–668.Link , Google Scholar
• Devendorf, S. A., & Highhouse, S. 2008. Applicant–employee similarity and attraction to an employer. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 607–617. Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Koenig, A. M. 2021. The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30: 343–350. Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., Miller, D. I., Nater, C., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. 2020. Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75: 301–315. Google Scholar
• Egusa, C., & Cohen, S. 2015, July 5. The Netherlands: A look at the world’s high-tech startup capital. Retrieved from http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/07/05/the-netherlands-a-look-at-the-worlds-high-tech-startup-capital Google Scholar
• Ellemers, N. 2018. Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69: 275–298. Google Scholar
• Ely, R. J. 1995. The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 589–634.Link , Google Scholar
• Ewens, M., & Townsend, R. R. 2020. Are early stage investors biased against women? Journal of Financial Economics, 135: 653–677. Google Scholar
• Farh, C. I. C., Oh, J. K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Yu, A., Lee, S. M., & King, D. D. 2020. Token female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated teams: Facilitating conditions and consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 832–856.Link , Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39: 175–191. Google Scholar
• Fernandez, R. M., & Campero, S. 2017. Gender sorting and the glass ceiling in high-tech firms. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 70: 73–104. Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Coh, M. 2015. Coming with baggage: Past rejections and the evolution of market relationships. Organization Science, 26: 1381–1399. Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Kaplan, S. 2018. Gender and organization science: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organization Science, 29: 1229–1236. Google Scholar
• Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. 2011. Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101: 109–128. Google Scholar
• Gee, L. K. 2019. The more you know: Information effects on job application rates in a large field experiment. Management Science, 65: 2077–2094. Google Scholar
• Georgeac, O., & Rattan, A. 2023. The business case for diversity backfires: Detrimental effects of organizations’ instrumental diversity rhetoric for underrepresented group members’ sense of belonging and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124: 69–108. Google Scholar
• Gomila, R. 2021. Logistic or linear? Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 150: 700–709. Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. 2016. Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 341–374. Google Scholar
• Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. 2009. The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 397–417. Google Scholar
• Guzman, J., & Kacperczyk, A. 2019. Gender gap in entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 48: 1666–1680. Google Scholar
• Haltiwanger, J. 2022. Entrepreneurship in the twenty-first century. Small Business Economics, 58: 27–40. Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. 2022. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• He, J. C., & Kang, S. K. 2021. Covering in cover letters: Gender and self-presentation in job applications. Academy of Management Journal, 64: 1097–1126.Link , Google Scholar
• Heilman, M. E. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 269–298. Google Scholar
• Heilman, M. E. 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32: 113–135. Google Scholar
• Heilman, M. E., & Caleo, S. 2018. Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21: 725–744. Google Scholar
• Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. 2008. Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1: 393–398. Google Scholar
• Heilman, M. E., Manzi, F., & Caleo, S. 2019. Updating impressions: The differential effects of new performance information on evaluations of women and men. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152: 105–121. Google Scholar
• Hentschel, T., Braun, S., Peus, C., & Frey, D. 2021. Sounds like a fit! Wording in recruitment advertisements and recruiter gender affect women’s pursuit of career development programs via anticipated belongingness. Human Resource Management, 60: 581–602. Google Scholar
• Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. 2019, January 30. The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. Google Scholar
• Hentschel, T., Horvath, L. K., Peus, C., & Sczesny, S. 2018. Kick-starting female careers: Attracting women to entrepreneurship programs. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 17: 193–203. Google Scholar
• Highhouse, S. 2009. Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods, 12: 554–566. Google Scholar
• Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. 2003. Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63: 986–1001. Google Scholar
• Honoré, F., & Ganco, M. 2023. Entrepreneurial teams’ acquisition of talent: Evidence from technology manufacturing industries using a two-sided approach. Strategic Management Journal, 44: 141–170. Google Scholar
• Huang, L., Joshi, P., Wakslak, C., & Wu, A. 2021. Sizing up entrepreneurial potential: Gender differences in communication and investor perceptions of long-term growth and scalability. Academy of Management Journal, 64: 716–740.Link , Google Scholar
• Hünermund, P., & Louw, B. 2020. On the nuisance of control variables in regression analysis. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10314v1 Google Scholar
• Hurst, W. R., Lee, S., & Frake, J. 2022, July 6. The hidden cost of flat hierarchies on applicant pool diversity: Evidence from experiments. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2022. Google Scholar
• Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71: 589–617. Google Scholar
• Kanter, R. M. 1977a. Men and women of the organization. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar
• Kanter, R. M. 1977b. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965–990. Google Scholar
• Kanze, D., Conley, M. A., Okimoto, T. G., Phillips, D. J., & Merluzzi, J. 2020. Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit. Science Advances, 6. Article eabd7664. Google Scholar
• Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Dalton, M. 2019. Risk attitudes and personality traits of entrepreneurs and venture team members. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116: 17712–17716. Google Scholar
• Kim, J. D. 2018. Is there a startup wage premium? Evidence from MIT graduates. Research Policy, 47: 637–649. Google Scholar
• King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. 2010. Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management, 36: 482–510. Google Scholar
• Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. 2017. “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43: 228–254. Google Scholar
• Kroeper, K. M., Williams, H. E., & Murphy, M. C. 2022. Counterfeit diversity: How strategically misrepresenting gender diversity dampens organizations’ perceived sincerity and elevates women’s identity threat concerns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122: 399–426. Google Scholar
• Kruk, M., & Matsick, J. L. 2021. A taxonomy of identity safety cues based on gender and race: From a promising past to an intersectional and translational future. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 7: 487–510. Google Scholar
• Lazar, M., Miron-Spektor, E., Agarwal, R., Erez, M., Goldfarb, B., & Chen, G. 2020. Entrepreneurial team formation. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 29–59.Link , Google Scholar
• Lee, M., & Huang, L. 2018. Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organization Science, 29: 1–16. Google Scholar
• Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. 2018, September. Do equal employment opportunity statements backfire? Evidence from a natural field experiment on job-entry decisions. Working Paper no. 25035, NBER. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w25035 Google Scholar
• Leslie, L. M. 2019. Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44: 538–563.Link , Google Scholar
• Li, X., & Wibbens, P. D. 2023. Broken effects? How to reduce false positives in panel regressions. Strategy Science, 8: 103–119. Google Scholar
• Lievens, F., & Slaughter, J. E. 2016. Employer image and employer branding: What we know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3: 407–440. Google Scholar
• Liu, C. 2021. Why do firms fail to engage diversity? A behavioral strategy perspective. Organization Science, 32: 1193–1209. Google Scholar
• Madera, J. M., Ng, L., Sundermann, J. M., & Hebl, M. 2019. Top management gender diversity and organizational attraction: When and why it matters. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7: 90–101. Google Scholar
• Martell, R. F., Emrich, C. G., & Robison-Cox, J. 2012. From bias to exclusion: A multilevel emergent theory of gender segregation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32: 137–162. Google Scholar
• Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. 1996. Male–female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51: 157–158. Google Scholar
• Martins, L. L. 2020. Strategic diversity leadership: The role of senior leaders in delivering the diversity dividend. Journal of Management, 46: 1191–1204. Google Scholar
• Miric, M., Yin, P.-L., & Fehder, D. C. 2023. Population-level evidence of the gender gap in technology entrepreneurship. Strategy Science, 8: 62–84. Google Scholar
• Montoya, A. K. 2022, August 25. Combining statistical and causal mediation analysis. PsyArXiv. Google Scholar
• Moser, K. J., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. M. 2017. Small but attractive: Dimensions of new venture employer attractiveness and the moderating role of applicants’ entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 32: 588–610. Google Scholar
• Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. 2019. Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113: 517–529. Google Scholar
• Murnieks, C. Y., Cardon, M. S., & Haynie, J. M. 2020. Fueling the fire: Examining identity centrality, affective interpersonal commitment and gender as drivers of entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 35: 105909. Google Scholar
• Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. 2007. Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18: 879–885. Google Scholar
• Nisen, M. 2014, December 31. Statistically speaking, what does the average startup look like? Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/statistically-speaking-what-does-the-average-startup-look-like/384019 Google Scholar
• Nishii, L. H. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1754–1774.Link , Google Scholar
• Obukhova, E., & Kleinbaum, A. 2022. Scouting and schmoozing: A gender difference in networking during job search. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8: 203–223.Link , Google Scholar
• Ouimet, P., & Zarutskie, R. 2014. Who works for startups? The relation between firm age, employee age, and growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 112: 386–407. Google Scholar
• Palan, S., & Schitter, C. 2018. Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17: 22–27. Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. 2021. Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54: 1643–1662. Google Scholar
• Perry, E. L., Davis-Blake, A., & Kulik, C. T. 1994. Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Academy of Management Review, 19: 786–820.Link , Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. 1987. The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The case of college administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 1–24. Google Scholar
• Prüfer, J., & Prüfer, P. 2020. Data science for entrepreneurship research: Studying demand dynamics for entrepreneurial skills in the Netherlands. Small Business Economics, 55: 651–672. Google Scholar
• Reskin, B. F., McBrier, D. B., & Kmec, J. A. 1999. The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 335–361. Google Scholar
• Riordan, C. M. 2000. Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 19: 131–173. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
• Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. 1997. Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 342–358. Google Scholar
• Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. 2015. Founder or joiner? The role of preferences and context in shaping different entrepreneurial interests. Management Science, 61: 2160–2184. Google Scholar
• Rocha, V., & van Praag, M. 2020. Mind the gap: The role of gender in entrepreneurial career choice and social influence by founders. Strategic Management Journal, 41: 841–866. Google Scholar
• Rubineau, B., & Fernandez, R. M. 2013. Missing links: Referrer behavior and job segregation. Management Science, 59: 2470–2489. Google Scholar
• Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68: 195–222. Google Scholar
• Samuelsson, M., Söderblom, A., & McKelvie, A. 2021. Path dependence in new ventures’ capital structures.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45: 319–349. Google Scholar
• Sauermann, H. 2017. Fire in the belly? Employee motives and innovative performance in startups versus established firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12: 423–454. Google Scholar
• Schmader, T. 2023. Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. Annual Review of Psychology, 74: 219–243. Google Scholar
• Skelton, S. K. 2020. Just 1% of female jobseekers aspire to work in startups. Retrieved from https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252476799/Just-1-of-female-jobseekers-aspire-to-work-in-startups Google Scholar
• Snellman, K., & Younkin, P. 2021, February 14. Who’s the boss? Evidence of job seeker bias from a field experiment. Working Paper no. 2021/08/OBH, INSEAD. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3785311 Google Scholar
• Sorenson, O., Dahl, M. S., Canales, R., & Burton, M. D. 2021. Do startup employees earn more in the long run? Organization Science, 32: 527–908. Google Scholar
• Thébaud, S. 2010. Gender and entrepreneurship as a career choice: Do self-assessments of ability matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 73: 288–304. Google Scholar
• Thébaud, S. 2015. Business as Plan B: Institutional foundations of gender inequality in entrepreneurship across 24 industrialized countries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 671–711. Google Scholar
• Thébaud, S., & Charles, M. 2018. Segregation, stereotypes, and STEM. Social Sciences, 7: Article 111. Google Scholar
• Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. M., & Lievens, F. 2016. Employer branding: A brand equity-based literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20: 155–179. Google Scholar
• Tibbe, T. D., & Montoya, A. K. 2022. Correcting the Bias correction for the bootstrap confidence interval in mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. Google Scholar
• van Lancker, E., Knockaert, M., Audenaert, M., & Cardon, M. 2022. HRM in entrepreneurial firms: A systematic review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 32: 100850. Google Scholar
• van Vianen, A. E. M. 2018. Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5: 75–101. Google Scholar
• Walker, H. J., & Hinojosa, A. S. 2014. Recruitment: The role of job advertisements. In K.-Y. T. YuD. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment: 269–283. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Watkins, M. B., Simmons, A., & Umphress, E. 2018. It’s not black and white: Toward a contingency perspective on the consequences of being a token. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33: 334–365. Google Scholar
• Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Jonsen, K., & Morner, M. 2018. Managing organizational gender diversity images: A content analysis of German corporate websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 152: 997–1013. Google Scholar
• Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Kidder, D. L., Cheung, H. K., Morner, M., & Lievens, F. 2016. Actions speak louder than words: Outsiders’ perceptions of diversity mixed messages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 1329–1341. Google Scholar
• Wu, S. 2017, March. Welcome to diversity debt: The crisis that could sink Uber. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2017/03/welcome-to-diversity-debt-the-crisis-that-could-sink-uber Google Scholar
• Wynn, A. T., & Correll, S. J. 2018. Puncturing the pipeline: Do technology companies alienate women in recruiting sessions? Social Studies of Science, 48: 149–164. Google Scholar