Researchers at the University of Washington wanted to see "how accurately gender representations in online image search results" match reality. One of the study's central questions: What turns up in Google image search when we search for professions ranging from "author" to "receptionist" to "chef," and how does the gender ratio represented in these images influence our perceptions regarding the actual number of men vs. women who actually hold those jobs?
In other words, does the gender of the professional in the stock photo hold up to every-day reality in the workplace?
To find out, UW researchers compared the number of women in the top 100 Google image search results representing 45 different occupations and compared these results to U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. Here's what they found, according to the press release:
In some jobs, the discrepancies were pronounced, the study found. In a Google image search for CEO, 11 percent of the people depicted were women, compared with 27 percent of U.S. CEOs who are women. Twenty-five percent of people depicted in image search results for authors are women, compared with 56 percent of actual U.S. authors.The researchers seem to conclude that online stock photos aren't totally divorced from every-day workplace reality. When they asked real people to rate various stock photos in terms of "professionalism," however, a few discrepancies revealed themselves like forehead wrinkles in a professional head shot.By contrast, 64 percent of the telemarketers depicted in image search results were female, while that occupation is evenly split between men and women.
Yet for nearly half of the professions – such as nurse practitioner (86 percent women), engineer (13 percent women), and pharmacist (54 percent women) — those two numbers were within five percentage points.
When the person in the picture matched the "majority gender for the profession," then the person in the photo was perceived as more professional, trustworthy, and competent.
But when the person in the picture didn't match the "occupational stereotype," he or she was perceived as inappropriate, perhaps even provocative. The researchers wonder if present search image algorithms should be changed "to help counter occupational stereotypes."
So what does this all mean, exactly? Are we confirming our professional biases with each stock photo we see? In this case, the fault lies not in our stock photos, but in ourselves.
And what about the journalists and bloggers who search for stock photos every day to accompany their stories? Are they culpable in confirming the public's professional biases, too?
Hmm. All I know is that seeing a stock photo in a news story is much better than reading a "news" story that's broken up into small sub-sections, thanks to a dozen or more moving .gifs that make reading an exercise in motion sickness (I'm looking at you, Buzzfeed and Huffington Post). The overwhelming motion is far too distracting. Besides, the average reader doesn't need a subtitled Peter Brady or Peter Rabbit every other paragraph to support the article's main thesis statement.
Please stop making motion happen, editors. It takes away from the journalism and is rather...unprofessional.
They say that a picture says a 1,000 words, and it turns out business stock photos are saying something to us. What are they saying to you, and how does it compare to your stereotype of a particular profession? It's some food for thought as you search for free, online stock photos of waitstaff later today.
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon