How we describe inequality is significant because it impacts our view of who causes it and how society should address it. Photo via Getty Images

Look closely at any news article about inequality and you will quickly notice that there is more than one way to describe what is happening.

For example:

“In 2022, men earned $1.18 for every dollar women earned.”

“In 2022, women earned 82 cents for every dollar men earned.”

“In 2022, the gender wage gap was 18 cents per dollar.”

When pointing out differences in access to resources and opportunities among groups of people, we tend to use three types of language:

  1. Advantaged — Describes an issue in terms of advantages the more dominant group enjoys.
  2. Disadvantaged — Describes an issue in terms of disadvantages the less dominant group experiences.
  3. Neutrality — Stays general enough to avoid direct comparisons between groups of people.

The difference between these three lenses, referred to as “frames” in academic literature, may be subtle. We may miss it completely when skimming a news article or listening to a friend share an opinion. But frames are more significant than we may realize.

“Frames of inequality matter because they shape our view of what is wrong and what should be fixed,” says Rice Business Professor Sora Jun.

Jun led a research team that conducted multiple studies to understand which of the three frames people typically use to describe social and economic inequality. In total, they analyzed more than 19,000 mainstream media articles and surveyed more than 600 U.S.-based participants.

In Chronic frames of social inequality: How mainstream media frame race, gender, and wealth inequality, the team published two major findings.

First, people tend to describe gender and racial inequality using the language of disadvantage. For example, “The data showed that officers pulled over Black drivers at a rate far out of proportion to their share of the driving-age population.”

Jun’s team encountered the same rhetorical tendency with gender inequality. In most cases, people describe instances of gender inequality (e.g., the gender pay gap) in terms of a disadvantage for women. We are far more likely to use the statement “Women earned 82 cents for every dollar men earned” than “Men earned $1.18 cents for every dollar women earned.”

"We expected that people would use the disadvantage framework to describe racial and gender inequalities, and it turned out to be true,” says Jun. “We think that the reason for this stems from how legitimate we perceive different hierarchies to be.” Because demographic categories like gender and race are unrelated to talent or effort, most people find it unfair that resources are distributed unevenly along these lines.

On the other hand, Jun expected people to describe wealth inequality in terms of advantage rather than disadvantage. The public typically considers this form of inequality to be more fair than racial or gender inequality. “In the U.S., there is still a widespread belief in economic mobility — that if you work hard enough, you can change the socioeconomic group you are in,” she says.

But in their second major finding, she and fellow researchers discovered that the most common frame used to describe wealth inequality was no frame at all. We find this neutrality in statements like “Disparities in education, health care and social services remain stark.”

Jun is not sure why people take a neutral approach more frequently when describing wealth inequality (speaking specifically of economic classes outside of gender and race). She suspects it has something to do with the fact that we view wealth as a fluid and continuous spectrum.

The merits of the three frames are up for debate. Using the frame of disadvantage might seem to portray issues more sympathetically, but some scholars point to potential downsides. The language of disadvantage installs the dominant group as the measuring stick for everyone else. It may also put the onus of change on the disadvantaged group while making the problem seem less relevant to the dominant group.

“When we speak about the gender gap in terms of disadvantage, and helping women earn more compared to men, we automatically assume that men are making the correct amount,” says Jun. “But maybe we should be looking at both sides of the equation.”

On the other hand, Jun cautions against using a one-size-fits-all approach to describing inequality. “We have to be careful not to jump to an easy conclusion, because the causes of inequality are so vast,” she says.

For example, men tend to interrupt conversations in team meetings at higher rates than women. “Should we frame this behavior in terms of advantage or disadvantage, which naturally leads us to prompt men to interrupt less and women to interrupt more?” asks Jun. “We really don’t know until we understand the ideal number of interruptions and why this deviation is happening. Ultimately, how we talk about inequality depends on what we want to accomplish. I hope that through this research, people will think more carefully about how they describe inequality so that they capture the full story before they act.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Sora Jun, Rosalind M. Chow, A. Maurits van der Veen and Erik Bleich.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Nominations are now open for the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards

Calling All Innovators

Calling all Houston innovators: The Houston Innovation Awards return this fall to celebrate the best and brightest in the Houston innovation ecosystem right now.

Presented by InnovationMap, the fifth annual Houston Innovation Awards will take place November 5 at TMC Helix Park.

The awards program will honor the top startups and innovators in Houston across 10 categories, and we're asking you to nominate the most deserving Houston innovators and innovative companies today.

This year's categories are:

  • Minority-founded Business, honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by BIPOC or LGBTQ+ representation.
  • Female-founded Business, honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by a woman.
  • Energy Transition Business, honoring an innovative startup providing a solution within renewables, climatetech, clean energy, alternative materials, circular economy, and beyond.
  • Health Tech Business, honoring an innovative startup within the health and medical technology sectors.
  • Deep Tech Business, honoring an innovative startup providing technology solutions based on substantial scientific or engineering challenges, including those in the AI, robotics, and space sectors.
  • Startup of the Year (People's Choice), honoring a startup celebrating a recent milestone or success. The winner will be selected by the community via an interactive voting experience.
  • Scaleup of the Year, honoring an innovative later-stage startup that's recently reached a significant milestone in company growth.
  • Incubator/Accelerator of the Year, honoring a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups.
  • Mentor of the Year, honoring an individual who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs.
  • Trailblazer, honoring an innovator who's made a lasting impact on the Houston innovation community.

Nominations may be made on behalf of yourself, your organization, and other leaders in the local innovation scene. The nomination period closes on August 31, so don't delay — nominate today at this link, or fill out the embedded form below.

Our panel of esteemed judges will review the nominations, and determine the finalists and winners. Finalists will be unveiled on September 30, and the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards winners will be announced live at our event on November 5.

Tickets will go on sale this fall. Stay tuned for that announcement, as well as more fanfare leading up to the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards.

Nominate now:

Interested in Innovation Awards sponsorship opportunities? Please contact sales@innovationmap.com.

MD Anderson launches $10M collaboration to advance personalized cancer treatment tech

fighting cancer

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Japan’s TOPPAN Holdings Inc. have announced a strategic collaboration to co-develop TOPPAN Holdings’ 3D cell culture, or organoid, technology known as invivoid.

The technology will be used as a tool for personalized cancer treatments and drug screening efforts, according to a release from MD Anderson. TOPPAN has committed $10 million over five years to advance the joint research activities.

“The strategic alliance with MD Anderson paves a promising path toward personalized cancer medicine," Hiroshi Asada, head of the Business Innovation Center at TOPPAN Holdings, said in a news release.

Invivoid is capable of establishing organoid models directly from patient biopsies or other tissues in a way that is faster and more efficient. Researchers may be able to test a variety of potential treatments in the laboratory to understand which approach may work best for the patient, if validated clinically.

“Organoids allow us to model the three-dimensional complexity of human cancers in the lab, thus allowing us to engineer a powerful translational engine—one that could not only predict how patients will respond to therapy before treatment begins but also could help to reimagine how we discover and validate next-generation therapies," Dr. Donna Hansel, division head of pathology and laboratory medicine at MD Anderson, added in the news release. “Through this collaboration, we hope to make meaningful progress in modeling cancer biology for therapeutic innovation.”

The collaboration will build upon preclinical research previously conducted by MD Anderson and TOPPAN. The organizations will work collaboratively to obtain College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certifications for the technology, which demonstrate a commitment to high-quality patient care. Once the certifications are obtained, they plan to conduct observational clinical studies and then prospective clinical studies.

“We believe our proprietary invivoid 3D cell culture technology, by enabling the rapid establishment of organoid models directly from patient biopsies, has strong potential to help identify more effective treatment options and reduce the likelihood of unnecessary therapies,” Asada added in the release. “Through collaboration on CAP/CLIA certification and clinical validation, we aim to bring this innovation closer to real-world patient care and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of cancer medicine."