A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Abstract

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

“…Despite parity between the number of women and men completing undergraduate and graduate training in biomedical and health sciences worldwide [1, 2], women continue to be underrepresented as researchers in these domains and tend to receive less research funding than their male counterparts [3–5]. For example, an analysis of health services and policy research funding in Canada over the past decade found that female researchers under the age of 45 years had significantly lower success rates than age-matched male researchers [6].…”

Perceptions and experiences of a gender gap at a Canadian research institute and potential strategies to mitigate this gap: a sequential mixed-methods study

“…dom 9,10 and Europe. 11,12 The National Institutes of Health in the US funded 14 grants in 2008 to study causal factors that promote and support the careers of women in biomedical sciences.…”

Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective

“…To ensure its competitive advantage, the university is actively seeking new ways to attract the best students, recruit and retain the most talented staff, and increase research funding. Thus, advancing gender equality in education, research, and innovation is one of the key strategic priorities for the university [14,[30][31][32]…”