Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period.Methods and findingsWe retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78–0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People’s Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0–2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process.ConclusionsGender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.

The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions

“…dermatology research: Cheng et al, 2016 ; global infectious disease research: Head et al, 2013 ; cognitive science: Titone et al, 2018 ; cancer research: Zhou et al, 2018 ) and within various national contexts (e.g. UK: Blake & La Valle, 2000 ; Netherlands: Brouns, 2000 ; van der Lee & Ellemers, 2015 ; USA: Eloy et al, 2013 ; Jagsi et al, 2009 ; Australia: Over, 1996 ; Sigelman & Scioli, 1987 ; Canada: Burns et al, 2019 ; Tamblyn, et al, 2018 ; Switzerland: Severin et al, 2019 ). Female applicants have been shown to be disfavoured compared to their male counterparts, resulting in, proportionally, fewer of their studies being funded (Gannon et al, 2001 ; Head et al, 2013 ; Jagsi et al, 2009 ; Steinþórsdóttir et al, 2019 ; Zhou et al, 2018 ), fewer requests being awarded (Waisbren et al, 2008 ), and lower funding amounts being allotted (Bedi et al, 2012 ; Eloy et al, 2013 ; Steinþórsdóttir et al, 2019 ; Zhou et al, 2018 ).…”

“…Alternatively, some studies may not choose to consider productivity measures at all (e.g. Beck & Halloin, 2017 ; Burns et al, 2019 ), which could be due to a lack of access to such information, to a lack of perceived importance of such a factor, or even due to reasons relating to the feasibility of the statistical analyses. While failure to account for these co-occurring variables can lead to spurious results regarding the effect of applicant gender, it is simply not reasonable to account for all influencing factors in a tangible way.…”

From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between: protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these, with a focus on gender inequality

“…The same report found that there are gender differences in age and clinical academic grade, which imply that men are more likely to achieve senior levels at a younger age. Evidence shows women in academia are awarded less grant funding and have fewer high-impact publications, which are key factors in progressing their academic careers [5][6][7][8]. An NIHR-funded project published in 2019 illustrated that men and women report different experiences of research culture.…”

Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports

“… 5 More recently, analyses of grant applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research from 2012 to 2014 showed that female applicants received lower scores 6 and had lower grant success. 7 Similarly, a study of critiques of applications for renewal of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants found that reviewers assigned significantly worse priority, approach and significance scores to female than male principal investigators. 8 Finally, the success rate of women applying for European Research Council Starting Grants, Consolidator Grants or Advanced Grants from 2007 to 2016 was consistently lower than the success rate of men.…”