Gendered inequalities in competitive grant funding: an overlooked dimension of gendered power relations in academia

Steinþórsdóttir, Finnborg Salome; Einarsdóttir, Þorgerður; Pétursdóttir, Gyða Margrét; Himmelweit, Susan

doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1666257

Cited by 42 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a meta-analysis of 21 studies on grants awarded in a peer review process, similar results were found: men had greater odds of receiving a grant than women by about 7% (Bornmann et al, 2007). Strikingly, when investigating the University of Iceland Research Fund from 2010 to 2014, it was found that for every grant awarded to a woman, men received between 1.5 and 2.0 grants (Steinsthórsdóttir et al, 2020). Such a clear advantage for men was also found in the data of the Swiss National Science Foundation from 2004 to 2006: men had 26% greater odds of approval than women (Bornmann et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Gender bias in the allocation of student grants

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple studies have shown that women’s likelihood of receiving research funding is lower than that of their male colleagues. Thus far, all research on this gender gap in academia has focused on post-PhD academics, making it difficult to discern whether the female disadvantages in number of publications, previous grants, maternity leave, and h-indexes are at the root of the gender gap in received funding, or whether it is due to a more fundamental gender bias in academia. Therefore, we investigated whether female university students are already disadvantaged in receiving their first grant in their scientific career. We analysed data on applications (N = 2651) from 1995 to 2018 to the Leiden University International Study Fund (LISF), a fund dedicated to support students to study or conduct research abroad. We found that men and women applied equally often to the LISF. However, women had a lower success rate, which seemed to only get worse over recent years. Furthermore, male and female applications were assessed to be equal in quality when gender-related information was removed from them. The current study demonstrates that the factors that were assumed to contribute the most to the gender gap in more senior academics (e.g. previous grants, h-index) do not explain it fully: even when those factors do not yet play a role, such as in our student sample, women were found to have lower success rates than men. This underscores the importance of attacking gender biases at its roots.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Gender bias in the allocation of student grants

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grant funding differences between women and men across distinct disciplines prominently reflect these characteristics. This is exemplified in countries such as Iceland (Steinþórsdóttir et al, 2019), where gender distribution is generally equal: women and men globally show comparable success in their granted amounts and numbers, particularly in the social sciences, whereas women are more likely to receive higher grants than men in female-dominated fields like education, and men are substantially more likely to be awarded grants and receive higher amounts of funding in male-dominated fields such as engineering, natural sciences, health sciences, and humanities.…”

Section: Individual and Systemic Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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 ). Many of these studies have looked at individual grant schemes in specific disciplines and/or under particular evaluation criteria, therefore characterising precise conditions in which gender inequalities may take form.…”

Section: The Current State Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

show abstract

“…Part of the financial hardships graduate students in particular face revolves around conference travel and registration, compounded by "pay now, get reimbursed later" practices employed by many universities. Across career stage, who gets grant funding and for how much is often affected by structural issues outside of merit, meaning there is often less grant funding available to scholars from marginalized backgrounds, without famous advisors, and at smaller institutions (Bol et al, 2018;Steinþórsdóttir et al, 2020;Wahls, 2018). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted many university and personal budgets, and is likely to have affected these budgets in inequitable manners (Ancona et al, 2020;Shapiro, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Global Engagement Task Force Report

Steltenpohl

Doble

Basnight-Brown

et al. 2021

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) is an organization whose mission focuses on bringing together scholars who want to improve methods and practices in psychological science. The organization reaffirmed in June 2020 that “[we] cannot do good science without diverse voices,” and acknowledged that “right now the demographics of SIPS are unrepresentative of the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepresentative of the global population. We have work to do when it comes to better supporting Black scholars and other underrepresented minorities.” The purpose of the Global Engagement Task Force, started in January 2020, was to explore suggestions made after the 2019 Annual Conference, held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, around inclusion and access for scholars from regions outside of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe (described in the report as “geographically diverse” regions), a task complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest in several task force members’ countries of residence. This report outlines several suggestions, specifically around building partnerships with geographically diverse open science organizations; increasing SIPS presence at other, more local events; diversifying remote events; considering geographically diverse annual conference locations; improving membership and financial resources; and surveying open science practitioners from geographically diverse regions.

show abstract

Gendered inequalities in competitive grant funding: an overlooked dimension of gendered power relations in academia

Cited by 42 publications

References 29 publications

Gender bias in the allocation of student grants

Gender bias in the allocation of student grants

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

Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Global Engagement Task Force Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About