Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals

Forscher, Patrick S.; Cox, William T. L.; Bräuer, Markus; Devine, Patricia G.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/r2xvb

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This progress toward granting par- ity is likely the result of the conscious efforts of governmental funding agencies to collect the necessary data and conduct formal reviews of their own evaluation processes and possible biases (e.g., through the NSF Authorization Act of 2002) (Hosek et al, 2005). In addition to such observational data showing similar success rates for men and women, recent experimental studies also indicate similar granting rates for identical male and female grant applicants (Forscher et al, 2019). Nevertheless, subtle disparities linger.…”

Section: Grant Successmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The operation of gender bias in grants and awards has also received limited experimental study. One recent experimental audit study shows no evidence of gender bias in initial grant reviews at NIH (Forscher et al, 2019). Additionally, a review screening 170 papers identified only one study that directly assessed the effect of gender bias in grant review (Tricco et al, 2017).…”

Section: Publications Grants and Awardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The landscape of gender in education and the workforce has shifted over the past decades: women have made gains in representation, equitable pay, and recognition through awards, grants, and publications. Despite overall change, differences persist in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This Viewpoints article on gender disparities in STEM offers an overarching perspective by addressing what the issues are, why the issues may emerge, and how the issues may be solved. In Part 1, recent data on gaps in representation, compensation, and recognition (awards, grants, publications) are reviewed, highlighting differences across subfields (e.g., computer science vs biology) and across career trajectories (e.g., bachelor's degrees vs senior faculty). In Part 2, evidence on leading explanations for these gaps, including explanations centered on abilities, preferences, and explicit and implicit bias, is presented. Particular attention is paid to implicit bias: mental processes that exist largely outside of conscious awareness and control in both male and female perceivers and female targets themselves. Given its prevalence and persistence, implicit bias warrants a central focus for research and application. Finally, in Part 3, the current knowledge is presented on interventions to change individuals' beliefs and behaviors, as well as organizational culture and practices. The moral issues surrounding equal access aside, understanding and addressing the complex issues surrounding gender in STEM are important because of the possible benefits to STEM and society that will be realized only when full participation of all capable and qualified individuals is guaranteed.

show abstract

Section: Grant Successmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Publications Grants and Awardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In opposition to the studies indicating that women are consistently undervalued during their application evaluations, a growing literature has in fact argued for the absence of gender differences, asserting that women and men have relatively equal chances to obtain grant funding in different academic disciplines and countries (e.g. Belgian Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique: Beck & Halloin, 2017 ; NIH: Forscher et al, 2019 ; Kalyani et al, 2015 ; Pohlhaus et al, 2011 ; Warner et al, 2017 ; Medical Research Council of Canada: Friesen, 1998 ; Wellcome Trus: Grant et al, 1997 ; Swiss National Science Foundation: Reinhart, 2009 ; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia: Ward & Donnelly, 1998 ; RAND Corporation, 2005 ). Contrary to many of the aforementioned studies substantiating gender effects in specific grant schemes and contexts, these findings have been obtained from studies examining large-scale data ensuring sufficient effect sizes and generalisability (Jayasinghe et al, 2003 ; Marsh et al, 2008 , 2011 ).…”

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

“… In a large US experiment, NIH-grant proposals were rated just as favorably when the supposed principal investigator was a woman as they were when the PI was a man (Forscher, Cox, et al, 2019).…”

Section: Challenges To the Discrimination Explanation For Stem Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

Stewart‐Williams¹,

Halsey²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a well-known and widely lamented fact that men outnumber women in a number of fields in STEM, including physics, mathematics, and computer science. The most commonly discussed explanations for the gender gaps are discrimination and socialization, and the most common policy prescriptions are targeted at those ostensible causes. However, a great deal of evidence in the behavioral sciences suggests that discrimination and socialization are only part of the story. The purpose of this paper is to highlight other aspects of the story: aspects that are commonly overlooked or downplayed. More precisely, the paper has two main aims. The first is to examine the evidence that factors other than workplace discrimination make a significant contribution to the gender gaps in STEM. These factors include relatively large average sex differences in career and lifestyle preferences, and relatively small average differences in cognitive aptitudessome favoring males, others favoring femaleswhich are associated with progressively larger differences the further above the average one looks. The second aim is to evaluate the evidence suggesting that these sex differences are not purely a product of social factors but also have a substantial biological (or "innate") component. A more complete picture of the many causes of the unequal sex ratios in STEM may productively inform policy debates, and is likely to improve women's situation across the STEM fields. Men, Women, and ScienceWhy the Differences and What Should Be Done?Never has the issue of gender disparities been as widely discussed, or as bitterly contested, as it has been in recent years. From the Oscars to the political podium, from TV shows to the workplace, disparities are identified and debate inevitably ensues. In the occupational realm, one of the primary focuses of this debate has been the differential representation of men and women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math). 1 This was epitomized by the infamous "Google memo," in which then-Google employee James Damore (2017) questioned the extent to which observed gender disparities in STEM are a product of workplace discrimination. The memo, and Damore's subsequent dismissal from Google, provoked a great deal of discussion and debate about the causes of STEM disparities and the origins of human sex differences. Unfortunately, much of this debate was decidedly inaccurate in its presentation of the research on the topic. A great deal was said about bias and discrimination, but relatively little about other factors contributing to STEM gender gaps (e.g., Chachra, 2017). Furthermore, to the extent that other factors were mentionedfactors such as average sex differences in academic interests these were typically attributed to socialization, rather than to biology or to a 1 Strictly speaking, the issue is not STEM per se, but rather STEM fields that focus on the non-living world, or that have a strong spatial or mathematical component. According to Ceci et al. (2014), the STEM fields should be divided into GE...

show abstract

Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions

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

Men, Women, and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About