Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Abstract

We examined the application and review materials of three calls (n = 2,823) of a prestigious grant for personal research funding in a national full population of early career scientists awarded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Results showed evidence of gender bias in application evaluations and success rates, as well as in language use in instructions and evaluation sheets. Male applicants received significantly more competitive "quality of researcher" evaluations (but not "quality of proposal" evaluations) and had significantly higher application success rates than female applicants. Gender disparities were most prevalent in scientific disciplines with the highest number of applications and with equal gender distribution among the applicants (i.e., life sciences and social sciences). Moreover, content analyses of the instructional and evaluation materials revealed the use of gendered language favoring male applicants. Overall, our data reveal a 4% "loss" of women during the grant review procedure, and illustrate the perpetuation of the funding gap, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in academia.gender bias | research funding | success rates | academia | STEM W omen are still underrepresented in academia today. Despite various attempts to promote gender equality (e.g., affirmative action initiatives, quotas), female scientists are less likely to get offered tenure, are judged to be less competent, receive less payment and research facilities, and are less likely to be awarded research grants compared with male scientists (1-3). Over time, this type of bias accumulates and contributes to the attrition of women from academia (4); the academic pipeline leaks. Here we report evidence of gender bias in personal research funding for early career scientists.The importance of equal gender representation is widely acknowledged, for several reasons. First, it can resolve historic inequalities and provide equal opportunities (the "moral case for diversity") (5, 6). Second, research has demonstrated that gender diversity in organizations can boost innovation and creativity, expand target groups, and increase productivity (the "business case for diversity") (7, 8), either directly or indirectly through decision making processes or reputation, and provided that the organizational culture is open to change (9-12). This is true for academia as well. Gender-diverse research teams facilitate innovation and excellence in research and policy, address different research questions and methods, and facilitate wider application of research findings (13), thereby contributing to scientific progress.Relevant statistics, however, show a persistent leadership gap, salary gap, and funding gap for women in academia (3). To illustrate, The Netherlands-generally considered a high-equity nationhad only 16% female full professors in 2012 (14). Leadership is stereotyped as masculine and consequently associated more strongly with stereotypical male traits rather than female traits. Although women a...

Exposing the probabilistic causal structure of discrimination

“…Another very recent example is the scientific "debate" on PNAS (December 2015) where Volker and Steenbeek [43] reacted to a previous article of Van der Lee and Ellemers [42] which analyzed data about research grant in the Netherlands and claimed a gender bias. In their reaction, Volker and Steenbeek state that the overall gender effect borders on statistical significance and that the conclusion of Van der Lee and Ellemers could be a prime example of Simpson's paradox.…”

Collaboration and Gender Equity among Academic Scientists

“…A growing body of research reveals the multiple ways in which gender stereotypes unintentionally, or implicitly, bias evaluations of men's and women's professional work inside and outside academia [8,[44][45][46][47]. For example, studies that have found that subtle or implicit gender bias affect hiring decisions [46,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55], how letters of recommendation are written [56][57][58], how grant proposals are reviewed [59,60], how manuscripts are peer-reviewed at scientific journals [61], and evaluations of professional women's competence and likeability [48,62,63]. In other words, gender biases that emerge in evaluations of academic scientists and engineers are consistent with lessons from stereotyping research: in decision-making contexts with incomplete or ambiguous information, evaluators unintentionally use stereotypes to "fill in the gaps" and draw inferences about individuals' competence and worthiness based on those stereotypes [64,65].…”

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

“…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. 13 In the UK, the National Institutes of Health Research announced in 2011 that research funding would be contingent on universities receiving at least a Silver Award from the Athena Scientific Women's Academic Network Charter -an award that signifies institutional attempts to advance gender equality.…”