PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Peer ReviewViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Grants & Awards

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Marsh, H.W.
    ;
    Jayasinghe, U.W.
    ;
    Bond, N.W.
    Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results - coupled with findings from previous research - offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science Open PDF 
    (2011)
    Ceci, S.J.
    ;
    Williams, W.M.
    Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2007)
    Bornmann, L.
    ;
    Mutz, R.
    ;
    Daniel, H.-D.
    Narrative reviews of peer review research have concluded that there is negligible evidence of gender bias in the awarding of grants based on peer review. Here, we report the findings of a meta-analysis of 21 studies providing, to the contrary, evidence of robust gender differences in grant award procedures. Even though the estimates of the gender effect vary substantially from study to study, the model estimation shows that all in all, among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than women by about 7%. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    European Research Council: Excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Bautista-Puig, N.
    ;
    García-Zorita, C.
    ;
    Mauleón, E.
    European Research Council Grants (ERC) have become the most important vehicle for funding scientific research in the EU. Since their creation in 2007, they have provided funding for around 7,000 of the nearly 70,000 proposals for research projects submitted. With a success rate of about 11%, these Grants are highly competitive. Despite major advancement of women's participation in research activity, women overall remain the minority in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM disciplines). Against that backdrop, this article analyses men's and women's presence in ERC Grants. The gender balance in the ERC Grant, have been examined in three dimensions: Excellence Awarded; Scientific Leadership Position; and Time Series Evolution. The results show that female presence is lower than men as submitted (26% vs 74%), granted (22% vs 78%), expert panel members (28% vs 72%), and as a panel chair (26% vs 74%). State-space prediction of the future pattern of these grants shows that time has no clearly beneficial effect on women's participation as applicants, granted, expert panel members or panel chairs, particularly in the area of Physics and Engineering. © 2019 The Author(s).