Gender and research funding success: Case of the Belgian FRS-FNRS

被引:15
作者
Beck, Raphael [1 ]
Halloin, Veronique [1 ]
机构
[1] Fonds Rech Sci FNRS, Rue Egmont 5, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
关键词
gender; research funding; peer review; funding agency; research evaluation; SCIENCE; INEQUALITY; BIASES; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1093/reseval/rvx008
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
The influence of gender on the outcome of research evaluation activities and access to research funding has been heavily debated in recent decades. In this study, data from 6,393 applications submitted between 2011 and 2015 to the Belgian funding agency Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique -FNRS (F.R.S.-FNRS) were statistically analysed to highlight any possible effect of gender on success rates. Results show no significant influence of gender on success rates or the likelihood of getting funding for most of the funding schemes we analysed. Research credit (RC) was the only one where gender and success variables were statistically dependent, although mean success rates of male and female applicants were not significantly different. Average grades given by remote reviewers to male applicants were significantly higher in the frame of RC applications. Among RC applications, the difference in success rates was higher in Humanities and Social Sciences, followed by Exact and Natural Sciences, and finally Life and Health Sciences. Proportions of male researchers who apply were shown to be higher for most of the funding schemes analysed, mainly for grant applications (such as RC) where only tenure researchers are allowed to apply. Taken together, our results show that access to F.R.S.-FNRS funding is not gender-dependent for the majority of the funding schemes except one where men represent the vast majority of the applicants. Reasons that could explain this statistical dependence are under investigation and could be due to the lower grading of women by remote reviewers.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / 123
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Dutch research funding, gender bias, and Simpson's paradox [J].
Albers, Casper J. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2015, 112 (50) :E6828-E6829
[2]   Sexism has no place in science [J].
不详 .
NATURE, 2015, 522 (7556) :255-255
[3]   A double-blind option for peer review [J].
不详 .
NATURE MEDICINE, 2015, 21 (03) :199-199
[4]   Gender inequality in awarded research grants [J].
Bedi, Gillinder ;
Van Dam, Nicholas T. ;
Munafo, Marcus .
LANCET, 2012, 380 (9840) :474-474
[5]   Gender balance: Women are funded more fairly in social science [J].
Boyle, Paul ;
Smith, Lucy K. ;
Cooper, Nicola J. ;
Williams, Kate S. ;
O'Connor, Henrietta .
NATURE, 2015, 525 (7568) :181-183
[6]  
Brouns M., 2006, EMPL RELAT, V28, P523, DOI [DOI 10.1108/01425450610704470, 10.1108/01425450610704470]
[7]   Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape [J].
Ceci, Stephen J. ;
Ginther, Donna K. ;
Kahn, Shulamit ;
Williams, Wendy M. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, 2014, 15 (03) :75-141
[8]   The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review [J].
Demarest, Bradford ;
Freeman, Guo ;
Sugimoto, Cassidy R. .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2014, 101 (01) :717-735
[9]   Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder [J].
Handley, Ian M. ;
Brown, Elizabeth R. ;
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A. ;
Smith, Jessi L. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2015, 112 (43) :13201-13206
[10]   Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender [J].
Kaatz, Anna ;
Gutierrez, Belinda ;
Carnes, Molly .
TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2014, 35 (08) :371-373