European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective

被引:16
作者
Bautista-Puig, Nuria [1 ,2 ]
Garcia-Zorita, Carlos [1 ,2 ]
Mauleon, Elba [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Carlos III Madrid, Res Inst Higher Educ & Sci INAECU, Madrid 28903, Spain
[2] Univ Carlos III Madrid, LEMI Lab Metr Informat Studies, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Madrid 28903, Spain
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
women in science; gender gap in research funding; peer review; research grants; European Research Council (ERC); RESEARCH FUNDING SUCCESS; PREDICTIVE-VALIDITY; DECISION-MAKING; SCIENCE; WOMEN; BIAS; TECHNOLOGY; SCIENTISTS; INEQUALITY; PROMOTION;
D O I
10.1093/reseval/rvz023
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
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.
引用
收藏
页码:370 / 382
页数:13
相关论文
共 97 条
[41]   Researchers in the world of biomedical research - Breaking the "glass ceiling"! [J].
Hosmalin, Anne .
M S-MEDECINE SCIENCES, 2017, 33 (12) :1019-1021
[42]  
Husu Liisa., 2010, Gender Change in Academia, P43, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-92501-1_4
[43]  
Hymowitz C., 1986, WALL STR J, P1
[44]  
Ionescu M, 2008, 5 INT C ELEARNING SO
[45]   Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience [J].
Jayasinghe, UW ;
Marsh, HW ;
Bond, N .
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS, 2001, 23 (04) :343-364
[46]   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
[47]  
König T, 2016, RESEARCH ASSESSMENT IN THE HUMANITIES: TOWARDS CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES, P151, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_12
[48]  
Lamont Michele, 2009, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment
[49]   The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome [J].
Langfeldt, L .
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 2001, 31 (06) :820-841
[50]  
Langfeldt L., 2005, NIFU STEP Working Paper 10/2005