Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 40, 2015, Pages 12349-12353

  Van Der Lee, Romy ^a   Ellemers, Naomi ^a,b   Fiske, Susan T ^c  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Academia; Gender bias; Research funding; STEM; Success rates

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; FUNDING; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LANGUAGE; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; SEX DIFFERENCE; STEREOTYPY; WRITTEN COMMUNICATION; ACHIEVEMENT; AWARDS AND PRIZES; BIOMEDICINE; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PERSONNEL; PROCEDURES; SOCIOLOGY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ACHIEVEMENT; AWARDS AND PRIZES; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SEX FACTORS; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 84943410293     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510159112     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ellemers N (2014) Women at work: How organizational features impact career development. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci 1(1):1-9.
2. Kaatz A, Gutierrez B, Carnes M. (2014) Threats to objectivity in peer review: The case of gender. Trends Pharmacol Sci 35(8):371-373.
3. Shen H (2013) Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature 495 (7439):22-24.
4. Valian V (1999) Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
5. Crosby FJ, Iyer A, Clayton S., Downing R.A. (2003) Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. Am Psychol 58(2):93-115.
6. Dovidio JF, Gaertner S.L. (1996) Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. J Soc Issues 52(4):51-75.
7. Catalyst (2013) Why diversity matters. Available at www.catalyst.org/system/files/why-diversity-matters-catalyst-0.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2015.
8. Clark D (2014) Making the business case for diversity. Available at www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2014/08/21/making-the-business-case-for-diversity/. Accessed April 30, 2015.
9. Pletzer JL, Nikolova R, Kedzior K.K., Voelpel S.C. (2015) Does gender matter? Female representation on corporate boards and firm financial performance - a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(6):e0130005.
10. Adams RB, Ferreira D. (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J Financ Econ 94(2):291-309.
11. Rhode DL, Packel A.K. (2014) Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does difference make? Del J Corp Law 39(2):377-425.
12. van Dijk H., van Engen ML, van Knippenberg D (2012) Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and jobrelated diversity relationships with performance. Organ Behav Hum Decision Proc 119(1):38-53.
13. Schiebinger L, Klinge I, Sánchez de Madariaga I, Schraudner M, Stefanick M (Eds.) (2011-2013). Gendered Innovations in Science, Health and Medicine, Engineering, and Environment. Available at genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/what-is-gendered-innovations.html. Accessed January 21, 2015.
14. World Economic Forum (2014) The Global Gender Gap Report 2014. Available at reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/. Accessed.
15. Eagly AH, Karau SJ, Makhijani M.G. (1995) Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 117(1):125-145.
16. Hyde JS (2014) Gender similarities and differences. Annu Rev Psychol 65:373-398.
17. Ellemers N, Rink F, Derks B., Ryan M. (2012) Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Res Organ Behav 32:163-187.
18. Miller DI, Eagly AH, Linn M.C. (2015) Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. J Educ Psychol 107(3): 631-644.
19. Nosek BA, et al (2009) National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(26):10593-10597.
20. Leslie S-J, Cimpian A., Meyer M, Freeland E. (2015) Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347 (6219):262-265.
21. European Research Council (2014) Gender statistics. Available at erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/Gender-statistics-April-2014.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2014.
22. Wennerås C., Wold A. (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387 (6631): 341-343.
23. Bedi G, Van Dam NT, Munafo M. (2012) Gender inequality in awarded research grants. Lancet 380 (9840):474.
24. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams W.M. (2014) Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychol Sci Public Interest 15(3):75-141.
25. Hosek SD, et al (2005) Gender differences in major federal external grant programs. Available at www.rand.org/pubs/technical-reports/TR307.html. Accessed October 24, 2014.
26. Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D. (1999) The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41(7-8):509-528.
27. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond N.W. (2008) Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Am Psychol 63(3): 160-168.
28. Stout JG, Dasgupta N. (2011) When he doesn't mean you: Gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 37(6):757-769.
29. Gaucher D, Friesen J, Kay A.C. (2011) Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. J Pers Soc Psychol 101(1):109-128.
30. Born MP, Taris T.W. (2010) The impact of the wording of employment advertisements on students' inclination to apply for a job. J Soc Psychol 150(5):485-502.
31. Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki V.H. (2007) A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 57(7-8):509-514.
32. Rubini M, Menegatti M. (2014) Hindering women's careers in academia: Gender linguistic bias in personnel selection. J Lang Soc Psychol 33(6):632-650.
33. Kaatz A, Magua W, Zimmerman D.R., Carnes M. (2015) A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution. Acad Med 90(1):69-75.
34. Marchant A, Bhattacharya A, Carnes M. (2007) Can the language of tenure criteria influence women's academic advancement? J Womens Health (Larchmt) 16(7):998-1003.
35. van Arensbergen P., van der Weijden I, van den Besselaar P (2012) Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics 93(3):857-868.
36. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H.D. (2007) Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J Informetrics 1(3):226-238.
37. Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner R.M., Schaffer WT, Pinn V.W. (2011) Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med 86(6): 759-767.
38. National Institutes of Health (2015) R01-equivalent grants: Success rates, by gender and type of application. Available at report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?showm=Y&chartId=131&catId=13. Accessed April 10, 2015.
39. Devine PG (1989) Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(1):5-18.
40. Castilla EJ, Bernard S. (2010) The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm Sci Q 55(4):543-576.
41. Kaiser CR, et al (2013) Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J Pers Soc Psychol 104(3):504-519.
42. Biernat M, Fuegen K. (2001) Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgments and decision making. J Soc Issues 57(4): 707-724.
43. Moss-Racusin C.A., Dovidio JF, Brescoll V.L., Graham MJ, Handelsman J. (2012) Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(41): 16474-16479.