Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency

The Lancet

Volumn 393, Issue 10171, 2019, Pages 531-540

  Witteman, Holly O ^a   Hendricks, Michael ^b   Straus, Sharon ^c   Tannenbaum, Cara ^d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPETITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNDING; GENDER; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PROBABILITY; ACHIEVEMENT; CANADA; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PERSONNEL; SEX FACTOR;

ACHIEVEMENT; CANADA; FEMALE; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; HUMANS; MALE; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 85061050032     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Wenneras, C, Wold, A, Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387 (1997), 341–343.
2. Reuben, E, Sapienza, P, Zingales, L, How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111 (2014), 4403–4408.
3. Klein, RS, Voskuhl, R, Segal, BM, et al. Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited speakers improves diversity. Nat Immunol 18 (2017), 475–478.
4. Ginther, DK, Schaffer, WT, Schnell, J, et al. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 333 (2011), 1015–1019.
5. Williams, J, Phillips, KW, Hall, EV, Double jeopardy? Gender bias against women of color in science. 2014, Hastings College of the Law, Center for WorkLife Law.
6. Leslie, S-J, Cimpian, A, Meyer, M, Freeland, E, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347 (2015), 262–265.
7. Henry, F, Dua, E, Kobayashi, A, et al. Race, racialization and indigeneity in Canadian universities. Race Ethn Ed 20 (2017), 300–314.
8. Carnes, M, Devine, PG, Baier Manwell, L, et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad Med 90 (2015), 221–230.
9. Smyth, FL, Nosek, BA, On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Front Psychol, 6, 2015, 415.
10. Carli, LL, Alawa, L, Lee, Y, Zhao, B, Kim, E, Stereotypes about gender and science: women ≠ scientists. Psychol Women Q 40 (2016), 244–260.
11. Macaluso, B, Larivière, V, Sugimoto, T, Sugimoto, CR, Is science built on the shoulders of women? A study of gender differences in contributorship. Acad Med 91 (2016), 1136–1142.
12. Feldon, DF, Peugh, J, Maher, MA, Roksa, J, Tofel-Grehl, C, Time-to-credit gender inequities of first-year PhD students in the biological sciences. CBE Life Sci Educ, 16, 2017, ar4.
13. Madera, JM, Hebl, MR, Martin, RC, Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences. J Appl Psychol 94 (2009), 1591–1599.
14. Boring, A, Ottoboni, K, Stark, P, Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research, 2016 published online Jan 7, 2017. DOI:10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1.
15. Jagsi, R, Griffith, KA, Jones, R, Perumalswami, CR, Ubel, P, Stewart, A, Sexual harassment and discrimination experiences of academic medical faculty. JAMA 315 (2016), 2120–2121.
16. Clancy, KBH, Lee, KMN, Rodgers, EM, Richey, C, Double jeopardy in astronomy and planetary science: women of color face greater risks of gendered and racial harassment. J Geophys Res Planets, 122, 2017 2017JE005256.
17. Guarino, CM, Borden, VMH, Faculty service loads and gender: are women taking care of the academic family?. Res High Educ 58 (2017), 672–694.
18. El-Alayli, A, Hansen-Brown, AA, Ceynar, M, Dancing backwards in high heels: female professors experience more work demands and special favor requests, particularly from academically entitled students. Sex Roles 79 (2018), 136–150.
19. Antecol, H, Bedard, K, Stearns, J, Equal but inequitable: who benefits from gender-neutral tenure clock stopping policies?. Am Econ Rev 108 (2018), 2420–2441.
20. Sege, R, Nykiel-Bub, L, Selk, S, Sex differences in institutional support for junior biomedical researchers. JAMA 314 (2015), 1175–1177.
21. Lerback, J, Hanson, B, Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature 541 (2017), 455–457.
22. Hengel, E, Publishing while female: are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. Cambridge Working Paper Economics 1753, 2017, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge published online Dec 4. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/270621.
23. Larivière, V, Ni, C, Gingras, Y, Cronin, B, Sugimoto, CR, Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504 (2013), 211–213.
24. Ghiasi, G, Larivière, V, Sugimoto, CR, On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0145931.
25. Budden, AE, Tregenza, T, Aarssen, LW, Koricheva, J, Leimu, R, Lortie, CJ, Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 23 (2008), 4–6.
26. Roberts, SG, Verhoef, T, Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. J Lang Evol 1 (2016), 163–167.
27. Nittrouer, CL, Hebl, MR, Ashburn-Nardo, L, Trump-Steele, RCE, Lane, DM, Valian, V, Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115 (2018), 104–108.
28. Boiko, JR, Anderson, AJM, Gordon, RA, Representation of women among academic grand rounds speakers. JAMA Intern Med 177 (2017), 722–724.
29. Files, JA, Mayer, AP, Ko, MG, et al. Speaker Introductions at internal medicine grand rounds: forms of address reveal gender bias. J Womens Health 26 (2017), 413–419.
30. Carr, PL, Raj, A, Kaplan, SE, Terrin, N, Breeze, JL, Freund, KM, Gender differences in academic medicine: retention, rank, and leadership comparisons from the national faculty survey. Acad Med 93 (2018), 1694–1699.
31. Moss-Racusin, CA, Dovidio, JF, Brescoll, VL, Graham, MJ, Handelsman, J, Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (2012), 16474–16479.
32. MacNell, L, Driscoll, A, Hunt, AN, What's in a name: exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innov High Educ 40 (2015), 291–303.
33. Milkman, KL, Akinola, M, Chugh, D, What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. J Appl Psychol 100 (2015), 1678–1712.
34. Massen, JJM, Bauer, L, Spurny, B, Bugnyar, T, Kret, ME, Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists. Sci Rep, 7, 2017, 12927.
35. Lutter, M, Schröder, M, Who becomes a tenured professor, and why? Panel data evidence from German sociology, 1980–2013. Res Policy 45 (2016), 999–1013.
36. Breda, T, Hillion, M, Teaching accreditation exams reveal grading biases favor women in male-dominated disciplines in France. Science 353 (2016), 474–478.
37. Williams, WM, Ceci, SJ, National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 (2015), 5360–5365.
38. Ceci, SJ, Williams, WM, Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Front Psychol, 6, 2015, 1532.
39. Leslie, LM, Manchester, CF, Dahm, PC, Why and when does the gender gap reverse? diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women. Acad Manage J 60 (2017), 402–432.
40. Bohren, JA, Imas, A, Rosenberg, M, The dynamics of discrimination: theory and evidence. published online Nov 18. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3081873, 2017. (Accessed 10 January 2018)
41. Bornmann, L, Mutz, R, Daniel, H-D, Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J Informetr 1 (2007), 226–238.
42. Tamblyn, R, McMahon, M, Girard, N, Drake, E, Nadigel, J, Gaudreau, K, Health services and policy research in the first decade at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ Open 4 (2016), E213–E221.
43. Ley, TJ, Hamilton, BH, Sociology. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science 322 (2008), 1472–1474.
44. Pohlhaus, JR, Jiang, H, Wagner, RM, Schaffer, WT, Pinn, VW, Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med 86 (2011), 759–767.
45. Waisbren, SE, Bowles, H, Hasan, T, et al. Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. J Womens Health 17 (2008), 207–214.
46. Bedi, G, Van Dam, NT, Munafo, M, Gender inequality in awarded research grants. Lancet, 380, 2012, 474.
47. Head, MG, Fitchett, JR, Cooke, MK, Wurie, FB, Atun, R, Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010. BMJ Open, 3, 2013, e003362.
48. Svider, PF, D'Aguillo, CM, White, PE, et al. Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. J Surg Educ 71 (2014), 680–688.
49. Hechtman, LA, Moore, NP, Schulkey, CE, et al. NIH funding longevity by gender. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115 (2018), 7943–7948.
50. Mutz, R, Bornmann, L, Daniel, H-D, Does gender matter in grant peer review?. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 220 (2012), 121–129.
51. Albers, CJ, Dutch research funding, gender bias, and Simpson's paradox. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 (2015), E6828–E6829.
52. Ceci, SJ, Williams, WM, Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108 (2011), 3157–3162.
53. Gino, F, Wilmuth, CA, Brooks, AW, Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 (2015), 12354–12359.
54. Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement 2: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/default/. (Accessed 13 July 2017)
55. Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Walker, N, Saveliev, AA, Smith, GM, Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. 2009, Springer.
56. Halekoh, U, Højsgaard, S, Yan, J, et al. The R package geepack for generalized estimating equations. J Stat Softw 15 (2006), 1–11.
57. Lenth, RV, Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69 (2016), 1–33.
58. Magua, W, Zhu, X, Bhattacharya, A, et al. Are female applicants disadvantaged in national institutes of health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers' critiques. J Womens Health 26 (2017), 560–570.
59. Carnes, M, Geller, S, Fine, E, Sheridan, J, Handelsman, J, NIH director's pioneer awards: could the selection process be biased against women?. J Womens Health 14 (2005), 684–691.
60. Barres, BA, Does gender matter?. Nature 442 (2006), 133–136.
61. van der Lee, R, Ellemers, N, Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 (2015), 12349–12353.
62. Steinpreis, RE, Anders, KA, Ritzke, D, The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: a national empirical study. Sex Roles 41 (1999), 509–528.
63. Tamblyn, R, Girard, N, Qian, CJ, Hanley, J, Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. CMAJ 190 (2018), E489–E499.
64. Zepeda, L, The harassment tax. Science, 359, 2018, 126.
65. Lincoln, AE, Pincus, S, Koster, JB, Leboy, PS, The matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc Stud Sci 42 (2012), 307–320.
66. Okimoto, TG, Brescoll, VL, The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 36 (2010), 923–936.
67. Eagly, AH, Karau, SJ, Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev 109 (2002), 573–598.
68. Rudman, LA, Moss-Racusin, CA, Phelan, JE, Nauts, S, Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J Exp Soc Psychol 48 (2012), 165–179.
69. Hyde, JS, Mertz, JE, Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106 (2009), 8801–8807.
70. Pezzoni, M, Mairesse, J, Stephan, P, Lane, J, Gender and the publication output of graduate students: a case study. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0145146.
71. Meerwijk, EL, Sevelius, JM, Transgender population size in the United States: a meta-regression of population-based probability samples. Am J Public Health 107 (2017), e1–e8.