Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency
Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32611-4
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-09
期刊：
影响因子：
168.9
通讯作者：
Tannenbaum, Cara
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Witteman, Holly O.;Hendricks, Michael;Tannenbaum, Cara
背景研究表明，在各个国家和学科中，男性研究人员比女性研究人员获得更多的研究资金。由于大多数研究都是观察性的，目前尚不清楚失衡是源于对女性研究人员的评估，还是对她们拟议的研究的评估。2014年，加拿大卫生研究院创建了一个自然实验，将研究人员发起的资金申请分为两个新的资助计划：一个有明确的审查重点是首席研究员的能力，另一个没有明确的审查重点。方法我们分析了2011至2016年间所有研究员发起的所有加拿大卫生研究院资助计划中来自7093名主要研究人员的23 918项拨款申请的申请成功情况。我们使用概括性的评估公式来解释同一申请者的多个申请，并比较了不同审查标准下男性和女性首席调查员申请成功的差异。在调整了年龄和研究领域后，女性申请者在传统课程中的预测成功概率比男性申请者低0.9%(95%CI 2.0低-0.2高；优势比0.934，95%CI 0.854-1.022)。在新方案中，审查的重点是拟议的科学，差距仍然是0.9%(低3.2%-1.4%；0.998，0.794-1.229)。在明确审查重点是首席调查员能力的新方案中，差距为4.0%(下降6.7%-1.3%；下降0.705，0.519-0.960)。据解释，赠款资金方面的性别差距是由于对妇女作为主要调查员的评价较差，而不是其拟议研究的质量。我们讨论了可能出现不太有利的评估的原因以及促进公平和严格同行审查的战略。版权所有(C)2019爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。
Background Across countries and disciplines, studies show male researchers receive more research funding than their female peers. Because most studies have been observational, it is unclear whether imbalances stem from evaluations of female research investigators or of their proposed research. In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research created a natural experiment by dividing investigator-initiated funding applications into two new grant programmes: one with and one without an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator.Methods We analysed application success among 23 918 grant applications from 7093 principal investigators in all investigator-initiated Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes between 2011 and 2016. We used generalised estimating equations to account for multiple applications by the same applicant and compared differences in application success between male and female principal investigators under different review criteria.Findings Overall application success across competitions was 15.8%. After adjusting for age and research domain, the predicted probability of success in traditional programmes was 0.9 percentage points lower for female applicants than male applicants (95% CI 2.0 lower-0.2 higher; odds ratio 0.934, 95% CI 0.854-1.022). In the new programme, in which review focused on the proposed science, the gap remained 0.9 percentage points (3.2 lower-1.4 higher; 0.998, 0.794-1.229). In the new programme with an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator, the gap was 4.0 percentage points (6.7 lower-1.3 lower; 0.705, 0.519-0.960).Interpretation Gender gaps in grant funding are attributable to less favourable assessments of women as principal investigators, not of the quality of their proposed research. We discuss reasons less favourable assessments might occur and strategies to foster fair and rigorous peer review. Copyright (c) 2019 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.