IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i2p304-317..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender mainstreaming research funding: a study of effects on STEM research proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Karolin Sjöö
  • Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner

Abstract

Policymakers increasingly try to steer researchers to choose topics of societal concern and to conduct research in ways that reflect such concerns. One increasingly common approach is prompting researchers to integrate certain perspectives into the content of their research, but little is known about the effects of this governance modality. We analyze 1,189 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research proposals submitted to the Swedish Research Council which, starting in 2020, required all applicants to consider including the sex and/or gender perspectives in their research. We identify three overarching strategies upon which researchers rely (content-, performer-, and impact-centered) and analyze the ways in which researchers across disciplines motivate, through text, the inclusion or exclusion of these perspectives. Based on our findings, we discuss the scope of the desired effect(s) of a requirement of this kind.

Suggested Citation

  • Karolin Sjöö & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2023. "Gender mainstreaming research funding: a study of effects on STEM research proposals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 304-317.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:304-317.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac073
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
    2. Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob, 2017. "Policy instrument affordances: a framework for analysis," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 604-621, November.
    3. Thomas Heinze, 2008. "How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 302-318, June.
    4. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    5. Irene Ramos-Vielba & Duncan A Thomas & Kaare Aagaard, 2022. "Societal targeting in researcher funding: An exploratory approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 202-213.
    6. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    7. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    8. Paul J. Ferraro & Juan Jose Miranda & Michael K. Price, 2011. "The Persistence of Treatment Effects with Norm-Based Policy Instruments: Evidence from a Randomized Environmental Policy Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 318-322, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eva Barlösius & Kristina Blem, 2021. "Evidence of research mastery: How applicants argue the feasibility of their research projects [Concepts of originality in the natural science, medical, and engineering disciplines: An analysis of r," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 563-571.
    2. Liang Lu & David Deller & Morten Hviid, 2019. "Price and Behavioural Signals to Encourage Household Water Conservation: Implications for the UK," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(2), pages 475-491, January.
    3. ITO Koichiro & IDA Takanori & TANAKA Makoto, 2015. "The Persistence of Moral Suasion and Economic Incentives: Field experimental evidence from energy demand," Discussion papers 15014, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Céline Nauges & Dale Whittington, 2019. "Social Norms Information Treatments in the Municipal Water Supply Sector: Some New Insights on Benefits and Costs," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-40, July.
    5. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    6. Takanori Ida, Kayo Murakami, and Makoto Tanaka, 2016. "Electricity demand response in Japan: Experimental evidence from a residential photovoltaic power-generation system," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    7. Rebecca Afua Klege & Martine Visser & Saugato Datta & Matthew Darling, 2022. "The Power of Nudging: Using Feedback, Competition, and Responsibility Assignment to Save Electricity in a Non-residential Setting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 573-589, March.
    8. Denis Hilton & Nicolas Treich & Gaetan Lazzara & Philippe Tendil, 2018. "Designing effective nudges that satisfy ethical constraints: the case of environmentally responsible behaviour," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 17(1), pages 27-38, November.
    9. Giovanna d’Adda & Martin Dufwenberg & Francesco Passarelli & Guido Tabellini, 2019. "Partial Norms," Working Papers 643, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Jason Delaney & Sarah Jacobson, 2016. "Payments or Persuasion: Common Pool Resource Management with Price and Non-price Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 747-772, December.
    11. Holladay, Scott & LaRiviere, Jacob & Novgorodsky, David & Price, Michael, 2019. "Prices versus nudges: What matters for search versus purchase of energy investments?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 151-173.
    12. Stefano Clò & Tommaso Reggiani & Sabrina Ruberto, 2023. "Consumption feedback and water saving: An experiment in the metropolitan area of Milan," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2023-02, Masaryk University.
    13. Nicolas Astier, 2016. "Comparative Feedbacks under Incomplete Information," Working Papers hal-01465189, HAL.
    14. Janusch, Nicholas & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., 2017. "Behavioral Insights for Agri-Environmental Program and Policy Design," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266299, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    16. Daniel A. Brent & Corey Lott & Michael Taylor & Joseph Cook & Kimberly Rollins & Shawn Stoddard, 2020. "What Causes Heterogeneous Responses to Social Comparison Messages for Water Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 503-537, November.
    17. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    18. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    19. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg, 2022. "Information campaigns for residential energy conservation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. Holladay, J. Scott & Price, Michael K. & Wanamaker, Marianne, 2015. "The perverse impact of calling for energy conservation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-18.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:304-317.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.