IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i7d10.1007_s11192-021-03985-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender bias in the allocation of student grants

Author

Listed:
  • Marjolijn N. Wijnen

    (Leiden University
    Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC))

  • Jorg J. M. Massen

    (Leiden University
    Utrecht University)

  • Mariska E. Kret

    (Leiden University
    Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC))

Abstract

Multiple studies have shown that women’s likelihood of receiving research funding is lower than that of their male colleagues. Thus far, all research on this gender gap in academia has focused on post-PhD academics, making it difficult to discern whether the female disadvantages in number of publications, previous grants, maternity leave, and h-indexes are at the root of the gender gap in received funding, or whether it is due to a more fundamental gender bias in academia. Therefore, we investigated whether female university students are already disadvantaged in receiving their first grant in their scientific career. We analysed data on applications (N = 2651) from 1995 to 2018 to the Leiden University International Study Fund (LISF), a fund dedicated to support students to study or conduct research abroad. We found that men and women applied equally often to the LISF. However, women had a lower success rate, which seemed to only get worse over recent years. Furthermore, male and female applications were assessed to be equal in quality when gender-related information was removed from them. The current study demonstrates that the factors that were assumed to contribute the most to the gender gap in more senior academics (e.g. previous grants, h-index) do not explain it fully: even when those factors do not yet play a role, such as in our student sample, women were found to have lower success rates than men. This underscores the importance of attacking gender biases at its roots.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjolijn N. Wijnen & Jorg J. M. Massen & Mariska E. Kret, 2021. "Gender bias in the allocation of student grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5477-5488, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03985-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03985-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03985-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-03985-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Viner, Neil & Powell, Philip & Green, Rod, 2004. "Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 443-454, April.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 280-287.
    3. Dion, Michelle L. & Sumner, Jane Lawrence & Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, 2018. "Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 312-327, July.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    5. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    6. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    7. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    8. Martin Reinhart, 2009. "Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 789-809, December.
    9. Jonathan Grant & Simon Burden & Gillian Breen, 1997. "No evidence of sexism in peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 390(6659), pages 438-438, December.
    10. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magdalena Formanowicz & Marta Witkowska & Weronika Hryniszak & Zuzanna Jakubik & Aleksandra Cisłak, 2023. "Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2283-2299, April.

    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. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Gandelli, Claudio, 2012. "Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 265-275.
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.
    3. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    4. Andrews, Mary E. & Mattan, Bradley D. & Richards, Keana & Moore-Berg, Samantha L. & Falk, Emily B., 2022. "Using first-person narratives about healthcare workers and people who are incarcerated to motivate helping behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    5. Nunkoo, Robin & Hall, C. Michael & Rughoobur-Seetah, Soujata & Teeroovengadum, Viraiyan, 2019. "Citation practices in tourism research: Toward a gender conscientious engagement," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    7. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    8. Allison C. Morgan & Nicholas LaBerge & Daniel B. Larremore & Mirta Galesic & Jennie E. Brand & Aaron Clauset, 2022. "Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1625-1633, December.
    9. Tahmooresnejad, Leila & Turkina, Ekaterina, 2022. "Female inventors over time: Factors affecting female Inventors’ innovation performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    10. Paul A. Djupe & Kim Quaile Hill & Amy Erica Smith & Anand E. Sokhey, 2020. "Putting personality in context: determinants of research productivity and impact in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2279-2300, September.
    11. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Kevin W. Boyack & Caleb Smith & Richard Klavans, 2018. "Toward predicting research proposal success," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 449-461, February.
    13. Panagiotis Fotiadis & Matthew Cieslak & Xiaosong He & Lorenzo Caciagli & Mathieu Ouellet & Theodore D. Satterthwaite & Russell T. Shinohara & Dani S. Bassett, 2023. "Myelination and excitation-inhibition balance synergistically shape structure-function coupling across the human cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    15. Pritchard, Annette & Morgan, Nigel, 2017. "Tourism’s lost leaders: Analysing gender and performance," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 34-47.
    16. Azzurra Ragone & Katsiaryna Mirylenka & Fabio Casati & Maurizio Marchese, 2013. "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 317-356, November.
    17. Alessia Invernizzi & Ann-Cathrin Klöckner & Gerald Schneider, 2024. "Mission partly accomplished: European Union Politics at 25," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 3-16, March.
    18. Auschra, Carolin & Bartosch, Julia & Lohmeyer, Nora, 2022. "Differences in female representation in leading management and organization journals: Establishing a benchmark," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    19. Stefano Bianchini & Patrick Llerena & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Emre Özel, 2022. "Gender diversity of research consortia contributes to funding decisions in a multi-stage grant peer-review process," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Hongmi Lee & Janice Chen, 2022. "Predicting memory from the network structure of naturalistic events," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03985-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.