IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v52y2025i5p737-752..html

Progress is neither swift nor easy: assessing funding agencies’ capacity to address science inequities

Author

Listed:
  • Yohanna Juk
  • Sergio Salles-Filho
  • Karen E.F Pinto
  • Bernardo Cabral
  • Evandro Cristofoletti

Abstract

In the early 21st century, increasing awareness of research biases fueled interest in meta-research and research integrity, leading to debates on the potential negative impact of research assessments on the research environment. These ongoing discussions have reinforced the need to implement responsible research assessments to address various inequalities in science. Science funding agencies (FAs) play a central role in either mitigating or perpetuating these inequities. This study investigates how ten FAs worldwide are addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in their institutional statements and funding activities, examining aspects beyond gender, including the existence of dedicated EDI departments/sections, the implementation of bias-elimination guidelines in peer review processes, systematic evaluations, and the public availability of diversity data. Although our analysis is confined to ten agencies, the findings aim to offer insights into broader EDI integration initiatives across the science-funding landscape, revealing progress toward a more intersectional approach to EDI among these entities.

Suggested Citation

  • Yohanna Juk & Sergio Salles-Filho & Karen E.F Pinto & Bernardo Cabral & Evandro Cristofoletti, 2025. "Progress is neither swift nor easy: assessing funding agencies’ capacity to address science inequities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(5), pages 737-752.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:5:p:737-752.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scaf014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:52:y:2025:i:5:p:737-752.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.