IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/usppxx/v12y2025i1p2491326.html

Post Hoc Intervention as a Remedy for Gender Bias in Grant Application Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob Bergman
  • Martin L. Jönsson

Abstract

The Swedish Research Council is a Swedish government agency and one of the major research financiers in Sweden. As such, its operations are governed by legislation and governmental instructions and policies, which prohibit discrimination and include equal treatment. Consequently, the Swedish Research Council has for a large number of years been working actively against gender bias in their reviews of grant applications. We use data published by the Swedish Research Council to analyze potential gender bias in reviews of grant applications. We can show using several multiple linear regression models, that after controlling for a number of other factors there is still a significant gender bias in the grants awarded, at least for some review panels. We explore the possibility of mitigating this bias by using statistical methodology through the post hoc intervention, GIIU. We argue that GIIU is applicable to the dataset and could be used to mitigate the bias. However, we believe that a post hoc intervention, such as GIIU, would be more effective if it were implemented earlier during the review process on the more detailed data available to the research council.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob Bergman & Martin L. Jönsson, 2025. "Post Hoc Intervention as a Remedy for Gender Bias in Grant Application Reviews," Statistics and Public Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 2491326-249, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:usppxx:v:12:y:2025:i:1:p:2491326
    DOI: 10.1080/2330443X.2025.2491326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/2330443X.2025.2491326
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/2330443X.2025.2491326?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:usppxx:v:12:y:2025:i:1:p:2491326. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uspp .

    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.