Abstract
The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.
Highlights
Academia is by no means an exception when considering the matter of gender inequality extant in the current labour market
We explore the particular challenges that women face in obtain‐ ing extramural research funding, a fundamental index of a successful research career (e.g. Archer, 2008; Hornbostel et al, 2009; Sutherland, 2017 ; van den Besselaar & Sand‐ ström, 2015)
Witteman et al (2019) point to individual bias and systemic bias as key aspects that can account for why women may be disfavoured in grant peer review processes and funding decisions
Summary
Studies that have found gender inequalities show that applicant gender plays a focal role in reviewer decisions, a finding that has been established across numerous disciplines (e.g. dermatology research: Cheng et al, 2016; global infectious disease research: Head et al, 2013; cognitive science: Titone et al, 2018; cancer research: Zhou et al, 2018) and within various national contexts (e.g. UK: Blake & La Valle, 2000; Netherlands: Brouns, 2000; van der Lee & Ellemers, 2015; USA: Eloy et al, 2013; Jagsi et al, 2009; Australia: Over, 1996; Sigelman & Scioli, 1987; Canada: Burns et al, 2019; Tamblyn, et al, 2018; Swit‐ zerland: Severin et al, 2019). A recent study by Tamblyn et al (2018), for instance, showed that female applicants were found to receive consistently lower reviewer scores than male applicants for grant schemes submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research even after the authors controlled for the applicant’s scientific productivity along with other potentially influencing variables (e.g. applicant age, reviewer characteristics). This female disadvantage was further supported by a meta-analysis conducted by Bornmann et al (2007) on 21 studies published between 1987 and 2005, indicating that men had 7% greater odds of obtaining funding than women. In light of the developing research, how, can we reconcile the emergence of such opposing views? We argue that a point of departure to such a question is to first identify the potential sources and causal relations that may lead to potential gender inequalities
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
