TY - CHAP
T1 - Gender bias in peer review panels - "The Elephant in the Room"
AU - Schiffbaenker, Helene
AU - van den Besselaar, Peter
AU - Holzinger, Florian
AU - Mom, Charlie
AU - Vinkenburg, Claartje
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Research councils claim to select excellent grant proposals in order to advance science. At the same time, grant success rates often differ between male and female applicants. In this chapter we address the question of why this is the case. Are male researchers more excellent than female researchers, or does the grant selection process suffer from gender bias? We answer this question using the European Research Council Starting Grant as a case, and focus within that on the life sciences. First, we investigate whether application success relates to gender, after controlling for excellence indicators: scientific productivity, impact, earlier grants, and the quality of the collaboration network. Using ordinal regression, we show that this is the case and that gender bias does indeed play a role in grant selection. Second, we build on interview data with panellists to uncover what lies behind gender bias. We find that general problems in peer review play a role, such as how to define and measure excellence. In addition, the panel composition affects female success rates. Finally, indications for gender stereotyping and gendered evaluation practices were identified.
AB - Research councils claim to select excellent grant proposals in order to advance science. At the same time, grant success rates often differ between male and female applicants. In this chapter we address the question of why this is the case. Are male researchers more excellent than female researchers, or does the grant selection process suffer from gender bias? We answer this question using the European Research Council Starting Grant as a case, and focus within that on the life sciences. First, we investigate whether application success relates to gender, after controlling for excellence indicators: scientific productivity, impact, earlier grants, and the quality of the collaboration network. Using ordinal regression, we show that this is the case and that gender bias does indeed play a role in grant selection. Second, we build on interview data with panellists to uncover what lies behind gender bias. We find that general problems in peer review play a role, such as how to define and measure excellence. In addition, the panel composition affects female success rates. Finally, indications for gender stereotyping and gendered evaluation practices were identified.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134557078&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85134557078&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.routledge.com/Inequalities-and-the-Paradigm-of-Excellence-in-Academia/Hoenig-Jenkins-Weber-Wolffram/p/book/9780429198625
U2 - 10.4324/9780429198625-9
DO - 10.4324/9780429198625-9
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85134557078
SN - 9780367188368
SN - 9781032221014
SP - 109
EP - 128
BT - Inequalities and the Paradigm of Excellence in Academia
A2 - Jenkins, Fiona
A2 - Hoenig, Barbara
A2 - Maria Webster, Susanne
A2 - Wolffram, Andrea
PB - Taylor and Francis
ER -