Gender bias in grant allocation is a deviation from the principle that scientific merit should guide grant decisions. However, most studies on gender bias in grant allocation focus on gender differences in success rates, without including variables that measure merit. This study has two main contributions. Firstly, it includes several merit variables in the analysis. Secondly, it includes an analysis at the panel level where the selection process takes place, and this enables to study bias more in-depth at the process level. The findings are: (i) After controlling for merit, a consistent pattern of gender bias was found in the scores: women receive significant lower grades than men do. (ii) The scores are an input into the two-step decision-making process, and this study shows bias against women in the first selection decision where 75% of the applications are rejected, and bias in favor of women in the second (final) selection decision. (iii) At the level of individual panels, the analysis shows a mixed pattern of bias: in some panels the odds for women to receive a grant are lower than for men, whereas in other panels we find the opposite, next to panels with gender-neutral decision making. (iv) In the case under study, at an aggregated level the allocation of grants seems balanced. (v) The mixed pattern at panel level seems to relate characteristics such as the panel composition, and the level of gender stereotyping.
翻译:赠款分配方面的性别偏向偏离了科学优异应指导赠款决定的原则,然而,大多数关于赠款分配中的性别偏向的研究都侧重于成功率方面的性别差异,而没有包括衡量优异的变量。这项研究有两个主要贡献:首先,在分析中包括若干优异变量。其次,它包括在甄选过程所在的小组一级进行分析,从而能够在过程一级更深入地研究偏向性。结果显示:(一)在对优异进行控制之后,在得分中发现性别偏向的一贯模式:妇女得到的等级大大低于男子。 (二)分是对两步决策过程的投入,而这一研究显示在第一次甄选决定中对妇女的偏见,其中75%的申请被拒绝,在第二个(最后)甄选决定中偏向于妇女。 (三) 在个别小组一级,分析显示出一种混合的偏向性偏见模式:在一些小组中,妇女获得赠款的可能性低于男子,而在另一些小组中,我们发现与作出不带性别偏向性决定的小组的情况相反。 (四) 在第一次甄选决定中,有75%的申请被拒绝,在第二次(最后)甄选决定中,在小组一级,似乎在小组结构上的性别分布是平衡。