scholarly journals Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-154
Author(s):  
Monica Biernat ◽  
Molly Carnes ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
Advice Seeking ◽  
Race Effects

Grant-writing and grant-getting are key to success in many academic disciplines, but research points to gender gaps in both, especially as careers progress. Using a sample of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K-Awardees—Principal Investigators of Mentored Career Development Awards—we examined gender and race effects in response to imagined negative grant reviews that emphasized either promise or inadequacy. Women translated both forms of feedback into worse NIH priority scores than did men and showed reduced motivation to reapply for funding following the review highlighting inadequacy. Translation of feedback mediated the effects of gender on motivation, changing one’s research focus, and advice-seeking. Race effects were less consistent, and race did not moderate effects of gender. We suggest that gender bias in grant reviews (i.e., greater likelihood of highlighting inadequacy in reviews of women’s grants), along with gender differences in responsiveness to feedback, may contribute to women’s underrepresentation in academic medicine.

The Gender-bias Effect of Test Scoring and Framing: A Concern for Personnel Selection and College Admission

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Paz Espinosa ◽  
Javier Gardeazabal
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
College Admission ◽  
Bias Effect ◽  
Multiple Choice Tests ◽  
Choice Tests ◽  
Correction For Guessing

AbstractThis paper analyzes gender differences in student performance in Multiple-Choice Tests (MCT). We report evidence from a field experiment suggesting that, when MCT use a correction for guessing formula to obtain test scores, on average women tend to omit more items, get less correct answers and lower grades than men. We find that the gender difference in average test scores is concentrated at the upper tail of the distribution of scores. In addition, gender differences strongly depend on the framing of the scoring rule.

Gender bias in reference letters for residency and academic medicine: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2021-140045
Author(s):  
Shawn Khan ◽  
Abirami Kirubarajan ◽  
Tahmina Shamsheri ◽  
Adam Clayton ◽  
Geeta Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Medical Faculty ◽  
Gendered Language ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Faculty Hiring ◽  
Match Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Reference letters play an important role for both postgraduate residency applications and medical faculty hiring processes. This study seeks to characterise the ways in which gender bias may manifest in the language of reference letters in academic medicine. In particular, we conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from database inception to July 2020 for original studies that assessed gendered language in medical reference letters for residency applications and medical faculty hiring. A total of 16 studies, involving 12 738 letters of recommendation written for 7074 applicants, were included. A total of 32% of applicants were women. There were significant differences in how women were described in reference letters. A total of 64% (7/11) studies found a significant difference in gendered adjectives between men and women. Among the 7 studies, a total of 86% (6/7) noted that women applicants were more likely to be described using communal adjectives, such as “delightful” or “compassionate”, while men applicants were more likely to be described using agentic adjectives, such as “leader” or “exceptional”. Several studies noted that reference letters for women applicants had more frequent use of doubt raisers and mentions of applicant personal life and/or physical appearance. Only one study assessed the outcome of gendered language on application success, noting a higher residency match rate for men applicants. Reference letters within medicine and medical education exhibit language discrepancies between men and women applicants, which may contribute to gender bias against women in medicine.

scholarly journals How to get and keep your lab funded

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (21) ◽  
pp. 2519-2521
Author(s):  
Jonathan Chernoff
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Decisive Factor ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Grant Review

Much has been written about the seemingly capricious manner by which grant proposals are ranked and awarded by the National Institutes of Health and similar agencies, yet some scientists are able to maintain stable funding over long periods of time. While raw luck may certainly play a role in this process, particularly when paylines are tight, it is also possible that skill—in the art of grant writing at least—could represent a decisive factor. Here, I submit that, even as we attempt to reform and one day perfect the grant review process, there are actions that applicants can take today to get better results from the system we have.

Hematology Grants Workshop—2001

Hematology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 507-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Todd ◽  
Donald M. Miller ◽  
Roy L. Silverstein
Keyword(s):  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Department Of Veterans Affairs ◽  
Young Investigator ◽  
Federal Grants ◽  
Comprehensive Listing ◽  
The Common

Abstract This year the Hematology Grants Workshop, chaired by Dr. Todd, includes a comprehensive listing of available National Institutes of Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, and non-federal grants applicable to fellows and junior faculty as well as to established investigators. In Section II, Dr. Miller discusses the essential principles of successful grant writing with a special emphasis on the young investigator. He highlights the best strategies to take and the common mistakes to avoid. In Section III, Dr. Silverstein outlines the structure of the current NIH Integrated Review Group (IRG) system and the study sections of the most relevance to hematology. He traces the path that a grant takes from review to funding including the way in which grants are reviewed at NIH Study Section Meetings and provides advice in the preparation of revised applications.

scholarly journals UNDANG-UNDANG PERKAWINAN DAN MARGINALISASI PEREMPUAN (Studi Kritis Terhadap Undang-undang Perkawinan No.1 Tahun 1974)

EGALITA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Abdul Hamid, MA, Nur Fadhilah, S.HI
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Role ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Family Relationship ◽  
Gender Perspective ◽  
Men And Women

Gender differences which generats gender role do not need to be refused as long as they do not cause undesirable impacts. However, the problem is that gender role creates unequality structures in particular aspects such as can be found in Marital Laws. Some sections of Marital laws are considered gender bias for women. For instance, section 31  verse 3 and section 4 are categorized as irrelevant sections to build gender as well as human rights equality which been recommended by CEDAW convention (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Againts Women) and Act no 7/1984. Therefore, these efforts should be taken to establish the Act or the regulation based on gender perspective to achieve equality and justice for both sexes (men and women) in all aspects particularly in a family relationship.

scholarly journals Co-authorships and gender bias in academia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klarita Gërxhani ◽  
Nevena Kulic ◽  
Fabienne Liechti
Keyword(s):  
Gender Bias ◽  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Full Time ◽  
University Professors ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
Individual Contributions ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
And Gender

This article examines gender bias in the Italian academia, and whether this bias depends on one’s collaborative work and its related conventions across academic disciplines. We carry out the research by relying on status characteristics theory, which is tested via a factorial survey experiment of 2,098 associate and full-time professors employed in Italian public universities in 2019. This is one of the few experiments of the hiring process in academia conducted on a nationally representative population of university professors. Our article focuses specifically on three academic disciplines: humanities, economics, and social sciences. The results indicate that female academics in Italy are penalized for co-authoring. They receive less favorable evaluations of their competence, but only when the evaluator is a male. This gender bias is most pronounced in economics, a discipline where conventions of co-authorship allow for more uncertainty on individual contributions to a joint publication. Overall, the results partially confirm our postulates based on status characteristics theory.

scholarly journals Gender Differences in Academic Medicine

2018 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1694-1699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis L. Carr ◽  
Anita Raj ◽  
Samantha E. Kaplan ◽  
Norma Terrin ◽  
Janis L. Breeze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Academic Medicine

Gender and the Evaluation of Sport Psychology Consultants

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trent A. Petrie ◽  
Karen D. Cogan ◽  
Judy L. Van Raalte ◽  
Britton W. Brewer
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Sport Psychology ◽  
Football Player ◽  
The Other ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Female Condition ◽  
Male Condition ◽  
Independent Variable

An investigation was conducted to examine the possibility of gender bias in the evaluation of sport psychology consultants. AAASP members were sent a packet that included a description of a football player who wanted to work with a sport psychology consultant to improve his consistency, a vita of a fictitious sport psychology consultant, and a rating questionnaire. The packets differed only in regard to the gender of the fictitious sport psychology consultant, which served as the independent variable, with half the sample being assigned to the male condition and the other half to the female condition. Participants (N = 293) evaluated the sport psychology consultant on several dimensions and indicated how strongly they would recommend the consultant to the football player. Results indicated that participants generally evaluated the fictitious sport psychology consultant similarly, regardless of gender. Indeed, the only gender differences that emerged were that the female sport psychology consultant was rated higher than the male consultant on attractiveness, trustworthiness, and general “good counselor” dimensions. Even though evidence of bias against women did not emerge in this study, the importance of promoting an atmosphere of inclusion for both male and female sport psychologists still exists.

scholarly journals Gender Bias in Academic Medicine

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn V Horn
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Academic Medicine ◽  
Obstet Gynecol ◽  
Unconscious Bias ◽  
Institutional Policies ◽  
Recruitment And Retention ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Women In Academic Medicine

ABSTRACT While more women graduate from medical school, there is still unequal representation of women in academic medicine, especially in the senior levels of academia. Gender bias is a strong reason women leave academic medicine. Disparities in salary and promotion, conscious and unconscious bias and institutional policies create a culture that does not favor their recruitment and retention. This article reviews literature that describes the problem and potential solutions to individuals, departments and institutions. How to cite this article Horn KV. Gender Bias in Academic Medicine. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 8(1):97-99.

scholarly journals Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities

2017 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine L. Nittrouer ◽  
Michelle R. Hebl ◽  
Leslie Ashburn-Nardo ◽  
Rachel C. E. Trump-Steele ◽  
David M. Lane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Additional Data ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Gender Disparities ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Archival Data ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Male Faculty

Colloquium talks at prestigious universities both create and reflect academic researchers’ reputations. Gender disparities in colloquium talks can arise through a variety of mechanisms. The current study examines gender differences in colloquium speakers at 50 prestigious US colleges and universities in 2013–2014. Using archival data, we analyzed 3,652 talks in six academic disciplines. Men were more likely than women to be colloquium speakers even after controlling for the gender and rank of the available speakers. Eliminating alternative explanations (e.g., women declining invitations more often than men), our follow-up data revealed that female and male faculty at top universities reported no differences in the extent to which they (i) valued and (ii) turned down speaking engagements. Additional data revealed that the presence of women as colloquium chairs (and potentially on colloquium committees) increased the likelihood of women appearing as colloquium speakers. Our data suggest that those who invite and schedule speakers serve as gender gatekeepers with the power to create or reduce gender differences in academic reputations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document