Selling science: optimizing the research funding evaluation and decision process

PurposeIn this contribution to EDI's professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidence-based recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding. An analysis is made of how the expectation of “selling science” adds layers of complexity to the evaluation and decision process. The insights are relevant for optimization of similar processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure and promotion.Design/methodology/approachThe recommendations are informed by experiences and evidence from commissioned projects with European research funding organizations. The authors distinguish between three aspects of the evaluation process: written applications, enacted performance and group dynamics. Vignettes are provided to set the stage for the analysis of how bias and (lack of) fit to an ideal image makes it easier for some than for others to be funded.FindingsIn research funding decisions, (over)selling science is expected but creates shifting standards for evaluation, resulting in a narrow band of acceptable behavior for applicants. In the authors' recommendations, research funding organizations, evaluators and panel chairs will find practical ideas and levers for process optimization, standardization and customization, in terms of awareness, accountability, biased language, criteria, structure and time.Originality/valueShowing how “selling science” in research funding adds to the cumulative disadvantage of bias, the authors offer design specifications for interventions to mitigate the negative effects of bias on evaluations and decisions, improve selection habits, eliminate discretion and create a more inclusive process.

‘Gentlemen of the Press’ and Media Gender Neutrality: A ReEvaluation

Media gender neutrality is one of the key tenets or pillars of journalism. Such tenets include but not limited to the gender-sensitive and non-biased language of reporting. Based on the symbolic interactionism theory and drawing on the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) method, it is argued that the traditional greeting for journalists “gentlemen of the press”, which is still in use internationally, is too gender-biased, promotes hegemonic masculinity that disproportionately disadvantages and hurts women. This article concludes that, based on current trends in gender neutrality and gender sensitivity in language, the original meaning inputted into the generic word “men” in “gentlemen” where the term “men” is applied inclusively to and refers to both “men and women” is no longer justified and tenable and recommends that the usage be stopped and be replaced with a new proposed, more gender-neutral greeting, namely: “Distinguished members of the press”.

Language and Categorization

This chapter is focussed on linguistic bias in intergroup relations. It is based on the linguistic intergroup bias model, according to which people use different words for describing people and their behaviour on the basis of group membership. In particular, they attribute positive behaviours of ingroup members and negative behaviours of outgroup members to stable enduring characteristics, while attributing negative behaviours of ingroup members and positive behaviours of outgroup members to transitory characteristics dependent on situation or context. This kind of linguistic bias may occur not only in informal communication but also in the mass media, where it can reinforce positive or negative social stereotypes without viewers or readers necessarily being aware how this process is taking place. The chapter concludes that recognizing and limiting the use of such biased language is an important component in producing quality journalism.

The role of L1 and L2 frequency in cross-linguistic structural priming: An artificial language learning study

We investigated L1 and L2 frequency effects in the sharing of syntax across languages (reflected in cross-linguistic structural priming) using an artificial language (AL) paradigm. Ninety-six Dutch speakers learned an AL with either a prepositional-object (PO) dative bias (PO datives appeared three times as often as double-object [DO] datives) or a DO dative bias (DOs appeared three times as often as POs). Priming was assessed from the AL to Dutch (a strongly PO-biased language). There was weak immediate priming for DOs, but not for POs in both bias conditions. This suggests that L1, but not AL, frequency influenced immediate priming. Furthermore, the DO bias group produced 10% more DOs in Dutch than the PO bias group, showing that cumulative priming was influenced by AL frequency. We discuss the different effects of L1 and AL frequency on cross-linguistic structural priming in terms of lexicalist and implicit learning accounts.

Are We Living in a Globalized World?

The author first points to some prejudiced or inappropriate language use in an era of globalization, for example, distinctions between language and dialect, Global South and Global North, developed countries and developing countries, majority and minority, intercultural education, and multicultural education. Then the author extends the discussion to the inequality in different fields, such as the educational and economic fields. Finally, the author calls for elimination of the biased language use and unequal practice in an era of globalization. This chapter concludes that a real globalization will not be attained without an equal globe and suggests unbiased language use and equal practices in language use in various domains.

Antigypsyism as Symbolic and Epistemic Violence in Informative Journalism in Spain, 2010–2018

This study conducts a framing analysis of how Spanish journalism represents “Gypsy identity” within the markers of dangerousness and criminality (in the period from 2010 to 2018). The paper aims to validate the following underpinning hypothesis: as symbolic and epistemic violence, antigypsyism legitimizes systemicracial discrimination and exclusion against Roma in Spain. The article is organized into five sections. First, an analytical framework introduces the notions of “antigypsyism,” “structural discrimination,” “social fear,” “symbolic violence,” “epistemic violence,” and “framing analysis.” Second, a case study is presented on a sample of 150 national news reports that portray Romani characters in a biased way. Third, this analysis informs an ethical and legal debate that challenges the limits of free speech and the uses of discriminatory and biased language in informative narratives. The fourth section examines and provides conclusions regarding thecorrelation between structural discrimination against Roma and the role of media in engendering the stigma of the “Gypsy threat.” Finally, the article includes a series of recommendations that could be used to counteract racism in news narratives.