Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research

Funding of curiosity-driven science is the lifeblood of scientific and technological innovation. Various models of funding allocation became institutionalized in the 20th century, shaping the present landscape of research funding. There are numerous reasons for scientists to be dissatisfied with current funding schemes, including the imbalance between funding for curiosity-driven and mission-directed research, regional and country disparities, path-dependency of who gets funded, gender and race disparities, low inter-reviewer reliability, and the trade-off between the effort and time spent on writing or reviewing proposals and doing research. We discuss possible alternative models for dealing with these issues. These alternatives include incremental changes such as placing more weight on the proposals or on the investigators and representative composition of panel members, along with deeper reforms such as distributed or concentrated funding and partial lotteries in response to low inter-reviewer reliability. We also consider radical alternatives to current funding schemes: the removal of political governance and the introduction of international competitive applications to a World Research Council alongside national funding sources. There is likely no single best way to fund curiosity-driven research; we examine arguments for and against the possibility of systematically evaluating alternative models empirically.

Gender differences in Dutch research funding over time: A statistical investigation of the innovation scheme 2012-2021

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the Dutch research council, NWO, took measures to combat gender bias disadvantaging female applicants in a popular three-tiered funding scheme called the Talent Programme. The innovation scheme consists of three grants for different career stages, called Veni, Vidi and Vici.

OBJECTIVES

This paper studies the question whether or not NWO has been successful in removing gender differences in their funding procedure.

METHODS

Using all available data from 2012 onwards of grant applications in the Talent Programme (16,249 applications of which 2,449 received funding), we study whether these measures had an effect using binomial generalized linear models.

RESULTS

We find strong statistical evidence of a shift in gender effects in favour of female applicants in the first tier, the Veni (p < .001). Significant gender differences are not found in the two other tiers, the Vidi and Vici schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, female applicants are more likely to be awarded with a Veni grant than male applicants and this gender gap has increased over time. This suggests that gender differences still exist in the assessment of Talent Programme submissions, albeit in a different direction than a decade ago.

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women's lesser representation in the sciences. This study's objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes.

METHODS

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias.

RESULTS

The searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders' reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I² = 84%). Reapplication award acceptance rates were significantly higher for men (9%, 95% CI 18% to 1%, k = 7, n = 7319 applications and 3324 awards, I² = 63%). Women received smaller award amounts (g = -2.28, 95% CI -4.92 to 0.36, k = 13, n = 212,935, I² = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.

Gender inequality in applying research project and funding

Gender equality in scientific research has gradually attracted attention from many countries. However, the possible interaction effect of gender on research funding has not been fully disclosed. This study conducts an empirical study to examine the possible influences of gender on research funding and its interaction effect with applicants’ social influences, including their external cumulative advantages (Matthew effect) and internal cognition (halo effect). In total, 1465 research projects from 2015 to 2021 are analysed to examine the proposed hypotheses. The results reveal that there is no gender inequality in the association between the Matthew effect and future research funding. However, the halo effect is easily affected by gender. For male scientists, higher institutional reputation and past research performance lead to higher future research funding. However, female scientists have no such benefits. According to the findings, this study suggests that female scientists should give priority to accumulating their own external resource advantages and participate in academic activities more frequently to activate women’s participation in scientific research and academia.

The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions

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.

European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective

European Research Council Grants (ERC) have become the most important vehicle for funding scientific research in the EU. Since their creation in 2007, they have provided funding for around 7,000 of the nearly 70,000 proposals for research projects submitted. With a success rate of about 11%, these Grants are highly competitive. Despite major advancement of women’s participation in research activity, women overall remain the minority in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM disciplines). Against that backdrop, this article analyses men’s and women’s presence in ERC Grants. The gender balance in the ERC Grant, have been examined in three dimensions: Excellence Awarded; Scientific Leadership Position; and Time Series Evolution. The results show that female presence is lower than men as submitted (26% vs 74%), granted (22% vs 78%), expert panel members (28% vs 72%), and as a panel chair (26% vs 74%). State-space prediction of the future pattern of these grants shows that time has no clearly beneficial effect on women’s participation as applicants, granted, expert panel members or panel chairs, particularly in the area of Physics and Engineering.