Addressing Gender Bias in Academic Disciplines: A Closer Look at Systemic Inequality

Addressing Gender Bias in Academic Disciplines: A Closer Look at Systemic Inequality

Inequity between men and women in research funding and researcher performance evaluation has long been a recognized issue in science policy. However, a new perspective is emerging, shedding light on the systemic biases present within entire research fields. Recent research conducted in New Zealand has revealed a concerning trend: women in male-dominated disciplines outperform their counterparts in female-dominated fields on researcher-evaluation metrics.

The study, led by mathematician Alex James of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, and published in eLife, analyzed data from more than 30 countries to investigate the relationship between gender balance in research disciplines and grant-application success rates as well as evaluation of researcher quality. The findings indicate that the gender composition of a field significantly impacts the outcomes for researchers within that discipline.

James and her colleagues delved into funding data from various organizations, including the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) in New Zealand, the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Through statistical modeling, they uncovered a notable disparity in grant-application success rates and researcher evaluation scores based on the gender balance of the discipline.

The New Zealand data set highlighted that researchers in female-dominated fields, such as nursing and education, tended to receive lower scores on the PBRF compared to those in male-dominated disciplines like physics and philosophy. Men working in male-dominated fields scored significantly higher on average than men in female-dominated fields, while women in male-dominated disciplines also outperformed women in female-dominated fields by a considerable margin.

The ARC data from 2019 further supported these findings, showing that women had a slightly higher success rate in securing grants than men within the same discipline. However, the success rates varied significantly between male-dominated disciplines, such as philosophy, and female-dominated fields like nursing. This discrepancy was also observed in the CIHR and EIGE data sets, indicating a systemic issue across multiple regions.

While the reasons behind these patterns remain unclear, researchers have proposed several possibilities. It is suggested that grant-application reviewers may exhibit bias against women or female-dominated disciplines, leading to lower evaluation scores. Additionally, as more women enter traditionally male-dominated fields, the perceived quality of the discipline may diminish, impacting funding success rates and researcher evaluations.

Virginia Valian, a psychologist at Hunter College in New York City, expressed surprise at the findings that women seem to benefit from working in male-dominated fields. She highlighted the underlying biases that devalue work in female-dominated disciplines, emphasizing the need to address these systemic issues to promote equity in research funding and evaluation.

Ebony McGee, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, noted that biases in evaluation stem from entrenched power structures that prioritize certain types of research deemed valuable by dominant groups. She emphasized the importance of dismantling these biases and empowering women and women of color to lead efforts in reshaping research fields.

The study by James and her team aligns with previous research that has explored the intersection of gender bias and disciplinary disparities. Studies conducted by the US National Institutes of Health and other institutions have revealed similar patterns of inequity, underscoring the need for comprehensive interventions to address systemic biases in academia.

Rachael Murray, a biomedical scientist at the Queensland University of Technology, emphasized the complexity of the issues at hand and called for institutions and funding bodies to scrutinize their data to identify and rectify problematic practices. She stressed the importance of promoting diversity and inclusivity in research to foster a more equitable and supportive environment for all researchers.

Several organizations mentioned in the eLife study have taken steps to address gender bias in research funding and evaluation. The Australian Research Council, for instance, is reviewing its grant-awarding mechanism to support a diverse workforce. In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council has implemented quotas to ensure gender equity in grant allocations, signaling a commitment to rectifying gender disparities in research funding.

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Education has engaged with the researchers behind the PBRF study to consider their findings in policy discussions. Katrine Sutich, the general manager for tertiary and evidence policy at the ministry, affirmed the importance of addressing gender bias in research assessment and promoting a fair and inclusive research environment.

The findings from studies like those conducted by Alex James and her colleagues shed light on the pervasive nature of gender bias in academic disciplines and underscore the need for systemic change to promote equity and diversity in research. By acknowledging and addressing these biases, institutions and funding bodies can create a more inclusive and supportive research landscape for all researchers, regardless of gender or disciplinary affiliation.