Diferencias y sesgos de género en la financiación de la investigación: un enfoque dinámico

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24965/gapp.i26.10909

Palabras clave:

Financiación de la investigación, Diferencias de género, Sesgo, Evaluación por pares

Resumen

En general, las científicas consiguen menos fondos para investigar y tienen, con respecto a los solicitantes, menores tasas de éxito que los hombres. Este artículo revisa críticamente la literatura sobre las disparidades y sesgos de género en la financiación de la investigación, reconociendo la diversidad de hallazgos, y poniendo el énfasis en la necesidad de clarificación conceptual y rigor metodológico. Se adopta un enfoque dinámico con la premisa de que las diferencias en las tasas de solicitud y éxito en las convocatorias de proyectos de investigación se ven afectadas por diferencias previas y acumulativas, y a su vez influyen en la carrera posteriormente. Se revisa también el papel de las preferencias y de las expectativas individuales a la hora de competir, así como el proceso de evaluación y cómo las características de los evaluadores y de los procedimientos de las agencias pueden activar o desactivar mecanismos de sesgo.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Laura Cruz-Castro, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos – CSIC (España)

Laura Cruz Castro es Investigadora Científica en el Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos del CSIC. Es doctora en Sociología por la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Su área de especialización son las políticas de ciencia y investigación, las carreras académicas y las organizaciones de I+D. Ha dirigido y participado en numerosos proyectos de investigación financiados competitivamente y publicado en las revistas internacionales más relevantes de su campo.

Citas

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A. y Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002

Agencia Estatal de Investigación – AEI (2020). Proyectos de I+D de «Generación de Conocimiento». Proyectos de I+D+i «Retos Investigación». Convocatorias 2018. [informe de análisis]. https://www.ciencia.gob.es/portal/site/MICINN/menuitem.791459a43fdf738d70fd325001432ea0/?vgnextoid=1c85ed0682835610VgnVCM1000001d04140aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ede586fd6c544610VgnVCM1000001d04140aRCRD&vgnextfmt=formato2&id3=b257eacaf341f610VgnVCM1000001d04140a____

Agencia Estatal de Investigación (2021). Programa Ramón y Cajal para la contratación de investigadores de trayectoria destacada 2018/2019. Análisis [informe]. https://www.ciencia.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/AEI/ficheros/Informe_Programa_Ramon_y_Cajal_convocatorias_2018_19.pdf

Antal, A. B., Hutter, M. y Stark, D. (2015). Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford University Press.

Antecol, H., Bedard, K. y Stearns, J. (2018). Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies? American Economic Review, 108(9), 2.420-2.441. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160613

Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M. y Zinovyeva, N. (2017). Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter? American Economic Review, 107(4), 1.207-1.238. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151211

Blake, M. y La Valle, I. (2000). Who applies for research funding? Key factors shaping funding application behaviour among women and men in British higher education institutions [informe]. National Centre for Social Research. https://wellcomecollection.org/works/qctj6ypv

Bohren, J. A., Imas, A. y Rosenberg, M. (2019). The Dynamics of Discrimination: Theory and Evidence. American Economic Review, 109(10), 3.395-3.436. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20171829

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 199-246. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. y Daniel, H.-D. (2008). How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 280-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.003

Cartwright, N. y Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford University Press.

Ceci, S. J. y Williams, W. M. (eds.) (2007). Why Aren’t More Women in Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence (1. ª ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11546-000

Checchi, D., Cicognani, S. y Kulic, N. (2019). Gender Quotas or Girls’ Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection. Work, Employment and Society, 33(3), 462-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018813071

Chubin, D. E. y Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy. SUNY series in Science, Technology, and Society. State University of New York Press.

Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. The Free Press.

Cole, J. y Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 2, 217-258.

Cole, S. y Fiorentine, R. (1991). Discrimination against women in science: The confusion of outcome with process. En H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole y J. T. Bruer (eds.), The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community (pp. 205-226). Yale University Press.

Cruz Castro, L. y Sanz Menéndez, L. (2020). Grant Allocation Disparities from a Gender Perspective: Literature Review. Synthesis Report. GRANteD Project D.1.1. Digital.CSIC. https://doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/10548

Cruz Castro, L. y Sanz Menéndez, L. (2016). The effects of the economic crisis on public research: Spanish budgetary policies and research organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, Part B, 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.001

Comisión Europea (ed.) (2009). The gender challenge in research funding: Assessing the European national scenes [informe]. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://www.genderportal.eu/resources/gender-challenge-research-funding-assessing-european-national-scenes

Comisión Europea (2014). Marie Curie researchers and their long-term career development: A comparative study: final report [informe]. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9c2cb7d8-3773-430c-b1c0-db94ec421b01

Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275-298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719

Escobar Alvarez, S. N., Jagsi, R., Abbuhl, S. B., Lee, C. J. y Myers, E. R. (2019). Promoting gender equity in grant making: what can a funder do? The Lancet, 393(10.171), e9-e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30211-9

Fernandez-Mateo, I. y Kaplan, S. (2018). Gender and Organization Science: Introduction to a Virtual Special Issue. Organization Science, 29(6), 1.229-1.236. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1249

Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., Petersen, A. M., Radicchi, F., Sinatra, R., Uzzi, B., Vespignani, A., Waltman, L., Wang, D. y Barabási, A.-L. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6.379), artículo eaao0185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185

Goldin, C. y Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of «Blind» Auditions on Female Musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715-741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715

Goulden, M., Mason, M. A. y Frasch, K. (2011). Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1), 141-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211416925

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A. y Torrini, R. (2017). Gender effects in research evaluation. Research Policy, 46(5), 911-924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.002

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J. y Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603-625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684

Kolev, J., Fuentes-Medel, Y. y Murray, F. (2019). Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation [NBER Working Paper Series, 25.759]. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25759

Kravitz, D. A. y Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 928-938. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.928

Latour, B. y Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (2.ª ed.). Princeton University Press https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bbxc

Ley, T. J. y Hamilton, B. H. (2008). The Gender Gap in NIH Grant Applications. Science, 322(5.907), 1.472-1.474. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165878

Lincoln, Y. S. y Guba, E. G. (1980). The Distinction Between Merit and Worth in Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(4), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163674

Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity. Social Forces, 71(1), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579971

Magua, W., Zhu, X., Bhattacharya, A., Filut, A., Potvien, A., Leatherberry, R., Lee, Y.-G., Jens, M., Malikireddy, D., Carnes, M. y Kaatz, A. (2017). Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers’ Critiques. Journal of Women’s Health, 26(5), 560-570. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6021

Mairesse, J. y Pezzoni, M. (2015). Does Gender Affect Scientific Productivity? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence and a Panel Data Econometric Analysis for French Physicists. Revue Économique, 66(1), 65-113. https://doi.org/10.3917/reco.661.0065

Marini, G. y Meschitti, V. (2018). The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence from academic promotions to full professor in Italy. Scientometrics, 115(2), 989-1.006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2696-8

Mauleón, E., Bordons, M. y Oppenheim, C. (2008). The effect of gender on research staff success in life sciences in the Spanish National Research Council. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X331676

Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. En The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267-278). The University of Chicago Press.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. y Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 109(41), 16.474-16.479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Molenda, A. K. y Cramer, C. R. (2015). Can Evidence Impact Attitudes? Public Reactions to Evidence of Gender Bias in STEM Fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 194-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314565777

National Research Council (2010). Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12062

Nelson, J. A. (2014). The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: the case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(3), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2014.939691

Nielsen, M. W. (2018). Scientific Performance Assessments Through a Gender Lens: a Case Study on Evaluation and Selection Practices in Academia. Science & Technology Studies, 31(1), 2-30. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60610

Pina, D. G., Barać, L., Buljan, I., Grimaldo, F. y Marušić, A. (2019). Effects of seniority, gender and geography on the bibliometric output and collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) grant recipients. Plos One, 14(2), artículo e0212286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212286

Preston, A. E. (2004). Leaving Science: Occupational Exit from Scientific Careers (1. ª ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. https://www.russellsage.org/publications/leaving-science

Reskin, B. F. (2003). Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality: 2002 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088900

Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). Why Status Matters for Inequality. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413515997

Rip, A. (1994). The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 28(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383569

Rivera, L. A. y Tilcsik, A. (2019). Scaling Down Inequality: Rating Scales, Gender Bias, and the Architecture of Evaluation. American Sociological Review, 84(2), 248-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419833601

Rosser, S. V. (2004). The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientist and the Struggle to Succeed (1. ª ed.). Routledge.

Roumbanis, L. (2019). Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants. Science, Technology & Human Values, 44(6), 994-1.019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918822744

Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. y Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 263-267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.263

Sandström, U. y Besselaar, P. V. D. (2016). Quantity and/or Quality? The Importance of Publishing Many Papers. Plos One, 11(11), artículo e0166149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166149

Sandström, U. y Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics, 74(2), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3

Sonnert, G. y Holton, G. (1995). Who Succeeds in Science? The Gender Dimension. Rutgers University Press.

Stephan, P. E. y El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: explaining the gender gap. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9033-3

Stewart, A. J. y Valian, V. (2018). An Inclusive Academy: Achiving Diversity and Excellence. The MIT Press.

Tamblyn, R., Girard, N., Qian, C. J. y Hanley, J. (2018). Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal – CMAJ, 190(16), e489-e499. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170901

Thelwall, M. (2018). Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1.031-1.041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.005

Treviño, L. J., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B. y Mixon, F. G. (2018). Meritocracies or Masculinities? The Differential Allocation of Named Professorships by Gender in the Academy. Journal of Management, 44(3), 972-1.000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599216

UMyC – Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (2011). Libro blanco: situación de las mujeres en la ciencia española (Sánchez de Madariaga, I, De la Rica Goiricelaya, S. y Dolado Lobregad, J.J. (coords.)). Unidad de Mujeres y Ciencia – UMyC. https://www.ciencia.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Ministerio/FICHEROS/UMYC/LibroBlanco-Interactivo.pdf

Van den Besselaar, P. y Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820209X475360

Van den Brink, M., Brouns, M. y Waslander, S. (2006). Does excellence have a gender? A national research study on recruitment and selection procedures for professorial appointments in The Netherlands. Employee Relations, 28(6), 523-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450610704470

Van den Brink, M. (2010). Behind the Scenes of Science: Gender Practices in the Recruitment and Selection of Professors in the Netherlands. Ámsterdam University Press.

Van den Brink, M. y Stobbe, L. (2014). The support paradox: Overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.07.001

Van den Brink, M., Brouns, M. y Waslander, S. (2006). Does excellence have a gender? A national research study on recruitment and selection procedures for professorial appointments in The Netherlands. Employee Relations, 28(6), 523-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450610704470

Vernos, I. (2013). Quotas are questionable. Nature, 495, 39. https://doi.org/10.1038/495039a

Wennerås, C. y Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-343. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0

Xie, Y. y Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex Differences in Research Productivity: New Evidence about an Old Puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847-870. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657505

Xie, Y. y Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Harvard University Press.

Publicado

01-07-2021

Cómo citar

Cruz-Castro, L. (2021). Diferencias y sesgos de género en la financiación de la investigación: un enfoque dinámico. Gestión Y Análisis De Políticas Públicas, (26), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.24965/gapp.i26.10909
Share |