Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands

We examined the application and review materials of three calls (n = 2,823) of a prestigious grant for personal research funding in a national full population of early career scientists awarded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Results showed evidence of gender bias in application evaluations and success rates, as well as in language use in instructions and evaluation sheets. Male applicants received significantly more competitive “quality of researcher” evaluations (but not “quality of proposal” evaluations) and had significantly higher application success rates than female applicants. Gender disparities were most prevalent in scientific disciplines with the highest number of applications and with equal gender distribution among the applicants (i.e., life sciences and social sciences). Moreover, content analyses of the instructional and evaluation materials revealed the use of gendered language favoring male applicants. Overall, our data reveal a 4% “loss” of women during the grant review procedure, and illustrate the perpetuation of the funding gap, which contributes to the underrepresentation of women in academia.Women are still underrepresented in academia today. Despite various attempts to promote gender equality (e.g., affirmative action initiatives, quotas), female scientists are less likely to get offered tenure, are judged to be less competent, receive less payment and research facilities, and are less likely to be awarded research grants compared with male scientists (1–3). Over time, this type of bias accumulates and contributes to the attrition of women from academia (4); the academic pipeline leaks. Here we report evidence of gender bias in personal research funding for early career scientists.The importance of equal gender representation is widely acknowledged, for several reasons. First, it can resolve historic inequalities and provide equal opportunities (the “moral case for diversity”) (5, 6). Second, research has demonstrated that gender diversity in organizations can boost innovation and creativity, expand target groups, and increase productivity (the “business case for diversity”) (7, 8), either directly or indirectly through decision making processes or reputation, and provided that the organizational culture is open to change (9–12). This is true for academia as well. Gender-diverse research teams facilitate innovation and excellence in research and policy, address different research questions and methods, and facilitate wider application of research findings (13), thereby contributing to scientific progress.Relevant statistics, however, show a persistent leadership gap, salary gap, and funding gap for women in academia (3). To illustrate, The Netherlands—generally considered a high-equity nation—had only 16% female full professors in 2012 (14). Leadership is stereotyped as masculine and consequently associated more strongly with stereotypical male traits rather than female traits. Although women are equally effective in, and equally likely to use optimal leadership styles, as men (15, 16), women continue to be devalued as leaders due to the influence of gender stereotypes on judgment (17). Overall, science also is more implicitly associated with men than with women, because gender stereotypes characterize women as lacking the masculine traits associated with ability and success in science (18, 19). For instance, a recent study linked the level of women’s underrepresentation across academic disciplines to the magnitude of the stereotype-based assumption that innate talent is associated with male traits and considered necessary for academic career success (20). Moreover, women still earn on average 18% less than their male colleagues for the same work with similar responsibilities (3). Although the salary gap seems to narrow for early career researchers, women in top academic positions are still substantially underpaid compared with men. Finally, across different career phases, success rates for female scientists applying for research funding tend to be lower than for male scientists (3, 21, 22). Even when overall success rates for men and women are equal, women receive less research funding than men, and are less often listed as principal investigators (23–25). Closing the funding gap is of particular importance, because this may help retain women in academia and foster the closing of other gaps by facilitating negotiations about salaries, research facilities, and promotion opportunities.