Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2011
|
| _version_ | 1797070127452127232 |
|---|---|
| author | Marsh, H Jayasinghe, U Bond, N |
| author_facet | Marsh, H Jayasinghe, U Bond, N |
| author_sort | Marsh, H |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results - coupled with findings from previous research - offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:34:38Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:59757784-54aa-4ad5-877b-0ddc18b3cf08 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:34:38Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:59757784-54aa-4ad5-877b-0ddc18b3cf082022-03-26T17:09:54ZGender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis modelJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:59757784-54aa-4ad5-877b-0ddc18b3cf08EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2011Marsh, HJayasinghe, UBond, NPeer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results - coupled with findings from previous research - offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. |
| spellingShingle | Marsh, H Jayasinghe, U Bond, N Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| title | Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| title_full | Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| title_fullStr | Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| title_full_unstemmed | Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| title_short | Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| title_sort | gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications a substantive methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marshh genderdifferencesinpeerreviewsofgrantapplicationsasubstantivemethodologicalsynergyinsupportofthenullhypothesismodel AT jayasingheu genderdifferencesinpeerreviewsofgrantapplicationsasubstantivemethodologicalsynergyinsupportofthenullhypothesismodel AT bondn genderdifferencesinpeerreviewsofgrantapplicationsasubstantivemethodologicalsynergyinsupportofthenullhypothesismodel |