4.6 Review

Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches

Journal

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 79, Issue 3, Pages 1290-1326

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.3102/0034654309334143

Keywords

meta-analysis; peer review; higher education; bias; gender; validity; generalizability; substantive-methodological synergy

Funding

  1. ESRC [ES/F041292/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F041292/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Peer review is valued in higher education, but also widely criticized in terms of potential biases, particularly gender We evaluate gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications, extending Bornmann, Mutz, and Daniel meta-analyses that reported small gender differences in favor of men (d = .04), but a substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes that compromised the robustness of their results. We contrast these findings with the most comprehensive single primary study (Marsh, Jayasinghe, and Bond) that found no gender differences for grant proposals. We juxtapose traditional (fixed- and random-effects) and multilevel models, demonstrating important advantages to the multilevel approach. Consistent with Marsh et al.'s primary study, there were no gender differences for the 40 (of 66) effect sizes from Bornmann et al. that were based on grant proposals. This lack of a gender effect for grant proposals was very robust, generalizing over country, discipline, and publication year

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available