Connect
MJA
MJA

Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC?

Med J Aust 1998; 169 (11): 623-624.
Published online: 14 December 1998

Medical Research Perspectives

Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC?

Jeanette E Ward and Neil Donnelly, on behalf of the Research Fellowships Committee, NHMRC

MJA 1998; 169: 623-624

Abstract - Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion - Acknowledgements - References - Authors' details
- - More articles on Administration and health services

 


Abstract
Objective: To assess whether there is gender bias in the allocation of research fellowships granted by the Research Fellowships Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Data sources: Anonymous data from applications for a research fellowship from 1994 to 1997.
Results: More men than women apply for research fellowships (sex ratio, 2.5:1), but there is no difference in the proportion of male or female applicants who succeed in their application. Among new applicants, men tend to apply for a higher level of fellowship than women.
Conclusions: Lack of data about the numbers of eligible men and women means that we cannot draw conclusions about self-selection biases among potential applicants. However, the selection procedures of the Committee appear to be unbiased. The gender of applicants does not influence the outcome of their application.


Introduction
Australian researchers seeking to advance their careers in health and medical science can apply for appointment as a National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] Research Fellow. Applications for fellowships from researchers outside the research institutes that receive block-funding from the NHMRC are considered by the Research Fellowships Committee.1 Four levels of fellowship are awarded: Research Fellow, Senior Research Fellow, Principal Research Fellow, and Senior Principal Research Fellow.

Applications by researchers for appointment, reappointment or promotion are highly competitive. Criteria used to evaluate applications include the applicant's independence and track record in research, originality of the research, national and international recognition, publications and broader contribution to the applicant's area of research. These criteria are not weighted: rather, the overall merit of each case is assessed from diverse sources of evidence such as curriculum vitae, reports from referees nominated by the applicant, reports from external assessors nominated by the Research Fellowships Committee, consideration of the regional grants interviewing committee score (which indicates the scientific quality of the project or program to which the fellowship application is tied) and interview.

A Swedish study showed that reviewers' scores of postdoctoral fellowship applications to the Swedish Medical Research Council were strongly influenced by the gender of the applicant.2 This prompted the Research Committee of the NHMRC to ask the Research Fellowships Committee to conduct its own review.


Methods
Anonymous data on all applicants for research fellowships were manually extracted from the records for the period 1994-1997. We counted the number of applications from men and women seeking and receiving appointment, reappointment or promotion to research fellowships at each level, calculated sex ratios, and tested for evidence of gender bias by means of 2 tests.

Analyses were not conducted for reappointments as we could not be confident that these would not include repeated applications from individuals who had failed in an initial application or an application for promotion within the same period.


Results
During the study period, 301 applications for appointment, promotion or reappointment were received from men, of which 102 (34%) were successful. One hundred and twenty applications were received from women, of which 43 (36%) were successful. This difference was not significant (2 = 0.14, df = 1, P = 0.7).  

Applications for initial appointment to the research fellowship scheme We noted that 202 applications for initial appointment to the research fellowship scheme were received from men, yet only 83 were received from women (an unequal ratio, specifically 2.4 : 1). However, the total denominator of eligible applicants by gender could not be determined.

Over the study period, 81 applications for initial appointment at Research Fellow level were received from men compared with 45 from women (ratio 1.8 : 1). Similarly, 121 applications for initial appointment to a Senior Research Fellowship or higher were received from men compared with only 38 from women (ratio 3.2 : 1); 30 applications for initial appointment as Principal Research Fellow or Senior Principal Research Fellow were received from men and only four from women (ratio 7.5 : 1); a total of five applications for initial appointment as Senior Principal Research Fellow were received from men compared with only one from a woman (ratio 5 : 1).

We combined applications for appointment as Research Fellow or Senior Research Fellow and compared these by sex with those for Principal Research Fellow or Senior Principal Research Fellow. Of the 202 applications received from men, 30 (15%) were for Principal Research Fellowships or Senior Principal Research Fellowships. For women, only 4 (5%) of 83 applications were for initial appointment as Principal Research Fellow or Senior Principal Research Fellow. Having applied for an initial appointment, men were significantly more likely than women to apply for a senior appointment (2 = 5.6, df = 1, P = 0.02).

For the study period, 26 applications (13%) from men for initial appointment (irrespective of level) were successful and 176 (87%) were not. In contrast, 14 (17%) applications from women for initial appointment (irrespective of level) were successful compared with 69 (83%) unsuccessful. The difference between men and women is not significant (2 = 0.8, df = 1, P = 0.4).  

Applications for promotion from Fellows already appointed At different career stages, but typically when they have reached the top of the scale and submitted an application for research grant renewal, Fellows are eligible to apply for promotion. Over the study period, 71 applications for promotion were received from men: 14 (20%) for promotion to Senior Research Fellow and 57 (80%) for promotion to Principal Research Fellow or Senior Principal Research Fellow. Over the same period, 24 applications for promotion were received from women: 9 (38%) for promotion to Senior Research Fellow and 15 (63%) for Principal Research Fellow or Senior Principal Research Fellow (2 = 3.1, df = 1, P = 0.08).

For the study period, 34 (48%) applications from men for promotion (irrespective of level) were successful and 37 (52%) were not, out of the total of 71. In contrast, 14 (58%) applications from women for promotion (irrespective of level) were successful compared with 10 (42%) unsuccessful, out of the total of 24. Again, there was no significant gender effect (2 = 0.8, df = 1, P = 0.4).


Discussion
We are concerned that more applications for initial appointment are received from men than women (a ratio of 2.5:1). As we do not know the size of the pool of eligible men and women, we cannot state whether eligible women are less likely to apply than men, but in 1997 there were more women than men enrolled in PhD degrees in health faculties of Australian universities.3 Were women scientists concerned that the NHMRC research fellowships scheme is biased against women, they might be less likely to apply for initial appointment because they perceived themselves to have a less-than-equal chance of a fair evaluation. Our data shed no light on this question, but analysis of data relating to NHMRC PhD scholarships, postdoctoral awards such as C J Martin Fellowships and R D Wright Scholarships would generate further testable hypotheses about gender bias outside the Research Fellowships Committee.

Our study also shows that, among new applicants, men are more likely than women to apply for fellowships at the higher levels. The data might also suggest that male research fellows are more likely to seek promotion to the higher levels than female research fellows. However, these analyses were not adjusted for age or years of postdoctoral experience, so our data on potential gender bias in promotion are very limited. To obtain better data, it would be necessary to select a cohort of research fellows appointed in one year and track their progress, testing statistically whether gender is associated with further applications for promotion or reappointment.

The Research Fellowships Committee itself has five male and four female members.1 In keeping with increasing community and professional interest in the accountability of the NHMRC,1,4-6 we place our findings in the public domain to generate discussion. We conclude that the influence of gender bias, if present at all in the research fellowships scheme, is indirect and acts before the process of evaluation of a specific application. Women may be less likely to apply and, once appointed, perhaps more cautious in their applications for promotion. However, having applied and specified a particular level, the gender of applicants does not influence the outcome of their application.

We acknowledge the limitations of the available data. Access to applications to calculate publication outputs and acquisition of competitive grants as indicators of research proficiency (as in the Scandinavian study)2 would have required the written consent of the applicants. Further debate and resources to support such a study are recommended, as is research to examine any differential success rates in project or program grant applications to the NHMRC by male and female investigators.


Acknowledgements
This commentary was written on behalf of the NHMRC's Research Fellowships Committee, of which the first author is a member. We thank Professor John Finlay-Jones (chair); Professor Daine Alcorn; Professor Peter Brooks, Professor Murray Esler; Professor Simon Gandevia; Dr Emanuela Handman; Professor Ieva Kotlarski and Associate Professor David Roder for their interest and constructive advice regarding analysis and writing. Professor Warwick Anderson also provided encouraging support. Kerry Warren, formerly Committee Secretary, NHMRC Career Fellowships, manually extracted data from the NHMRC database.


References
  1. National Health and Medical Research Council. 1997 Annual Report. Canberra: NHMRC, 1998. (Commonwealth of Australia Catalogue No. 9804863.)
  2. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature 1997; 387: 341-343.
  3. Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Selected Higher Education Student Statistics, 1997. <http//www.deetya.gov.au/divisions/hed/ highered/statpubs.htm>. Accessed 18 September 1998.
  4. Anderson W. Funding Australia's health and medical research. Med J Aust 1997; 167: 608-609.
  5. Ward J, Slaytor E. Enhancing NHMRC investment in public health research. Aust N Z J Public Health 1998; 22: 189-190.
  6. Larkins R, Anderson P. Australian medical research: more resources and the right balance. Med J Aust 1998; 168: 535-536.


Authors' details
Central Sydney Area Health Service Needs Assessment and Health Outcomes Unit, Sydney, NSW.
Jeanette E Ward, PhD, FAFPHM, Director.
Neil Donnelly, MPH, Statistician.
Reprints will not be available from the authors.
Correspondence: Associate Professor J E Ward, CSAHS Needs Assessment & Health Outcomes Unit, Locked Bag 8, Newtown, NSW 2042.
Email: jwardATnah.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au




Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>".
<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/>



Correspondence: 

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.