Quantitative data and desk research on gender differences in access to funding

1. University of Warsaw
Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation,
Research and Education
Warsaw, July 22nd, 2016
1

2. differences in access to funding
based on quantitative data / desk research
2

3. WP 1: Grants
• GOAL: Analysis of differences and similarities in applying for
and receiving research funding by men and women (gendered
success rate), their reasons in various disciplines in Norway and
Poland.
• The qualitative study based on 19 interviews, including 3 with
representatives of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education,
one with a representative of the Council of Young Scientist and
15 with experts responsible for assessment of grant
applications and projects financed by the NCN, NCBiR, FNP and
the Ministry, representing technical and hard sciences,
humanities and social sciences.
• The desk research and quantitative analysis of existing data
concerning funding for research (including databases from
NCN, NCBiR and FNP).
3

4. WP 1: GRANTS
Beneficiaries of Polish National Science Centre grants received in 2013
women men
Source: Statystyki konkursow 2013. NCN
4

5. 5

6.  In years 2012, 2013 and 2014 women have constituted respectively
45%, 46% and 47% among applicants. Their proportion has been
lower among receivers: 42%, 41%, 45%.
 In years 2012-2014 gender success rate has been lower in the case
of women: respectively 19%, 20%, 15%; in case of men: 22%, 25%,
17%.
 The proportions varied depending on the type of competition. In
PRELUDIUM women constituted more than half of receivers. In other
varied from 9% (MAESTRO in 2014) to 51% (FUGA, SONATA in 2013).
 Women dominated among young applicants (below 25 and 26-30).
However, women have constituted only more than half among grant
receivers aged 26-30 in 2012 and 2014, in 2013 - among receivers
aged below 25.
 Young women’s activity in applying for grants is in opposition to
prevailing stereotype that women are passive or focused on
motherhood, not career.
6

7.  Success rate in receiving grants/stipends of the Foundation for
Polish Science (FNP) depended on a type of competition.
 Between 7-14%, usually a few percent lower among women.
 30-40% of the successful grant/scholarship receivers worked in
higher education institutions classified in national rankings as
belonging to the highest quintile.
 Relatively large number of awarded scientists is working in
institutions located in Warsaw and Krakow.
 However, it partially depends on the area of the competition; some
specialized institutions are in other cities and in this case many
grants are located in e.g. Wroclaw or the Silesia region.
7

8.  Analysis of data of the National Center of Research and
Development was more complicated - large part of financing is
allocated to consortia, and names (as well as gender) of involved
persons are not mentioned.
 The highest percentage of women is engaged in activities connected
with commercialisation of results of research findings (23%), in
international projects (21%), in applied research (21%), strategic
sector (19%) and in the area of defence and security (7%).
 Among those who received LIDER grants (submitted by individuals:
803 applications in 5 editions), women had lower Hirsch index, less
publications and their work has been less often cited than that of
men. The mentioned differences between men and women have
been smaller among those whose applications have been rejected.
Female grant receivers in LIDER most often represented Polish
Academy of Science.
8

9.  Women constituted 32% among 1017 of listed experts.
 48% full professors, 38% associate professors, 13% assistant
professors and 1% professors working abroad. Women have
been mostly present among assistant professors.
 The experts have been working in different types of
institutions: 77% in higher education institutions, 16% in the
Polish Academy of Science, 0.5% in research institutions, 5%
in other Polish institutions, 1.7% abroad.
 Almost the same number of experts has been recruited from
higher education institutions classified in quintiles 1 to 4 and
from institutions belonging to the lowest quintile 5 (general
ranking where “1”=top 20% of the best higher education
institutions, “5”=20% of the worst ones).
 The largest group of experts was working in the higher
education institutions of the ”4” quintile.
9

10.  The Foundation of Polish Science (FNP) organized several
competitions addressed to scientists in different stages of
their academic careers, representing various disciplines,
working in Poland and coming back from abroad to continue
their careers in the country, returning to work after parental
leave (the description of the competitions in separate
document).
 Just as in the case of NCN, women were a minority among
reviewers of the FNP.
 Female reviewers constituted 25% in the program Ventures
(in 2011-2015), 18% in the program START (2012-2014),
28% in the program KOLUMB (2012), 22% in the program
POMOST (2011-2013), 17% in the program HOMING PLUS
and HOMING Plus Bis (2011-2013), 13% in the program TEAM
(2011-2012).
10

11.  Despite the critical remarks with regard to specific solutions,
a great majority of the respondents described the existing
research grant system as substantive and transparent.
 The respondents indicated that in the recent years,
improvements have been observed in terms of management
of funds for science, and the quality of the assessment
processes has increased.
 It was underlined that the existing solutions rewarded the
best projects, while gender was of no significance.
 All respondents described the process of assessment of grant
applications as referring to substantive issues, in which
conflict of interests or discrimination has been avoided. In the
last few years, a change of customs has been observed in this
regard, increasing the transparency of the process.
11

12.  It was emphasized that the quality of the process of reviewer selection was a
key factor, exerting impact on the substance of the assessment process.
 In this regard, institutions that finance science in Poland represent various
levels of implementation of the external reviewing procedures. Selection of
reviewers takes place on the basis of different rules, depending on the
institution or grant program.
 In most situations, after the formal assessment and acceptance by the expert
panel, the project is sent to two independent reviewers (three in case of FNP)
 Importance is attached to the competences of the reviewer in the field
subject to the application, but, more often than not it is not possible to find
a reviewer to match the scientific discipline or project topic.
 Lack of access to dependable and well qualified reviewers often mentioned in
the interviews.
 Most of the funding institutions are not willing to invest in this process,
preferring to spend money on research.
12

13.  Gender is not taken into account in any way while reviewing
grant applications.
 However, one female expert pointed out that grant
applications with strong gender perspective might be rejected
by conservative reviewers.
 The issue of gender inequality in science has never been
raised and discussed during the official meetings of the
councils of the main research funding institutions in Poland.
Most experts were not sure whether it should be.
 In some cases the family situation is taken into account when
evaluating the productivity of the candidate – in case of
women who had children the breaks in publication and
research activity can be justified.
13

14.  Both women and men are against positive gender
discrimination or grants lines only for women, introducing
gender quotas in recruitment procedures of scientists and
students, as well as promoting faculty members, board
members and.
 Respondents assumed that in case of young male and female
scientists, the success factors are the same: intellectual
abilities, passion, willingness to work hard, lack of high
financial expectations, good interpersonal skills, the ability of
self-presentation.
 The crucial role of mentor, who support, guide and engage in
research projects, joint publications, etc.
14

15.  “Science has no gender”, “No opinion” (men, woman)
 No proof of institutional discrimination of women in science.
The discussions on potential reforms have to be based on in-
depth diagnosis of the current situation (men)
 Gender stereotypes and gendered socialization means that
female scientists are less sure of their achievements (women,
man)
 The differences in performance of young scientists are
perceived as related to individual differences, not gender
(women, men)
 Some respondent mentioned that the cultural expectations
and lack of support push women out of their career path
when they become mothers
15

16.  The problem is a private matter, which should be solved by
parents (woman)
 Introduce solutions that would help make scientific career
compatible with childcare and family duties.
 The accessible institutional childcare should be provided by
non-academic (women, men) or academic institutions
(woman)
 The procedures regulating the implementation of research
grants should be much more “sensitive” to family situation of
a grant receiver. For example, the costs of childcare services
included in the budget of the project (e.g. during extensive
fieldwork, conferences, etc.) (woman)
16

17.  Men and women are in favor of regulations “sensitive” to
family situation of grant applicants.
◦ The extended period of eligibility to apply for research grants in
case of maternity and child care leave.
◦ The suspension of research in the grant for the period of
maternity and child care leave.
 Promotion of gender equality in hard sciences and
engineering (e.g. “Girls as Engineers!” campaign).
 The research grants awarded by the Polish Science
Foundation (FNP) in the frame of the “POMOST” program
directed to the scientists, who have small children and want
to return to full professional activity after maternity or
parental leave.
 Mentoring program for women in engineering existing in a
few technical universities in Poland.
17