Session Duration: 1.5 hours
Format: Group task (design inclusive grant call), peer review panel simulation
Mainstreaming gender equity in funding calls and peer review processes is essential to creating a fair, transparent, and inclusive research environment. Without deliberate attention to gender and social inclusion, funding mechanisms can unintentionally reinforce existing disparities, excluding women, early-career researchers, persons with disabilities, and institutions from disadvantaged regions. Below is a detailed explanation of each phase of the grant funding lifecycle and how gender equity can be applied at each stage:
1. Funding Call Design: The language, eligibility criteria, and dissemination strategy of a funding call significantly affect who applies and who feels encouraged or excluded. Subtle wording biases can dissuade women and other underrepresented groups from applying.
Examples:
a) A call requiring “a strong track record in international publications” may discourage early-career or female researchers who may have had fewer opportunities.
b) Using gender-neutral or inclusive language (“researchers from all backgrounds are encouraged”) can signal openness and accessibility.
c) If the call is only published in academic journals or English-only websites, it may exclude non-English speakers or researchers from rural institutions.
Best Practices:
a) Use clear, inclusive language.
b) State that applications from women, young researchers, and underrepresented institutions are encouraged.
c) Disseminate calls widely,including on social media, local universities, and minority researcher networks.
2. Preparing Applications: Even when a call is open, systemic barriers may prevent women or under-resourced applicants from preparing competitive proposals.
Examples:
a) Female researchers in junior roles may be overburdened with administrative duties and have little time to prepare proposals.
b) Researchers in smaller institutions may lack proposal-writing experience or access to mentors.
Best Practices:
a) Provide proposal development workshops, especially targeted at female and early-career researchers.
b) Offer extended timelines or simplified templates for institutions with limited capacity.
c) Create internal support systems or mentorship initiatives to help disadvantaged applicants develop their proposals.
3. Preparing the Review Process: Peer reviewers and panel members must be carefully selected and trained to ensure fair assessment.
Examples of Bias:
a) Review panels dominated by senior male academics may unconsciously favor male applicants.
b) Reviewers may equate assertive writing styles with competence, unintentionally disadvantaging women.
Best Practices:
a) Ensure diversity in review panels (gender, discipline, geographic region, career stage).
b) Provide mandatory training on unconscious bias and inclusive evaluation.
c) Include reviewers with gender expertise to flag biases in proposals or assessments.
4. Review Stage: The way proposals are scored and discussed can reinforce or disrupt bias. Without clear criteria and checks, reviewers may penalize applicants based on gendered assumptions.
Examples:
a) A male applicant with average credentials may be rated more favorably than a female with equal or stronger experience.
b) Reviewers may assume that a female co-author was not the lead on a previous project.
Best Practices:
a) Implement blind review processes where possible to reduce gender bias.
b) Use standardized, transparent scoring rubrics that include GESI (Gender Equality and Social Inclusion) criteria.
c) Encourage panels to spend equal time on each proposal and to document discussions and scoring justifications.
5. Funding Outcome: The final stage of the process should uphold gender equity in decisions and feedback mechanisms.
Examples of Inequity:
a) Funding decisions may favor applicants from elite institutions or those with previous funding, excluding equally capable newcomers.
b) Women and marginalized applicants may not receive feedback that helps them improve for future calls.
Best Practices:
a) Apply an intersectional lens to funding decisions to ensure representation across gender, geography, disability, and institutional background.
b) Create feedback loops where all applicants receive constructive responses.
c) Track and publish funding outcomes disaggregated by gender, institution type, and applicant category to promote transparency.
Cross-Cutting Strategies for Promoting Gender Equity in Funding
1. Diverse Reviewer Teams: Include early-career, female, and disabled reviewers to diversify perspectives and check dominant narratives.
2. Bias Checks in Review Guidelines: Insert reminders in review forms for panelists to examine their own assumptions and ensure fair assessments.
3. Inclusive Monitoring and Evaluation: Integrate gender and inclusion indicators in grant evaluations. For example, how many female-led projects were funded? Did funded projects include gender analysis?
4. Special Calls or Quotas: Consider special funding schemes for women-led research, disadvantaged institutions, or cross-sector partnerships that promote GESI.
Example in Practice:
A West African Research and Innovation Council noticed that less than 10% of its grant recipients were women. To address this, they:
a) Introduced gender targets in new funding cycles.
b) Trained all reviewers on unconscious bias.
c) Added “gender responsiveness” as a scoring criterion.
d) Launched a mentorship program to support female applicants.
Within two years, the number of women-led funded projects increased to 35%, showing the impact of deliberate action.
Achieving gender equity in funding and peer review requires intentional design, inclusive implementation, and strong accountability. Councils must view each stage of the funding cycle as an opportunity to level the playing field, ensuring that all researchers, regardless of gender or background, have a fair chance to contribute to science, innovation, and development.
Facilitator Notes
a) Present examples of biased vs. inclusive calls.
b) Facilitate review of a sample funding call with a gender lens.
c) Stress fairness, transparency, and inclusivity in selection.
Suggestions for Further Reading
a) European Commission (2018). Gendered Innovations 2: How Inclusive Analysis Contributes to Research and Innovation.
b) Nature Editorial (2020). Bias in Peer Review Must Be Tackled.