[Ramm] [Gendered Innovations] Responses to Ramona Rea's query about funding policies.

[Londa Schiebinger]

I thought I would share.

Below please find three responses to Ramona Rea's query. Query: Ramona Rea, Executive Director, Banting Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada has a question.  Please respond to her and me:  She is looking for granting agencies that have policies to ensure gender balance in awarding grants, while still maintaining the integrity of grant review. ramona at bantingresearchfoundation.ca<mailto:ramona at bantingresearchfoundation.ca>

1. From Elizabeth Pollitzer
At the last Gender Summit - Europe, Director General of Science Foundation Ireland, Mark Ferguson, did describe a successful scheme, please see his ppt at http://www.gender-summit.com/attachments/article/1346/Ferguson_GS9Eu.pdf

2. From Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski
You will find excellent resources at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/funding/diversity/, and a report about an evaluation using NIH proposals here http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/can-fake-names-tease-out-nih-reviewer-bias.

I've also sent you both an invitation to join the Gender in the Global Research Landscape community reference group on Mendeley, and within the group is a folder called "Bias in Review."  Here's a list of the articles therein:
1.                Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M. & Zinovyeva, N. Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter? Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 1207-1238 (2017).
2.                Boughton, S. Addressing bias in peer review. BioMed Central blog March 18, (2016).
3.                Camejo, A. Science and society: Together we can crush gender bias. CrossTalk Blog April 27, (2017).
4.                Cressey, D. Journals weigh up double-blind peer review. Nature July 15, (2014).
5.                Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. Implicit/Unconscious Bias in Peer Review References. Reference List (2017).
6.                Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A. & Battaglia, D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife 6, (2017).
7.                Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A. & Battaglia, D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife 6:e21718 (2017). doi:10.7554/eLife.21718.001
8.                Hengel, E. Publishing while Female Gender Differences in Peer Review Scrutiny. in Royal Economic Society's Annual Conference (2017). doi:10.1353/rhe.2004.0003
9.                Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A. & Torrini, R. Gender effects in research evaluation. Res. Policy 46, 911-924 (2017).
10.            Knezek, P. Implicit bias in astronomy. Nat. Astron. 1, 151 (2017).
11.            Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. & Cronin, B. Bias in Peer Review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64, 2-17 (2013).
12.            Lerback, J. & Hanson, B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature January 26, 455-457 (2017).
13.            Litvina, L. & Maurer, A. C. As good as it gets? Peer review and its discontents. Science in the News Blog 1-9 (2017). at <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/as-good-as-it-gets-peer-review-and-its-discontents/>
14.            Makunga, N. Women scientists lag in academic publishing, and it matters. The Conversation September, (2017).
15.            Neuman, N. How can scientific publishers combat implicit gender bias? CrossTalk Blog 1-8 (2017). at <http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/how-can-scientific-publishers-combat-implicit-gender-bias>
16.            Pinholster, G. Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review. Science (80-. ). 352, 1067-1068 (2016).
17.            Richmond, G. To Advance Science, It's Time to Tackle Bias. Live Science (2016). at <http://www.livescience.com/55026-scientists-tackle-unconscious-bias.html>
18.            Rimmer, A. Avoiding unconscious bias. BMJ 4366, (2016).
19.            Ross, E. Gender bias distorts peer review across fields. Nature March 21, (2017).
20.            Sayer, E. Gender Bias and the Peer Review Process | Wiley. Wiley Exchanges September, (2016).
21.            Tricco, A. C. et al. Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review. PLoS One e0169718 (2017). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0169718


3. From Rachel Mahmud
This and the attached doc explain policies for the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, an initiative at the United Nations Foundation, which prioritizes gender balance in awarding its grants. While we do not have a formal policy, we have expressed preference for women-led companies in our RFPs for the Women's Empowerment Fund, and we take gender into consideration in the selection process for other grant awards. Please see the latest solicitation attached. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senior Program Associate, Gender
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves | United Nations Foundation
Tel: 202.864.5476
rmahmud at cleancookstoves.org<mailto:rmahmud at cleancookstoves.org>
cleancookstoves.org<http://www.cleancookstoves.org/>

All best, Londa

Londa Schiebinger
Director, EU/US Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment
John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science, Stanford University
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPST/schiebinger.html

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send an email to genderedinnovations-unsubscribe at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:genderedinnovations-unsubscribe at lists.stanford.edu>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://itforchange.net/pipermail/ramm_itforchange.net/attachments/20170916/f922151a/attachment.html>