EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT? FACULTY GENDER BIAS AND STEREOTYPES IN RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

• Published in: The journal of research administration 2023-06, Vol.54 (2), p.10-36
• Main Authors: Zink, Holly R, Keim, Sarah A, Chollet-Hinton, Lynn, Cernik, Colin, Larson, Kelsey E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic Achievement; Adult Learning; Analysis; Andragogy; Barriers; Bias; Careers; College faculty; College teachers; Collegiality; Company business management; Demographic aspects; Disproportionate Representation; Evaluation; Females; Forecasts and trends; Gender Bias; Gender differences; Gender Discrimination; Gender equity; Hypotheses; Males; Management; Market trend/market analysis; Mentors; Prejudice; Productivity; Research Administration; Research administrators; Research funding; Research Skills; Researchers; Science; Scientists; Sex discrimination against women; Sex Stereotypes; Sexism; Social Capital; Stereotype (Psychology); Stereotypes; Stereotypes (Psychology); Student Promotion; Universities and colleges; University research; Women executives; Women Faculty; Women Scientists
• ISSN: 1539-1590; 2573-7104

Female faculty remain a minority in academic research and women are often perceived to lack the qualities needed to be successful scientists, which may contribute to discrimination and prejudice against female researchers. Research administrators play a pivotal role in the development of strategic, catalytic, and capacity-building activities designed to encourage faculty in attracting extramural research funding. The purpose of this investigation was to explore whether research administrators evaluate extramural grant applicants differently based on gender and different career ranks. Contrary to previous research examining faculty gender biases and stereotypes, our study showed that applicants were rated similarly in researcher competence across both male and female applicants by research administrators (Hypothesis 1). Our research also showed that female candidates were generally seen as more likeable (researcher collegiality) and were rated higher for mentoring potential than male candidates (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, consistent with prior research, findings suggest that those in the senior career rank were more highly rated for research competence and skill (Hypothesis 3). Although we did not list a formal hypothesis, our findings did support the notion that senior career rank applicants are more highly rated for biosketch design and comprehension, most likely due to their perceived competence and advanced experience. These findings, while preliminary, suggest that traditional barriers related to perceived female researcher competence are not experienced as they interact with research administrators. The main implication of this study is that research administrators do not appear to significantly contribute to the previously reported discrimination and prejudice against the competence of female researchers.