KTH/CESIS Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation
Reviewing applications by women - critical use of additive and reasoning evaluation methods
Abstract: Two programmes regarding research funding are investigated
with respect to their evaluation processes. One programme targets
individuals and the other centers of excellence. The study attempts to
disclose some of the features of the selection procedures and the aim is to
contribute with further understanding of the mechanisms in such selection
processes, which lead to disproportionate disapproval of female applicants.
The use of intuitive or reasoning evaluation methods, together with
quantitatively measureable or additive methods, is found to be critical for
female applicants. When funding organizations try to advance their
evaluation procedures and involve more of reasoning evaluation, there is a
risk that other than established main stream projects fail, including
applications by women. The paper ends by proposing a hypothesis which may
serve as a starting point for further empirical studies.
Keywords: gender; research evaluation; peer review; women in science; funding programmes; (follow links to similar papers)
JEL-Codes: Z13; (follow links to similar papers)
15 pages, September 6, 2007
Before downloading any of the electronic versions below
you should read our statement on
for viewing Postscript files and the
Acrobat Reader for viewing and printing pdf files.
Full text versions of the paper:
Questions (including download problems) about the papers in this series should be directed to Vardan Hovsepyan ()
Report other problems with accessing this service to Sune Karlsson ()
or Helena Lundin ().
Design by Joachim Ekebom