• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Quantitative Text Analysis of R01 Grant Reviews from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
【24h】

Quantitative Text Analysis of R01 Grant Reviews from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

机译：美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）对R01资助审查的定量文本分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Women have lower success rates for Research Project Grants (R01) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), yet the extent to which women may face disadvantage in NIH peer review has not been tested. In fields that men have traditionally occupied (e.g., law, medicine) sex differences in narrative evaluations have been identified. Consistent with stereotypes about competence in those areas are tendencies for reviews to underrate women and to require more information about women's skill to confirm their ability. In contrast are tendencies for reviewers to require more evidence that men are unskilled prior to questioning their ability or competence. This dissertation was the first quantitative text analysis of R01 grant reviews. The sample included 454 grant reviews from 67 R01 awardees at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose initially unfunded applications were revised and funded in 2008. Linear mixed-effects modeling of results from text analysis revealed that male applicants were funded with significantly more negative evaluation words (e.g., inaccurate, illogical) in their grant reviews than females. In contrast, female applicants, particularly those who were previous R01 awardees, had significantly more standout adjectives (e.g., outstanding, exceptional), agentic adjectives (e.g., competent, leader), and ability words (e.g., skilled, able) in their reviews for funded applications compared to their unfunded and men's funded application reviews. Findings align with research on stereotype-based bias about gender, and viewed more broadly, suggest that reviewers -- however unintentionally -- may require less proof of men's skill, but more evidence of women's competence prior to supporting their applications for funding.
机译：在美国国立卫生研究院（NIH），女性获得研究项目资助（R01）的成功率较低，但尚未测试女性在NIH同行评审中可能面临的劣势。在男性传统上占据了领域（例如法律，医学）的领域，人们在叙事评价中发现了性别差异。与对这些领域能力的陈规定型观念一致的是，人们倾向于进行低估女性并要求获得更多有关女性技能的信息以确认其能力的评论。相比之下，审阅者倾向于在质疑其能力或能力之前要求更多证据证明男性没有技能。本文是对R01拨款审查的首次定量文本分析。样本包括来自威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校的67位R01获奖者的454条拨款评论，其最初未获得资助的申请在2008年得到了修订和资助。文本分析结果的线性混合效应建模显示，男性申请者获得的资助带有明显更多的负面评价词（例如，不准确，不合逻辑的）在津贴审查中要比女性多。相比之下，女性申请人，尤其是以前获得R01奖项的女性，其评论中的脱颖而出的形容词（例如，出色，出色），代理形容词（例如，主管，领导者）和能力词（例如，熟练，能干）与未资助和男性资助的申请审查相比。研究结果与基于定型观念的性别偏见研究相吻合，并得到了更广泛的观察，这表明，审阅者（无论是无意的）可能需要较少的男性技能证明，而在支持其资助申请之前需要更多的女性能力证明。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kaatz, Anna C.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Wisconsin - Madison.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Wisconsin - Madison.;
  • 学科 Health Sciences Health Care Management.;Psychology Cognitive.;Gender Studies.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2012
  • 页码 173 p.
  • 总页数 173
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号