Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback.

Grant-writing and grant-getting are key to success in many academic disciplines, but research points to gender gaps in both, especially as careers progress. Using a sample of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K-Awardees-Principal Investigators of Mentored Career Development Awards-we examined gender and race effects in response to imagined negative grant reviews that emphasized either or . Women translated both forms of feedback into worse NIH priority scores than did men and showed reduced motivation to reapply for funding following the review highlighting inadequacy.

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application.

A Gender Bias Habit-Breaking Intervention Led to Increased Hiring of Female Faculty in STEMM Departments.

Addressing the underrepresentation of women in science is a top priority for many institutions, but the majority of efforts to increase representation of women are neither evidence-based nor rigorously assessed. One exception is the gender bias habit-breaking intervention (Carnes et al., 2015), which, in a cluster-randomized trial involving all but two departmental clusters ( = 92) in the 6 STEMM focused schools/colleges at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, led to increases in gender bias awareness and self-efficacy to promote gender equity in academic science departments.

'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.

In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings.

Fair Play: A Study of Scientific Workforce Trainers' Experience Playing an Educational Video Game about Racial Bias.

Explicit racial bias has decreased in the United States, but racial stereotypes still exist and conspire in multiple ways to perpetuate the underparticipation of Blacks in science careers. Capitalizing on the potential effectiveness of role-playing video games to promote the type of active learning required to increase awareness of and reduce subtle racial bias, we developed the video game Fair Play, in which players take on the role of Jamal, a Black male graduate student in science, who experiences discrimination in his PhD program. We describe a mixed-methods evaluation of the experience of scientific workforce trainers who played Fair Play at the National Institutes of Health Division of Training Workforce Development and Diversity program directors' meeting in 2013 ( = 47; 76% female, = 34; 53% nonwhite, = 26).

Write More Articles, Get More Grants: The Impact of Department Climate on Faculty Research Productivity.

Background: Many studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty.

Method: Two waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010.

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.

Background: Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories.

Methods: We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Purpose: Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex.

Post-Code PTSD Symptoms in Internal Medicine Residents Who Participate in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Events: A Mixed Methods Study.

Background: Internal medicine (IM) residents participate in cardiopulmonary resuscitation events (or "codes"), stressful events that involve the death or near death of patients. Experiencing traumatic stress can lead to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Objective: We examined whether IM residents who participate in codes developed PTSD symptoms.

Patterns of Feedback on the Bridge to Independence: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of NIH Mentored Career Development Award Application Critiques.

Background: NIH Mentored Career Development (K) Awards bridge investigators from mentored to independent research. A smaller proportion of women than men succeed in this transition. The aim of this qualitative study was to analyze reviewers' narrative critiques of K award applications and explore thematic content of feedback provided to male and female applicants.

Why is John More Likely to Become Department Chair Than Jennifer?

This article reviews some of our research on how gender stereotypes and their accompanying assumptions and expectations can influence the careers of male and female physicians and scientists in a myriad of subtle ways. Although stereotype-based cognitive biases may be invisible and unintentional, they nevertheless shape the experiences of women in academic medicine in ways that frequently constrain their opportunities. We present research on the following: 1) subtle differences in the evaluation of male and female medical students as revealed through text analysis of written evaluations at a critical career juncture, 2) how cultural assumptions about the way men and women should and should not behave influence medical residents' experiences as leaders, and 3) how approaching gender bias among faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering as a remedial habit can be successful in changing individual behaviors and in improving department climate.

"Fair Play": A Videogame Designed to Address Implicit Race Bias Through Active Perspective Taking.

Objective: Having diverse faculty in academic health centers will help diversify the healthcare workforce and reduce health disparities. Implicit race bias is one factor that contributes to the underrepresentation of Black faculty. We designed the videogame "Fair Play" in which players assume the role of a Black graduate student named Jamal Davis.

The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

Purpose: Despite sincere commitment to egalitarian, meritocratic principles, subtle gender bias persists, constraining women's opportunities for academic advancement. The authors implemented a pair-matched, single-blind, cluster randomized, controlled study of a gender-bias-habit-changing intervention at a large public university.

Method: Participants were faculty in 92 departments or divisions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution.

Purpose: Career advancement in academic medicine often hinges on the ability to garner research funds. The National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) R01 award is the "gold standard" of an independent research program. Studies show inconsistencies in R01 reviewers' scoring and in award outcomes for certain applicant groups.

Stuck in the out-group: Jennifer can't grow up, Jane's invisible, and Janet's over the hill.

Fifty years after Title IX, women remain sparsely represented in high ranks and leadership in academic medicine. Although men and women enter the career pipeline at similar rates, academic medicine does not equivalently advance them. Currently, women account for 32% of associate professors, 20% of full professors, 14% of department chairs, and 11% of deans at U.

A qualitative study of work-life choices in academic internal medicine.

The high attrition rate of female physicians pursuing an academic medicine research career has not been examined in the context of career development theory. We explored how internal medicine residents and faculty experience their work within the context of their broader life domain in order to identify strategies for facilitating career advancement. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 18 residents and 34 faculty members representing male and female physicians at different career stages.

Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities.

Although the medical profession strives for equal treatment of all patients, disparities in health care are prevalent. Cultural stereotypes may not be consciously endorsed, but their mere existence influences how information about an individual is processed and leads to unintended biases in decision-making, so called "implicit bias". All of society is susceptible to these biases, including physicians.

Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe not.

In their study published in January 2013 in mBio, Fang et al. reviewed records from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and found more cases of scientific misconduct committed by men than women, particularly by faculty (F. C.

An educational intervention designed to increase women's leadership self-efficacy.

Women are sparsely represented in leadership in academic science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM). Cultural stereotypes about men, women, and leaders influence the attitudes, judgments, and decisions that others make about women and the choices women make for themselves. Multilevel interventions are needed to counteract the impact of these pervasive and easily activated stereotypes, which conspire in multiple ways to constrain women's entry, persistence, and advancement in academic STEMM.