Menu
Log in


Gender based NHMRC grants

  • 15 Nov 2022 11:01 AM
    Reply # 12989031 on 12970788

    I wouldn't take the silence from many women on this topic as tacit agreement with many of the loud voices on here. In fact, this silence is related to one of the reasons for the gender equity policy - to encourage women to put themselves forward.

    Unlike my previous area of research, physics, medical sciences attracts a high proportion of women. It should be expected that 50% of grants go to female CIs! Most of the biostatisticians I know are female. I know of many talented women who miss out on grants year after after year, at every level of the investigator grants. The implicit assumption behind many of the comments on here that less capable women will succeed in place of more talented men is not proven.  Of course, the real problem with the NHMRC grants is lack of funding which has failed to keep pace with the number of researchers over decades, creating a sort of "hunger games"  - but that has nothing to do with gender equality.

  • 15 Nov 2022 9:34 AM
    Reply # 12988993 on 12970788

    Awhile ago I was hiring, and wanted to help address gender inequity. To do so I converted 1 full time role into 2 part time roles. The idea being that full time roles aren’t suitable for primary care givers and as women tend to take on these family roles it was a way to address one of the underlying structural reasons for gender inequality. It also taught me something unexpected. One of the hires was male (the other female) – which meant that as he was part time it also helped his partner go back to work part time. So although his hire didn’t directly address gender inequalities in my workforce, it did assist at a more global societal level. In other words, it’s not always about me!

    Having gender based participation quotas seems like an attempt to address the symptom, not the underlying causes? So if quotas are going to be used then Teresa’s previous comments about the need for a suitable tracking metric to assess whether their remedy has worked seems like a very good idea. Perhaps one of its properties should be to tell them what would happen if the quota wasn’t being applied? Since this shows if the underlying inequities are being addressed. If so, then maybe the selection committee could first judge and rank applications, then apply the quota afterwards. This would tell them what the gender split is before the quota is applied, and could be used as a tracking metric to assess the underlying structural inequity.

    In addition to participation quotas, perhaps approaches that address the structural reasons for inequity might be more effective, fairer and also encourage gender equity reforms in wider society. As well as avoiding the pitfall of thinking that just because we now have 50:50 participation that all is good and nothing else needs to be done, thus entrenching the structural inequalities that caused the problem in the first place.

    For instance, if they don’t have this already, what about what about having a new class of grant which is for people returning to work after an absence, possibly even only for those who have been the primary care giver? At the moment it would clearly favour women, and as society changes it would continue to naturally favour women for as long as needed to address this type of inequity.

    Selection panel quotas to ensure equal gender representation might also have an important part to play in accounting for unconscious bias (and conscious bias where it exists). (Also not sure if they already do this though).

    I’m sure there are plenty of other such policies as well!

  • 8 Nov 2022 9:49 AM
    Reply # 12981561 on 12970788

    Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die?  I'm not sure many biostatisticians employed through NHMRC grants would agree.   

    Last modified: 8 Nov 2022 9:52 AM | James Dowty
  • 7 Nov 2022 1:01 PM
    Reply # 12980426 on 12970788

    Hi James,

    I think you've misunderstood Matthew's considered response. He was referring to correcting past gender inequities. In contrast, you refer to gender inequality. I didn't have any input into the NHMRC decision, but I assume that their interest is in addressing gender inequity. 

    The question in that case is whether their proposed remedy will achieve their goal of gender equity. I think we can potentially contribute as statisticians by asking how they will assess whether their remedy has worked. For example, we could discuss what they could measure as part of this assessment. Gender ratios at different academic levels might be a superficial measure. One could also imagine measuring job satisfaction, perception of gender bias, workplace bullying, etc.  

    Labels such as "radical" vs "liberal" don't seem interesting or relevant to me.

  • 6 Nov 2022 11:31 AM
    Reply # 12979664 on 12970788

    Matthew Parry wrote:  "I don’t think it is controversial that inequity of outcomes at the highest levels reflects the accumulation of inequities and discrimination over a lifetime."

    I think this is the key issue, and actually it is controversial, even within feminism.  It’s an article of faith for radical feminists that non-superficial differences between men and women are mainly or entirely due to sexism.  Feminists from the other two big schools of feminist thought are split, with socialist feminists tending to believe this theory and mainstream (liberal) feminists tending to not.  For some reason, quite a lot of people who've never read any feminism also seem to believe this theory -- I guess it’s a zeroth-order approximation, and it would be nice if it were true.  But this theory predicts that differences between women and men should lessen as societies become more equal, and in reality the opposite occurs, e.g. see https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9899 .  This disconnect from reality is one reason why I think liberal feminism is superior to radical feminism and socialist feminism.  It's also why I'm surprised that NHMRC now seems to be taking a radical or socialist feminist approach to gender equality, instead of a mainstream feminist approach.  

    Last modified: 7 Nov 2022 10:02 AM | James Dowty
  • 4 Nov 2022 2:44 PM
    Reply # 12977843 on 12970788

    Hi everyone,


    First up, let me say that the following are my personal views. The discussion around gender-based grants is not something that is happening in New Zealand as far as I know, nor has the NZSA been talking about this at the association-level.


    For me the overarching issue is whether our research communities mirror the countries they purport to serve. I also believe that diversity only makes our research communities stronger.


    I don’t think it is controversial that inequity of outcomes at the highest levels reflects the accumulation of inequities and discrimination over a lifetime. Or to put it another way — and more bluntly — being a white male automatically confers significant advantages in our current system.


    To achieve a truly representative research community, therefore, there have to be solutions from pre-school, through school, to the university/research institute level. 


    I see gender-based grants as one such solution. 


    I would not for a minute think a recipient of such a grant was undeserving or somehow a lesser researcher — in fact, quite the opposite. And if we can retain more women in research, think how much richer our research and our research communities will be.

  • 3 Nov 2022 11:36 AM
    Reply # 12976229 on 12974510
    Allen Cheng wrote:

    Apart from Theresa, we don't seem to have other female views on this thread. (Apologies if I've incorrectly assumed gender from people's names). 

    Allen


    Ok, as a female, I'll bite.

    My thought is that this change will have high-level benefits when we look beyond which individuals are successful in any one round. Organisations that I have seen with strong female input at the leadership level often have policies that benefit all workers; flexible working conditions, recognition that there are many types of impact, realistic expectations about how many hours we should (or should not) be doing on the weekends/public holidays/annual leave, etc., etc.

    Perhaps the NHMRC quota system will only be needed for a "generation" of researchers until academic and research culture feels like less like a "do or die" environment. 

    Also, regarding the NHRMC consultation process:  as someone working at a medical research institute, I received several emails (from my workplace, from NHMRC, and from the University of Melbourne) and there was a lot of chatter about it on social media. I didn't attend the meetings but it would have been hard for me to miss that it was going on.

  • 2 Nov 2022 8:16 AM
    Reply # 12974510 on 12970788

    Apart from Theresa, we don't seem to have other female views on this thread. (Apologies if I've incorrectly assumed gender from people's names). 

    Allen


  • 1 Nov 2022 4:41 PM
    Reply # 12973563 on 12970788

    Thanks, Ian.  

    More broadly on the issue of the NHMRC Investigator grants, I was appalled by NHMRC's decision.  Like most people, I'm a liberal feminist, not a radical feminist or a socialist feminist.  Equality of opportunity has broad community support because it's fundamentally fair.  Overriding the equal opportunity act to force equality of outcomes (such as equal numbers of Investigator grants per year for men and women) is deeply sexist from a mainstream feminist perspective.  I'm surprised more women and men haven't voiced their concerns.  

    Last modified: 1 Nov 2022 4:44 PM | James Dowty
  • 1 Nov 2022 3:29 PM
    Reply # 12973532 on 12970788

    James and Chris -

    The SSA was not invited to make a submission to the NHMRC on this issue, and did not do so.

    Regards,

    Ian


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software