Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, K1H8L6 Canada; Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street, Pelotas, Brazil.
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, K1H8L6 Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, 2001 McGill College Ave, Montreal, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;136:37-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.018. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
This study aimed to determine whether there are differences in the language used in grant applications submitted to a Southern Brazil Research Support Foundation (FAPERGS) according to the gender, career stage, and the number of publications of applicants.
This observational study also evaluated the relationship between gender, career stage, curriculum, and writing characteristics. Summaries of all research proposals in the biomedical field of FAPERGS during the years of 2013 and 2014 were evaluated according to six language patterns (Positive emotions, Negative emotions, Analytic thinking, Clout, Authenticity, and Emotional tone) defined by the LIWC software. Applicant's gender, career stage, and the number of publications were also collected.
Three hundred and forty-four (344) grant proposals met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. No statistical differences were observed in the language pattern used by different gender applicants. In the language used by successful and unsuccessful applicants, we only found a small difference for clout (score 54.5 for not funded and 56.5 for funded grants). However, the principal investigators of successful applications had a significantly higher number of papers published (mean number of papers: 104 versus 58.5).
Gender bias appears to be a more complex problem than just the type of language used; the way society is organized causes several gender biases that may be reflected throughout the women's career.
本研究旨在确定根据申请人的性别、职业阶段和发表论文数量,向巴西南里奥格兰德州研究支持基金会(FAPERGS)提交的资助申请中使用的语言是否存在差异。
这是一项观察性研究,还评估了性别、职业阶段、课程和写作特征之间的关系。根据 LIWC 软件定义的六种语言模式(积极情绪、消极情绪、分析思维、影响力、真实性和情感基调),对 2013 年和 2014 年 FAPERGS 生物医学领域所有研究计划摘要进行了评估。还收集了申请人的性别、职业阶段和发表论文数量。
符合纳入标准并纳入分析的有 344 份资助申请。不同性别的申请人使用的语言模式没有统计学差异。在成功和不成功申请人使用的语言中,我们只发现影响力有细微差异(未资助的得分为 54.5,资助的得分为 56.5)。然而,成功申请的主要研究者发表的论文数量明显更多(平均论文数量:104 篇与 58.5 篇)。
性别偏见似乎是一个比语言类型更复杂的问题;社会的组织方式导致了多种性别偏见,这些偏见可能会在女性的整个职业生涯中反映出来。