Women less likely to use promotional language in research grant applications vs. men
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Key takeaways:
- Data showed a positive association between the percentage of promotional words used and the probability of receiving research funding.
- Younger principal investigators and men used more promotional language.
Researchers found a positive association between the use of promotional language in medical science grants and the receipt of research funding, according to study results published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings specifically showed men used more promotional language compared with women.
Critical for success
“Scientific writing is critical for successfully showing the merits of innovative ideas to funding agencies, colleagues and practitioners, and it has evolved over time, particularly in the increased use of promotional words,” Huilian Sophie Qiu, PhD, researcher at Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University, and colleagues wrote.
Investigators sought to examine the use of promotional language in biomedical grant writing and the potential association with receiving research funding. They also assessed who utilizes promotional language in grant applications.
The cross-sectional study included data on 2,439 funded and rejected NIH grant applications from 2007 to 2019, as well as 9,096 funded and rejected Novo Nordisk Foundation biomedical grant applications from 2015 to 2022.
Researchers measured promotional language with a validated dictionary of 139 science-specific terms, and modeled grant application success as a binary outcome based on percentage of promotional words after controlling for certain variables, including characteristics of grants and principal investigators. They modeled the level of promotional words based on principal investigators’ grant-related characteristics.
Use of promotional words
Results showed a positive association between the percentage of promotional words used and the probability of receiving funding for research from NIH grants (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.1-2.11) and Novo Nordisk Foundation grants (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71).
Factors associated with more use of promotional language included younger vs. older principal investigators (1.2% vs. 0.8%) and men vs. women (1% vs. 0.9%).
Moreover, individuals requesting the largest amount of funding used more promotional language compared with those who requested the smallest amount of funding (1.1% vs. 0.9%).
“After accounting for a [principal investigator’s] prior publication and grant success record, promotional language can increase the odds of being funded over 50%,” Qiu and colleagues wrote. “Although we found a statistical association between promotional language and funding, the mechanisms through which promotional language influences funding decisions require continued exploration.”
The finding that more men utilized more promotional language compared with women “underscores the significant association of linguistic style alongside scientific merit in determining funding outcomes. The results highlight the necessity for both grant writers and funders to be cognizant of how linguistic elements can influence decision-making processes in the allocation of research funds,” Qui and colleagues added.
‘The nail that stands out gets pounded down’
“Evidence suggests that diversity among researchers, including the participation of women, increases the quality of scholarly investigation,” Maya S. Iyer, MD, MEd, associate professor at The Ohio State University and pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, FASCO, FASTRO, Lawrence W. Davis professor, chair of the department of radiation oncology at Emory University School of Medicine and member of the Women in Oncology Peer Perspective Board, wrote in an accompanying commentary. “Yet women remain underrepresented among the producers and leaders of biomedical research, accounting for only about one-third of [NIH] grant reviewers, study section chairs, and scientific journal editors and peer reviewers.”
Engaging in increased self-promotion may not be desirable or as simple as it appears, they added.
“The effects of sexist hostility accumulate over time and may make more senior women particularly unlikely to engage in such behavior, having learned from past experiences about how it may be received,” they wrote. “A Japanese proverb states, ‘The nail that stands out gets pounded down.’ Studies show that women who self-promote are perceived as less likeable, difficult to work with and demanding; they often face social and economic penalties, including sexual harassment, for demonstrating agentic qualities and counter-stereotypical behavior.”
Additional research should add to this body of work, according to Iyer and Jagsi.
“Particularly to explore in greater detail the feedback that women receive for scholarly submissions, including grant applications, and whether women might be more frequently asked to soften language or be challenged regarding their more novel ideas in ways that might then carry forward into their subsequent writing,” they wrote.
“Ultimately, it is imperative to support broader efforts to address the underlying reasons that women are less likely to use promotional language in the first place, from repeated experiences with bias that lead to the internalization of a sense that their work is inferior to fear of violating gendered norms of behavior,” they continued. “Only by creating environments within which all talented researchers have equal opportunities will we produce research truly worthy of the excitement induced by the promotional adjectives that Qiu and colleagues identified: creative, compelling and robust.”
References:
- Iyer MS, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024; doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.48659.
- Qiu HS, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.48696.
Collapse
Read more about
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts