Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model: new pieces in an old puzzle

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model : new pieces in an old puzzle. / Nielsen, Mathias Wullum.

I: Studies in Higher Education, Bind 42, Nr. 6, 03.06.2017, s. 1033-1055.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Nielsen, MW 2017, 'Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model: new pieces in an old puzzle', Studies in Higher Education, bind 42, nr. 6, s. 1033-1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

APA

Nielsen, M. W. (2017). Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model: new pieces in an old puzzle. Studies in Higher Education, 42(6), 1033-1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

Vancouver

Nielsen MW. Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model: new pieces in an old puzzle. Studies in Higher Education. 2017 jun. 3;42(6):1033-1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

Author

Nielsen, Mathias Wullum. / Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model : new pieces in an old puzzle. I: Studies in Higher Education. 2017 ; Bind 42, Nr. 6. s. 1033-1055.

Bibtex

@article{65a37016203b4f979b0fc6bd5883d011,
title = "Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model: new pieces in an old puzzle",
abstract = "This article investigates the extent to which the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI) reflects the performance of men and women differently. The model is based on a differentiated counting of peer-reviewed publications, awarding three and eight points for contributions to {\textquoteleft}well-regarded{\textquoteright} and highly selective journals and book publishers, and 1 and 5 points for equivalent scientific contributions via {\textquoteleft}normal level{\textquoteright} channels. On the basis of bibliometric data, the study shows that the BRI considerably widens the existing gender gap in researcher performance, since men on average receive more BRI points for their publications than women. The article suggests two probable explanations: (A) women merely comprise 24% of the committee members determining which publication channels to classify as {\textquoteleft}well-regarded{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}normal{\textquoteright}, which may lead to biases in the classification process. (B) The model privileges collaborative research, which disadvantages women due to gender differences in collaborative network relations.",
keywords = "bibliometrics, gender, quantitative analysis, research funding, research performance",
author = "Nielsen, {Mathias Wullum}",
year = "2017",
month = jun,
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "1033--1055",
journal = "Studies in Higher Education",
issn = "0307-5079",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gender consequences of a national performance-based funding model

T2 - new pieces in an old puzzle

AU - Nielsen, Mathias Wullum

PY - 2017/6/3

Y1 - 2017/6/3

N2 - This article investigates the extent to which the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI) reflects the performance of men and women differently. The model is based on a differentiated counting of peer-reviewed publications, awarding three and eight points for contributions to ‘well-regarded’ and highly selective journals and book publishers, and 1 and 5 points for equivalent scientific contributions via ‘normal level’ channels. On the basis of bibliometric data, the study shows that the BRI considerably widens the existing gender gap in researcher performance, since men on average receive more BRI points for their publications than women. The article suggests two probable explanations: (A) women merely comprise 24% of the committee members determining which publication channels to classify as ‘well-regarded’ and ‘normal’, which may lead to biases in the classification process. (B) The model privileges collaborative research, which disadvantages women due to gender differences in collaborative network relations.

AB - This article investigates the extent to which the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI) reflects the performance of men and women differently. The model is based on a differentiated counting of peer-reviewed publications, awarding three and eight points for contributions to ‘well-regarded’ and highly selective journals and book publishers, and 1 and 5 points for equivalent scientific contributions via ‘normal level’ channels. On the basis of bibliometric data, the study shows that the BRI considerably widens the existing gender gap in researcher performance, since men on average receive more BRI points for their publications than women. The article suggests two probable explanations: (A) women merely comprise 24% of the committee members determining which publication channels to classify as ‘well-regarded’ and ‘normal’, which may lead to biases in the classification process. (B) The model privileges collaborative research, which disadvantages women due to gender differences in collaborative network relations.

KW - bibliometrics

KW - gender

KW - quantitative analysis

KW - research funding

KW - research performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941247688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

DO - 10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84941247688

VL - 42

SP - 1033

EP - 1055

JO - Studies in Higher Education

JF - Studies in Higher Education

SN - 0307-5079

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 235585860