Across countries and disciplines, studies show male researchers receive more research funding than their female peers. Because most studies have been observational, it is unclear whether imbalances stem from evaluations of female research investigators or of their proposed research. In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research created a natural experiment by dividing investigator-initiated funding applications into two new grant programmes: one with and one without an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator. We analysed application success among 23 918 grant applications from 7093 principal investigators in all investigator-initiated Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes between 2011 and 2016. We used generalised estimating equations to account for multiple applications by the same applicant and compared differences in application success between male and female principal investigators under different review criteria. Overall application success across competitions was 15·8%. After adjusting for age and research domain, the predicted probability of success in traditional programmes was 0·9 percentage points lower for female applicants than male applicants (95% CI 2·0 lower–0·2 higher; odds ratio 0·934, 95% CI 0·854–1·022). In the new programme, in which review focused on the proposed science, the gap remained 0·9 percentage points (3·2 lower–1·4 higher; 0·998, 0·794–1·229). In the new programme with an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator, the gap was 4·0 percentage points (6·7 lower–1·3 lower; 0·705, 0·519–0·960). Gender gaps in grant funding are attributable to less favourable assessments of women as principal investigators, not of the quality of their proposed research. We discuss reasons less favourable assessments might occur and strategies to foster fair and rigorous peer review.

Purpose: Research establishes the critical need to address the underrepresentation of women and racial/ethnic minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). While emergent research addresses similar challenges for sexual and gender minorities (SGM), this research remains scant and focuses on adult experiences. This analysis examines subgroup differences and the impact of bullying on STEM engagement outcomes among a national sample of SGM secondary students in the U.S. Method: This report provides descriptive and multivariable regression analysis of national survey data (n = 539) on the experiences of pre-college students who identify as SGM, including the effects of within-school anti-SGM bullying on STEM identity, perceptions of STEM climate, and STEM intentions. Results: Roughly 50% of the sample intended to enter a STEM field (compared to 25% in previous general samples). Bullying in school was negatively associated with STEM identity and perceptions of STEM climate. Sense of belonging is positively associated with perceptions of STEM climate and STEM intentions. Being non-binary and being a transgender man were associated with decreased sense of belonging and negative perception of STEM climate. Conclusion: This report is the first to identify factors influencing STEM engagement among SGM secondary students and suggests that issues of STEM engagement are already present in adolescence. Moreover, the findings also establish the relationship between anti-SGM bullying and STEM outcomes highlighting the importance of this marginalization experience. Future research should further examine sub-group differences and the persistence of these effects. These findings highlight the need for research and intervention addressing STEM outcomes in SGM populations.

Numerous studies have found that female scientists publish at lower rates than male scientists. So far, explanations for this consistent pattern have failed to emerge, and sex differences in research productivity remain a puzzle. We report new empirical evidence based on a systematic and detailed analysis of data from four large, nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys of postsecondary faculty in 1969, 1973, 1988, and 1993. Our research yields two main findings. First, sex differences in research productivity declined over the time period studied, with the female-to-male ratio increasing from about 60 percent in the late 1960s to 75 to 80 percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Second, most of the observed sex differences in research productivity can be attributed to sex differences in personal characteristics, structural positions, and marital status. These results suggest that sex differences in research productivity stem from sex differences in structural locations and as such respond to the secular improvement of women's position in science.

In two multipart studies, we tested the effectiveness of an experiential learning-based intervention (Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation–Academic [WAGES-Academic]) to reduce sexism endorsement. We randomly assigned undergraduates to either WAGES (n = 144) or one of two control conditions (n = 268): one where participants received the same information as WAGES but without experiential learning or another that included an experiential group activity but no gender equity information. WAGES participants (vs. both controls) reported less endorsement of sexist beliefs after completing the activity and/or at a follow-up 7–11 days later as measured by the Modern Sexism (Study 1), Neo-sexism (Study 2), Hostile Sexism (Study 2), and Gender-Specific System Justification (Studies 1 and 2) scales. Both studies demonstrated that these effects were attributable to WAGES providing more information, evoking less reactance, eliciting more empathy, and instilling more self-efficacy compared to the other conditions. Results suggest that programs to reduce sexist beliefs will be successful only insofar as they invite access to discussion in such a way that does not elicit defensive denial of the problem, create a context in which participants are readily able to empathize with other, and instill feelings of self-efficacy that one can address the problem.

The scientific premises for looking for statistical differences between groups designated as races (on somewhat arbitrary grounds) are questionable. The explanation of such differences in strictly biological-evolutionary terms is even more dubious. Studies of temperament, basic personality traits, disorders (such as antisocial personality), and specific genetic markers show that there is much more variation within groups designated as races than between such groups. Investigators and theoreticians interpreting such differences on the basis of limited sampling within the 3 broad racial groups should be careful to avoid selectivity and misrepresentation of data that serve racist ideology, and should be cautious about presenting their theories to the public through inappropriate media forums.

A growing literature is analysing the relation between diversity in the knowledge base and the performance of firms; nevertheless, studies that investigate the impact of employee diversity on innovation are scarce. Innovation is an interactive process that often involves communication and interaction among employees in a firm and draws on their different qualities from all levels of the organisation. This paper investigates the relation between employee diversity and innovation in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, and education. The analyses draw on data from a recent innovation survey. This data is merged with a linked employer–employee dataset that allow us to identify the employee composition of each firm. We test the hypothesis that employee diversity is associated with better innovative performance. The econometric analysis reveals a positive relation between diversity in education and gender on the likelihood of introducing an innovation. Furthermore, we find a negative effect of age diversity and no significant effect of ethnicity on the firm's likelihood to innovate. In addition, the logistic regression reveals a positive relationship between an open culture towards diversity and innovative performance. We find no support of any curvilinear relation between diversity and innovation.