Gender equality in scientific research has gradually attracted attention from many countries. However, the possible interaction effect of gender on research funding has not been fully disclosed. This study conducts an empirical study to examine the possible influences of gender on research funding and its interaction effect with applicants’ social influences, including their external cumulative advantages (Matthew effect) and internal cognition (halo effect). In total, 1465 research projects from 2015 to 2021 are analysed to examine the proposed hypotheses. The results reveal that there is no gender inequality in the association between the Matthew effect and future research funding. However, the halo effect is easily affected by gender. For male scientists, higher institutional reputation and past research performance lead to higher future research funding. However, female scientists have no such benefits. According to the findings, this study suggests that female scientists should give priority to accumulating their own external resource advantages and participate in academic activities more frequently to activate women’s participation in scientific research and academia.
FrandsenTFNicolaisenJ. The ripple effect: citation chain reactions of a Nobel prize. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2013; 64(3): 437–447.
2.
LiaoCH. Exploring the social effect of outstanding scholars on future research accomplishments. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2017; 68(10): 2449–2459.
3.
LiaoCH. The Matthew effect and the halo effect in research funding. J Informetr2021; 15(1): 101108.
4.
RossiterMW. The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Soc Stud Sci1993; 23(2): 325–341.
5.
Van der LeeREllemersN. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in the Netherlands. P Natl Acad Sci2015; 112(40): 12349–12353.
6.
ZhangMZhangGLiuYet al. Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: an empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes. J Informetr2020; 14(4)): 101068.
7.
PoczatkováBKřibíkováP. Gender inequality in the field of science and research. J Int Stud2017; 10(1)): 267–276.
8.
RosaRDrewECanavanS. An overview of gender inequality in EU universities. In: RosaRDrewECanavanS (eds) Gender-sensitive university. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2020, pp. 1–15.
9.
AuranenONieminenM. University research funding and publication performance: an international comparison. Res Policy2010; 39(6): 822–834.
10.
Almeida-FilhoNLessaIMagalhãesLet al. Social inequality and depressive disorders in Bahia Brazil: interactions of gender, ethnicity, and social class. Soc Sci Med2004; 59(7): 1339–1353.
11.
HuangJGatesAJSinatraRet al. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci2020; 1179: 4609–4616.
12.
PennerAM. Gender inequality in science. Science2015; 347(6219): 234–235.
13.
BabcockLLascheverS. Women don’t ask negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2003.
14.
FullerSVoskoLF. Temporary employment and social inequality in Canada: exploring intersections of gender, race and immigration status. Soc Indic Res2008; 88(1): 31–50.
15.
SterlingADFernandezRM. Once in the door: gender, tryouts, and the initial salaries of managers. Manage Sci2018; 64(11): 5444–5460.
16.
AhlH. The scientific reproduction of gender inequality. A Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on Women’s Entrepreneurship. Liber Malmö2004.
17.
O’ConnorPFauve-ChamouxA. European policies and research funding: a case study of gender inequality and lack of diversity in a Nordic research programme. Policy Polit2016; 44(4): 627–643.
18.
KaneEW. Education and beliefs about gender inequality. Soc Prob1995; 42(1): 74–90.
19.
GulbrandsenMSmebyJC. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res Policy2005; 34(6): 932–950.
20.
MuscioAQuaglioneDVallantiG. Does government funding complement or substitute private research funding to universities?Res Policy2013; 42(1): 63–75.
21.
GarcíaCESanz-MenéndezL. Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness. Scientometrics2005; 64(3): 271–300.
22.
LarivièreVGingrasY. The impact factor’s Matthew effect: a natural experiment in bibliometrics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2010; 61(2): 424–427.
23.
HottenrottHLawsonC. Fishing for complementarities: research grants and research productivity. Int J Ind Organ2017; 51: 1–38.
24.
GeunaA. Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D cooperative projects. Res Policy1998; 26(6): 677–687.
25.
RoshaniSBagherylooiehMRMoslehMet al. What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines. Scientometrics2021; 126(9): 7859–7874.
26.
LindgreenADi BenedettoCAVerdichCet al. How to write really good research funding applications. Ind Market Manage2019; 77: 232–239.
27.
MutzRBornmannLDanielHD. Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach. PLoS ONE2012; 7(10): e48509.
28.
PortoASanguinettiP. Political determinants of intergovernmental grants: evidence from Argentina. Econ Politics2001; 13(3): 237–256.
29.
MertonRK. The Matthew Effect in science II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS1988; 79(4)): 606–623.
30.
LaudelG. The ‘quality myth’: promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. High Educ2006; 52(3): 375–403.
31.
PereiraMSuárezD. Matthew effect, capabilities and innovation policy: the Argentinean case. Econ Innov New Technol2018; 27(1): 62–79.
32.
KerckhoffACGlennieE. The Matthew effect in American education. Res Sociol Educ Social1999; 12(1): 35–66.
33.
Van LooyBRangaMCallaertJet al. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?Res Policy2004; 33(3): 425–441.
34.
BolTde VaanMvan de RijtA. The Matthew effect in science funding. Proc Natl Acad Sci2018; 115(19): 4887–4890.
35.
FiorentinFPereiraMSuarezDet al. When Matthew met Matilda: the Argentinean gender gap in the allocation of science and technology public grants. Econ Innov New Tech. Epub ahead of print7May2022. DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2021.2017289.
36.
ZhouCDHeadMGMarshallDCet al. A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator. BMJ Open2018; 8(4): e018625.
37.
NicolauJLMellinasJPMartín-FuentesE. The halo effect: a longitudinal approach. Ann Touris Res2020; 83: 102938.
WirtzJ. Halo in customer satisfaction measures: the role of purpose of rating, number of attributes and customer involvement. Int J Serv Ind Manage2003; 14(1): 96–119.
40.
VolkweinJFSweitzerKV. Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Res High Educ2006; 47(2): 129–148.
41.
CoombsWTHolladaySJ. Unpacking the halo effect: reputation and crisis management. J Commun Manage2006; 10(2): 123–137.
42.
RosenzweigP. Misunderstanding the nature of company performance: the halo effect and other business delusions. Calif Manage Rev2007; 49(4): 6–20.
43.
BurkePFDowlingGWeiE. The relative impact of corporate reputation on consumer choice: beyond a halo effect. J Market Manage2018; 34(13–14): 1227–1257.
44.
ChanHFGleesonLTorglerB. Awards before and after the Nobel prize: a Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one’s own funeral?Res Evaluat2014; 23(3): 210–220.
45.
LiEYLiaoCHYenRH. Co-authorship networks and research impact: a social capital perspective. Res Policy2013; 42(9): 1515–1530.
46.
BrownBPerryS. Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s ‘most admired’ companies. Acad Manage J1994; 37(5): 1347–1359.
47.
SineWDShaneSGregorioDD. The halo effect and technology licensing: the influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Manage Sci2003; 49(4): 478–496.
48.
OlkPRosenzweigP. The halo effect and the challenge of management inquiry: a dialog between Phil Rosenzweig and Paul Olk. J Manage Inq2010; 19(1): 48–54.
49.
BenschopYDoorewaardH. Covered by equality: the gender subtext of organizations. Organ Stud1998; 19(5): 787–805.
50.
SumanjeetS. The state of gender inequality in India. Gend Stud2016; 15(1): 139–157.
51.
BeckRHalloinV. Gender and research funding success: case of the Belgian FRS-FNRS. Research Evaluat2017; 26(2): 115–123.
52.
BurnsKEStrausSELiuKet al. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: a retrospective analysis. PLoS Med2019; 16(10): e1002935.
53.
WanousJPHudyMJ. Single-item reliability: a replication and extension. Organ Res Methods2001; 4(4): 361–375.
54.
EbadiASchiffauerovaA. How to receive more funding for your research?Get connected to the right people! PLoS ONE2015; 10(7): e0133061.
55.
KanzeDHuangLConleyMAet al. We ask men to win and women not to lose: closing the gender gap in startup funding. Acad Manage J2018; 61(2): 586–614.
56.
PadavicIElyRJReidEM. Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: the work–family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Adm Sci Q2020; 65(1): 61–111.
