Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse

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

Y1 - 2017

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.

UR - http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/s8pzb8znZiycwDMgjASt/full

U2 - 10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

DO - 10.1080/03075079.2015.1075197

M3 - Journal article

VL - 42

SP - 1033

EP - 1055

JO - Studies in Higher Education

JF - Studies in Higher Education

SN - 0307-5079

IS - 6

ER -