> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Philanthropy 50
  • Nonprofits and the Trump Agenda
  • Impact Stories Hub
Sign In
  • Latest
  • Commons
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Online Events
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Advice
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Advice
Sign In
  • Latest
  • Commons
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Online Events
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Advice
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Advice
  • Latest
  • Commons
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Online Events
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Advice
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Advice
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Research
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

How Gender Bias Creeps Into Grant Making

By  Alex Daniels
June 4, 2019
Gates Foundation Explains How Gender Bias Creeps Into Its Grant Making 1
Getty Images

The Theory

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation wanted to find out whether a double-blind grant-making process was effective at weeding out gender bias when evaluating grant applications.

The Test

Researchers studied the foundation’s Global Challenges: Exploration program. A diverse pool of independent reviewers had screened applications for grants without access to information about who submitted them. The researchers studied 6,794 grant proposals made from 2008 to 2017.

The Results

Using Gates’s rating system, researchers found that women applicants were 15 percent less likely than men to receive a “silver” rating and 20 percent less likely to receive a “gold” rating from the reviewers. The researchers said a big reason was that the men tended to use “broad” words to describe the sweep of their work, while women researchers stuck close to “topic-specific” vocabulary to describe how their work would advance causes like agriculture, nutrition, and disease research.

We're sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.

Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 571-540-8070 or cophelp@philanthropy.com

The Theory

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation wanted to find out whether a double-blind grant-making process was effective at weeding out gender bias when evaluating grant applications.

The Test

Researchers studied the foundation’s Global Challenges: Exploration program. A diverse pool of independent reviewers had screened applications for grants without access to information about who submitted them. The researchers studied 6,794 grant proposals made from 2008 to 2017.

The Results

ADVERTISEMENT

Using Gates’s rating system, researchers found that women applicants were 15 percent less likely than men to receive a “silver” rating and 20 percent less likely to receive a “gold” rating from the reviewers. The researchers said a big reason was that the men tended to use “broad” words to describe the sweep of their work, while women researchers stuck close to “topic-specific” vocabulary to describe how their work would advance causes like agriculture, nutrition, and disease research.

Dig Deeper

Even though applications written by women were disproportionately rejected, the researchers, using future grants as a proxy for success, found that the women who got Gates grants were more likely to get significantly more National Institutes of Health funding compared with the men Gates grantees.

While a federal grant doesn’t necessarily result in a breakthrough right away, it can lead to follow-on grants and more prestigious academic postings, the researchers posit. “It is likely that female innovators are systemically underfunded relative to the quality of their ideas,” they wrote.

Find it

ADVERTISEMENT

“Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation” is a working paper by Julian Kolev of the Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business, Fiona Murray of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management, and Yuly Fuentes-Medel, project manager of Fiber Technologies.

A version of this article appeared in the June 4, 2019, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Foundation GivingGrant Seeking
Alex Daniels
Before joining the Chronicle in 2013, Alex covered Congress and national politics for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He covered the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns and reported extensively about Walmart Stores for the Little Rock paper.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

Related Content

  • Donors Give More to Joint Fundraising Appeals, Study Suggests
  • Using Guilt: Donors Wary of High-Emotion Appeals
  • Transparency Boosts Donations, Even for Struggling Charities, Study Finds
  • Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Podcasts
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    • Impact Stories
    Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Podcasts
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    • Impact Stories
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Gifts and Grants Received
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Chronicle Fellowships
    • Pressroom
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Gifts and Grants Received
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Chronicle Fellowships
    • Pressroom
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Site License Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Site License Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Philanthropy
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin