知识转让评估中的性别偏见:对西班牙 "知识转让与创新 Sexennium "的元评价分析

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102432
María Bustelo , Olga Salido
{"title":"知识转让评估中的性别偏见:对西班牙 \"知识转让与创新 Sexennium \"的元评价分析","authors":"María Bustelo ,&nbsp;Olga Salido","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper analyses from a gender perspective a pilot call for evaluating academics and researcher transfer and innovation activities, launched by the Spanish Government in 2018, known as the “Knowledge Transfer &amp; Innovation Sexennium” (KT&amp;IS). Not only women’s participation was much lower than that of men (1 woman applicant for every 3 men applicants), but also, they showed lower success rates than men in all scientific fields, with an average gap of more than 13 points. The methodology combined an exploratory quantitative analysis of the almost 17,000 applications, with a meta-evaluative qualitative analysis through interviews to key actors of the evaluation program and focus groups with evaluators. Hidden biases operating throughout and in each of the different phases of the KT&amp;IS evaluation process were identified. This article aims at contributing to how economic and social impact of research can be fairly and fully evaluated, as well as at facilitating the design of future evaluation calls that promote the effective advancement of gender equality in all science-related activities and transfer to society.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892400034X/pdfft?md5=193177d244e2c1203feb330b51c820bd&pid=1-s2.0-S014971892400034X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender biases in the evaluation of knowledge transfer: A meta-evaluative analysis of the Spanish “Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Sexennium”\",\"authors\":\"María Bustelo ,&nbsp;Olga Salido\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper analyses from a gender perspective a pilot call for evaluating academics and researcher transfer and innovation activities, launched by the Spanish Government in 2018, known as the “Knowledge Transfer &amp; Innovation Sexennium” (KT&amp;IS). Not only women’s participation was much lower than that of men (1 woman applicant for every 3 men applicants), but also, they showed lower success rates than men in all scientific fields, with an average gap of more than 13 points. The methodology combined an exploratory quantitative analysis of the almost 17,000 applications, with a meta-evaluative qualitative analysis through interviews to key actors of the evaluation program and focus groups with evaluators. Hidden biases operating throughout and in each of the different phases of the KT&amp;IS evaluation process were identified. This article aims at contributing to how economic and social impact of research can be fairly and fully evaluated, as well as at facilitating the design of future evaluation calls that promote the effective advancement of gender equality in all science-related activities and transfer to society.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892400034X/pdfft?md5=193177d244e2c1203feb330b51c820bd&pid=1-s2.0-S014971892400034X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892400034X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892400034X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从性别视角分析了西班牙政府于2018年发起的一项名为 "知识转移与创新性别年"(KT&IS)的学术和研究人员转移与创新活动评估试点征集活动。不仅女性的参与率远低于男性(1 名女性申请者对 3 名男性申请者),而且她们在所有科学领域的成功率都低于男性,平均差距超过 13 个百分点。该方法结合了对近 17,000 份申请的探索性定量分析,以及通过对评估计划主要参与者的访谈和评估人员的焦点小组进行的元评估性定性分析。在 KT&IS 评估过程的每个不同阶段都发现了隐藏的偏见。这篇文章旨在为如何公平、全面地评估研究的经济和社会影响做出贡献,并为设计未来的评估呼吁提供便利,从而在所有与科学相关的活动和向社会的转让中促进性别平等的有效推进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gender biases in the evaluation of knowledge transfer: A meta-evaluative analysis of the Spanish “Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Sexennium”

This paper analyses from a gender perspective a pilot call for evaluating academics and researcher transfer and innovation activities, launched by the Spanish Government in 2018, known as the “Knowledge Transfer & Innovation Sexennium” (KT&IS). Not only women’s participation was much lower than that of men (1 woman applicant for every 3 men applicants), but also, they showed lower success rates than men in all scientific fields, with an average gap of more than 13 points. The methodology combined an exploratory quantitative analysis of the almost 17,000 applications, with a meta-evaluative qualitative analysis through interviews to key actors of the evaluation program and focus groups with evaluators. Hidden biases operating throughout and in each of the different phases of the KT&IS evaluation process were identified. This article aims at contributing to how economic and social impact of research can be fairly and fully evaluated, as well as at facilitating the design of future evaluation calls that promote the effective advancement of gender equality in all science-related activities and transfer to society.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
期刊最新文献
Anticipatory evaluation. How to incorporate an anticipatory technique into a theory-driven evaluation process. Results of application in a case study. What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review A program evaluation of the new choices workforce development program: An appreciative inquiry approach The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts A theoretical framework to companies value creation through a systematic review of intangibles’ management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1