Outreach and Inclusion
- Engage in targeted outreach to women/URM investigators with encouragement to apply
- Consider funding that is targeted specifically to women/URM
- Include statements regarding the value of women/URM as investigators and topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion
Committee Membership
- Diversify reviewers to include women and URM BUT be careful not to overextend women/URMs (tend to be over committed to service)
- Ensure adequate time for decision-making to reduce barriers to participation on awards committees (e.g., allow call-ins and virtual participation; do not schedule during times that may be hard for certain groups to attend such as childcare drop-off or pick-up)
Review Criteria and Procedures
- Include review criteria with calls for proposals and awards
- Avoid vague criteria such as “excellence” or “merit”
- Omit ratings related to the stature/tenure/prior grant funding of applicants when rating (unless directly relevant to the award)
- De-emphasize productivity (i.e., publications) as “markers of expertise” for Grant Development Program applicants
- Consider diversity of research team on seed grant proposals dealing with race/gender disparities; all white/male teams may not be adequate
- Create and utilize guidelines with clear descriptions of criteria for evaluation
- Standardize the review, scoring and selection process
Transparency
- Implement a conflict of interest policy
- Inform applicants, nominators, and reviewers who the final decision-maker(s) is/are for awards and Grant Development Program selection
- Publish membership of review panels
- Publically post awardees to increase transparency and accountability
Other
- Review all materials (including decision letters) for biased language (including unnecessary pronouns, say “The applicant” versus “Her…”) and periodically review calls for awards and programs
- Collect background information on applicants and examine trends in awards for potential bias
Sources: