Hey STEM community,
Please read ➡️ osf.io/xb57u/
Preprint by me, @sara_kahanamoku, @ClumpedIsotopes, @algoriphagus, @vernon_morris & others
Unlike other papers, I am *not* delighted to tell you about this.
It's about how we choose what science is #NSFfunded.🧵1/10
Please read ➡️ osf.io/xb57u/
Preprint by me, @sara_kahanamoku, @ClumpedIsotopes, @algoriphagus, @vernon_morris & others
Unlike other papers, I am *not* delighted to tell you about this.
It's about how we choose what science is #NSFfunded.🧵1/10
Each year, NSF gets thousands of proposals. They issue *publicly available* annual reports on funding rates broken down by PI race: nsf.gov/nsb/publicatio…
Report contents evolve each yr, so data gaps exist. But data on 1 million+ proposals from 1996–2019 reveal striking trends.
Report contents evolve each yr, so data gaps exist. But data on 1 million+ proposals from 1996–2019 reveal striking trends.
For over 20 years:
➡️Proposals by white PIs have been funded above overall rates
➡️Proposals by most BIPOC PIs have been funded below overall rates
➡️And the relative funding rate for proposals by white PIs has been *increasing*📈
These trends are also found in all directorates.
➡️Proposals by white PIs have been funded above overall rates
➡️Proposals by most BIPOC PIs have been funded below overall rates
➡️And the relative funding rate for proposals by white PIs has been *increasing*📈
These trends are also found in all directorates.
To be clear, overall funding rates at NSF change each year due to shifts in budgets and proposal submission numbers. We've normalized for these year-to-year fluctuations.
We're seeing what remains: systematic and persistent differences in funding rates by PI race.
We're seeing what remains: systematic and persistent differences in funding rates by PI race.
Seen another way: Let's look at the #NSFfunded proposals in 2019, grouped by PI race.
If each group had been funded at the same rate, only proposals inside the black lines would've been funded.
Instead, White PIs received a "surplus" of 798 awards.
More on this later.
If each group had been funded at the same rate, only proposals inside the black lines would've been funded.
Instead, White PIs received a "surplus" of 798 awards.
The previous stats are for all proposals. But NSF also funds "Non-Research" pursuits, like education & training, equipment, conferences, etc.
Breaking down the data by Research v. Non-Research, we find that racial disparities are even *greater* for Research proposals.
Breaking down the data by Research v. Non-Research, we find that racial disparities are even *greater* for Research proposals.
As a result, #NSFfunded activities are racially stratified:
‼️ Only 46–63% of awards to Black PIs were for Research, compared to 70–77% of awards to White PIs in 2013–2019.
We see the same patterns in every disciplinary directorate — again, they are persistent and pervasive.
‼️ Only 46–63% of awards to Black PIs were for Research, compared to 70–77% of awards to White PIs in 2013–2019.
We see the same patterns in every disciplinary directorate — again, they are persistent and pervasive.
To fully understand what's going on, these racial disparities in funding rates must be examined intersectionally, alongside factors like career stage, institution, and gender.
But this isn't possible with the data that are currently publicly available, frustratingly.
But this isn't possible with the data that are currently publicly available, frustratingly.
Regardless of the causes, these disparities have conferred a *cumulative advantage* to White PIs while disadvantaging others.
Improving STEM diversity has been a priority for decades. But such aims cannot be achieved with systems that concentrate resources & advantage like this.
Improving STEM diversity has been a priority for decades. But such aims cannot be achieved with systems that concentrate resources & advantage like this.
More results in the paper. Feedback & Qs very welcome.
For now, 3 asks:
1⃣ Read the paper.
2⃣ Send it to people.
3⃣ Talk about it — here & elsewhere.
What does this mean for the STEM community & #NSFfunded science? What does this mean to *you*? And what should be done next?
For now, 3 asks:
1⃣ Read the paper.
2⃣ Send it to people.
3⃣ Talk about it — here & elsewhere.
What does this mean for the STEM community & #NSFfunded science? What does this mean to *you*? And what should be done next?
If you have feedback, we'd love to hear it. Tell us via Twitter, or message us here: forms.gle/YjdooE1mf7Pq5T…
Here's the preprint link again: osf.io/xb57u/
"Decades of systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation" /end
Here's the preprint link again: osf.io/xb57u/
"Decades of systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation" /end
Thread by fellow co-author @sara_kahanamoku 👇
https://twitter.com/sara_kahanamoku/status/1550531012739756032
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
