Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study

The study investigates whether gender bias exists in research grant applications and outcomes in social sciences within an Asian context, focusing on Hong Kong. Prior literature documents persistent gender disparities in academia—particularly in STEM and biomedical fields—regarding publication, citations, hiring, promotion, and research funding, mostly in Western settings. Evidence for social sciences and for Asia is limited and mixed. The authors ask whether measurable gender differences exist in public research funding in social sciences by submission rates, success rates, and award sizes, and whether contributing factors differ by gender and career stage. Hong Kong, with its East–West cultural mix, supportive family and institutional policies, and strong research performance, provides a unique context. The study targets HKU’s Faculty of Social Sciences (FOSS) across 2015/16–2020/21 and explicitly examines four commonly cited myths: men’s better representation, higher submission rates, higher success rates, and larger awards. GRF (all academic ranks) and ECS (first three years of appointment) are analyzed separately to account for career stage effects.

Prior studies in STEM and biomedical fields often find gender gaps in grant submissions, success rates, and award sizes (e.g., Wellcome Trust; CIHR; NIH; NSF; Europe). Meta-analyses across disciplines have sometimes shown higher male success, though some large studies report no gender differences. For social sciences, UK ESRC data indicated parity, with junior women slightly more successful than men. Explanations for better parity in social sciences include higher female representation, feminist/less gender-stereotyped practices, and greater awareness disrupting traditional hierarchies. Asian contexts are under-studied; cultural expectations might predict greater inequality, but Hong Kong’s unique mix of traditions and internationalization, plus institutional initiatives (e.g., Athena SWAN analogs; HeForShe) and supportive policies, may alter expected patterns. Earlier Hong Kong CAP surveys suggested women published less overall, though some evidence showed HSS women more likely to publish peer-reviewed articles and faced managerial/neoliberal constraints. The literature points to the importance of early-career funding for retention and progression of women in academia.

Design and setting: Retrospective analysis of government-funded research grant applications and outcomes in the Faculty of Social Sciences (FOSS) at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) over academic years 2015/16–2020/21, stratified by two funding mechanisms of Hong Kong’s Research Grants Council (RGC): General Research Fund (GRF) and Early Career Scheme (ECS). Data sources and measures: FOSS provided annual counts of eligible staff, submissions by gender and scheme, and success rates; award outcomes and amounts for successful GRF/ECS applications were obtained from the University Grants Committee (UGC) public records. Gender was self-reported on applications. Ethics approval: HKU HREC EA200125. Currency: award amounts in HKD (USD 1=HKD 7.8; GBP 1=HKD 9.8, approx.). Outcomes: (1) Funding decision (funded/not funded) for GRF/ECS applications; (2) Award amount for successful applications. Indicators: Number of eligible staff; submission rate; success rate; average award amount. Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics summarized gender-specific annual changes in GRF/ECS awards. A decomposition analysis quantified contributions of: (a) number of eligible staff, (b) submission rate, (c) success rate to annual changes in number of awards (three-factor decomposition), and (d) the same three plus (e) average amount per award to annual changes in total awarded amount (four-factor decomposition). Decompositions were conducted by gender and by consecutive year-pairs from 2015/16 to 2020/21, with component effects summing to 100% per comparison. GRF and ECS were also considered separately to assess career-stage effects.

- Staff composition: Eligible applicants in FOSS during the study were about 57.4% men and 42.6% women, aligning with faculty composition mid-period (2018: 57% men, 43% women). - Overall rates (2015/16–2020/21): Submission rate 58.2%; success rate 30.9%. - Gender differences overall: Women had higher submission (59.2% vs 57.4%) and success rates (33.1% vs 29.3%) than men. Women’s average award per grant was higher; in one summary, women ≈ HKD 692K vs men ≈ HKD 655K. In the funding-amount analysis, total funding: men HKD 36.7M, women HKD 34.4M; average per award: men HKD 612K, women HKD 662K. - Scheme-specific: ECS success rates were substantially higher for women than men (50.0% vs 29.2%); GRF success rates were similar (women 29.5% vs men 29.3%). Early-career women submitted more ECS proposals and were more successful. - Temporal dynamics: Women’s submission rate dipped from 65.9% (2015/16) to 50.0% (2017/18), then rose to 75.6% (2020/21); men’s submission rose 49.2%→67.7% (2016/17–2019/20) then fell to 59.7% (2020/21). Women generally had higher success rates from 2015/16 to 2018/19. - Decomposition—number of awards: Success rate improvements often drove increases in award counts; submission-rate reductions sometimes offset gains. From 2019/20 to 2020/21 (net +5 awards), success rate was the dominant contributor (107.8%). Men’s success rate increase contributed 88.6% with -28.6% from their submission decline (net 60% of total change from men). Women’s success and submission increases contributed 30.3% and 19.3% (net 40%), partially offset by fewer eligible female applicants (-9.5%). - Decomposition—total award amount: Across year-pairs, success rate, submission rate, and amount per award all contributed. From 2015/16 to 2016/17, success rate accounted for 291.7% of the increase, with submission reductions offsetting (-138.0%). From 2019/20 to 2020/21 (increase HKD 6.51M), success rate (52.0%) and amount per award (49.7%) were key; submission rate had a smaller net effect (3.7%). Men’s submission decline reduced totals (-13.3%) while women’s submission increase added (17.0%). - Overall pattern: Contrary to common myths, women in HKU social sciences exhibited higher submission and success rates and at least comparable, often higher, award amounts, especially at early career stage (ECS).

The findings counter four prevalent myths in research funding: women were not underperforming in submissions, success, or award sizes in social sciences at HKU. Women—particularly early-career—submitted more ECS proposals, achieved higher success, and received competitive award sizes, contributing meaningfully to institutional gains in award counts and total funding. Decomposition analysis shows that success rate changes are pivotal drivers of year-to-year variation in both award counts and funding totals, with submission rate and award size also important for total amounts. Contextual factors in Hong Kong and at HKU likely facilitated these outcomes: an internationalized academic culture, open and merit-based recruitment (including increased hiring of women in social sciences), strong institutional gender-equity initiatives (e.g., HeForShe, mentoring and career development for women), supportive government and university family-friendly policies (e.g., extended, fully paid maternity leave; teaching load accommodations), and societal norms such as the availability of domestic help, which may reduce gendered household burdens. These elements may have reduced bias in evaluation and enabled women to invest time and effort into competitive grant applications, aligning with evidence that effort and track record are key determinants of success.

Women in HKU’s social sciences made strong contributions to competitive research funding, with higher submission and success rates and competitive award sizes, particularly in early career (ECS). For increasing the number of awards, raising submission rates does not appear to dilute success rates, suggesting that encouraging broader participation alongside support to improve proposal quality can be effective. For maximizing total funding, institutions should target all three levers: submission rate, success rate, and average award size. The HKU case demonstrates that gender bias in research grant success is not inevitable and can be mitigated through institutional policies and supportive socio-cultural contexts. Future research should extend analyses across multiple Hong Kong universities and disciplines, incorporate applicant-level covariates (age, rank, field), and evaluate the impact of specific institutional supports on funding outcomes over the academic lifecycle to address the ‘leaky pipeline.’

- Single-institution focus (HKU FOSS); results may not generalize across all UGC-funded universities in Hong Kong. - Lack of applicant-level covariates (e.g., age, academic rank, specific research domain), which can influence funding outcomes and potential gender differences. - Social sciences encompass diverse subfields; granularity may mask within-discipline heterogeneity. - Internal research-support activities and other institutional initiatives were not directly modeled, limiting causal attribution.