Analysis of Gender Representation and Geographical Region of the Communication Disorder Review Committee

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterpeer-review


Science is at the forefront of diversity, equity, and inclusion yet wide disparities continue to exist in the field today. Science is a field where different backgrounds, experiences, and expertise are critical for progression to persist. Studies on this topic have been done in recent years. One such study, Silva et. al. (2020), examines gender differences in NIH grant funding inneurological surgery finding that 79.4% of all NIH grants were awarded to males in the field.
Science, a field with women deeply interlocked in its history and future, has shown a historic exclusion of women in its funding. Grants and funding have also been shown to be concentratedin certain regions of the country such as those harboring universities historically known to have prestige. Therefore, the basis of this study was to find gender and regional disparities among members of a specific committee that reviews and selects grant recipients. Our team retrieved the roster for the NIH Communication Disorder Review Committee (CDRC) study panel for the years 2011, 2016, and 2021. We collected study section member names, professional affiliation, academic degrees, and state residency. Study authors used a pilot-tested google form for data extraction. Gender was determined using, a simple application programming interface (requiring a probability of >.6), or by google search of the study section member. Once collected, the individuals were sorted by their gender and geographical region. Over time, women were represented in study sections at an increasing rate. In 2011, there were 56 (60%) males and 38 (40%) females. In 2016, there were 35 (51%) males and 34 (49%) females. In 2021, there were 36 (49%) males and 38 (51%) females. We observed a detectable upward trend of female participation over time. Regarding geography, the region of the country least represented in 2011 was the West (n=15, 23%), while the Northeast was the most represented(n=25, 28%). In 2016, a majority of study section members were from the Midwest (n=19, 29%), followed by the South, and Northeast (n=16, 24%). In 2021, the majority of members were also from the Midwest (n=24, 34%), with the smallest contribution being from the West (n=13, 19%). The most underrepresented region of the country in the years we examined was the West (average = 21%). Data shows that historically there has been a discrepancy in the ratio of male to female involvement in the scientific community. Having diversity among the science community is beneficial for reducing bias. Our results show from 2011 to 2021, there has been an increase in the percentage of females on the CDRC, from 40% in 2011 to 51% in 2021. This data suggests an upward trend in female involvement. Further, our data display a possible geographical disparity in the scientific community.
Original languageAmerican English
StatePublished - 18 Feb 2022
EventOklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Week 2022 : Poster Presentation - Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, United States
Duration: 14 Feb 202218 Feb 2022


ConferenceOklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Week 2022
Country/TerritoryUnited States


  • funding
  • NIH
  • gender
  • grants
  • region


Dive into the research topics of 'Analysis of Gender Representation and Geographical Region of the Communication Disorder Review Committee'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this