The Impact of an Institutional Grant Program on the Economic, Social, and Cultural Capital of Women Researchers

Abstract

Introduction: Early funding can have significant impact on a researcher's career. However, funding is not equal for men and women. Not only do female researchers apply for fewer grants than men, but they also experience a lower success rate when they do. The Zucker Grant Program (ZGP) was established in 2000 to promote the early success of women researchers. The purpose of this evaluation is to support other institutions hoping to grow the research careers of women scientists.

Methods: This program evaluation reviewed the first 16 years of the program's history. Our mixed-methods, outcomes-based evaluation had four phases: (I) interviews with key stakeholders, (II) development and distribution of a survey to ZGP recipients, (III) focus groups and interviews with ZGP recipients, (IV) document analysis from the ZGP Center and the Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM) Development Office. This article reports on the qualitative data collection and analysis.

Results: Between 2000 and 2016, US$377,050 was awarded for 142 recipients. Qualitative data revealed how grant funding was critical to support pilot data in awardees' research to inform extramural grant applications. However, the program evaluation also identified effects on awardees' confidence as researchers and connection to a community.

Conclusion: Outcomes are interpreted through the framework of Bourdieu's three forms of capital, including economic, social, and cultural capital. Viewed through this framework, they provide a critical infrastructure to the development and success of early career female investigators. This work offers other institutions a framework to consider when establishing intramural funding and support programs for their early career investigators.

Introduction

For aspiring researchers, early funding is key to success. A recent study found that researchers who received NIH postdoctoral fellowship awards were 67% more likely to eventually receive R01 funding than those who did not receive the awards.¹ These early differences in funding affect the rest of their careers. Bol et al.² compared grant awardees whose proposal scores were nearly identical around the payline—one group with scores just a few points higher who cleared the threshold for funding in an early career grant. They found that those who received the grant accumulated nearly twice as much funding over the next 8 years as those who did not.

Many institutions have developed intramural funding programs to support junior faculty. Effects of these institutional grant programs can be complex and, beyond promotion, can have an impact on the grant recipient's confidence and resilience, even affecting identity formation as a researcher.³

The increased recognition resulting from these types of grants is notable. Several evaluations of grant programs commented that “despite” what some considered small amounts of funding, recipients found great value in the recognition associated with receiving an intramural grant award.^3–6 This recognition is particularly critical for the junior faculty population typically eligible for such seed grant programs.⁷

Access to this early funding, however, is not the same for men and women. After all, women represent only ∼30% of principal investigators (PIs) on NIH research project grants.⁸ Sege et al.⁶ found that among basic science researchers, women received significantly less start-up funding than men. Evaluations of other grant programs have shown that women submitted fewer grant applications than men⁹ and reported a lower success rate.^9–11 Women also reported receiving lower scores on grant applications than men,¹² despite receiving positive comments.¹³ The landscape is more treacherous for women of color, as the “cumulative effects” of intersectionality resulted in fewer R01 grants for women of color than both men and white women.⁷

In an effort to have early impact on the research careers of junior female faculty, the Natalie V. Zucker Research Center for Women Scholars offers individual seed funding to junior faculty, residents, and fellows at Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM), the Sackler School of Biomedical Sciences, and their major affiliated hospitals. Here, we present a description of this program, the findings of our program evaluation, and a conceptual interpretation of these findings in the context of capital. We hope that this article offers insight into other institutions considering similar options for supporting the research careers of women.

Methods

Program description

With the donation of its benefactor, Natalie V. Zucker, the Zucker Grant Program (ZGP) was established in 2000 to advance the research careers of young women in the basic and clinical sciences in its community, which includes a medical school, a graduate school of biomedical sciences, and seven affiliated hospitals. The ZGP is led by a director who works with a volunteer group of four senior faculty members on a Steering Committee to review and award grant applications. At the time the program was evaluated, the ZGP's director (D.W.B.) was an externally funded researcher and Natalie V. Zucker Professor of Pediatrics, Obstetrics, and Gynecology at TUSM.

The ZGP invites grant proposals annually from junior faculty, residents, and fellows. Awards can be up to $10,000 each, and can cover expenses related to items or activities that benefit the PI's research or career.

The director and the Steering Committee review proposals. Three criteria are used to rank proposals for funding: academic potential of the PI, scientific merit of the project, and the potential impact of funding on the PI's career. The first two criteria are fairly straightforward. As examples of the third criterion, sending the PI to a scientific meeting to present her research or network would be favorably reviewed, whereas requesting a piece of laboratory equipment for her mentor's laboratory would not. Approximately $30,000 in grants are awarded each year, with individual grant amounts averaging between $1,000 and $6,000. Between 2000 and 2016, the ZGP awarded a total of $377,050 for 142 projects.

Program evaluation

To explore the full effect of the ZGP and both the intended and observed outcomes, we applied a mixed-methods, outcomes-oriented program evaluation.¹⁴ The Director of the Center (D.W.B.) wanted to understand the effects of the program and how—if at all—the program could be improved to meet the mission. Therefore, this program evaluation was supported by a grant from the Natalie V. Zucker Center for Women Scholars.

Our program evaluation had four phases: in phase I, we interviewed key stakeholders; in phase II, we developed and distributed a survey to ZGP recipients; in phase III, we conducted focus groups and interviews with ZGP recipients; and in phase IV, we analyzed records from both the ZGP Center and the TUSM Development Office. This article reports on the qualitative data collection and analysis.

Phase I

Six key stakeholders were identified by the investigators and by the director of the ZGP (Appendix A1). They included the director, three grant selection committee members, the dean of TUSM, and a development officer in the University who was acutely involved with the establishment of the ZGP. Interviews with these stakeholders were completed by the PI (R.D.B.), and transcribed between March and September of 2016.

Phase II

The survey was created on and distributed through REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at Tufts University.15 REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies, providing 1) an intuitive interface for validated data capture; 2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; 3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and 4) procedures for data integration and interoperability with external sources (Appendix A2).¹⁵

Phase III

Six ZGP recipients attended focus groups that were held on the TUSM campus and on site at Baystate Medical Center, one of TUSM's affiliated hospitals. Two focus groups were completed in September and October 2016. A semistructured focus group protocol was developed based on the literature and preliminary analysis of survey data (Appendix A3).

Phase IV

The documents analyzed through content analysis included the following: all files held by the ZGP, publications from the University Development Office (that included descriptions of funded activities), associated websites, and two articles published internally by university publications on the founding of the ZGP.

This program evaluation was approved as exempt research by the Baystate Health Institutional Review Board (IRB#785071).

Data analysis

Quantitative survey items were summarized with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed independently through constant comparative analysis¹⁶ by two members of the research team (R.D.B./R.K.) for key themes. Data were coded iteratively, with themes emerging throughout the analysis. The researchers reconciled emerging codes, codifying definition and code names iteratively through the process. Themes were only included when both researchers agreed on the interpretation.

Results

Between 2000 and 2016, $377,050 was awarded for 142 recipients. One recipient died before the program evaluation. Of 141 award recipients, 52 (37%) responded to the survey, and 88% of respondents completed the entire survey (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Participants (n = 52)

Descriptive		n (%)
Encouraged other women to apply for the grant	Yes	47 (90)
	Skipped	5 (10)
Grant funded expenses associated with:	Research project/pilot data	33 (63)
	Education/Prof development	18 (35)
	Other	1 (2)
Among research project/pilot data		(n = 33)
Completed funded project?*	Yes	27 (82)
Presented funded project?	Yes	25 (76)
Published funded project?	Yes	16 (48)
	In review	2 (6)
	Skipped	1 (3)
Won awards for funded project?	Yes	12 (36)
Applied for extramural funding for funded project?	Yes, federal	12 (36)
	Yes, other	10 (30)
How involved was mentor with funded project?	Not at all	3 (9)
	Slightly	2 (6)
	Moderately	5 (15)
	Extremely	4 (12)
	Skipped	19 (58)
Among applied for extramural funding		(n = 22)
Received funding?	Yes	13 (59)
	Application in review	3 (14)
Among those with mentors at time of application		(n = 40)
Still working with mentor?	Yes	9 (23)
Are you a mentor?	Yes	33 (83)
	Skipped	5 (13)

^*“Funded project” is defined as: the research project or pilot data funded by the Zucker grant award.

Most (63%) survey respondents used their grant for preliminary data. Of this group, most (83%) have completed their projects. Also, 67% of this group has—since their award—applied for extramural funding, and with success; 60% of those who applied for external funding received it.

Themes below emerged from the qualitative data collected through focus groups, interviews, open response survey comments, and document analysis.

Funding invests in pilot data

When asked about the primary purpose of the grant, key stakeholders uniformly agreed that the purpose of the grant was to fund pilot data to obtain future grants. Put plainly by a stakeholder,

The main goal is to provide seed money to as many candidates as possible. Seed money and evidence of success to support future success in obtaining grants.

With funding, pilot data were possible, and with data, future extramural funding was possible. The financial bolster of the award had direct connection to obtaining pilot data. Stakeholders viewed the amount of the award as its primary value. When asked how they would change the ZGP, many stakeholders said that they would add money; reinforcing their view of the value of the award as the mechanism to acquire pilot data. According to two stakeholders,

It's not a lot of money which is unfortunate, but we try to use it to have some influence.

The amount of money given out by the program is really small, so that quite honestly limits—who applies and affects the impact that the funds have.

The financial impact of the award was a critical piece of its total value in the eyes of key stakeholders. This is not without cause. According to one recipient,

The grant was a “significant component of our success in attracting R01 funding for the lab.”

This grant was designed to give junior female faculty access to resources as a way to make them competitive for future funding, and the financial value of the award as a tool to gather pilot data was a key component of its success.

Funding builds confidence

Stakeholders highlighted the value of the ZGP as a female-only grant, and connected this characteristic with the confidence it affords women. While the monetary value of the grant was primary to stakeholders, the confidence boost afforded by applying for and receiving a competitive grant was lauded as a space to build resilience. According to stakeholders,

The purpose of the grant program is to provide seed money to get preliminary data … But if you ask me what is the second reason that this program is valuable? The more fluid reason is that it provides confidence for women. You can get [our] grant and then it gives you the confidence to apply for bigger and better opportunities.

Psychologically, it's very good for someone at a young age to compete for a grant and to get it. It's a good boost for someone to review their proposal competitively and to think it was worthwhile.

Stakeholders agreed that the confidence gained from recognition of a grant award promoted resilience to acquire more funding. Documents indicate that ZGP leadership decided early to award many women with smaller grants rather than to award a few women with large grants. This decision reflected the intention of the award to recognize promising talent, rather than just promising projects.

Recipients agreed with stakeholders that the ZGP was a vehicle for confidence building. When asked how the grant program improved them or their careers, a recipient said,

This award … played a very important role in giving me support for research but also confidence that I could make it in science, because there were people who believed in me.

They echoed the improved confidence, noting that the ZGP grant “helped my career, CV, and my motivation” and “gave me confidence to apply for funding.”

Funding to connect women

Both stakeholders and recipients noted that the ZGP awardees and mentors were part of a shared community. Some recipients even noted that they had become mentors themselves and encouraged their female mentees to apply for the award. Recommendations for improving the program from both stakeholders and recipients suggested that their network could be cultivated more deliberately. One recipient noted,

[The ZGP] gives you access to a network of colleagues to assist you when mentorship is lacking.

In fact, most stakeholders and recipients recommended leveraging this group for mentoring. Several recipients and stakeholders described annual luncheons that used to bring recipients and stakeholders together to meet with the founding donor of the ZGP. One recipient described the event as “an opportunity to meet other female scientists who had successful careers in academic institutions.” The luncheons ended after the donor's death. This disrupted the local community of women scientists that had developed during her lifetime. One recipient observed,

Women don't get a lot of positive feedback or mentoring and I think that's what [the donor] had in mind and why [the ZGP] is just for women. Unfortunately science is still dominated as a male network. So the psychological piece is very important.

A survey respondent reflected on the ZGP as an opportunity for mentorship with this community:

It's so important for women in medicine and science to have other women as mentors and role models.

Both key stakeholders and award recipients longed for opportunities like mentoring where they could leverage the network created through the ZGP. While stakeholders saw the luncheons as a formality of the process connecting recipients with their philanthropic champion, they had also underestimated the community-building nature that came with these gatherings.

Discussion

Mapping to Bourdieu's framework

The outcomes of our program evaluation describe the effects of intramural funding on the careers of female scientists. The themes identified in this program evaluation describe the effects of the award on the financial resources of the recipients, confidence of the recipients, and the social connections of the recipients.

This study adds to the literature by identifying themes that reflect the three forms of capital outlined by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu's¹⁷ three forms of capital include economic (the exchange for goods or services), cultural (the accumulation of behaviors or mind-set associated with a role or culture), and social (the network or accumulation of linkages across a group). He believed that this view on capital collectively explained why “everything is not equally possible or impossible” between different groups. This view uniquely aligned with our results—both in helping us understand the differences in awardees' experiences and in the distinct themes that emerged from the data.

Bourdieu's concepts of economic, cultural, and social capital have direct application to our interpretation of the outcomes of the ZGP. In fact, the investment into an institutional grant program includes not just economic capital on the part of the institution but also a social and cultural investment. The key stakeholders and previous grant recipients interviewed for this evaluation described personal commitment not to the research but to the future of research and the success of the junior female faculty. Their views reflected on the need for cultural and social capital not by name but by description, and this awareness provides a schema for improvement in intramural grant programs.

Economic capital in the ZGP

The economic capital affords ZGP recipients the ability to acquire supplies and resources to produce pilot data, as evidenced by the fact that most ZGP grants funded basic science or clinical research. This early access to economic capital in the academic world is critical^1,2; researchers need funding, and the opportunity for junior female faculty to compete for that funding locally acknowledged the importance of it. In fact, economic advantage was the primary identified goal of stakeholders. The ZGP uniformly sought to provide funding to support the collection of pilot data, and awardees understood the value of having access to such funding.

Social capital in the ZGP

According to Bourdieu, social capital is the network that one builds to connect to information or opportunity. Therefore, the social capital available to funded junior researchers is a critical element, and our evaluation indicated the potential for leveraging that social capital. As several key stakeholders and awardees pointed out, “group membership” as an ZGP recipient or stakeholder offers opportunity for valuable mentoring in research. Mentorship and sponsorship for women are critical aspects of their academic success.¹⁸ Senior female leaders and investigators play a particularly important role in mentoring and sponsoring junior investigators.¹⁹ The ZGP is fundamentally suited for this type of mentoring, as group membership is attained through the grant program and mentoring is geographically available to bring these women together. Ginther et al.⁷ found that women of color were less likely to reapply for R01 funding after a failed attempt. Mentoring is crucial for buoying the social capital of women through resilience, particularly with grant funding.

Cultural capital in the ZGP

Finally, the program evaluation found that ZGP recipients described an increase in cultural capital, by embracing the mind-set of a PI and growing their identity as a researcher. Bourdieu¹⁷ describes cultural capital as the “accumulation of behaviors or mindset” in association with a particular group. For researchers, this means developing a researcher identity. In particular, for women, participants in our study described this funding as a boost in confidence to help them attain their researcher identity. They are not alone; Adler et al.³ found confidence to be a key aspect in helping novice researchers develop their research identity. An accumulation of cultural capital as a researcher in academia fuels an individual transformation that also echoes Bourdieu's cultural capital. For example, Kamler and Thompson²⁰ position the PhD's dissertation process as one of “becoming and belonging” rather than of writing and checking boxes. The process of navigating research as a novice is one that involves identity building, “both learning how to do research, and learning how to be part of academia, as well as, perhaps, learning about your academic self in relation to your non-academic self.”²¹ The cultural capital of early investigators prepares them for the transformation of identity from a laboratory assistant or trainee into PI. Early funding, such as that with the ZGP, can support this transition.

Limitations

This study has limitations. First, this work draws on the experience of one institutional grant funding program. However, the goal of this work was to delve deeply into these experiences to explore themes, rather than to provide generalizable conclusions. We hope that the framework identified provides an opportunity for further investigation. Future research might include a prospective quantitative analysis of the applicants and awardees, which could ideally be compared with data obtained from other institutional programs. Second, not all ZGP recipients responded to the survey or contributed to the focus groups. We do not know the experiences of those women who chose not to respond. However, we believe the data that were collected offer a richness of experiences, which corroborate with the understanding of all the key stakeholders, and provide a solid framework to inform future research, including development of testable hypotheses that rely on more purposive sampling.

Significance

The outcomes of this program evaluation aligned with the conceptual framework of Bourdieu, which reframes the capital required of novice, female researchers. It is our hope that a retrospective view of this established program can shed light on the most effective way for other institutions to make the most out of their institutional funding and professional development programs.

Adding deliberate consideration of cultural and social capital to the economic capital of a grant provides a formal schema for cultivating the professional identity of junior female researchers. This application also releases the façade that grants create successful researchers; instead, it invites the awareness that successful researchers accumulate all three forms of capital. Stakeholders at other institutional funding programs would be well served to consider how their grant programs provide these three forms of capital, and then create an infrastructure to leverage such outcomes to support the success of novice scholars.

Conclusions

Since the completion of this evaluation, the ZGP acquired new leadership, who has already identified opportunities to build on the results of this evaluation and apply Bourdieu's framework to the ZGP. For example, leaders have expressed interest in activating the social network of ZGP stakeholders and recipients, specifically by reinstating regular luncheons to celebrate new ZGP awardees and tapping into past awardees for mentorship. To cultivate the mind-set of the donor and the cultural capital of recipients, leaders have also expressed interest in requiring regular progress reports from grant recipients, encouraging the reflection on their success and efforts. These efforts reinforce the conclusion that the ZGP has value beyond the dollar amount.

In addition, future research must explore the application of Bourdieu's framework to infrastructures that support women and other traditionally marginalized researchers. Bourdieu's concepts of capital demonstrated that the impact of this money is beyond its economic value. The contributions of many different voices and backgrounds are critical in the national discourse of research, and, as evidenced in this study, supporting those voices is a multifaceted process.

Appendix A1. Key Stakeholder Interview Protocol

• 1.What is your title?
• 2.What is your current role with the Zucker Women's Research Grant Program?
• 3.What was your involvement with the development of the Zucker Women's Research Grant Program?
• 4.How would you describe Natalie Zucker?
• 5.What is your understanding about her intention for founding the Zucker Women's Research Grant Program?
• 6.What is one reason that the Zucker Women's Research Grant Program is valuable to the Tufts system?
• 7.What are the criteria for selecting a Zucker Women's Research Grant award recipient?
• 8.Which of those criteria do you believe is most important to selecting a successful recipient?
• 9.Please describe the selection process for award recipients.
• 10.Has that process changed over time?
• 11.Can you describe a particularly memorable recipient of a Zucker Women's Research Program grant?
• 12.In your opinion, why is funding programs like Zucker Women's Research Grant program necessary to the scientific and research community?
• 13.If you had a magic wand and you could wave it over the Zucker Women's Research Grant Program for any reason, what would you ask that wand to do to make it more successful?
• 14.If you needed to convince someone that the Zucker Women's Research Grant Program is the most successful grant funding program of its kind, what would you highlight?
• 15.What would you like to see this Program Evaluation uncover? What questions would you like this Program Evaluation to answer?

Appendix A2. Survey to Grant Awardees

Background

In (approximately) what year did you receive your Natalie Zucker grant award?

Was your Zucker Grant awarded for expenses associated with:

A Research Project/Pilot Data

Education/Professional Development (including travel, tuition, etc.)

Other If Other, please identify:

Have you completed the funded project? Yes No

Did you, or are you scheduled to, present the findings of the funded project? Yes No

If so, what is the audience for this presentation: Local Regional National International

Did you publish any part of this funded project in a peer-reviewed journal or outlet? Yes/Yes Currently in Review Process/No

Did you receive any awards for this funded project? Yes No

Did you apply (or are you in the process of applying) for extramural funding for this project? Yes—Federal Funding Yes—Other (Nonfederal) Funding No Why not?

Did you receive extramural funding for this project? Yes Application currently under review No

How did your Zucker project improve you, your career, and/or your institution?

Which of the following best represents your racial heritage? Choose all that apply: Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American ethnic or Afro-Caribbean, or African American Latino or Hispanic American East Asian or Asian American South Asian or Indian American Middle Eastern or Arab American Native American or Alaskan Native or Other.

Academic Career

We would like to know more about your career since receiving your Zucker Grant. Would you like to upload your current CV? Doing so will reduce the length of this survey considerably. Yes No

Have you applied (or are you in the process of applying) for additional grant funding? Yes No

(Regardless of whether you received those awards) Please indicate the amount of INSTITUTIONAL grant funding you have received (e.g., $25,000).

Please indicate the amount of FOUNDATION/NON-FEDERAL EXTRAMURAL grant funding you have (e.g., $25,000) received.

Please indicate the amount of FEDERAL grant funding you have received (e.g., $25,000).

Mentorship

Please reflect on mentorship that you have had for your research or academic career. How many mentors did you have (approximately) when you applied for the Zucker Grant? (e.g., 3)

How many were female (approximately)? (e.g., 3)

How involved was/were your mentor(s) with your Zucker Not at all involved Grant project? Slightly involved, Moderately involved, Extremely involved

Do you still have this/these mentor(s)? Yes No

How many mentors do you currently have? (e.g., 3)

How many are female? (e.g., 3)

Please comment about your current mentor(s). (e.g., Relationship, area of expertise, etc.) Are you a mentor? Yes No

Reflection on Research and Education

In retrospect, how did this grant help you as a researcher/educator?

Would you encourage other women to apply for this grant? Yes No Why or why not?

Grant Evaluation

How did you hear about the Zucker Grant Program?_____________ (e.g., Mentor, colleague, Internet, etc.)

If you could change anything about your experience with the Zucker Grant Program, what would it be?

What feedback do you have for improving the Zucker Grant Program?

Appendix A3. Focus Group Protocol

Demographics

Let's go around: What is your department and which year did you receive your award?

Do you currently have any involvement in the Zucker Grant program? If so, please describe.

Logistics of Grant Process

What is your understanding of the goal of the Zucker Grant Program?

I'd like to know more about the process by which you applied. In reflecting on your process of applying for and receiving your grant, what

In what ways could the program operations be improved?

What is your understanding regarding selection criterion for Zucker grants?

Value of Zucker Grant

How is the Zucker grant program viewed by colleagues at your institution?

What is the nature of the conversation? Are people excited by it?

Has that view changed over time?

Has the grant program been talked about more/less over time?

What type of woman is most likely to benefit from a Zucker grant?

What was your project, and how did your project benefit from the funding?

If you had not been awarded this grant, would you still have participated in this work?

Effect of Zucker Grant on Career

As a result of your grant-funded project, did you obtain any funding or publications?

As a result of your grant-funded project, did you have any changes, promotions, or new opportunities in your role?

How, if at all, did the Zucker Grant affect your career trajectory?

Effect of Zucker Grant on Personal Growth

How, if at all, did your grant-funded project improve you as a scholar?

In what ways was a mentor involved with your Zucker grant project? Please describe the value of that mentor in relation to your work.

Recommendations

What recommendations do you have for improving the Zucker Grant Program?

Would you have appreciated meeting with other recipients?

What about annual reunion of new and past awardees?

After you completed it, did you report back to the committee?

What else would you like to say in reflecting on your experience as a grant recipient?

Ethical Approval

This study was approved as exempt research by the Baystate Medical Center IRB on February 29, 2016; IRB Reference#BH-15-235.

Previous Presentations

A version of this work was presented at the American Education Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting on April 15, 2018 in New York, NY.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.