While 44% of the literature reviewed focused on gender bias in the peer review process — half of which were from STEM subjects — only 18% concentrated on racial inequity. Groups of scholars affected by bias in the funding process are women, early career researchers, disabled researchers, racially minoritised researchers, and researchers from less prestigious institutions. The literature that documents obstacles for women, early career and ethnic minority researchers is relatively rich. Women’s experiences as applicants as well as the impact of their increasing inclusion as reviewers and assessors has been discussed across all stages of the funding process. Obstacles for early career and ethnic minority researchers as applicants, as well as calls for their inclusion as reviewers, were also found, but to a much lesser extent. We found very little evidence for experiences of disabled researchers and no accounts for any of the other protected characteristics of the Equality Act (2010).

EDICa also reviewed 25 websites with links to publicly available handbooks, guidance notes for peer reviewers and panel chairs, and unconscious bias briefings. We studied published UKRI diversity data between 2014 and 2021 and examined action plans from respective research councils for EDI interventions.

We found that there is little evaluation of the interventions that funding councils employed to counter biases, the reasoning behind them or their impact. Funders often rely on scholars’ readiness to objectively evaluate their own bias and willingness to be objective.

All councils plan to play active roles in changing the funding process to make it more equitable, which is a positive finding. The initiatives are in their early stages and still require testing and refining. The collection and annual publication of EDI data on who receives funding from UKRI councils in response to calls for more transparency, only offers a partial picture of experiences in the funding process. Looking beyond established categories and investigating what data has so far been overlooked is a crucial first step to make the funding process truly inclusive.

Most research focuses on the final stages of the funding process. There are large gaps in evidence for processes that precede the submission of a funding bid, including multiple factors that enable applicants to prepare a bid for large grants – like professional networking and internal funding bid review processes, also known as demand management.

Our evidence review is a work in progress and we will add new evidence and results as the EDICa project continues and seeks to co-design interventions that remove barriers outlined in this review.

We encourage reading of our full report, which is 27 pages of text plus references and appendices. The report is open access and can be downloaded here.