Introduction

Science policy and technological development aim to improve competitiveness, economic growth, and development in various countries ^{(Nerad, 2011)} . However, these policies and strategies have led to participation gaps between men and women, particularly with regards to accessing public funding for research. This gap is crucial for scientific career progression and evaluation. Differences in funding success rates between genders in research may trigger a vicious cycle in which reduced funding leads to lower scientific productivity. Furthermore, this can result in less competitive funding applications ^{(European Commission, 2021)} . Such policies align with a neoliberal approach adopted by various nations, exacerbating the inequalities and gender gaps within competitive processes ^{(Morley, 2016)} .

Like in other countries, science policy in Chile is based on the paradigm of the knowledge economy ^{(Souza et al., 2019)} . The primary objective is the formation of human capital via a significant increase in scholarships granted for graduate studies at both national and international levels ^{(González and Jiménez, 2014)} . Moreover, public funds for research are also being provided competitively at an individual level, as well as to universities and research centers ^{(ANID, 2022b)}. However, the policy for human capital formation did not include modeling labor market conditions for graduate fellows ^{(González and Jiménez, 2014; Chiappa and Muñoz, 2015)} , let alone addressing it from a gender perspective.

Although European statistics recognize that 48.1% of women obtained their PhD degree in 2018, there persists a low level of female participation in many academic fields, including STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) at all stages of the scientific career. Additionally, there are gender biases in accessing research funding ^{(European Commission, 2021)} . A comparable scenario is observed in Chile, where 43% of females earn a doctoral degree. Moreover, when taking into account solely STEM disciplines, 37% of that aggregate are women ^{(Chilean Ministry of Science and Technology, 2023)}. This divide is widening in the process of integrating into the research funding system ^{(Chilean Ministry of Science and Technology, 2022a)}. Gender biases exist in the assessment of applications that are not directly associated with conventional indicators of scientific productivity ^{(Wijnen et al., 2021)} .

In the 2000s, a study revealed that the participation rate of female scientists in public research funds averaged 20% (1988-2005) while their scientific productivity averaged 26% (1999-2002). Furthermore, the study identified a productivity gap for women between the ages of 30 and 40, with the females producing only half the publications as their male peers ^{(Rebufel, 2007)} . Based on these findings, affirmative actions were developed and implemented in various instruments for allocating public research funds ^{(Rebufel, 2009)}. At present, the disparity in female participation has been narrowing, with an average increase to 36% in female participation and 37% in scientific productivity ^{(Ministry of Science and Technology of Chile, 2022b)}. It is unclear whether the decline in the gap can be entirely attributed to the affirmative actions taken to aid women who have given birth during the assessment period of a proposal's scientific productivity ^{(Rebufel, 2009)}. This is due to the lack of continuous records of female researchers taking advantage of this benefit ^{(DIPRES, 2022)} and no assessment of its effectiveness ^{(Rebufel, 2018)}.

Despite the above, institutional efforts to address the gaps between men and women in the National Innovation System are recognized, such as: 1) the implementation of gender roundtables, institutional funds to address gender biases and carry out actions to resolve them (InES-Gender), where 28 universities are implementing this initiative; 2) the equal awarding of doctoral and master's scholarships; 3) the application of the blind curriculum in the selection process of individual research projects ^{(ANID, 2022b)}; and 4) Law no. 21.369, enacted on September 15, 2021, which regulates sexual harassment, violence and gender discrimination in higher education ^{(Biblioteca Nacional del Congreso de Chile, 2021)}, achieved through the efforts of feminist movements in academia. The effects of the results of all these initiatives can only be evaluated in the medium term.

In an effort to bridge gender gaps in research participation, various factors hindering the inclusion of women and men in the system have been identified in the international literature. The study proposes a methodology to identify factors that manifest from the start of a scientific career. This involves cross-referencing data on young PhD graduates with public fund awards for research initiation. Everyone will be isolated using a unique ID and segregated by sex.

This intersection offers the opportunity to analyze the defining traits of the young individuals who receive or are denied access to the funds that facilitate the onset of their scientific careers. It also aims to identify the factors that impact their integration into this system. The present inquiry is solely quantitative and pertains exclusively to the management of public policy. It does not take into account gender imbalances and inherent biases present within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), as discussed by various authors on a national and international level ^{(Baeza and Lamadrid, 2019}; ^{Jabbaz et al., 2019}; ^{Orellana, 2020}; ^{Eren, 2020}; ^{Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2023)} . However, it is acknowledged that these biases directly affect the number of applications women scientists submit to these funds annually.

Theoretical Framework

The concept of gender is understood as a cultural construction that is not inherent to the biological sex with which the subject is born. The cultural construction results from how the subject is configured within his or her society, i.e., how he or she is socialized, how he or she is constructed according to his or her belonging to a society and what role he or she has to fulfill in it. It is argued that "being a woman" or adopting a "feminine gender identity" is not necessarily derived from the biological sex of being female. As such, it would be illegitimate to exclude women from tasks that are considered part of human endeavor.

However, why does this exclusion of women in certain human tasks occur? "Gender elaborations on women are always defined in terms of inferiority with respect to the masculine and always in a relationship of otherness where they are defined as 'the other' of them" ^{(Osborne and Molina, 2008: 150)} . In other words, there is a prevailing paradigm where women are in a state of subalternity before men, in which they are "the other" with respect to them, who are human par excellence and by default. This prevailing paradigm is patriarchy, understood as:

The presence of a macrostructure functioning as a hegemonic system and unevenly allocating resources between genders is apparent. It is impossible to comprehend the unjust acquisition of resources by men without acknowledging the existence of the patriarchal domination system that has persisted for centuries and systematically marginalized women ^{(Cobo, 2008: 100)}.

From this dominant paradigm, women in numerous and diverse domains are frequently subjected to men, leading to situations where they are deprived of the same privileges and opportunities as men based solely on their sex, which is viewed as a "disadvantage". This is due to their potential to bear children, which is considered an obstacle and distraction to their careers and productivity in general. According to the patriarchal view, women's potential for motherhood would diminish the quality of their labor force participation, leading them to be excluded from certain jobs and areas where they are fully capable of performing. This exclusion is widely recognized as a form of gender inequality:

Social inequality based on gender refers to the confinement of women to the domestic sphere and their marginalization from the public arena, and the unfair distribution of essential social resources such as income, employment, property, health, education, physical integrity, and personal safety. This encompasses the unequal allocation of resources, workload, and economic compensation for comparable work performed by males, among other things ^{(Lampert, 2014: 2)}

In the globalized context of academia, power inequality is reflected in institutions and structures related to science ^{(Borrell, 2015)} . These intra-actions manifest in horizontal and vertical segregation, as well as in the sexual division of labor. Many women are dedicated to teaching and administrative work, while men often focus on research and scientific productivity ^{(Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2023)} . This stance perpetuates academic identities that hinder the success of the global research economy because it associates female academics with a role that is influenced by academic culture, which in turn impacts their work, career paths, relationships with colleagues, and salaries ^{(Morley, 2016}; ^{Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2023)}.

Then, the lack of gender equality in science is not only a problem that affects women, but also it hinders the development of a country, which is why gender equity addresses how legal frameworks and public policies should be configured to allow such equality to become a reality. Gender equity is a means where programs must be designed to achieve equality ^{(Lampert, 2014)} .

Objective and research questions

This research investigates the integration of young researchers into their scientific careers by examining the supply of public funds to support initial research. We analyze regulations and statistical data to describe access requirements, researcher characteristics, and factors contributing to their inclusion in the public funding system. The study's questions are as follows:

Research methodology

This study focuses on examining the regulations and characteristics of young graduates, categorized by gender, who apply for public research funds, and the factors that impact the distribution of these funds for scientific research. The data sources were publicly available databases detailing the distribution of major funds supporting the inclusion of young PhDs, disaggregated by gender, in higher education institutions ^{(ANID, 2022a).}

Consequently, this is a quantitative research that in order to answer the questions posed the following strategies were implemented: 1) a documentary collection and exploration of the different instruments available for the insertion of young people and their initial development in the scientific career in academia; 2) a statistical collection of graduated scholarship holders for the period 2009-2021, disaggregated by sex; and 3) a statistical collection of application and awarding of funds for doctoral studies, insertion projects and start-up in the scientific career in academia for the period 2015-2022, disaggregated by sex.

Based on the collected materials, the areas of interest in regulations were organized while taking into account the characteristics of the instruments, access requirements, and potential gender interventions. Additionally, mixed databases were utilized with statistical figures to combine information on recent graduates with various funding allocations, each researcher being identified through a unique identifier and disaggregated according to sex. The outcome of the breeding experiment underwent structuring procedures to visualize pertinent variables, utilizing references from the international literature (^{Bornmann and Daniel, 2005}; ^{Van den Besselaar and Sandström, 2015}; ^{Jung et al., 2018}; ^{Farrokhyar et al., 2016}; ^{Lawson et al., 2021}) and identifying novel ones.

The aforementioned literature has identified variables relating to the year of attaining a doctoral degree, the location of the graduate program, whether public funding was obtained for the program, the duration of funding for degree attainment, and the gender of each researcher. The amount of financial awards provided by various public funds that assist in the placement of young researchers, the accreditation duration of the university where the researcher is placed (prestige), the research location within the country's region, the academic discipline of the research area, and the process for obtaining award funds to secure the placement.

After constructing the mixed databases, we adapted the methodology employed by ^{Hendrix (2009)} and ^{Souza et al. (2019)} to conduct hierarchical cluster analysis. This analysis implements an exploratory multivariate analysis technique that groups variables homogeneously based on one or more shared characteristics. Ward's method was employed to minimize the square of the Euclidean distance to the cluster averages ^{(Souza et al. 2019)}. Subsequently, this study examined the variables that contribute to the clustering of researchers into specific placement categories within the academic research funding system. Finally, a Discriminant Analysis was conducted to confirm the existence of resulting clusters. The study adhered to variables cited in international literature ^{(Bornmann and Daniel, 2005}; ^{Van den Besselaar and Sandström, 2015}; ^{Jung et al., 2018}; ^{Farrokhyar et al., 2016}; ^{Lawson et al., 2021)} , the analyzed factors included: funding system insertion, gender, doctoral scholarship status, location of doctoral studies (in Chile or abroad), time needed to complete their PhD, time to receive insertion funding, field of study, length of accreditation of host institution (prestige index in Chile), insertion region, and duration of awarded projects in months.

Likewise, to ensure predictability in the analysis of other methodologies, we have opted to utilize ^{Heckman's model (1979)} . This model was chosen since databases may have selection biases, as funding agencies do not fund research proposals randomly, but instead fund projects of the utmost quality and potential for producing articles with the highest citations ^{(Materia et al., 2015)} . Also, there may be differences in allocations between disciplines, keeping in mind the emphases of scientific policies ^{(Yan et al., 2018)} .

The Heckman model comprises two equations. The initial equation corresponds to Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), whereby the method employed by ^{Kabo and Mashour (2017)} was modified. The OLS dependent variable is the logarithm of the funding amount obtained by the grant. The second equation corresponds to a probit equation ^{(Wooldridge, 2015)} , utilizing a dichotomous dependent variable indicating the inclusion or exclusion of researchers in the public research funding system. The model's independent variables were consistent with those used in the previous analysis and cited in the literature. Additionally, the model included variables for the time of the individual's doctorate completion and the length of time it took for her to establish herself.

It is worth noting that scientific productivity variables, impact indicators, and publication citations were not taken into account in the application of these models. This is due to their endogeneity in the awarding of funds, as these factors are already incorporated in the evaluation structure of proposal selection (refer Table 1). Therefore, they cannot be considered independent with respect to the dependent variable.

Results and Discussion

Conclusions

The National Science, Technology, Knowledge, and Innovation Policy, the Gender Policy, and the Talent Plan, recently designed within the framework of the creation of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge, and Innovation, are embedded in a neoliberal model. These policies and the plan aim to encourage the generation of new knowledge, promote gender equality, and strengthen the critical mass, all of which are positively valued. However, this approach does not involve the development of new strategies or instruments for implementing an articulated design. Instead, it focuses on redesigning existing strategies and instruments that have been masculinized. Affirmative actions are incorporated to reduce the access gap between men and women in public start-up funds. However, these actions have not been sufficient to reduce the participation gap between male and female researchers in the public financing system.

Female participation in public funding for research start-ups is approximately 38%, according to the ^{Ministry of Science and Technology of Chile (2022b)}. However, when analyzing funds that contribute to the independence of male and female researchers, female participation gradually decreases (see Figure 1 and Table 2), indicating the presence of the leaky pipeline phenomenon. This phenomenon has also been identified by other authors, including ^{Borrell et al. (2015)} , ^{Eren (2020)} , and ^{Franco et al. (2021)} .

Public funding allocations include scientific productivity as an endogenous variable because of its relative weight in the evaluated proposal items. Currently, selection systems for women who have been mothers have become more flexible. However, the design of strategies and programs has not yet recognized that women's scientific productivity is lower than that of men, particularly in the 30-40 age range ^{(Rebufel, 2007}; ^{Ministry of Science and Technology of Chile, 2022a)}. This data is essential for redesigning the requirements for applying for funds, particularly if we aim to achieve a more equitable selection process between men and women. This is especially important if the allocation model remains competitive.

From a funding perspective, the academic initiation into research for scientific careers is implicit and lacks a clear escalation in the financing system. Additionally, it fails to meet the demand for young graduates, particularly women, seeking to enter the field. The design of this system employs a competitive logic that only partially addresses the factors affecting its award. It applies affirmative actions that consider scientific productivity during the period of childcare, but it does not take into account other bias factors that may be present in higher education institutions (HEIs).

The study revealed three profiles of young doctors, regardless of gender. These profiles include those who are part of the public funding system for academic research, with or without a state grant, and postgraduate scholarship recipients who have not yet been able to establish themselves. The number of individuals who were not hired raises concerns about the fate of these human resources who were trained and funded by the state. ^{González and Jiménez (2014)} , ^{Chiappa and Muñoz (2015)} , and ^{Nerad (2011)} have all highlighted the issue of poor job placement at the international level.

The profiles of young researchers indicate a greater inclination towards obtaining doctoral studies at the national level rather than abroad. This tendency could lead to the creation of networks that facilitate the initial integration of young researchers in their home country. Additionally, the profiles reveal a gender imbalance in the participation of women across various disciplines, particularly in STEM fields.

In the profiles of young researchers, variables such as the place of training, institutional accreditation, and discipline contribute to the insertion of men. These variables are tacitly incorporated into the selection processes, as confirmed by various authors, including ^{Van den Besselaar and Sandström (2015)} and ^{Way et al. (2019)} . In addition to the characteristics mentioned above, there are other statistically significant factors that affect the allocation of resources. For instance, female researchers take longer to enter the competitive funding system compared to their male counterparts. Furthermore, the time it takes for women to obtain a doctorate also affects their ability to obtain public resources for research.

Both methods revealed that the factor of time has a direct impact on female researchers, hindering equitable access. This leads to the conclusion that the scientific development milestones achieved by women and men researchers differ in this model. These findings prompt us to consider new designs with gender equity to address these differences.

Consequently, based on the results obtained in this research, decision makers are urged to consider: 1) the design of a scientific policy oriented towards the development of a scientific career, focused on the differences between women and men researchers, which also considers the differences in the time required of each one and orders in a scalar way the funding system for start-up research; 2) a redesign of affirmative actions with a view to eliminating access barriers such as seniority in obtaining the degree, especially considering that the time of insertion in the system is longer in women; 3) a quota policy in the selection processes, as applied by various European agencies ^{(European Commission, 2021)} ; 4) the application of parity evaluation panels, although this requires the application of training to promote gender equality in these panels ^{(European Commission, 2021)}; 5) the recognition that scientific productivity differs between men and women, and to work on this fact for the redesign of requirements in the case of continuing with a competitive model; 6) the consideration of incompatibilities to avoid duplication in the applications and not saturate the evaluation systems; 7) the management of an increase in public resources to allocate more funds for research insertion and initiation, taking the recommendation of ^{Yan et al. (2018)} to focus the allocation on researchers without active financial support, instead of allocating to those with multiple financial supports; 8) the updated registry of those who avail themselves of the affirmative actions offered in the different funding instruments to evaluate their effect and eventually redesign, if this effect does not turn out to be as expected; 9) the inquiry of those PhDs (men and women) who fail to insert themselves in this system to know in what sphere they make their contribution to society; and 10) the design of professional doctoral programs that aim at a labor field other than the academy.

Finally, this research has limitations because it does not provide a narrative of young men and women about their processes of insertion in the research. It only relies on secondary information. To address this limitation, further research will be conducted, particularly on those men and women with doctoral degrees who have repeatedly applied but have not received public funds for research or insertion in a unit with academic hierarchy.

Other questions arise, such as: Are there other factors that hinder the allocation of resources? What is the employment status of the young people who have obtained funding? Have these doctors who were inserted continued to advance in this system of public funds? What level of scientific productivity is required to receive insertion funds, by discipline? All of these questions are based on the need for a scientific career design that is focused on the researcher. To achieve this, it is necessary to build a model from the state that generates order in the funding system and creates equal opportunities for men and women who have a vocation for generating new knowledge.