Read on Twitterhttps://epsrc.ukri.org/files/aboutus/epsrcunderstandingourportfolio-agenderperspectivereport/
We& #39;ve">https://epsrc.ukri.org/files/abo... been waiting for this, for a long time. I want to think I made a small contribution to this
What are the findings? (1/)
In a nutshell 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten">
But let& #39;s look at some numbers (2/)
But let& #39;s look at some numbers (2/)
But let& #39;s look at some numbers (2/)" title="In a nutshell https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten">But let& #39;s look at some numbers (2/)" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
There is finally recognition that, although success rates are similar, award values are less.
In many cases, much less (3/)
In many cases, much less (3/)
The discrepancy is very large, in some cases (4/)
Look at these numbers: Men get more value (£££) for the same amount of work, than women. By number, success rates look similar and *yet* men get awarded A LOT MORE p/single application than women.
This is the difference that makes or destroys careers (5/)
This is the difference that makes or destroys careers (5/)
Evidence of the & #39;Big Grants Club& #39;. Look at the data and judge by yourself: For applications up to £1.5 M things don& #39;t look too bad but what happens just after: the discrepancy is *huge*. Why? Is it because women write bad applications? Do they like to work the same for less? (6/)
"women [...] consistently apply for smaller value grants"
"[women] appear to be less likely to be awarded [large] grants"
Now, look at page 8 of the report : "women [...] consistently apply for smaller value grants""[women] appear to be less likely to be awarded [large] grants" https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤯" title="Explodierender Kopf" aria-label="Emoji: Explodierender Kopf"> (7/)" title="https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="📢" title="Lautsprecheranlage" aria-label="Emoji: Lautsprecheranlage">Now, look at page 8 of the report : "women [...] consistently apply for smaller value grants""[women] appear to be less likely to be awarded [large] grants" https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤯" title="Explodierender Kopf" aria-label="Emoji: Explodierender Kopf"> (7/)" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
It actually says, on page 9:
"Over the period, men apply for on average £95K per grant more than women."
-And by the look of things, they get them- (8/)
"Over the period, men apply for on average £95K per grant more than women."
-And by the look of things, they get them- (8/)
The bit in blue here is something that I, personally, don& #39;t quite understand: Men get more value for their research (in equipment) but women pay more overheads? (9/)
These are the key findings: it is finally acknowledged that women get less £££ for their effort. I& #39;ll let you read the rest (10/)
I think it is very important that @EPSRC has finally presented this analysis to the research community. It confirms what many of us knew: there seems to be structural bias in the system and women get less money for the same amount of work (11/)
We can now start a dialogue and we can try to think of solutions to address this issue. It is definitely a step in the right direction, and a welcome development. We& #39;ve been requesting this for a long time and I& #39;d like to thank @tigerinstemm for their efforts on this (12/12)
