Claims

Grant award procedures have historically favoured men, with women winning fewer and lower value grants

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Grant award procedures have historically favoured men, with women winning fewer and lower value grants. → Kucirkova 2023

Evidence

Kucirkova 2023

Kucirkova, N. (2023). Commentary on Highly Successful Female Educational Psychologists: Equity and Intersectionality in Success Definitions. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09727-3

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The commentary states, citing Bornmann, Mutz and Daniel (2007), that "grant award procedures have historically favoured men, with women winning fewer and lower value grants". No effect size is printed in the commentary.

"grant award procedures have historically favoured men, with women winning fewer and lower value grants (Bornmann, Mutz, & Daniel, 2007)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id grant-awards-historically-favoured-men
title Grant award procedures have historically favoured men, with women winning fewer and lower value grants
description Grant award procedures have historically favoured men, with women winning fewer and lower value grants
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2023
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — kucirkova-2023

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.