enhancing excellence

7/28/2019 Enhancing Excellence

1/52


2/52

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Directorate B European Research AreaUnit B.6 Ethics and Gender: Sector B6.2 - Gender

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

E-mail: [email protected]


3/52

Structural change

in research institutions:

Enhancing excellence, gender equality and efficiency

in research and innovation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

2012 EUR 24905 ENEnhancing excellence, gender equality and efciency

in research and innovation


4/52

2

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use

which might be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect

the views of the European Commission.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-79-22394-5

doi 10.2777/37288

European Union, 2012

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

printed on elemental chlorine-free bleached paper (ecf)

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answersto your questions about the European Union

Freephone number(*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*)Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed


5/52

3

Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................................. 6

Glossary.................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10

Chapter 1: Setting the scene and the objectives............................................ 121.1 Why Europe needs more women in science and technology............................. 131.2 Progress so ar in legislation, participation and policy....................................... 131.3 Engaging research institutions in structural change .......................................... 141.4 Cost o no action ............................................................................................... 15

Chapter 2: Problems aced by research institutions ..................................... 182.1 Opaqueness in decision-making processes......................................................... 192.2 Institutional practices inhibiting career opportunities ....................................... 202.3 Unconscious bias in assessing excellence ........................................................... 202.4 Wasted opportunities and cognitive errors in knowledge,

technology and innovation ................................................................................ 212.5 Employment policies and practices.................................................................... 22

Chapter 3: Essential elements o structural change ..................................... 263.1 Knowing the institution..................................................................................... 273.2 Securing top-level support................................................................................. 27

3.3 Generating eective management practices....................................................... 28Chapter 4: Solutions: Bringing about structural change ............................ 30

4.1 Making decision-making transparent ................................................................ 314.2 Removing unconscious bias rom institutional practices.................................... 324.3 Promoting excellence through diversity............................................................. 324.4 Improving research by integrating a gender perspective .................................... 334.5 Modernising human resources management and the working environment ..... 34

ANNEX Gender Equality Strategy: Key steps or actorsat the EU, national and institutional level....................................................... 42


6/52

4


7/52

5

Innovation Union fagship initiative. Te Commissionhas just launched an open consultation on the best way ocreating a truly unied European Research Area where wecan exploit our research potential including the potentialo both men and women researchers to the ullest. Andlater this year, the Commission will present its proposalor Horizon 2020 which will be the next-generationprogramme or supporting research and innovation.

Te report rightly stresses that progress in integratinggender in research and innovation relies on rm andsustained top-level commitment. It is my wish that readingthis report will inspire decision-makers and researchersalike the men and women who are engaged in making theInnovation Union a success.

Mire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN

Just over a year ago, in October 2010, the EuropeanCommission presented its most ambitious policy orstimulating research and innovation to date - the

Innovation Union fagship initiative. Tis initiative isone o the cornerstones o the Europe 2020 Strategyto stimulate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth inEurope. Boosting innovation means increasing the numbero researchers in Europe by at least one million i we areto remain competitive and build on our strengths. We alsoneed to make sure that people starting research careersnd it attractive to stay in science. Tis is especially trueor women: while 45% o doctorates are awarded to emalestudents, only 30% o active researchers and 18% o ullproessors are women.

A group o high level experts has been brought together inorder to investigate the reasons behind existing trends. Tisis their report. Te experts have reviewed a large body oevidence, have identied where the problems lie, and haveclearly ormulated the conditions needed to remedy a wasteo talent which has already lasted too long. Te report arguesthat gender-aware management o universities and researchorganisations would have a positive impact on policiesand practices in the recruitment, promotion and retentiono both women and men, thus ultimately beneting the

very quality o research. Tere is no trade-of to look orbetween promoting gender equality and excellence inresearch. Instead we can achieve a win-win situation or allresearchers, their institutions, and or Europe. We need toaddress these issues, not only or the sake o airness andequality, but or the sake o science and research itsel weneed to build our research capacity in Europe.

Tis report on Structural Change in Research Institutionscomes at a critical moment or the implementation o the

Foreword


8/52

6

Te key role given to research and innovation in strivingtowards a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth inEurope means that the EU should make ull use o its

human capital thereby involving both men and women.Evidence shows that research perormance is limited by theperpetuation o direct and indirect sex discrimination andthat promoting gender equality at all levels contributes toachieving excellence and efciency.

Initiatives to promote gender equality in research have beendeveloped in Europe and the US over a number o years. Teocus was initially on specic programmes to help womenpursue scientic careers. However, those programmes haveproved to be insufcient to increase the number o womenin science, particularly in positions o responsibility, and havenot helped to address the structural barriers contributing tothe well known leaky pipeline phenomenon.

Tis has led to a shit in ocus towards addressing thestructural transormation o institutions, using a systemic,comprehensive and sustainable approach. Te US has ledthe way with the ADVANCE programme, unded by theNational Science Foundation. Some initiatives have also beentaken in Europe, but the scale o these needs to be increased.

Based on recent scientic ndings and research practices,this report analyses the progress made so ar in legislation,participation and policy, describes the problems remaining

or research institutions in Europe and stresses the role thatEU policy-makers, science institutions and gatekeepers oexcellence must play in order to advance gender equality in

research and innovation.

Five main problems aced by research institutions areidentied. Te rst is opaqueness in decision-making:despite signicant progress in Europe, lack o transparencycontinues to aect structures and processes, with theassociated phenomenon o old boys networks andpatronage. Evidence suggest that women and men wouldboth benet rom a system where there is clarity o whatis required rom researchers, inormation is reely available,and clear criteria are used in decision making.

A second set o problems relate to institutional practiceswhich, while appearing to be neutral, do have negativeeects on the career opportunities o women. Cognitiveerrors in assessing merit, suitability or leadership, orevaluation o perormance are embedded in institutionalpractices, oten despite good intentions and a commitmentto airness.

Tirdly, a number o studies have demonstrated theconsiderable eect o unconscious gender bias in what isthe hallmark o science: the assessment o excellence andparticularly the process o peer review. Te practice oevaluating excellence oten conceals gender bias.

Executive

Summary


9/52

Executive Summary

7

undertaking structural change: knowing the institution, bydeveloping statistics and indicators, so that the situation oeach institution becomes widely known and acknowledged;

getting top level support rom persons in positions oresponsibility; generating eective management practices,by ensuring gender expertise and by raising awareness.

While a lead is required rom the EU and its MemberStates, a wider range o actors also need to play an activerole in modernizing the way in which R&I is conducted inEurope. Some o the most successul innovators are pavingthe way but others are still lagging behind. Universitiesand research institutions, unding bodies and some learnedsocieties still operate with the stereotypical gender regimeo a ull time breadwinning man and a emale secondearner. Tis report also proposes key recommendations tohelp dierent types o actors to improve their perormance.

Fourth, gender inequality generates wasted opportunitiesand cognitive errors in knowledge, technology andinnovation. Research has shown that gender bias has

important implications or the content o science itsel.Te integration o sex and gender analysis in the researchcontent increases the quality o research and improves theacceptance o innovation in the market.

Finally, despite the many years o European legislationon equal opportunities, statistics show that EU MemberStates still have a gender pay gap, and gender continues tobe a structuring actor in the workplace, also in research.

Work is organized in gendered ways, which makes itdifcult or talented women to reconcile work and amily;harassment, concentration o power, and the guru/acolytesmodel o power relations are also actors aecting womennegatively.

Tis report proposes structural change in scienceinstitutions as the means to address each o these ve setso problems, so that decision making is more transparent,unconscious bias is removed rom institutional practices,human resources management is modernized, excellence ispromoted through diversity, and research and innovationare improved by the integration o a gender perspective.

In addition, it signals three essential elements whichshould be considered as a prerequisite by all organisations


10/52

8

Gender bias is the oten unintentional and implicitdierentiation between men and women by placing onegender in a hierarchical position relative to the otherin a certain context, as a result o stereotypical imageso masculinity and emininity. It inuences both theparticipation o men and women in research (hence the

underrepresentation o women) and the validity o research.An example o gender bias in research is research thatocuses on the experience and point o view o either menor women, while presenting the results as universally valid

Gender audits are evaluations that monitor and evaluatethe implementation o gender issues into procedures.Unlike regular audits, they are based on sel-assessments ohow gender issues are addressed in internal organizationalprocesses, and not on external evaluation

Gender impact assessments provide help or policymakersin incorporating a gender perspective into policies thattake account o the dierent needs, characteristics andbehaviours o the users at whom they are aimed

Gender proofngis a check carried out on a policy proposalto ensure that any potential gender discriminatory eectsarising rom that policy have been avoided and that genderequality is promoted3

Gender analysis is the process o considering the impactthat a development programme or project may have on

women / girls and men / boys, and on the economic andsocial relationships between them4

AcronymsERA European Research Area

R&I Research & Innovation (including technicaldevelopment

NSF National Science Foundation (US)

SEM Science, technology, engineering andmathematics

Glossary1

Sexreers to the biologically determined characteristicso men and women in terms o reproductive organsand unctions based on chromosomal complement andphysiology. As such, sex is globally understood as theclassication o living things as male or emale

Genderreers to the social construction o women and men,o emininity and masculinity, which varies in time andplace, and between cultures. Te notion o gender appearedin the seventies and was put orward by eminist theorists

who challenged the secondary position o women in society.It departs rom the notion o sex to signal that biologyor anatomy is not a destiny. It is important to distinguishclearly between gender and sex. Tese terms are oten usedinterchangeably while they are conceptually distinctive

Equal opportunityindicates the absence o barriers

to economic, political and social participation on thegrounds o sex. Such barriers are oten indirect, difcultto discern and caused by structural phenomena and socialrepresentations that have proved particularly resistant tochange. Equal opportunities, which is ounded on therationale that a whole range o actions are necessary toredress deep-seated sex and gender-based inequities, shouldbe distinguished rom equal treatment, which merelyimplies avoiding direct discrimination

Gender mainstreamingis the systematic integration o therespective situations, priorities and needs o women andmen in all mainstream policies with a view to promotingequality between women and men2

In gender-sensitive research, gender is consistently takeninto account throughout the research cycle

Gender-specifc research ocuses on gender itsel asa subject matter

Gender-blind research does not take gender into account,being based on the oten incorrect assumption that possibledierences between men and women are not relevant orthe research at hand


11/52

9

Glossary

Endnotes

1 Denitions rom Gender oolkit: http://www.yellowwindow.be/genderinresearch/downloads/YW2009_GenderoolKit_Module1.pdunless otherwise indicated

2 http://www.omdmni.gov.uk/index/equality/gender-equality/gender-vocabulary.htm#genderproong

3

http://www.omdmni.gov.uk/index/equality/gender-equality/gender-vocabulary.htm#genderproong 4 http://www.acil.com.au/glossary.htm


12/52

10

With the 7th Framework Programme in research, theEuropean Commissions activities on women in science

changed character: rom women scientists, the ocus movedto the institutionsthat employ them in order to addressgender management issues and work towards a betterrepresentation and retention o women at all levelso their scientic careers. Tis is known as StructuralChange.

In February 2011 the European Commission convenedthe Expert Group on Structural Change to assist theCommission in identiying the most appropriate means toreinorce structural change activities in cooperation withEU Member and Associated countries, as requested by theEU Competitiveness Council in May 2010. Te Group wastasked to summarise its work in a report which would eedinto the discussions on possible recommendations to theMember States.

Tis Report titled Structural Change in ResearchInstitutions: Enhancing excellence, gender equality and

efciency in research and innovation reects the mandateor the Group which required a) Problem analysis, b)Dening the objectives, c) Examining options andimpact, d) Planning o uture work. Tereore, Chapter1 sets the scene or the issue o structural change anddescribes the objectives. Chapter 2 details the problems

Introduction

aced by universities and research institutions due totheir institutional practices. Chapter 3 brings to the ore

the essential elements o structural change: knowing theinstitution, securing top-level support and generatingeective management practices. Solutions to the problemsdescribed in Chapter 2 are detailed in Chapter 4. TeGroups recommendations orm the Annex o theReport expressed as a gender equality strategy, with keysteps or actors at the EU, national and institutional level.

Te Expert Group on Structural Change consisted o 8members:

Ines Sanchez de Madariaga(Chair) is Director o theWomen and Science Unit, Cabinet o the Spanish Ministero Science and Innovation, and Proessor o city planning atthe Madrid School o Architecture. Ex-Fulbright grantee,she has been Visiting Scholar at Columbia University, NY,the London School o Economics and Political Science,and the School o Architecture Bauhaus-Weimar.

iia Raudma(Rapporteur) works or the EstonianMinistry o Education and Research. She was Estoniasrst representative in the European Commissions HelsinkiGroup on Women in Science, and rapporteur or theCommissions reportMapping the Maze: Getting morewomen to the top in research. As seconded national expert to


13/52

11

the Commission, she co-authored the report Stocktaking 10Years o Women in Science Policy by the European Commission

1999-2009.

Tomas Eichenbergeris head o the Ofce or FacultyAairs at EH Zurich. His expertise lies in the area oaculty hiring on an international scale, dual career aspects,mobility o researchers and their amilies and the careerdevelopment o young researchers.

Alice Hogan brings expertise and experience ontransorming academic institutions to advance excellencethrough greater participation o women. As a ProgramDirector at the U.S. National Science Foundation, shechaired the design and the implementation committeescharged with created new approaches to enhancing theadvancement and ull participation o women in academicscience. She served as the rst Program Director o the

ADVANCE Program, and now serves as a consultant touniversities seeking institutional transormation.

Elizabeth Pollitzerwas a lecturer and researcher in thearea o Human Computer Interaction. She is director oPortia Ltd, a not-or-prot organization promoting the roleo women in SEM through a range o multi-stakeholderprojects and support actions linking scientists, policymakers, gender research experts and other relevant actors.

eresa Rees is Director or Wales o the LeadershipFoundation or Higher Education and a Proessor in the

School o Social Sciences, Cardi University. She is a longterm expert adviser to the European Commission ongender mainstreaming and women and science. She wasmade a Commander o the order o the British Empire orservices to higher education and equal opportunities.

Martina Schraudnerstudied Biology and Biotechnologyat the echnical University o Munich. Since 2001 she hasled projects in strategic research planning at the Fraunhoerheadquarters, and since 2008 she is also Proessor oGender and Diversity in Organisations at the Institute orMachine ools and Factory Management at the echnicalUniversity o Berlin.

Sophie Sergentis a specialist in labour and employmentlaw and has worked or over 15 years in the HumanResources Department at Iremer, the French ResearchInstitute or the exploitation o the Sea. As deputy director,in charge o researcher/ engineer career development,she initiated the Institutes commitment toa voluntary approach towards proessional equality betweenmen and women (ormalized agreement). Currently inthe Department or European Aairs, she is a member othe Parity Network under the supervision o the FrenchMinistry o Research.


14/52


15/52

Setting the scene and the objectives

13

recognize the importance o gender; and increasingthe international competitiveness o Europes research

workorce in general.2

Promoting gender equality will also allow industry to

benet rom a wider talent pool o human resources. Itassists in the development o new economic opportunitiesby widening the experiences and expertise brought tocreating innovation and to identiying and understandingnew markets3. More women among scientic decisionmakers would enhance the robustness o the decisionsmade due to an increase in the diversity o viewpoints4.Diversity also plays a role in producing goods and servicesinormed by a broad and in-depth knowledge o the societyor which they are prepared. Tis is already acknowledgednot just in the US, but by many leading European and

international R&I companies who have ocused attentionon ensuring that they recruit, retain and promote the besttalent. Diversity o knowledge and social capital in teams is

vital to produce new ideas5.

It is also an issue o real excellence in research. A betterintegration o the gender perspective in research alongsidea better inclusion o women in the R&I workorce willimprove the quality, objectivity and relevance o knowledge,technology and innovation or the benet o all memberso society. Trough a better consideration o the sex and

gender variables throughout the research process, it willreduce bias and identiy gaps and missed opportunities.

A system which does not provide equal possibilities orproessional development to men and women is not gettingthe best value rom the available talent. As a result it cannotproduce the best results.

Te ull participation o women in science and technologywill also contribute to social progress. Ensuring eectiveequality o opportunities between men and women inscience and technology is obviously an issue o justice.Equality between men and women is one o the EuropeanUnions ounding principles. Research ndings consistentlydemonstrate that those countries which score highly onequality indicators are those which are more successul in

wellbeing, social cohesion and integration. Te costs oinequality include unemployment, crime, and poor health6 .

1.2 Progress so ar in legislation,participation and policy

Since 1957 and the reaty o Rome, the principleo equality between women and men has ormed anessential part o European Unions political, social andeconomic development. Te principle o equal pay orequal work is also part o the reaty o Rome. Te reaty

1.1 Why Europe needs morewomen in science andtechnology

In the European Union, while mens and womens accessto science in schools and universities has improved

immeasurably, the same cannot be said or womensaccess to scientic careers.Women account today oralmost 60% o university degrees in Europe, and theyachieve excellent grades, better on average than theirmale counterparts. However, their presence at the top oscientic and academic careers is scarce. Only 18% o ullproessors in Europe are women; 13% o heads o highereducation institutions and 22% o board members inresearch decision-making.1 Womens skills, knowledge andqualications are grossly underused in the labour market.

Te low numbers o women in decision making positionsthroughout the science and technology system is a wasteo talent that European economies cannot aord. Nor canEurope aord to waste the proessional contributions oso many o its best- prepared citizens, particularly in thepresent context o the global economic recession and theemerging global competitors in Asia and Latin America.

Te Grand Challenges acing Europe (including climatechange and demography) require the ull participation o

women in its science and technology system i it wants todevelop suitable solutions or all its citizens and does not

want to continue losing ground in the new economic worldorder.

Te global recession has ocused attention on theingredients required or robust sustainable economies.It is widely acknowledged that research and innovation(R&I) are the main drivers o a prosperous economy. Intodays global R&I market place, Europe has to compete

with other regions where highly educated talent pools andmarkets or innovation exist, such as Singapore, China,India, Latin America, South Korea and the US. Manycorporations are undertaking organizational change otheir science and technology systems to adapt to these newconditions and have already established a presence in theseregions in order to move their research and technology

work closer to where scientic talent and marketopportunities lie.

In this context, Europe needs to get the best out o itsR&I systems and there is an urgent need to advance ongender equality in science. Te mainstreaming o genderin the scientic system and in the R&I marketplace oersan important competitive advantage or strengthening thescientic endeavour through more eective deploymento the emale human capital; creating new markets that


16/52


14

have sought to address the lack o women in their sciencedepartments, as students and as sta. Tere are signicant

variations in the extent to which the relative lack owomen in some SEM subjects and in senior positionsin the academy is recognised as a problem in dierent

countries18

. Tere are dierences too in how successulinitiatives designed to address the issue have been. It is notalways equality policies that have the most eect; moretransparency in hiring can make a dierence.

Despite growing recognition o the gender imbalancein science, and the development o various projectsand policies in Member States and their universitiesand research institutions, progress has been slow. Teorganization o R&I in Europe still relies on maleand emale stereotypes to the disadvantage o science,

technology and the economy.19 In addition, the lack o rolemodels o women in senior positions has had a negativeimpact on high-level aspirations o other women. Teoutcome is a waste o talent, missed opportunities orscientic advancement and innovation, and a lack o clarityo what is meant by scientic excellence.20

Gender mainstreaming has been one o the major strategiesadopted by the European Union and the Member Statesor achieving gender equality (and as a social policy strategyit is considered a success). However, in science it is a more

recent strategy that has not yet been embraced widelyin universities or research institutions. Consequently, inrelation to the problem o the under-representation andunder-promotion o women in science, it has not producedthe hoped-or results.

Similar problems to those existing in Europe havebeen identied in the US, where the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) has invested substantially in the

ADVANCE Programme21 in supporting universities toundertake institutional transormation to enhance theparticipation o women in science. Sex disaggregatedstatistics on the hiring o aculty, the size o their paycheques, and even the size o their laboratories havedemonstrated that gender is a key organizing principlein academia. Investment in this process through the

ADVANCE Programme reects the value NSF attaches toaddressing structural issues at US universities.

1.3 Engaging research institutionsin structural change

Structural change in universities and research institutionsmeans making them more gender-aware, therebymodernising their organizational culture. Tis hasimportant implications or equal opportunities, ull use o

o Amsterdam includes the provision o eliminatinginequalities and promoting equality between womenand men into all its activities7 (also known as gendermainstreaming). Legislation has been developed to ensureequal opportunities and treatment or women and men on

the elds o employment, working conditions and socialsecurity. In Europe, there has been signicant progressin equal opportunities in the eld o education 58%o university graduates and 45% o PhD graduates are

women8. European womens increased intellectual andsocial capital, and higher career aspirations, would providean important competitive advantage in internationalmarkets or innovation and technology.

Te Commissions commitment to gender equality wasurther conrmed in its Strategy or Equality between women

and men 2010-20159, which includes amongst its priorityareas equal economic independence or women and men,equal pay or work o equal value and equality in decision-making. In 2010, the EU Competitiveness Council stressedthe need to step up support to structural change or themodernization o universities and research institutions,and to integrate gender issues into research as a resource tocreate new knowledge and stimulate innovation10.

Current understanding o the role o gender in sciencehas evolved over time rom the early and oppositional

associations o gender with women and men to gender asan organizing principle or both institutions and scienticdisciplines, then urther to gender as biological and socialactors aecting research itsel. Under the leadership othe European Commissions DG Research (marked by thepublication in 2001 o the EAN report11), around 20 keyreports have been produced over the last 10 years in supporto gender equality policies12.

Sufcient research evidence and expertise is now availableacross Europe to address many o the adverse eects o thegender imbalance problem in order to enhance excellenceo scientic knowledge making and procedures related toscientic institutions. Tere is also evidence indicating thatintegrating a gender perspective in research can improve itsrelevance and quality.13

Many projects have been designed to increase interestamong women and girls in specic elds o science,technology, engineering and mathematics (SEM)14.Over the years, the EU has unded numerous projects inthe eld o women in science, and, in particular, and morerecently, concerning structural change15 (e.g. genSE ongender action plans in science16, and GENDERA on bestpractices17). Many universities and research institutions


17/52


15

4) Increased societal distrust o, and reduced support or,science and its institutions

Te core o the EU strategy or economic and socialdevelopment is innovation in research and in taking

ideas to markets. Te Grand Challenges o the EU 2020Strategy (i.e. energy, climate change, aging, health) havea strong gender dimension, which, i ignored, can resultin missed opportunities or innovation in research and indevelopment o markets. Not including gender perspectivesin addressing the core EU2020 themes means that chancesor increasing the broad acceptance o new technologies

within Europe will be lost. Without strengthening theinclusion o women and integrating the gender dimension

within the Innovation Union, its aims to deliver higherlevels o employment, productivity and social cohesion,

and to strengthen Europes knowledge base, are simply notachievable.

Securing the supply o scientic expertise in Europe isa challenge or the European Research Area. Currentpractices such as neglecting the development otranserable skills o European R&I human resourcescapacity or not ully utilizing the trained talent alreadyavailable (in particular, women) are not sustainable in thelonger term, and will threaten European competitivenessinternationally. Inaction will lead to a loss o highly

educated and trained women scientists who may chooseother careers or move to other global regions27. It will alsoorce an even greater rate o transer o industrial R&Iunctions rom Europe to regions where there are ready-made markets and talent pools.

Tere is research evidence that shows how the integrationo gender analysis in research processes can lead toinnovation28. Ignoring how sex and gender bias limitcreativity and diminish excellence in research will createbarriers to the ull realization o the benets that societyexpects rom its investment in science and engineering.

Te EU and Member States aspirations or economicand societal development enabled through R&I canonly be realized through novel research planning, designand implementation, where the gender perspective is anessential element. Sufcient examples and methods or thedeployment o gender analysis in R&I are available. Notutilizing this knowledge will perpetuate gender biases inthe practices and content o science, which have alreadybeen shown to impact negatively on scientic quality29.

talent, appeal o scientic careers, and quality o scienticresearch.22 It implies systemic, integrated, long termapproaches rather than piecemeal short term measures.

Following on rom the 10th anniversary o the launching o

its gender policies in science (the Women and Science Unitin DG Research and the Helsinki Group23 were created in1999), the European Commission continues to promotethe structural transormation o science institutions inorder to become a world leader in science and technology.

o this end, and ollowing the explicit call or thereinorcement o the structural change programme by theEU Council24, the European Commission is reecting upona recommendation to the EU Member States. Tis is alsoin tune with the recent agreement on women in science,engineering and technology (SE) adopted by the UN

in March 2011 that reerred to mainstreaming a genderperspective into science, technology and innovation policiesand programmes.25

Tere is scope or the European Commission and theMember States to step up their commitment to genderequality in research institutions. By enhancing its policyinitiatives, and investing in a well unded programmelike ADVANCE in the new European FrameworkProgramme or research and innovation (Horizon 2020),the EU has the chance to capitalize on the investments

made over the last twelve years26, and to become a worldleader in R&I.

Promoting organizational and cultural change impliesthat the academic administration o universities, researchinstitutions and unding bodies remove obstacles to

womens proessional careers. Action at institutional level isrequired to ensure a greater presence o women in scienceand technology, particularly at the top o scientic careers.

Tis can only be achieved in the ramework o strengthenedEU and national government policies and investmentson gender equality, eectiveness o equality legislationsthroughout Europe, as well as incentives or culturalchanges. Greater gender equality in science will ultimatelyalso help the EU to compete on an equal ooting with

world economic powers.

1.4 Cost o no actionTere are our consequences that are o concern:

1) Danger o awed research or diminished relevance oresults

2) Missing innovation and market opportunities3) Unullled use o human capital (women scientists) in

a competitive global R&I economy


18/52


16

12 summarised in Stocktaking 10 years o Women in Science policyby the European Commission 1999-2009

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pd_06/stocktaking-10-years-o-women-in-science-book_en.pd

13 Gender and Excellence in the Making, 2004 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pd/bias_brochure_nal_en.pdSee also Te Gender Challenge in Research Funding http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pd/bias_brochure_nal_en.pd

14 SEM is seen as a major driver o innovation 15 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.

cm?useaction=public.topic&id=1284&lang=1 16 See Box 4.2

17 http://www.gendera.eu/18 E.g. German concern: Looking at the numbers o students in

electrical engineering, the proportion o women is 11 % and inmechanical engineering it is 18 % we will only be able to winmore women or these proessions, and or our industry, i wehelp them reconcile amily and work.Gabriele Sons, DirectorGeneral Gesamtmetall (umbrella association o regionalemployers associations in the German metal and electricalindustries)

19 Report by the European Commissions High Level Groupon Human Resources in Science and echnology: Europesimply cannot reach the level o SE resources needed

or its development without nding ways to remove itsanachronistic science gender imbalance. http://ec.europa.eu/research/conerences/2004/scipro/pd/nal_en.pd Europe

Endnotes

1 She Figures 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pd_06/she_gures_2009_en.pd

2

A nations competitiveness depends signicantly on whetherand how it educates and utilizes its emale talent. Tat is, togive women the same rights, responsibilities and opportunitiesas men.World Economic Forum: Global Gender Gap Report 2010

3 Women now drive the world economy. ... women representa growth market bigger than China and India combinedmore than twice as big, in act. Given those numbers, it wouldbe oolish to ignore or underestimate the emale consumer.

And yet many companies do just that, even ones that arecondent they have a winning strategy when it comes to

women. Michael J. Silverstein and Kate Sayer, Te FemaleEconomy, Harvard Business Review, September 2009

4 NY imes: Why we need women in science:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/europe/06iht-science.html?pagewanted=all 5 March 2010

5 http://www.genderinscience.org.uk/consensus.report.html6 Wilson, R and Pickett, K (2009) Te Spirit Level: Why more

equal societies almost always do betterLondon: Penguin 7 Article 8, reaty on the Functioning o the European Union 8 She Figures 2009 the statistical reerence year is 2006 9 COM(2010)491 10 3016th EU Council (Competitiveness) meeting -

Conclusions concerning various issues related to thedevelopment o the European Research Area, 26 May 2010

11

Promoting Excellence through Mainstreaming GenderEquality: tp://tp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/docs/g_wo_etan_en_200101.pd


19/52


17

methods detect only 30% o cancer cases in women. Bridgingthe Gender Gap: Combined echnologies Oer Promise or

Detecting Colon Cancer in Women,ScienceDailyJuly 20, 2010, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100719163241.htm

29 Editors o peer-reviewed journals can require analysis o sexand gender eects when selecting papers or publication.

Te US Journal o the National Cancer Institute does itas a matter o commitment to sound, scientic research:where appropriate, clinical and epidemiological studiesshould be analysed to see i there is an eect o sex or any othe major ethnic groups. I there is no eect, it should be sostated in ResultsWomen in Science and Medicine, Te Lancet, Volume 377, Issue9768, Page 811, 5 March 2011

Simone Buitendijk, Daniela Corda, Anders Flodstrm, AnitaHoldcrot, Jackie Hunter, Elizabeth Pollitzer, eresa Rees,Curt Rice, Londa Schiebinger, Martina Schraudner, KarenSjrup, Rol arrach

needs more scientists! conerence, Brussels, 2 April 2004 20 Responses to the question What actions should be taken at

EU level to urther strengthen the role o women in science andinnovation? in the European CommissionsGreen Paper -From Challenges to Opportunities: owards a CommonStrategic Framework or EU Research and Innovationunding emphasized the importance o the gender dimensionin both the content and the processes in research (includingthe issue o gender balance).http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cm?pg=documents

21 see also Box 4.1 22 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.

cm?useaction=public.topic&id=1281 23 Group o national representatives ormed by the European

Commission in 1999 in order to place the women andscience debate on a policy ooting http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pd_06/gender-and-research-beyond-2009_en.pd

24 3016th EU Council meeting - Conclusions concerningvarious issues related to the development o the EuropeanResearch Area, 26 May 2010.

25 United Nations E/CN.6/2011/L.6 Economic and SocialCouncil

26 Stocktaking Report: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pd_06/stocktaking-10-years-o-

women-in-science-book_en.pd27

What can be done to stop women leaving science? Te highcost o being a woman. New Scientist, 16 July 2011 28 Recognizing sex dierences: Common colon cancer screening


20/52


21/52

Problems faced by research institutions

19

Te problems aced by research institutions can thereorebe summarised as:

Opaqueness in decision-making processes Institutional practices inhibiting career opportunities

Unconscious bias in assessing excellence Wasted opportunities and cognitive errors2 in

knowledge, technology and innovation Employment policies and practices

2.1 Opaqueness in decision-making processes

In universities, research institutions and grantingagencies, the vast majority o crucial decision-makingprocesses were established at a time when the presenceand impact o women was limited at best. Tese processes

have been evolving over the years, thus oten slowly losingwhatever rational and transparent regulatory basis theymight have had when they were established. While somethe decision-making processes may have been adaptedaccording to gender mainstreaming principles, themajority o them remain in a state o an unsatisactorylack o transparency.

Tis lack o transparency in systems creates myths andconusion. Evidence shows women are more likely tosucceed in recruitment and promotion when there is clarity

about what is required, inormation about the opportunitiesreely available and clear criteria used in decision-making.

Tese approaches also benet men, making clear howorganizations unction and what their values are.

One major reason why progress has been so slow orgender equality in research, despite all the knowledgeavailable on gender to inorm policy and actions, is thatmany universities and research institutions lack the capacity

and experience to analyze and transorm the rich andoten complex gender knowledge into specic gendermanagement applicable to their structures and procedures.

Direct discrimination is relatively straightorward torecognize and address. However, indirect discrimination,

which characterizes the policies and processes o manyuniversities, research institutes and companies, is moredifcult to identiy and put right.1 While many employers

will acknowledge that there is a gender pay gap, ewwill imagine that they themselves are contributing to it.Collecting and analyzing data seems unnecessary i youare a good employer, not one intending to discriminate.

Te problem is a lack o awareness o how systems andstructures, policies, processes and procedures can bediscriminatory, even where the employers have the very besto intentions on airness and equality.

Te consequence o this is that women are marginalisedin decision-making about science. Tey do not playa signicant role in deciding what research should beunded, how it is evaluated, how excellence should bedened, what use should be made o it, who should berewarded, promoted, published or unded. Tere is, then,a democratic decit in decision-making.

BOX 2.1

Beyond Bias and Barriers:Fulflling the Potential o Womenin Academic Science andEngineering

Systematic structural constraints built into

academic institutions have impeded the careers o

women scientists and engineers.

Well-planned, data-driven eorts to remove

institutional constraints on women academics

careers can produce signicant results

Adequate data gathering, planning,

implementation, and evaluation o changes require

the dedication o sucient resources to the

objective o increasing diversity

Report by National Academy o Sciences (US),

National Academy o Engineering (US), and Institute

o Medicine (US) Committee

BOX 2.2

Women less likely to be promotedto proessor (Spain)

During this period a national system was in place

(habilitacin nacional) which provides a unique

random natural experiment, with 35 000 candidates,

7000 evaluators in committees o seven, all elds o

knowledge. The result o this study is that or every

male member o a committee o seven, a woman

candidate has 14% less chance o being promoted

than a male candidate. In other words, with an all male

committee, the probability or a woman candidate to

become a ull proessor comes close to zero.

Spanish study on promotions to the highest rank o

the academic ladder, ull proessorships (ctedras) or

the period 2002-06, Natalia Zinovyeva, Fedea 2010


22/52


20

attention to eective recruitment practices or to mentoringjunior colleagues or even to thorough review o evaluationmaterials or tenure and promotion decreases, leavingdecision making subject to distortion by cognitive errors(see ootnote 2) and bias.

Advances in research in the cognitive sciences revealthe difculties o evaluating perormance, suitability orleadership, and scientic merit objectively. From genderschemas to evaluation bias to stereotype threat, sciencemakes clear that bias clouds judgment, oten unconsciously.

Tese tendencies are reected in organizationalpractices and culture and inadvertently result in indirectdiscrimination. Using age bars on ellowships or exampleis likely to prevent more women than men rom makingapplications because women are more likely to have had

career breaks and thereore their chronological age isolder than their academic age. Institutionalised sexismdoes not necessarily mean that individuals are biased ordiscriminatory, but the outcome o the systems they operatemay well be systematically biased.

Te now well-established body o research ndingsdemonstrates the manner in which largely unexaminederrors in the way o assessing merit create inequitableoutcomes or men and women. Research also demonstratesthat despite good intentions and a commitment to airness,

both men and women are likely to undervalue womensaccomplishments. Tis tendency is not surprisinglyembedded in institutional processes such as recruitment,perormance evaluation, and advancement. 4

While the root causes o womens under-representation inscience and technology elds are not yet widely understood,public opinion recognizes the disparate outcomes. A recentglobal survey by the Pew Research Centre ound that Teview that men get more opportunities than women or jobsthat pay well, even when women are as qualied or the job,is widespread in most o the countries surveyed, particularlythose that are wealthy or have recently experiencedsubstantial economic growth.5 Tere is evidence thatthese assumptions disadvantage women, and disadvantageinstitutions seeking to create and maintain a productiveworkplace. 6 urnover o aculty (sta ), with its ensuingcosts, and the institutional ailure to capture a return on theinvestment made in new aculty, are always challenging, buteven more so in economically constrained times. Te successo academic scientists and engineers can be supported orinhibited by the culture o the academic department level.Administrative leaders such as department chairs are criticalin setting the tone within the department,7 yet are rarelyequipped with the additional proessional development

However, in many institutions both structures andprocesses lack the necessary clarity. With many committeesor advisory bodies it remains unclear how they unction orhow they are constituted. Very oten membership in suchbodies is established through existing members bringing

in acquaintances (co-optation). Vacancies are not knownto a wider public, and there is insufcient inormationavailable on how interested persons could apply i thereis an opening. Old boys networks and patronage orallocating opportunities prevail.

Further, the service periods on such bodies and committeesare not limited which prevents the inux o resh ideasand new perspectives. Tus many bodies and committeesrepresent strongholds o traditional values and out-datedconcepts regarding the needs and the potential o todays

research and education, and thereby tend to even lagbehind the overall development o an institution. It ishardly surprising that such bodies and committees donot adequately include women or that their processes anddecision-making mostly ail to be gender-sensitive.

While it is true that women are undoubtedlyunderrepresented in the governing boards o research andhigher education institutions, this can be comparativelyeasily xed with upcoming vacancies. Te situation is muchmore impenetrable with committees and bodies that advise

or prepare decisions or the institutions governing boards,such as hiring, tenure and promotions committees, strategyboards, budget commissions or nomination committees orprizes, and boards o private oundations that distributeresearch unds most likely without supervision romneutral instances.3

Very oten institutions try to improve the situation byestablishing detailed regulations. As in many other aspects,compliance is oten unsatisactory. Cultural actors will alsohave a much greater (negative) impact such as the lack oawareness that the missing transparency and consistencyo procedures and decision-making prevent women romhaving a air chance to participate, as well as preventinginstitutions rom ully proting rom the competence andcreativity o their diverse workorce.

2.2 Institutional practices inhibitingcareer opportunities

Te commitment to excellence and to objectivity thatis a hallmark o academic lie can make it particularlydifcult or research institutions to recognize the ways in

which standard practices may give advantage to some anddisadvantage others. As demands increase on aculty andresearchers, the amount o time available to pay careul


23/52


21

instance established, single disciplines over emerging cross-disciplinary areas (oten avoured by women).

Te lack o gender balance among excellence gatekeepers -in interviewing panels, editorial boards, among reviewers -can also dierentially inuence both the process andoutcomes o assessment and selections o women and men.Gender-stereotyped expectations may aect not only how

womens work is evaluated, but also what kinds o workwomen do, compared to similarly placed men. eachingand proessional activities are oten undervalued, aecting

women who requently have a systematic overload o theseactivities as a result o their employment contracts.

Women may nd their accomplishments attributed toluck or the support o colleagues and mentors, while theirailures are treated as the norm. Letters o recommendation

and skills necessary to aect transormation within thedepartment that can bring about positive change.

Without conscious transormation o organizationalprocesses in academic and research settings results,

outcomes will be as usual: ewer women, less diversity oexperience and outlook, and ailure to capture the benetsexpected rom the enhancement o the potential poolo researchers and innovators reected in the increasingnumber o women with doctoral degrees.

2.3 Unconscious bias in assessingexcellence

Te word excellence appears requently in the contexto science. It is taken or granted that individuals andinstitutions pursue excellence in all their activities:

recruitment, unding, publication, awards, proessional andinstitutional advancement. Peer review systems are designedto ensure that only excellent people and work are supported.

However, what characterizes excellence is generally not itselsubjected to scientic evaluation. It is a socially constructedconcept, and practices in operationalising the concept ineach branch o science can be idiosyncratic. Critical analysiso the excellence concept and o its correspondence withpractice is missing. Instead, it is assumed that the scientistin each eld somehow acquires rom his or her environment

a notion o what excellence is, and that their judgmentsremain objective. Tis underplays the impact o context (orexample, a single-sex interviewing panel) and culture (e.g.implicitly accepted gender normative expectations, such asthat a scientist must be single-minded - a characteristicassociated with males rather than dedicated, which isperceived as a emale attribute).

Being evaluated or evaluating others, the assessment oexcellence is a continually repeated eature o a scientistsjob. It shapes the scientists career trajectory. With thepersistently low levels o women in scientic leadership, itwould seem that the practice o assessing excellence treatsmens accomplishments dierently to womens. A varietyo opportunities make this possible. Gender bias can occurbecause excellence is oten characterized in abstract terms. Forinstance researchers are expected to be innovative, productive,coherent. It can also occur as a result o the criteria lacking intransparency or the kinds o indicators chosen and how theyare prioritized, or instance giving weight to explicit indicatorssuch as the number o papers/citations/patents produced, orimplicit indicators such as uncommon career pathways (e.g.later start, career breaks). Te evaluation criteria may be applieddierently to women and men (by both women and men)or certain scientic elds may be preerred over others, or

BOX 2.3

Women scientists discriminated

A study published in 1997 in Natureby Wenners and

Wold entitled Nepotism and sexism in peer-review,

demonstrated that women had to have 2.4 moremerits than men to achieve the same evaluation,

equivalent to 20 articles in peer review journals,

in calls o the Swedish Academy o Medicine.

Publication o this study prompted the resignation

o top decision makers in Sweden as well as the

launching o Swedish gender policies in science.

BOX 2.4

The More, the Better? Inclusion of

Women in Symphony Orchestras

What happens when members o one identity

group enter an elite institution that historically has

been dominated by another? The paper examines

associations between the gender composition o

proessional symphony orchestras and several

outcomes the orchestras unctioning, the quality

o the relationships among the members, and their

motivation and satisaction (all reported by the players).

Outcome measures decline as womens representation

increases until the proportion o women approaches50%. Then, the downward trend fattens or reverses.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/the-more-the-

better-a-ournation-study-o-the-inclusion-o-women-

in-symphony-orchestras/


24/52


22

institutions have important implications or the substanceo science itsel. For example, an underlying assumptiono clinical trials conducted until the mid 1990s was that

the treatment eects in women would be similar to thosein men11. Tis view has been successully challenged inmedicine, where the signicance o gender is graduallystarting to become more recognized. Te issue is nowbeing addressed and made part o research programmes incentres o scientic excellence across the world, including inuniversity research centres (e.g. Columbia University, US;Karolinska Institute, Sweden; LMU Munich; Universityo Goettingen, Germany); new scientic societies (e.g.European Society o Gender Medicine, International Societyor Gender Medicine); national scientic associations onGender Medicine; scientic journals and large internationalGender Medicine conerences (e.g. Gender Medicine).

Te implementation o the EU2020 strategy will require ullparticipation o Europes scientic and innovation talent.However, the practice o not recruiting and promotingwomen in numbers proportionate to their presence inthe available pool o researchers means that the skills andexperience o many highly qualied women are not beingused. Tis can mean many opportunities are missed orinnovations in research and the identication o new markets.

In the context o the EU2020 strategy, interdisciplinaryresearch has been recommended as a solution to many

tend to be shorter or women, and they contain moregrindstone adjectives (e.g. hardworking) and ewerstandout adjectives (e.g. brilliant), even when theapplicants accomplishments are similar.

Peer review is the principal mechanism or judgingexcellence in science. It is a gatekeeper o excellence andthe nal arbiter o what is valued in science. Te methodhas been intensely criticized over the last ten years withregard to its reliability and validity, ollowing a number oinuential studies showing that men ared much betterthan women in the assessment process8,9.

Despite the considerable literature, there is surprisinglylittle sound peerreview research examining the criteriaor strategies or improving the process. Over the last ten

years, both unding bodies and journal editorial boards havepaid greater attention to the application and success rateso women and men. Progress has been made, but still thereare signicantly ewer grant applications rom women thanrom men, and lower rates o publication submissions.

2.4 Wasted opportunities andcognitive errors in knowledge,technology and innovation

Te goal the EU initiativeInnovation Union10 is to ensurethat innovative ideas can be turned into products and

services that create growth and jobs, and tackle societalchallenges. It is thereore imperative to nd ways ora greater inclusion o the gender perspective in all processesand at all levels leading to productive innovations.

Research shows that gender biases, inequalities andimbalances within the established practices o scientic

BOX 2.6

Women and heart disease

Women are currently still underrepresented in

research in many important areas o cardiology

Men have predominantly systolic ailure (pumping)whilst women have predominantly diastolic ailure

(distensibility).

Women also have higher early myocardial

inarction mortality, a act that is partly linked to

sex, but probably also gender-related.

Another observation, most likely also connected to

gender, is that women are more requent donors

and men recipients in heart transplantation even i

women are sicker

Report on the conerence organized by DG Researchand Innovation, Health Directorate, Medical Research

unit in partnership with the European Society o

Cardiology, the European Association or the Study

o Diabetes and the European Kidney Health Alliance,

November 2010

BOX 2.5

Gaps in research

Gender bias in research can be expensive

Between 1997 and 2000, ten drugs were

withdrawn rom the United States market because

o lie-threatening health eectsour o these

were more dangerous to women.

Part o the problem is that preclinical research

uses primarily male animals

Wald and Wu 2010; Zucker and Beery 2010; U.S.

GAO-01-286R Drugs Withdrawn rom Market,

Presented to Congress by US General Accounting

Oce, 17 January 2001)


25/52


23

o todays complex problems12. With the much-increasedparticipation o women in higher education in all MemberStates, interdisciplinary research may oer better use o thetalent o emale scientists in research and innovation, and inmore eective translation o ideas to markets.

However, the lack o established interdisciplinary scienticjournals, and education systems that are not geared towardsproducing multidisciplinary graduates and postgraduates,represent a serious career risk or women scientists takingon the interdisciplinary route. Using interdisciplinarity toattract women to science is only practical and ethical i it

BOX 2.7

Gender aspect in transportresearch

Public transport is designed to provide or the

typically masculine pattern o mobility: commutingrom homes to jobs. Public transportation is not

designed or the chained, polygonally-shaped

and shorter distance trips that women tend to do

(resulting rom their double workload as employees

and amily carers). Women, however, are the main

users o public transportation.

The mobility of careis a new gender aware umbrella

concept proposed by Snchez de Madariaga, 2010,

which allows or a better description and visibility o

the typically eminine mobility related to care work.

also promotes stable careers. Structural changes are neededbecause interdisciplinary research cannot be easily embeddedwithin a scientic system that traditionally has been basedon one-department, one-discipline structures, in most

universities and in most research unding bodies, which tendto exclude women rom key decision-making bodies.

Several examples show that the integration o sex andgender analysis increases the quality and excellence oscientic production and improves the acceptance oinnovations on the market. Checklists and tools areavailable now to identiy the relevance o sex and genderperspectives in a specic research theme and describe themethods or analysis.

In science, technology and innovation women areperceived by market stakeholders as less credible or lessproessional13. Eurobarometer studies on innovationreadiness ound or the 25 EU sample interviewed, 49%o Europeans were either anti-innovation or reluctantto embrace innovation and this segment consistedpredominantly o women aged 40 years and older14. Suchstereotyping overlooks the act that womens share incontrolling customer spending worldwide is growingrapidly, as more women participate in higher educationand in employment: an economic opportunity recognisedin series o studies15. o reach the aims o the EU 2020agenda it is thereore necessary to nd ways o involvingmore women in innovation processes.

2.5 Employment policyand practices

Tirty-ve years ater the rst European Communitydirectives on Equal opportunities and equal treatment inemployment16, Member States still have a gender pay gapand statistics that demonstrate that gender continues toplay a signicant role in determining who gets what jobs17.

Even though employees in the research eld are covered bythe Directive on equal opportunities and equal treatment,

BOX 2.9

PAIN

79% o animal studies published in Pain over the

preceding 10 years included male subjects only, with

a mere 8% o studies on emales only, and another4% explicitly designed to test or sex dierences (the

rest did not speciy)

www.jpain.org

BOX 2.8

Too ew women involvedin innovation

Greater awareness is needed o the role o gender as

a dimension o competitive advantage in innovation

and the application o research results:

Gender equality has been missing rom thesubmissions made to the European Patents Oce

The level o patent applications rom women is

around 8%, and Germany, which is the source o

50% o EPOs applications, has only 6% submitted

by women.

Frietsch, Rainer, Inna Haller, Melanie Vrohlings et

al. 2008. Gender-specic patterns in patenting

and publishing. Fraunhoer ISI Discussion paper

Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis, No16.


26/52


24

the European provisions pertaining directly to research,and more specically to equality between women andmen in research, are in the realm o sot law, restricted torecommendations, resolutions, action programmes and roadmaps. Tis leads to the conclusion that the EU reaties

commitment on gender mainstreaming needs moreeective legislation and better compliance in the MemberStates in order or the aspirations on gender equality in theEU to be ullled.

Te research environment and scientic work continue tobe organized in gendered ways that make it difcult ortalented women to prosper in their research careers whenthey have to reconcile work and home responsibilities. Inaddition, women tend to develop careers later in lie, andare more aected than men by inadequate maternity and

paternity leave policies18. In Member States with verylong qualication pathways (e.g. Germany), researchersgetting their PhD are in their early thirties, and holdtheir rst permanent position generally not beoretheir early orties, which can cause serious problems orwomen who want to combine a scientic career withhaving a amily.

Sexist behaviour still characterizes the cultures o someresearch teams, resulting in discouraging women, inparticular, rom remaining in the eld o research. Teconcentrated power wielded by a proessor, or example, isoten seen as a problem.19

Whilst there has been a massive increase in womensparticipation in higher education across all Member States,this has not been matched by the provision o supportstructures20 such as child-care services or emergence oexible work schedules or working parents. Funding thatenables women to reconcile their career aspirations andprivate lie at crucial stages o their career path is needed(as graduate students, postdocs, and proessors) to ensurethat they and society benet rom the investment made intheir education.

Discipline based research is essential. However, research hasshown that in many institutions and elds o knowledgethe guru/acolytes model o power relations appears todominate, which can lead to the exclusion o new ideas.Interdisciplinary, challenge based research can be moreopen to team work and innovation.


27/52


25

Agentic and communal dierencesJournal o AppliedPsychology94(6): 15919.Marsh, Herbert, Lutz Bornmann, Rdiger Mutz, Hans-Dieter Daniel, and Alison OMara. (2009) Gender eects inpeer review o grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multi-level approaches.Review o Educational Research 79(3): 1290326.Rees, . (2011) Te Gendered Construction o ScienticExcellenceInterdisciplinary Science Reviews, Special Issue onGender in Science, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 13345

rix, Frances, and Carolyn Psenka. (2003) Exploring thecolor o glass: Letters o recommendation or emale andmale medical aculty Discourse and Society14(2): 191220

10 Flagship o EU Agenda 2020: Europe to drive innovation in

products, services, business and social processes and models,especially at a time o public budget constraints, majordemographic changes and increasing global competition. Italso seeks to re-ocus R&I so that it becomes more relevantto todays world.

11 Holdcrot, A., Snidvongs, S., & Berkley K.J., Incorporatinggender and sex dimension in medical research,Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (36(2): 180-192

12 EURAB 04.009-FINAL13 Evaluation on Policy: Promotion o Women Innovators and

Entrepreneurship, EC DG Enterprise and Industry, 200814 Special Eurobarometer 236 Population Innovation

Readiness, 200515 Womenomics 3.0. Te time is now, Goldman Sachs,

October 2010, http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/demographic-change/womenomics-2011/right-column/

womenomics3.pd )16 Directives 75/117/EEC, 76/207/EEC now replaced by

Directive 2006/54/EC17 She Figures 2009, p. 74: Analysis shows that the gender pay

gap is the widest in those occupations that are most open tohigh-level emale researchers. However, the gender pay gapis large everywhere, even more so in public enterprise. It also

widens as the age o researchers increases. Tis illustratesthe workings o a Glass Ceiling that women hit during their

ascent in the academic hierarchy. It is important to highlightthat there is no spontaneous reduction o the gender pay gapover time.

18 EAN, 2000; EC, Women and Science, 2005; EC, Women inScience & echnology, 2006

19 A proessor should not be allowed to have completeand total control over a student s research, utureemployment prospects, and overall career success. Sexualharassment, misconduct, and the atmosphere o the laboratory:Te legal and proessional challenges aced by women physicalscience researchers at educational institutions. Ellen Sekreta,Duke Journal o Gender Law and Policy, Spring 2006

20 Sjoberg, Ola. 2010. Ambivalent Attitudes, ContradictoryInstitutions: Ambivalence in Gender-Role Attitudesin Comparative Perspective.International Journal oComparative Sociology. 5(1-2), 33-57.

Endnotes

1 Some barriers can be difcult to recognize: the way workis credited, how reputation is constructed and meritattributed (Mathew eect), and how the work o those below(mostly women) is used in the crediting; cases o subtlediscrimination, hostile work environments and harassment.

Tere is also persuasive empirical evidence that thecollaborative research networks (and strategies) o men and

women dier and impact on progress o their careers (specialissue o the Interdisciplinary Science Reviews on Genderin Science, Te Role o Gender in eam Collaboration andPerormance, Julia B Bear and Anita Williams Woolley).

2 cognitive error or an error in thinking results in acting ononly what is immediately visible

3 Bias in hiring women: In her article Orchestrating

impartiality Proessor o Harvard University ClaudiaGolding shows how American great philharmonic orchestras,

where there were practically no women musicians beore the1970s women do not have talent or music, the argument

went, started hiring women when auditions became blindand evaluators could not see the person who was playing theinstrument. Te number o women hired increased even moresignicantly when the oors were covered with carpets and

women candidates could not be identied through the soundo their high heels.

4 See, or example, http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/psych/aculty/valian/docs/2005BeyoundGender.pd

5 Men get more opportunities or high-paying jobs, saysGermany (84%), France (80%), Japan (80%), South Korea(70%), UK (70%), US (68%), Spain (68%) http://pewglobal.org/les/pd/Pew-Global-Attitudes-2010-Gender-Report.pd

6 Polzer, J. ., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. (2002).Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small

work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-327.7 Bensimon, E. M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2000). Te

department chairs role in developing new aculty into teachersand scholars. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing; Carroll, J. B.,& Gmelch, W. H. (1994). Department chairs perceptionso the relative importance o their duties.Journal or Higher

Education Management, 10(1), 49-63; Lucas, Ann (1994).Strengthening Department Leadership: A eam Building Guide

or Department Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass8 Sexism and Nepotism in Peer-review, Christine Wenners

and Agnes Wold,Nature387:341-343)9 Searching or discrimination, Gannon, Frank et al. 2001,EMBO

Reports, 21 (8) 655-657; Foschi, Martha (2004) Blockingthe use o gender-based double standards or competence,in M. Brouns and E. Addis (eds) Gender and excellence in themaking(EUR 21222 Report), ed., 515. Brussels: EuropeanCommission, Directorate-General or Research.House o Commons Science and echnology Committee,

(2011) Peer review in scientifc publications, Eighth Report oSession 2010-12 HC 856 London: Te Stationery OfceMadera, Juan M., Michelle R. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin.(2009) Gender and letters o recommendation or academia:


28/52


29/52

Essential elements of structural change

27

audits, gender proong and gender impact assessmentsall require expertise. It is essential to ensure that there issufcient expertise, rom awareness-raising to trainingto hiring experts in order to conduct this work. Mucho it is technical. Just as health and saety and doing the

accounts require proessional expertise, so does gendermainstreaming. Knowing the institution, rom a genderperspective, is the rst stage in bringing about culturalchange.

3.2 Securing top-level supportBoth the ADVANCE programme in the US and thePosition Paper o the EU Helsinki Group on Womenand Science have emphasized the importance o top-levelsupport or gender policy in research institutions. Teyurther stressed that gender policy should be ormulated in

a unit which is both closely as well as permanently relatedto the governing body o research and higher educationinstitutions (university president/rector/vice-chancellor).

It is absolutely crucial that the persons in managementa) are personally involved in the ormulation o theinstitutions gender policy and b) ully support theintroduction, sustainable eect and the monitoring o thegender policy. Only an observable ull commitment o aninstitutions governing body will guarantee the long-lastingeect o a gender policy since this proximity to power

prevents a gender policy rom becoming just another policypaper, guaranteeing that the policy is actually carried out, iscontinuously tested against reality and adapted to changingneeds and challenges by implementing new measures. Inaddition, the eects o the policy beyond an institutions

walls should not be underestimated since the successuland visible positioning o a research or higher educationinstitution as an attractive workplace or both men and

women will strongly contribute to the institutions uturedevelopment and competitiveness on an international level.

It is important that administrative units, such as thoseinvolved in aculty hiring, actively and visibly pursue genderpolicy measures. Te gender policy unit heads should alsohave a title which ully expresses their proximity to thegoverning body, and they should preerably be chosen romamongst the aculty or be prominent leaders o researchgroups who continue their main activities in teaching andresearch on par with their peers. Tereore it goes withoutsaying that adequate and permanent resources shouldbe made available to them, both regarding sta who areexperts in gender issues as well as a budget which willallow or activities both internally (mentoring programs,gender awareness courses, data gathering, monitoring, closeinteraction with other administrative units as well as the

In order to overcome the barriers to eective practicethat are created unwittingly within organizations overtime, certain basic conditions must exist. Tere must bea statistical base, to provide accurate sex-disaggregateddata which can be assessed. Tere must be a willingness at

the top to open up discussion and to support the processo sel-study. Tere must also be acknowledgement othe importance o the multiaceted role o departmentchairs and unit heads, who oversee the key processes orecruitment, retention, promotion and pay. Fortunately,establishing these basic conditions is quite easible andultimately benecial to the organization in the long run.

3.1 Knowing the institutionTe subtlety o indirect orms o gender discriminationmeans that institutions oten ail to recognize what is

happening. In the rst instance, then, it is necessary togather data. Tis can include statistical data on recruitment,retention and promotion and pay. Gender audit ocommittees, especially those making important decisionsabout the allocation o resources can reveal much aboutan institution. Getting to know ones own institutions canalso include an analysis o documents, or example a gendercount o photographs in prospectuses and in marketingmaterials and who appears in portraits o esteemedcolleagues hanging on walls. It can include the views o

women and men in the organization about whether they

are working in a positive environment, ree o harassmentand bullying, where talent is encouraged and supported.

Statistics can be developed into equality indicators, whichallow the measurement o change as policies are introduced.Progress needs to be measured and benchmarked against otherinstitutions. It is essential that such data are published, and soavailable to students, sta and potential new recruits, undersand partners. Ideally, some o this data should be available ina published orm at a national level or comparison.

New policies need to have a gender impact assessment toassess whether they will have an eect on men and womenin dierent ways, and i so, whether they are justiable.Such gender impact assessments are needed at bothdepartment and institution level.

Morale or climate surveys o sta are useul devices orestablishing whether women (or men) in particular eeldisadvantaged in some part o the institution. Tey can alsohighlight cultures o bullying and harassment that mayneed to be addressed.

Te tools o gender mainstreaming, which includestatistical analysis, developing equality indicators, gender


30/52


28

teaching and research units) and externally (networkingwith similar units elsewhere, national and internationalworkshops and congresses, media relations, wider publicactions).

3.3 Generating eectivemanagement practices

Engaging and equipping leaders to understand theelements o a supportive climate or aculty and the processo organizational change that can improve and enhanceacademic climate can be a powerul tool or structuralchange, or the better.

Understanding how processes critical to recruitment andadvancement may disadvantage women, rom letters orecommendation to assessment o women in leadership

roles is oten catalytic, equipping men and women withan intellectual ramework or thinking about how whathad been assumed to be purely merit-based processes wereaected by unconscious bias. Experience suggests thatonce aculty are introduced to the scholarship and dataon the status o women in science and engineering, theyunderstand how academic and research cultures perpetuatethe status quo. Some may become champions or changingpractices to encourage more equitable evaluation andgreater opportunities or women.

Changing workplace culture is not a simple matter, andor individuals such as department chairs, having access to

well-designed opportunities or proessional developmentthat equip them with management expertise on criticalissues o human resource management, or example, canbe very eective in creating greater transparency andaccountability or outcomes that are air or both men and

women. Supporting the development o opportunities orpeer-learning, particularly among department chairs, isoten a welcome and eective approach.

Te practical work o improving the outcomes o standardprocesses such as recruitment and advancement bymitigating the impact o evaluation bias is not easy todo in isolation. Each eort benets rom building onlessons learned, eective practices, and tools and strategiesor addressing particular problems. Support provided tobring people engaged in this work together is critical, toallow the development o a community o practice thatcan synthesize knowledge and experience to engenderthe development o inormed and eective managementapproaches.


31/52


29


32/52


33/52

Solutions: Bringing about structural change

31

4.1 Making decision-makingtransparent

Invitations to join committees and boards could beextended to external emale researchers and experts.

Additional administrative support or committees and

boards in general would not only reduce the workloado internal emale experts, but would also lead to moreproessionalism and thereby transparency since the stabilityand consistency o procedures and decision makingprocesses can be guaranteed to a higher degree.

Suggested measures:

a) Making in-house women more visible

All public relations activities rom scientic institutions

should be gender-prooed (represent women appropriately),while avoiding tokenism. Tis could be done by includingwomen in all promotional campaigns or scienticcareers, by leaders nominating women or prizes, and byrecognizing womens achievements appropriately. Deciding

what to highlight should be inormed by data romgender-mainstreaming tools such as sex-disaggregated data,inormation on resource allocation by gender and othergender budgeting applications, achievement records, etc.Making women more visible allows or students and sta tosee a number o possibilities in achievement and to choose

rom a variety o role models. Making womens workvisible also encourages women already present in scienticinstitutions to reach higher positions. 1

b) Gender-balancing committees

Balancing the gender composition o committees improvesthe quality o committee work and symbolically changesinstitutional cultures.

A good representation o women is especially important in

committees which set the research agenda, are involved in

the shaping o the uture o their institution by hiring newresearchers and teachers, serve as tutors or Masters and PhD

students or have a high visibility, such as: strategy committees

o national science oundations, national academies, academic

and research institutions or advisory boards o research

and/or education ministries or the European Commission;

hiring committees or aculty and research positions, but

more especially also committees who make decisions and/or

recommendations on leading research positions; tenure and

promotion committees; PhD committees; committees or (re)

designing curricula; review boards or research proposals, review

boards o journals; prize committees; programme committees

which decide on whom to invite as (key note) speakers.

Te ve problems acing research institutions that aredescribed in Chapter 2 can be turned around into vesolutions:

Making decision-making transparent Removing unconscious bias rom institutional practices Promoting excellence through diversity Improving research by integrating a gender perspective Modernising human resources management and the

working environment

Te underlying aim is to dismantle no longer justiablegendered hierarchies and to establish more democracyin research and higher education institutions. Te voiceso the teams that are directly aected by the results othe procedures and hiring decisions should be taken intoaccount in an adequate manner, by balancing the dignityand integrity o the individuals involved against the needor transparency and the condentiality o inormation and(hiring) procedures.

Men and women will prot equally rom these solutionsin their quest or a successul, individually ullling career.

At the same time, the procedures and the decision makingwill be both more efcient as well as ocused on realand sustainable results instead o power play, maximizedindividual inuence or the perseverance o long established(old boys) networks. Further it has been clearly shown thatgender bias can be eectively reduced through a balancedrepresentation o men and women in committees.

BOX 4.1

ADVANCE Programme(Increasing the Participationand Advancement o Womenin Academic Science and

Engineering careers)

National Science Foundation, USA

10 million USD per year or new projects, 2001

present

Goal to develop systemic approaches to increase

the representation and advancement o women

in academic science, technology, engineering

and mathematics (STEM) careers, thereby

contributing to the development o a more diverse

science and engineering workorce

Extensive resource base or structural change

http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu


34/52

Solutions: Bringing about structural change

32

However, persons with disproportionate committee andadministrative duties should be provided with additionalresearch and support sta or reduced teaching assignmentsto ensure that their research does not suer.

c) Making nomination and election to committees andboards more transparent

Whenever possible vacancies should be made public inthe community, and the conditions regarding applying or

vacant positions should be commonly known. It is advisablethat the terms or membership on committees and boardsbe limited to an appropriate duration in order to avoidstagnation. Te working conditions o such committees

BOX 4.2

EU project genSET(gender in SET)

A panel o science leaders has developed

13 evidence-based recommendations orinstitutional action, to best take advantage o

the benets in recognizing the gender dimension

in scientic research

Compiled in cooperation with gender experts

and institutional stakeholders, and based on

extensive personal experience as members and

leaders o scientic institutions

Recognition that gender equality contributes

to better science is undamental to the genSET

recommendations

The genSET project was the subject o theeditorial in The Lancet (5 March 2011) titled

Promoting Women in Science and Medicine

Recommendations:

1. Leaders need to buy into the importance o

the gender dimension in research

2. Scientists (and managers) should be trained

in methods o sex and gender analysis

3. The use o methods or sex and gender

analysis must be considered in allassessments

4. Research teams should be gender diverse

5. All committees, panels should be gender

balanced

6. Diversity in leadership style should be

encouraged

7. Women already in scientic institutions should

be made more visible

8. Research quality rather than quantity should

be assessed

9. Researchers with heavy committee burdens

should be provided with additional support

10. Policies on e.g. working conditions should be

reviewed

11. Special strategies developed to attract

women to research positions

12. Explicit public targets to improve gender

balance

13. Gender issues must be part o evaluations

and strategies

http://www.genderinscience.org/

enhancing excellence

Documents