Women in ScienceMoving Forward

Heraklion, 3 May, 2011

2

PART ICONCERNS OVER GENDER IN SCIENCE

i. Why is it important to integrate gender in science? Since women have equal education rights and in many areas

girls are now outperforming boys it only makes sense to ensure that we do not lose scientists with high potential into the ceiling effect.

The future prosperity of Europe depends upon the scientific and technological innovation. By restricting the pool of the best and brightest minds mainly to men, the outcomes that influence the scientific community and research will be less than it could be.

If science is striving for excellence, gender bias should be avoided as we could be missing out talented scientists merely because of this bias.

Scientists influence the focus of research and the general development of society. Such a responsibility cannot be a male‐only responsibility.

3

i. Why is it important to integrate gender in science?

4

The contribution of women in scientific developments - that in turn influence society - could bring out different findings and results as well as different points of view. By taking different points of view into consideration we achieve better scientific results and we further contribute to the development of an all-inclusive society.

Finally, it is a democratic principle that power and influence should be distributed equally among different groups in society. For this reason we should make sure that equal opportunities are indeed provided in all sectors of society. The elimination of discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, race, ect should remain a priority in all institutions.

European Commission considers that without gender equality in science and without a better use of the human resources available scientific excellence will never be truly achieved within the European Research Area

i. Phases of Key Recent European Union Recommendations and Interventions for Gender Equality

a) Phase 1: 1990s; Focus on Gender Equality for Women – Mapping and Identification of the Problems

b) Phase 2: early 2000s; Focus on Gender Differences – Reflections on Statistics: Measurement, Mainstreaming, Evaluation

c) Phase 3: late 2000s; Focus on Context – Integrated Perspective: Work-Life Balance, Scientific Excellence, Research

d) Phase 4: current situation (2009); Focus on Tools – Social Mainstreaming, Tool Development on Basis of the Problem

Gender Action Plans

5

i. What do we know about Gender and Science

Gender pay gap (across Europe women earn around 17% less than men and in some country the gender pay gap is widening (European Commission, Information Society and Media: Women and ICT status Report 2009, March 2010)

There is country differentiation in females working in S&T occupations (LT, EE higher than other EU countries)

Average proportion of female researchers is less than 35% (both for government and higher education sectors)

Leaking pipeline effect at all levels/types of activity In science and engineering women account for around 31% of the

student population 36% at PhD 33% in grade C academic staff 22% in grade B and only 11% in grade A (32% for Romania and 2% for

Malta)

New Member States representation of women in academia is higher than EU15

Lowest in MT, LU, CY, IE, BE and GR6

i. What do we know about Women in Decision Making positions

Leaky pipeline decline in career progression Glass ceiling male-norm for seniorityWomen in Boards across Europe

7

Country % Companies with Women on

Board

% Women on Board

Average number Women on

BoardNorway 100,0 28,8 3,0Sweden 100,0 22,8 3,7Finland 100,0 20,0 2,2Denmark 100,0 17,9 2,5Total top 100,0% 22,5% 3,1%UK 86,0 11,4 1,4Rep of Ireland 60,0 8,1 1,0Germany 72,0 7,2 1,7France 75,0 7,6 1,2Austria 50,0 9,5 1,8The Netherlands

50,0 6,5 0,8

Total middle 75,0% 8,6% 1,3%Switzerland 58,0 5,9 0,9Greece 57,0 4,4 0,6Spain 48,0 4,1 0,6Belgium 43,0 5,8 1,0Italy 33,0 1,9 0,3Portugal 0,0 0,0 0,0Total low 41,0% 3,8% 0,6%

i. What do we know about Women in Decision Making positions

8

Women in Boards across Europe

Norway

Swed

en

Finl

and

Denm

ark

UK

Rep o

f Ire

land

Germ

any

Fran

ce

Aust

ria

The

Nethe

rland

s

Switz

erla

nd

Greec

e

Spai

n

Belg

ium

Italy

Portu

gal

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.0

28.8

22.820.0

17.9

11.48.1 7.2 7.6 9.5

6.5 5.9 4.4 4.1 5.81.9 0.0

% Women on Board

i. The situation of women scientists in Europe

9

Data from She Figures 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/she_figures_2009_en.pdf)

What has improved in the last 10 years, and how much? The number of female researchers increased in Europe in all economic sectors:

the Higher Education Sector, the Government Sector and the Business Enterprise Sector. In the former, the proportion of female researchers grew from 34% in 2000 to 37% in 2006. It is important to remember however that we are measuring the countries of the European Union, with a population that changed between 2001 and 2006 in size and number of countries concerned.

The number of female PhDs in Europe grew from 39.6% in 2001 to 43% in 2003 and 45% in 2006.

The balance of the presence of female PhDs across fields of sciences didn't change considerably between 2001 and 2006, with women being more numerous in the fields of Education, Humanities and Arts, Agriculture and Veterinary, and Health and Social Services. The Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction field had 20.6% of female PhDs in 2001, 21.90% in 2003 and 25% in 2006.

The proportion of women attaining the top level of an academic careers, defined here as "Grade A professorship", moved from 15.20% in 2000 to 15.3% in 2004 and 19% in 2007.

i. The situation of women scientists in Europe

10

What is the proportion of women researchers in Europe?

Generally speaking women in scientific research remain a minority. On average, they account for 30% of researchers in the EU in 2006. However, wide variations can be noted between countries. At the top of the country ranking, there are the Baltic States but also Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia, all of which have more than 40% of women in their research population. Sixteen other EU countries have a proportion of female researchers of between 26% and 39%. In four European countries, the proportion of women researchers drops at 25% or less.

i. The situation of women scientists in Europe

11

What is the proportion of female PhDs?

45% of all PhD graduates are women in the EU-27; they equal or outnumber men in all broad fields of study, except for science, mathematics and computing (41%), and engineering, manufacturing and construction (25%).

Do the academic careers of men and women follow similar patterns?

Women's academic careers remains markedly characterised by strong vertical segregation: the proportion of female students (55%) and graduates (59%) exceeds that of male students, but men outnumber women among PhD students and graduates (the proportion of female students drops back to 48% and that of PhD graduates to 45%). Furthermore, women represent only 44% of grade C academic staff, 36% of grade B academic staff and 18% of grade A academic staff.

12

Can we observe a generation effect in the presence of women professors?

At the level of the EU-27, women account for 23% of grade A academics among 35 to 44-year-olds, 21% among 45 to 54-year-olds and 18% among those aged over 55. The situation thus appears marginally more favourable for the youngest generations of female academics but the gender gap is still persistent.

What is the representation of women at the Head of Research institutions in Universities?

On average throughout the EU-27, 13% of institutions in the Higher Education Sector are headed by women. The six countries where it is highest (equal or above 18%) are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Estonia and Israel. By contrast, in ten European countries this figure drops to 10% or lower. This situation of female under-representation at the head of institutions is even more pronounced when only universities are taken into account, meaning only institutions able to award PhD degrees. On average throughout the EU-27, just 9% of universities have a female head.

i. What we know about the assessment of women’s work

13

INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION refers to situations in which ‘gender-neutral’ regulations have gender-biased effects because of the different situations of men and women. It is usually evident in recruitment and promotion processes.

LESS WOMEN IN TOP PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS research suggests that the number of women in top professional positions in science does not reflect the number of doctorate students and women in lower-status positions which indicates that most working environments do not take into account the work/family balance issue that many women face.

OBSTACLES IN RESEARCH especially in male dominated sectors, women usually take the extra burden of administrative tasks since they are required and expected to participate more frequently in various committees and councils. As a result, women have less time for their own research.

GENDER EQUALITY EDUCATION the academic and administrative leadership often lacks competence in gender equality issues (knowledge of gender equality policies, insight into direct and indirect mechanisms of discrimination etc) which could greatly facilitate the process of eliminating gender stereotypes and discrimination.

14

PART II

Evidence on Differences Affecting Gender in Science

ii. Male vs Female learning culturesii.Male learning culture Female learning culture

Tendency to dominant behavior in educational situations

Tendency to cooperative behavior and orientation

More frequent take-over of monitoring discourse

Willingness to be responsible for ongoing discourse

Longer and more frequent contributions in discourse

Shorter contributions in discourse

More often involved in the development of enforcement strategies

Open for proposals of other people and for cooperative work in general

Desire to impress others and competitive behavior

Willingness to discuss topics, supportive of others

Development and maintenance of competitive relations

Care for a just distribution of learning tasks; preference for group work

(Kuhlen 2006)

15

ii. Why women do not stay in the IT industry

Women tend to quit technology careers due to “antigens”: a) machismo that continues to permeate work

environments -63% of women in science engineering and technology have experience sexual harassment

b) sheer isolation many women cope with dailyc) career path is all very mysteriousd) risky behavior patterns that are rewarded

16

ii. Education & early age influences on girls’ choices

17

A recent study conducted by Dr. Tilghman and published in Scientific American (March 29, 2011) supports the idea that the social environment strongly influences the choices of girls and boys in different ways from an early age.

Specifically, it was observed that as early as the eighth grade, the interest that students show in science is one of the best ways to predict whether they will go on to receive a bachelor’s degree in science, a link which is even more important than their mathematics achievement at the same age.

Students’ belief in their own abilities was identified as an extremely important factor that influenced students’ choices. Students with high self-efficacy, confidence in their ability to succeed at particular tasks, tend to understand physics better and achieve better grades.

This relationship is true for both male and female students, but female students tend to believe in themselves less, contributing to the difficulties they can encounter in physics.

ii. Education & early age influences on girls’ choices

18

Parents, teachers and peers also have strong influences on students’ perceptions of their own abilities, affecting students' career and degree choices. In one study, students were followed from age 12 to age 24. They found that the more mothers believed in their children’s science and math abilities in grade 7, the more likely those students were to pursue careers in science at age 24.

Peers can have a similar impact, supporting or eroding students’ belief in their own abilities. In another study, rural girls who were recognized as talented in science were strongly influenced by the recognition and support they received from their peers.

These social influences can be troubling because parents, teachers and even peers often have stereotypical views of interest and ability in science, views that tend to favor male students.

Together, studies like these illustrate how challenging it is to pinpoint a single cause for the underrepresentation of women in physics. There are elements of interest and self-confidence, but also difficult social pressures. With these challenges in mind, what is needed is not acquiescence but continued searching for solutions. We still need to know what can be done to support and encourage students, and girls in particular, to pursue careers and graduate studies in physics.

19

PART III

Approaches Applied to Enhance the Participation of Women in Science

iii. The discussion on Gender Action Plans started with FP6 where the focus was on

To increase women’s participation within the research workforce , especially at decision-making level;

To allow a better understanding of the gender dimension in research, especially for the definition and the evaluation of scientific excellence;

To raise the gender awareness of different categories of actors, within and outside the European Commission, involved in the design, the evaluation, the selection, the negotiation, the realization, the implementation and the follow -up of IP and NoE research projects;

To highlight the respective responsibility of each category of actors regarding the EU commitment to ensure gender equality and to implement a gender mainstreaming strategy in all its policies and programmes, including the Research policy and the Framework Programme.

Current concern: To build institutional capacity to reflect on and act upon the utilization of the available human resources under the scope of “scientific excellence”

20

iii. A GAP is built around two steps:

1. A diagnosis on the current situation regarding gender (women’s participation and gender aspects in research)

2. Practical proposed actions based on a diagnosis

21

iii. Gender Action Plans provide 2 kinds of information:

1. Actions to be undertaken

2. Specific gender aspects (field dependant)“Gender equality is a strategic concern for the University of Oslo that encompasses democracy as well as fundamental human rights. Gender equality also has an impact on the quality of the University’s activities and on its legitimacy in society as the country’s foremost institution for research, education, and the dissemination of research findings.”

22

iii. The genSET Project

23

genSET goal is to support European Science institutions in promoting gender equality and taking action on the gender dimension in order to improve science knowledge making; human capital development, institutional processes and practices and compliance with regulation

Dialoguing process Science Leaders: Consensus Seminars:

Recommendations Stakeholders: Workshops: Capacity Building

via Gender Action Plans Policy makers: 1st European Gender Summit -

Polish presidency’s patronage of the Gender Summit.

genSET aims to transfer gender research knowledge into science institutions through dialogue to increase their capacity to mainstream gender.

24

iii. The GenSET Consensus Report:

25

iii. The GenSET Consensus Report

26

Recommendations for Action on the Gender Dimension in ScienceThe genSET consensus report presented

recommendations for change according to the dimensions presented in the table (knowledge making, human capital, practices and processes, regulation and compliance).

Below only one recommendation per dimension is presented. For the full presentation of recommendations and argumentation, please read the consensus report.

27

Recommendation 1 (Knowledge making):Leaders must be convinced that there is a need to incorporate methods of sex

and gender analysis into basic and applied research; they must “buy into” the importance of the gender‐dimension within knowledge making.

The most effective way of doing this will be to illustrate how continually incorporating sex and gender analysis promotes research excellence. Such examples should be inventoried by European institutions (e.g. DG Research, ESF) and made available to institutional “change agents” (e.g. deans, provosts, opinion makers, department heads).

  Recommendation 2 (human capital):Women already within scientific institutions must be made more visible.All public relations activities from scientific institutions should be gender-

proofed (represent women appropriately), while avoiding tokenism. This could be done by including women in all promotional campaigns for scientific careers, by leaders nominating women for prizes, and by recognising women’s achievements appropriately.

Deciding what to highlight should be informed by data from gender mainstreaming tools such as gender disaggregated data, information on resource allocation by gender, achievement records, etc.

28

Recommendation 3 (Practices and Processes):

Assessment procedures must be re‐defined to focus on the quality, rather than quantity, of individuals’ publications and research output. This must be consistently applied in individual, departmental, and other levels of assessment.

For instance, researchers should select the most important articles that they have produced in a set number of years, rather than listing all publications. However, qualitative assessment must also avoid gender bias (e.g. reliance on recommendation letters in appointment procedures).

  Recommendation 4 (Regulation and Compliance):

Explicit targets to improve gender balance and action plans to reach them must be included in the overarching gender strategy of scientific institutions. The progress must subsequently be regularly monitored and be made public.

Thank you for your attention….

29