Transcript Gender and Excellence in Science and Technology Research

Gender and Excellence in
Science and Technology
Research
Dr. Liisa Husu
University of Helsinki
CEM-CONICYT CONFERENCE EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE
AND GENDER EQUALITY:
IN SEARCH OF GOOD PRACTICES IN SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
Santiago, November 6, 2007
Science and Technology
Organisations
 as
sites of knowledge production
 as
social arenas

as gendered organisations
* Husu 2007
History of women in science
 exclusion
of women from universities
and science academies because of
their sex
 resistance
against women’s entry
 resistance
against pioneering
women
* Husu 2007
European setting: slow progress





Only 15% of full professors are women
Majority of university graduates have
been women since the 1990s
Women earn 4 out of 10 doctorates
95 % or more of technology professors
are men
Figures for 2004 (EC:She Figures 2006)
* Husu 2007
Proportion of female professors (% )
(full professor, grade A, head count)
in certain European countries, 2002
( European Commission, DG Research, WiS database)
25,00 %
20,00 %
15,00 %
10,00 %
5,00 %
U
Hu K
n
No gar
rw y
a
Ic y0
1
el
an
Li d01
th
ua
Sl nia
ov
en
G ia
re
De ece
nm
ar
k
Cz
e
Sl c h
ov
a
G kia
er
m
an
Ho y
lla
n
Au d
st
ria
La
Po tvia
rtu
g
Fi a l
nl
an
Po d
la
n
Es d
to
ni
a
Sp
ai
Fr n
an
Be ce
lg
iu
m
Ita
Sw ly
ed
en
0,00 %
Proportion (%) of female professors
in certain European countries 2002, head count
(Source: European Commission, WiS database)
100,00 %
90,00 %
80,00 %
70,00 %
60,00 %
50,00 %
40,00 %
30,00 %
20,00 %
10,00 %
U
Hu K
ng
a
No r y
rw
a
Ic y
el
Li a nd
th
ua
n
S l ia
ov
en
G ia
re
e
De ce
nm
a
Tc rk
he
Sl ch
ov
a
G kia
er
m
an
Ho y
lla
n
Au d
st
ria
Ita
Sw ly
ed
en
La
t
P o v ia
rtu
g
Fi a l
nl
an
Po d
la
n
Es d
to
ni
a
Sp
ai
Fr n
an
Be ce
lg
iu
m
0,00 %


Across the EU, only 29 % of
researchers women in 2004
In Business and Enterprise sector,
only 18 % of researchers women,
even if it is the largest research
sector in many countries
* Husu 2007
…European setting
 Considerable
diversity across
Europe when it comes to scientific
infrastructure, history of women’s
engagement in HE and scientific
professions, gender equality
agendas, work-life balance provisions
* Husu 2007
Proportion of female researchers in higher education sector, 2003
Fin
l an
La d
Lit tvi
hu a
Po ania
rtu
Es gal
Sw tonia
ed
Ice en
Slo la nd
va
Po ki a
Ro land
ma
Ire nia
l
Bu and
lga
r
Sp ia
a
No in
rw
Tu a y
rk
G r ey
e
Hu ece
ng
ary
Be U K
lgi
um
EU
Fr -25
Slo ance
v
Cz enia
ec
De h R
nm .
ark
Ita
Ne Au ly
th st
Sw e rla r ia
itz nds
er
G e land
rm
an
Isr y
a
Ja el
pa
n
(source: She Figures 2006)
53
53
49
46
45
44
43
41
41
40
39
38
38
38
37
37
37
37
36
35
34
33
33
31
31
30
29
28
25
25
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Common factors
a
lack of gender balance in decision
making about science policy and
among those who determine what
constitutes “good science”.
Teresa Rees: National Policies on Women and
Science in Europe 2002
* Husu 2007
 Why
so slow progress towards
gender balance and gender
equality in academia and
research?
 Why
so few women at the top in
academia?
* Husu 2007

Traditional way to approach
inequalities in science and academia:
 “Women
are the problem” that needs
to be fixed or
 “Women
careers
have problems” in research
* Husu 2007
 Change
in conceptualising the debate
on women in science in the 1990s:
 Focus
on academic and scientific
organisations: how they treat women
and men & produce and reproduce
gendered hierarchies
* Husu 2007
Only women have gender?

Men in science also problematized

Academic masculinities

Men and academic networking

Homosociability

Master – apprentice relationships
* Husu 2007
Why promote women and gender
equality in science?

Human rights argument:
– everybody should be able to realize
their potential regardless of their gender

Excellence and quality argument:
– best brains and talents should be
recruited to research, regardless of
gender
* Husu 2007
...why promote

Scientific labour force argument:
– recruitment base for research is
diminishing with smaller cohorts  need
to recruit both women and men

National economical argument:
– it is economically wasteful for society
not to utilize fully the talents of highly
educated women (majority of
graduates!)
* Husu 2007
 Epistemological
argument:
– researchers with more diverse (gender,
ethnic, class etc.) backgrounds
representing broader groups in society
- formulate more diverse and different
research questions
-
produce more multidimensional research
Quality through diversity
* Husu 2007
Excellence
 the
new science policy buzzword
 national
and European centres of
excellence
 networks
of excellence
 excellence as funding criteria
* Husu 2007
Defining excellence

Do we recognize it, when we see it?

Contested terrain

Excellence as a social construction

Who defines?

What criteria are used?
* Husu 2007
Gender and excellence
 EU
Workshop “Minimising gender
bias in the definition and
measurement of scientific
excellence”, Florence, October 2003
 Report
Gender and Excellence in the
Making (2004)
* Husu 2007
US NAS Report (2006)
 Beyond
Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling
the Potential of Women in Academic
Science and Engineering
by the National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering,
and Institute of Medicine of the
National Academies
* Husu 2007
NAS (2006)
 ”Most
people, men and women, hold
implicit gender bias”.
 ”Evaluation
criteria contain arbitrary
and subjective components which
disadvantage women”.
* Husu 2007
Gender bias possible in
 Characterization
of scientific
excellence
 Assessment criteria
 Indicators (explicit or implicit) used
 Applying the criteria to men and
women
 Recruitment and composition of
gate-keepers
* Husu 2007
Gate-keeping
 Robert
K. Merton (in The Sociology of
Science, 1973):
 Gate-keeper
the “fourth major role”
or function of scientists, in addition
to those of researcher, teacher and
administrator.
* Husu 2007
 Basic
to the systems of evaluation
and the allocation of roles and
resources in science
 Affects
contemporary science in its
every aspect
* Husu 2007
“Gate-keepers
evaluate the
promise and limitations of
aspirants to new positions,
thus affecting the mobility of
individual scientists and, in the
aggregate, the distribution of
personnel throughout the
system.” (Merton 1973)
* Husu 2007
GATE-KEEPING ARENAS IN ACADEMIA
agenda setting
 policy decisions
 creation of academic posts
 academic appointments
 promotion/recruitment decisions
 funding decisions
 allocation of resources
 decisions on awards and prizes
 publishing
 evaluations of performance
 Etc.

* Husu 2007
GATEKEEPING TAKES PLACE IN










Research groups
Departments
Institutions
Faculties
University
Research councils
Scientific associations
Funding organisations
Ministry of Education
Formal and informal networks
* Husu 2007
Gate-keeping and gate-keepers

gate-keepers: both organizational and
individual

gate-keeping policies

gate-keeping practices

both content of decisions and processes of
decision-making
* Husu 2007
The dual role of gate-keeping
 enabling,
promoting people, ideas,
policies, providing opportunities

controlling, excluding or blocking
people, ideas, policies
* Husu 2007
Gate-keeping in EU funding
 40
% target for women’s
representation in committees, panels
and advisory groups
 Evaluation
panels:
FP5: 22 – 27 % of women (2001),
FP6: 26 % (2003)
* Husu 2007
 European
Commission ETAN report
on promoting gender equality in
science (2000):
Gate-keepers of research funding
in Europe consist to a large
extent of middle-age male
academics
* Husu 2007
 Gatekeepers
of research funding in
Finland (ongoing study by Husu)
 ”Do
you think it is important to have
both women and men among
decision-makers on research
funding?”
* Husu 2007
Strong acceptance & support
Professor, male, member of a National
Research Council:
“ I think it is very important. I think it is a
significant issue. I think it is good that the
Academy of Finland [the National
Research Council organisation] has taken
up among the first in Finland a relatively
strong gender equality plan and it should
be further developed. It is… it is a
significant issue.”
* Husu 2007
Research funding vs. academic recruitment

Professor, female, expert/evaluator tasks in
allocating intra-university research funding:
“Yes, I do think it is quite apparent. I think the
situation [when it comes to gender balance] has
changed especially in allocation of research
funding, it is remarkably better now than it was
earlier, after it has become as if a duty to place
both women and men among the experts. The
situation [gender balance] is much better in
research funding allocation than it is in
recruitment to academic posts. “
* Husu 2007
Problematizing women’s expertise
Professor, male, Chair of a National Research
Council:
“Well, in a way we are so used to it in Finland that
it is sort of not questioned… of course [pause]
and I see it as important. But I mean I am not
one of those….I do not sort of want [long pause]
that it would be some forced criterion so that if
there is such a situation that we know that there
is a female expert who is clearly… one could say…
weaker, we have to use her only because she is a
woman. So I think we do then somewhat make a
disservice for the issue. But as such kind of a
general principle it is good.”
* Husu 2007
Professor emerita Pirjo Mäkelä, the
first female academician* in Finland :
“ I would be very suspicious of a
committee with 80 % of male
members.”
*
Highest scientific honorary position in Finland
* Husu 2007
 Only
in Finland, Norway and Sweden
proportion of women members in the
scientific boards over 40% - most EU
countries below 20 %
* Husu 2007
Gatekeepers in Europe
Source: EC She Figures 2006
* Husu 2007
Future European priorities

Women in Science – Excellence and Innovation – Gender Equality in
Science, European Commission Staff Working Document 2005
 Improving
scientific excellence by
promoting gender awareness and
fairness
 Boosting
the numbers of women in
leading positions
* Husu 2007
 Increasing
gender awareness of
scientists evaluating research by
 developing
and implementing special
training programmes on potential
areas of gender bias
* Husu 2007






Increasing transparency of screening and
selection procedures
Guidelines should be developed and implemented
Accountability of panels
Public advertising of positions
Explicit standards of promotion or appointment
Using appropriate indicators of performance
* Husu 2007
Next EU step
 EU
setting up an expert group on
gender and excellence in research
funding

Report and conference 2009
* Husu 2007