Gender and Excellence in Gender and Excellence in Science and Technology Science and Technology

ResearchResearchDr. Liisa HusuDr. Liisa Husu

University of HelsinkiUniversity of Helsinki

CEM-CONICYT CONFERENCE EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE CEM-CONICYT CONFERENCE EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND GENDER EQUALITY:AND GENDER EQUALITY:

IN SEARCH OF GOOD PRACTICES IN SCIENCE AND IN SEARCH OF GOOD PRACTICES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCHTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Santiago, November 6, 2007 Santiago, November 6, 2007

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Science and Technology Science and Technology Organisations Organisations

as sites of knowledge production as sites of knowledge production

as social arenasas social arenas

as gendered organisationsas gendered organisations

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

History of women in scienceHistory of women in science

exclusion of women from universities exclusion of women from universities and science academies because of and science academies because of their sextheir sex

resistance against women’s entryresistance against women’s entry

resistance against pioneering resistance against pioneering womenwomen

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

European setting: slow progress European setting: slow progress Only 15% of full professors are womenOnly 15% of full professors are women

Majority of university graduates have been Majority of university graduates have been women since the 1990swomen since the 1990s

Women earn 4 out of 10 doctoratesWomen earn 4 out of 10 doctorates

95 % or more of technology professors are men 95 % or more of technology professors are men

Figures for 2004 (EC:She Figures 2006)Figures for 2004 (EC:She Figures 2006)

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Proportion of female professors (%) (full professor, grade A, head count) in certain European countries, 2002

( European Commission, DG Research, WiS database)

0,00 %

5,00 %

10,00 %

15,00 %

20,00 %

25,00 %

Latvi

a

Portu

gal

Finlan

d

Poland

Estonia

Spain

Franc

e

Belgium Ita

ly

Sweden UK

Hungar

y

Norway0

1

Icela

nd01

Lithu

ania

Slovenia

Greec

e

Denmar

k

Czech

Slovakia

Germ

any

Holland

Austri

a

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Proportion (%) of female professors in certain European countries 2002, head count

(Source: European Commission, WiS database)

0,00 %

10,00 %

20,00 %

30,00 %

40,00 %

50,00 %

60,00 %

70,00 %

80,00 %

90,00 %

100,00 %

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Across the EU, only 29 % of Across the EU, only 29 % of researchers women in 2004researchers women in 2004

In Business and Enterprise sector, In Business and Enterprise sector, only 18 % of researchers women, only 18 % of researchers women, even if it is the largest research even if it is the largest research sector in many countriessector in many countries

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

……European settingEuropean setting

Considerable diversity acrossConsiderable diversity across

Europe when it comes to scientific Europe when it comes to scientific infrastructure, history of women’s infrastructure, history of women’s engagement in HE and scientific engagement in HE and scientific professions, gender equality professions, gender equality agendas, work-life balance provisions agendas, work-life balance provisions

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Proportion of female researchers in higher education sector, 2003 (source: She Figures 2006)

202525

2829

303131

3333

3435

3637373737

383838

3940

4141

4344

4546

495353

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Common factorsCommon factors

a lack of gender balance in decision a lack of gender balance in decision making about science policy and making about science policy and among those who determine what among those who determine what constitutes “good science”.constitutes “good science”.

Teresa Rees: National Policies on Women and Teresa Rees: National Policies on Women and Science in Europe 2002Science in Europe 2002

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Why so slow progress towards Why so slow progress towards

gender balance and gender gender balance and gender

equality in academia and equality in academia and research? research?

Why so few women at the top in Why so few women at the top in academia? academia?

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Traditional way to approach Traditional way to approach inequalities in science and academia:inequalities in science and academia:

““Women are the problem” that needs Women are the problem” that needs to be fixed orto be fixed or

““Women have problems” in research Women have problems” in research careers careers

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Change in conceptualising the Change in conceptualising the debate on women in science in the debate on women in science in the 1990s:1990s:

Focus on academic and scientific Focus on academic and scientific organisations: how they treat women organisations: how they treat women and men & produce and reproduce and men & produce and reproduce gendered hierarchies gendered hierarchies

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Only women have gender?Only women have gender?

Men in science also problematized Men in science also problematized

Academic masculinitiesAcademic masculinities

Men and academic networkingMen and academic networking

Homosociability Homosociability

Master – apprentice relationshipsMaster – apprentice relationships

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Why promote women and gender Why promote women and gender equality in science?equality in science?

Human rights argument:Human rights argument:– everybody should be able to realize everybody should be able to realize

their potential regardless of their gendertheir potential regardless of their gender

Excellence and quality argument:Excellence and quality argument:– best brains and talents should be best brains and talents should be

recruited to research, regardless of recruited to research, regardless of gender gender

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

...why promote...why promote

Scientific labour force argument:Scientific labour force argument:– recruitment base for research is recruitment base for research is

diminishing with smaller cohorts diminishing with smaller cohorts need need to recruit both women and men to recruit both women and men

National economical argument:National economical argument:– it is economically wasteful for society it is economically wasteful for society

not to utilize fully the talents of highly not to utilize fully the talents of highly educated women (majority of educated women (majority of graduates!)graduates!)

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Epistemological argument:Epistemological argument:– researchers with more diverse (gender, researchers with more diverse (gender,

ethnic, class etc.) backgrounds ethnic, class etc.) backgrounds representing broader groups in societyrepresenting broader groups in society

- formulate more diverse and different - formulate more diverse and different research questionsresearch questions

- produce more multidimensional researchproduce more multidimensional research- Quality through diversityQuality through diversity

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

ExcellenceExcellence

the new science policy buzzwordthe new science policy buzzword

national and European centres of national and European centres of

excellenceexcellence

networks of excellencenetworks of excellence excellence as funding criteriaexcellence as funding criteria

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Defining excellenceDefining excellence Do we recognize it, when we see it? Do we recognize it, when we see it?

Contested terrainContested terrain

Excellence as a social construction Excellence as a social construction

Who defines?Who defines?

What criteria are used?What criteria are used?

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gender and excellenceGender and excellence

EU Workshop “Minimising gender EU Workshop “Minimising gender bias in the definition and bias in the definition and measurement of scientific measurement of scientific excellence”, Florence, October 2003excellence”, Florence, October 2003

Report Gender and Excellence in the Report Gender and Excellence in the Making (2004)Making (2004)

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

US NAS Report (2006) US NAS Report (2006)

Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic the Potential of Women in Academic Science and EngineeringScience and Engineering

by the National Academy of Sciences, by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the and Institute of Medicine of the National AcademiesNational Academies

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

NAS (2006)NAS (2006)

””Most people, men and women, hold Most people, men and women, hold implicit gender bias”.implicit gender bias”.

””Evaluation criteria contain arbitrary Evaluation criteria contain arbitrary and subjective components which and subjective components which disadvantage women”.disadvantage women”.

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gender bias possible inGender bias possible in

Characterization of scientific Characterization of scientific excellenceexcellence

Assessment criteriaAssessment criteria Indicators (explicit or implicit) usedIndicators (explicit or implicit) used Applying the criteria to men and Applying the criteria to men and

womenwomen Recruitment and composition of Recruitment and composition of

gate-keepersgate-keepers

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gate-keepingGate-keeping

Robert K. Merton (in The Sociology of Robert K. Merton (in The Sociology of Science, 1973): Science, 1973):

Gate-keeper the “fourth major role” Gate-keeper the “fourth major role” or function of scientists, in addition or function of scientists, in addition to those of researcher, teacher and to those of researcher, teacher and administrator. administrator.

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Basic to the systems of evaluation Basic to the systems of evaluation and the allocation of roles and and the allocation of roles and resources in science resources in science

Affects contemporary science in its Affects contemporary science in its every aspect every aspect

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

““Gate-keepers evaluate the Gate-keepers evaluate the promise and limitations of promise and limitations of aspirants to new positions, aspirants to new positions,

thus affecting the mobility of thus affecting the mobility of individual scientists and, in the individual scientists and, in the aggregate, the distribution of aggregate, the distribution of personnel throughout the personnel throughout the system.” (Merton 1973)system.” (Merton 1973)

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

GATE-KEEPING ARENAS IN ACADEMIAGATE-KEEPING ARENAS IN ACADEMIA

agenda settingagenda setting policy decisionspolicy decisions creation of academic postscreation of academic posts academic appointmentsacademic appointments promotion/recruitment decisionspromotion/recruitment decisions funding decisionsfunding decisions allocation of resourcesallocation of resources decisions on awards and prizes decisions on awards and prizes publishingpublishing evaluations of performanceevaluations of performance Etc.Etc.

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

GATEKEEPING TAKES PLACE INGATEKEEPING TAKES PLACE IN

Research groupsResearch groups DepartmentsDepartments InstitutionsInstitutions FacultiesFaculties UniversityUniversity Research councilsResearch councils Scientific associationsScientific associations Funding organisationsFunding organisations Ministry of Education Ministry of Education Formal and informal networks Formal and informal networks

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gate-keeping and gate-keepersGate-keeping and gate-keepers

gate-keepers: both organizational and gate-keepers: both organizational and individualindividual

gate-keeping policiesgate-keeping policies

gate-keeping practicesgate-keeping practices

both content of decisions and processes of both content of decisions and processes of decision-makingdecision-making

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

The dual role of gate-keepingThe dual role of gate-keeping

enabling, promoting people, ideas, enabling, promoting people, ideas, policies, providing opportunitiespolicies, providing opportunities

controlling, excluding or blocking controlling, excluding or blocking people, ideas, policies people, ideas, policies

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gate-keeping in EU fundingGate-keeping in EU funding

40 % target for women’s 40 % target for women’s representation in committees, panels representation in committees, panels and advisory groups and advisory groups

Evaluation panels:Evaluation panels:

FP5: 22 – 27 % of women (2001), FP6: FP5: 22 – 27 % of women (2001), FP6: 26 % (2003)26 % (2003)

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

European Commission ETAN report European Commission ETAN report on promoting gender equality in on promoting gender equality in science (2000): science (2000):

Gate-keepers of research funding Gate-keepers of research funding in Europe consist to a large in Europe consist to a large extent of middle-age male extent of middle-age male academicsacademics

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gatekeepers of research funding in Gatekeepers of research funding in Finland (ongoing study by Husu)Finland (ongoing study by Husu)

””Do you think it is important to have Do you think it is important to have both women and men among both women and men among decision-makers on research decision-makers on research funding?”funding?”

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Strong acceptance & supportStrong acceptance & support

Professor, male, member of a National Professor, male, member of a National Research Council: Research Council:

“ “ I think it is very important. I think it is a I think it is very important. I think it is a significant issue. I think it is good that the significant issue. I think it is good that the Academy of Finland [the National Academy of Finland [the National Research Council organisation] has taken Research Council organisation] has taken up among the first in Finland a relatively up among the first in Finland a relatively strong gender equality plan and it should strong gender equality plan and it should be further developed. It is… it is a be further developed. It is… it is a significant issue.” significant issue.”

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Research funding vs. academic recruitmentResearch funding vs. academic recruitment Professor, female, expert/evaluator tasks in Professor, female, expert/evaluator tasks in

allocating intra-university research funding: allocating intra-university research funding:

““Yes, I do think it is quite apparent. I think the Yes, I do think it is quite apparent. I think the situation [when it comes to gender balance] has situation [when it comes to gender balance] has changed especially in allocation of research changed especially in allocation of research funding, it is remarkably better now than it was funding, it is remarkably better now than it was earlier, after it has become as if a duty to place earlier, after it has become as if a duty to place both women and men among the experts. The both women and men among the experts. The situation [gender balance] is much better in situation [gender balance] is much better in research funding allocation than it is in research funding allocation than it is in recruitment to academic posts. “recruitment to academic posts. “

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Problematizing women’s expertiseProblematizing women’s expertise

Professor, male, Chair of a National Research Professor, male, Chair of a National Research Council: Council:

““Well, in a way we are so used to it in Finland that it Well, in a way we are so used to it in Finland that it is sort of not questioned… of course [pause] and I is sort of not questioned… of course [pause] and I see it as important. But I mean I am not one of see it as important. But I mean I am not one of those….I do not sort of want [long pause] that it those….I do not sort of want [long pause] that it would be some forced criterion so that if there is would be some forced criterion so that if there is such a situation that we know that there is a such a situation that we know that there is a female expert who is clearly… one could say… female expert who is clearly… one could say… weaker, we have to use her only because she is a weaker, we have to use her only because she is a woman. So I think we do then somewhat make a woman. So I think we do then somewhat make a disservice for the issue. But as such kind of a disservice for the issue. But as such kind of a general principle it is good.”general principle it is good.”

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Professor emerita Pirjo Mäkelä, the Professor emerita Pirjo Mäkelä, the first female academician* in Finland :first female academician* in Finland :

“ “ I would be very suspicious of a I would be very suspicious of a committee with 80 % of male committee with 80 % of male members.” members.”

* * Highest scientific honorary position in FinlandHighest scientific honorary position in Finland

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Only in Finland, Norway and Sweden Only in Finland, Norway and Sweden proportion of women members in the proportion of women members in the scientific boards over 40% - most EU scientific boards over 40% - most EU countries below 20 % countries below 20 %

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Gatekeepers in Europe Gatekeepers in Europe Source: EC She Figures 2006Source: EC She Figures 2006

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Future European prioritiesFuture European priorities Women in Science – Excellence and Innovation – Gender Equality in Women in Science – Excellence and Innovation – Gender Equality in

Science, European Commission Staff Working Document 2005Science, European Commission Staff Working Document 2005

Improving scientific excellence by Improving scientific excellence by promoting gender awareness and promoting gender awareness and fairnessfairness

Boosting the numbers of women in Boosting the numbers of women in leading positionsleading positions

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Increasing gender awareness of Increasing gender awareness of scientists evaluating research byscientists evaluating research by

developing and implementing special developing and implementing special training programmes on potential training programmes on potential areas of gender biasareas of gender bias

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Increasing transparency of screening and Increasing transparency of screening and selection proceduresselection procedures

Guidelines should be developed and implementedGuidelines should be developed and implemented

Accountability of panelsAccountability of panels Public advertising of positionsPublic advertising of positions Explicit standards of promotion or appointmentExplicit standards of promotion or appointment Using appropriate indicators of performanceUsing appropriate indicators of performance

* Husu 2007* Husu 2007

Next EU stepNext EU step

EU setting up an expert group on EU setting up an expert group on gender and excellence in research gender and excellence in research funding funding

Report and conference 2009Report and conference 2009