{"id":3670,"date":"2013-06-21T07:48:42","date_gmt":"2013-06-21T07:48:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/?p=3670"},"modified":"2013-08-20T20:08:43","modified_gmt":"2013-08-20T20:08:43","slug":"gender-issues-in-european-academic-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/athenedonald\/2013\/06\/21\/gender-issues-in-european-academic-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Gender Issues in European Academic Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week has seen me travelling to Vienna and Bratislava for a meeting of the European Research Council’s Scientific Council<\/a>. Travelling between the two cities along the Danube by fast boat provided a rare treat of a little relaxation fitted into the normally intense work of such a committee meeting. I am still learning the ropes, getting to grips with acronyms (of course) and structures; this was only my second formal meeting of the Council and the ways of Brussels can seem a little mysterious to newcomers. I also attended my first meeting of the Gender Working Group, a group chaired by fellow Council member Isabelle Vernos<\/a>, who contributed to the recent Nature Special<\/a> focussing on gender. In her article<\/a> there she included some ERC statistics and put the case against quotas. There is absolutely no doubt that the ERC takes the issue of gender very seriously and it worries about the statistics surrounding the success rates for women in the various rounds of awards. The figures are not good, as their 2012 Annual Report<\/a> makes clear. (see data below) Yet the reasons for this are many and complex – and to some extent still unknown. The good news is that the figures are being collated and analysed. The bad news is that there is no simple fix.<\/p>\n

\"ERC<\/a><\/p>\n

Comparative figures for total applicatons and successful applications from women across the 3 domains and for all calls of ERC Starting grants.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"ERC<\/a><\/p>\n

Comparative figures for total applicatons and successful applications from women across the 3 domains and for all calls of ERC Advanced grants.<\/em><\/p>\n

If the figures above (taken from the 2012 annual report) are examined closely there are some intriguing factors. Speaking as a physicist, it is heartening to see that the PE domain (i.e. the Physical and Engineering Sciences) show success rates \u2013 particularly for Starting Grants, less so for Advanced Grants \u2013 which are pretty much the same for women and men, year on year (Social Sciences and Humanities also don’t too badly on this front). This is very much not the case for the LS (Life Sciences) domain. So are the eligible women in the life sciences weaker on average, are the panels more prejudiced or is there something in the way LS proposals are written that disadvantages women? The statistics alone are not enough to identify the problems, and there was much debate about this.<\/p>\n

One of the figures that isn’t present in the annual report concerns the make-up of panels. The ERC is determined to get good representation of women on panels, but this should not simplistically be thought to be because having more women on panels will mean women will be treated more favourably. Indeed the statistics we were shown this week demonstrate clearly that there is no correlation between success rates for women and make-up of panel and I am glad to hear it myself: favourable judging by women of women would hardly be healthy and the broader evidence<\/a> is that unconscious bias against women is as prevalent amongst women as men. But women should be at the table so that their voices are heard, judging both men and women. This, by now, should just be taken as read. Furthermore, although it is hard to find non-emotive words to describe this, if panels are seen as a power-base and if membership of panels is regarded (as it is) as a figure of merit, of course women should be participating in them. It is sad that this still needs to be discussed but, as with conference speakers, it remains the case that it is all too easy for women to be overlooked or forgotten. It is good that the ERC are very sensitive to the matter, so that oversight cannot accidentally occur.<\/p>\n

So, to return to success rates. In the course of informal discussions the following points were made, which are purely supposition and may even be thought to include some unwelcome stereotyping. Nevertheless, they are probably thoughts worth exploring further if the causes – and solutions – of the lower success rates of women are to be appropriately dealt with.<\/p>\n