http://www.smartsciencecareer.com/strategies-to-block-female-scientists-with-gender-policy/
(authors: Sven Hendrix and Virginie Bito)
5 successful strategies to block the career of female scientists with gender policy
After several decades of fighting for equal rights for women in
academia there are new rules and guidelines on the European and national
level to support the career of women in
science. One strategy is to aim for an equal distribution of genders in
all academic settings. Surprisingly, these important strategies for
gender equality have some unwanted side-effects which impair
specifically the careers of young female scientists.
“You are selected because you are the best candidate – and we also need a woman in the commission”
Universities and other scientific institutions have to adapt to the
European and national guidelines on gender equality. In principle, this
means that in all boards, commissions and selection committees there
should be a balance of male and female members to break through the male
dominance in science. Interestingly, this may lead to a
devaluation of female staff members
because their competence and expertise for a specific function gets
overshadowed by the strong argument that there has to be a certain
number of female members in the commission anyway. They want to be
chosen because they are qualified and the best candidate and not because
they are a woman. Finally, this may even lead to doubts about the
scientific qualities of the female researcher.
“Congratulations, you are member of another 7 committees”
When starting as a young staff member female scientists may be
flattered by being invited to numerous boards, commissions and selection
committees. However, they quickly realize that all these academic
activities cost a huge amount of time. These young
female staff members spend a considerable amount of time in meetings which
are mostly dominated by male senior scientists. In contrast, their
young male colleagues are free to work hard on their careers e. g. by
investing in excellent research. In the long run, academic functions add
some bonus to their CV but there is considerable debate whether this
time shouldn’t be better invested in science than in endless meetings.
“The dean really wants you to be in this commission”
Since the University has to follow the European and national
regulations, there is a strong peer pressure to accept these
‘nominations’. As a result, the female researchers lose their freedom
to say “no” and to choose carefully the functions they want for their
careers and in which they feel competent.
“Where have you been during the last 7 selection procedures?”
As a result, the young female staff members may tend to participate
only formally in many boards, commissions and selection committees.
Thus, they are “officially” members to let the university follow gender
equality rules but they are not physically present. This has two
negative side-effects: Firstly, gender equality is not taken seriously
anymore and may start to exist only on paper (and the meetings are still
dominated by senior male decision makers). Secondly, their absence in
these meetings will be commented on and documented regularly and
may be interpreted as a lack of motivation and interest in these functions.
“The chairman is a man, do you want to be the vice-chairwoman and write the meeting report?”
Another time consuming side-effect of the new regulations is that
every important function filled with a man must be balanced by a female
“number 2”. The upside is that women grow easily into higher policy
functions because in many political settings there is a tradition to
select vice chairs as the successor of the current chair. The downside
is that these (vice) chair functions are normally associated with
a lot of additional administrative and organizational work such as preparing and leading meetings, writing meeting reports and communicating with the administration.
“As a woman would you please give a talk on work/life balance in science ?”
Finally, there is a well-intended tendency to address the burning
questions of work/life balance in science by selecting young female
researchers as “representatives of a new generation” who know better how
to handle work and family life. This
supports the stereotype
that primarily women are responsible for family and children. From our
experience it is rather difficult to motivate male researchers to give a
presentation about work/life balance if this is not their research
subject.
The current generation of young female researchers will probably
break through the patterns of the “glass ceiling” and of the male
dominance in boards, commissions and selection committees. It may be
advantageous for the current generation of young female scientists
to go for a gradual implementation of this policy –
especially in domains where the policy is still incompletely
implemented and where the number of female scientists is low. Simple
rules such as “at least one woman in every commission” may be a better
start than implementing a 30% or 50% rule.
In conclusion, there are surprisingly negative side-effects of the
well-intended gender equality policies which should be debated and
handled.
