Lesley Warner, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.
'Just the place for a Snark, I have said it thrice, what I tell you three times is true', is the quotation from Lewis Carrol which Eileen Byrne (1993) used to introduce her analysis of the place women currently hold in science.
Byrne’s book, Women and Science: The Snark Syndrome, was based on data collected in 1985 and 1986. Although some changes and improvements can be seen in the vital statistics of women’s participation in science and technology, many of the issues are still unresolved and remain as impediments to women being accepted as normal participants in the science and technology scene. These issues were also taken up in the form of an agenda for equity proposed by the Cross University Research in Engineering and Science (CURIES) group in 1994.
Both Byrne (1993) and the CURIES group (1996) argue away from a deficit model of women towards a model for institutional and systemic change. This contention has also been argued by Castleman et al. as reviewed by Hawkes (1996). They suggest that factors within universities themselves are responsible for poor levels of representation by women. These inequities are caused by systemic discrimination, the result of differential application of the principles of merit which continue to affect hiring and promotional practices. They argue cogently towards the need for better data, that is data which includes analysis of what is happening in individual disciplines, and courses within disciplines, rather than summing up information on science as an entity and engineering as an entity.
Lewis and Harris (1995), reporting on women's participation in higher education, show an overall increase in all fields between 1983 and 1994, with increases being greater in, for example, Business (from 29.5% to 43.7% of enrolments), Law (40.1 % to 48.1%), Agriculture (27.9% to 36%) and Veterinary Science (43.6% to 56.7%), than in Science (35.5% to 56.7%). Byrne has argued that within science, proportions of female enrolments would be higher in biological disciplines than in physics and chemistry, with data suggesting about 40% of enrolments in the biological sciences are women but much smaller proportions are enrolled in the physical sciences (Byrne 1993).
When career paths are examined, it can be seen that the gains made through increased enrolments at undergraduate level have not been translated into equivalent gains at every educational and professional level. These losses have been conceptualised as a pipeline for women in the sciences and engineering, beginning with an abundant flow but losing participants at every stage until, at the highest levels of scientific endeavour, few if any women are left. 'Far too many women are in entry level positions; far too few women are in the most highly compensated and powerful ranks' (CURIES 1996).
These trends can be illustrated by data from Central Queensland University. The Biology Department offers two advanced diplomas: one in laboratory techniques, dominated by female enrolments, in some years as high as 90%; the other, in aquatic resource management, dominated by male enrolments. The bachelor’s degree conforms to the national averages, with 50% of graduands being female in 1996. The postgraduate statistics are fragmentary but are indicative of declining participation, with only 25% of 1996 graduands at the honours, masters and doctoral level being female. The academic staff of the department is dominated by male lecturers, as is the Faculty overall. One of six senior Faculty academic management positions is held by a woman. Within the Biology Department of 18 academic staff, three are women, only one of whom holds a senior position. In this department, where 50% or more of the undergraduate students are female, only 17% of the faculty are women.
Byrne (1993} argues that much of knowledge about or policy on women 'in, or out of' science is based on assertion rather than logical or empirical soundness. Her thesis is that by dint of repetition 'everyone knows that...' the educational community has accepted statements that were based on assumptions, rather than validated truths. Byrne goes on to define the Snark Syndrome as the assertion of an alleged truth or belief or principle as the basis for policy making or practice, even where this proves to have no basis in research and may not be consistent with accredited theory in the relevant area of knowledge. Byrne further describes the Snark Effect as 'where two things are found simultaneously'. An assertion which, widely cited, proves to be either unfounded or only occasionally true in particular contexts, is at the same time being used to justify the implementation of major policies.
An example of the Snark Effect in action is the use of role model theory in equity programmes. Through the 1980s, same-sex role modelling was entrenched as a seemingly effective policy mechanism, despite an almost total lack of hard scholarly evidence that it works (Byrne 1993). Apparently many projects were funded on the basis of the simple assumption that if successful women were more visible; girls would flock to enrol in higher education, or whatever careers such women might be representing. Programmes such as the CSIRO's 'Women in Science' project launched in 1985 were based just on such premises.
Common sense, as well as research data, would suggest that whilst it is useful to use same-sex role modelling to illustrate that a particular course or career is not, or need not be, exclusively a female or male preserve, such examples do not of themselves encourage students to go beyond the normal. Furthermore, personal experience would suggest that images of high-flying women in non-traditional careers may be daunting rather than encouraging. As Byrne (1993) points out, when the evidence is examined and the passive role model is distinguished from the active mentor effect, then there is no evidence to support the efficacy of role modelling.
The intangibles of personal style and connections, self-promotion and networking, normally more accessible to men than women, have been shown to be vital for improved participation in science as a career (Hawkes 1996). The roles of mentors and sponsors for male as well as female scientists have been historically well documented, although under the guise of the Old Boys' Network, it has usually been seen very much as a male-as-norm phenomenon. In the 1990s dissatisfaction with the reality, for women scientists, of trying to establish themselves has highlighted the need for a more effective way of encouraging, supporting and aiding women at the student and graduate levels to achieve satisfying careers in science. This has brought the whole issue of mentors and mentoring programmes into greater prominence.
Many successful women scientists can look back over their careers and point to where a mentor’s influence was vital. At the 1996 Pacific Congress in Marine Science and Technology (PACON) in Hawaii, one of the workshop sessions was on Women in Science. A number of women scientists shared their personal experiences. Two themes which came through were the need for persistence (stubbornness?), as well as effective role models and mentors, in a pervasive, male-as-norm culture which sees women as second rate.
A Russian scientist had been inspired by the work of a constellation of enthusiastic female geologists who used the Russian coasts as a model region for the solving of tectonic, volcanic, geodynamic and other problems. A Chinese scientist's story was one of succeeding against all odds. An Australian scientist had been encouraged and supported, throughout her career by a senior male colleague, not just focusing on research problems and the management of the research projects, but on active career promotion through networking effectively with male scientists in the same and related disciplines.
Other women were able to empathise with this and to either indicate where they had received similar support or where it would have been helpful if they had received help and guidance. Some of the younger participants who were actively planning their career paths asked guidance from the group as to how they could effectively penetrate their particular 'Old Boys' Network' and work their conference circuit to maximise their future employment prospects.
At the end of the session a position paper was produced which outlined a paradigm for change. Actions recommended to PACON 96 participants and the PACON Council included support for mentors and mentoring and a call for change towards open and sensitive corporate cultures.
More recently, interviews with three outstanding women scientists from the mainland USA have thrown into stark relief the problems faced by all women setting out to establish themselves not just as credible scientists but in successful careers.
These included the first woman to be elected Secretary General of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA), who was also the first woman to receive a doctorate in astrogeophysics; the director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), sponsored by a university and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAP); and a Dean of Graduate Studies. Talking with them was a timely reminder that women scientists are individuals who have different styles, different personalities, different goals in life and different strategies for achieving success.
All three revealed the importance of supportive male colleagues at key periods during their careers, particularly during periods of their lives when they were not working through planned career pathways. Networking with male and female (where they existed) colleagues was important, with 'working the conference circuit' a valuable skill to be learnt. Clearly they had earned the respect of their male colleagues, but they had had to work harder and achieve higher standards to do so. They had also had to survive, at different periods in their careers, both overt and covert discrimination from senior colleagues and their peers. Male scientists often had difficulty with female management styles that are framed cooperatively with team approaches to consensus decision making. Senior male and academic managers seemed to have less of a problem in this regard than senior research scientists.
A cautionary note was also sounded. Not all women are happy to see their colleagues’ success. It can be particularly difficult to have to work through hostility, and allegations of selling out—to the female establishment - from other women whilst continuing to operate effectively in the scientific milieu—a milieu which of itself can be inimical to women and their aspirations.
There are no short cuts, no quick fix tricks but plenty of perseverance, determination to use male and female networks, some sponsorship from colleagues and plenty of hard work, together with the prescribed over-achievement in their work, are the current prerequisites for women who want success in a scientific career.
When data from the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s are compared, some progress has been made in the participation of females in higher education at the undergraduate level, less at the postgraduate level and even less in employment. Even the undergraduate figures leave little room for complacency. In engineering for example. the rate of increase in female enrolments is slowing but even if the current rate (for 1994) is maintained, equality in enrolments of men and women will not be achieved until the year 2055 and further, if present trends continue, will not be achieved in the 21st century (Lewis and Harris 1995).
It is also difficult to equate progress as indicated by national data with progress in individual institutions and by discipline as there are large variations between campuses and across disciplines. It is all too easy for policy makers and senior bureaucrats to use the fact that total female enrolments comprise more than 50% of higher education students as a justification to wind down resources to affirmative action.
Much of the lack of progress can be attributed to ineffective policies and programs. The CURIES (1996) group noted that although many projects had been implemented by government and private agencies, most had not been properly evaluated to assess what if any benefits ensued. We still do not really understand what may or may not be effective.
Clearly, if any substantial progress is to be made, then policy makers need to do more than focus on 'mere visible imaging of female' [simplistic role modelling based on Snark Syndrome assumptions]; rather policies and programs should be informed by 'new knowledge, new understanding and the re-education of both sexes and women's equal capacity for all branches of scientific and technological study'. As noted above and cited in Byrne (1993), there is clear evidence that successful women have had mentors, and that there is a correlation between women achieving success and having been successfully mentored in the past.
The issues of who should do the mentoring, female to female, and how effective that can be in a male-dominated culture, or male to female, and what the risks are to both parties in cross-sex mentoring, have not been resolved. Sound well-grounded research into the role of the mentor, and how the relationship should be managed is needed before policies are developed and projects funded. Most studies to date have focused on academic scientists and engineers even though more are employed elsewhere. Assumptions made about science in general based on studies of careers in academia may also be false. Research should have a wider perspective so that the diverse experiences of women who have taken non-traditional as well as traditional paths into industry and academia are examined (Byrne 1993, CURIES 1996).
What has become for me crystal clear is that role-modelling, mentoring and other affirmative action projects, whose goals are to improve women’s skills to operate effectively in a male-dominated preserve, may be useful in the short term. Such policies, however, put the onus and responsibility for change onto women, and obviate the need for men to re-examine institutional power structures or to take responsibility for the negative influences of their behaviour. By the same token, it is counter-productive for feminist philosophers to put pressure on women scientists to change the paradigm of mainstream scientific thought. Either way the victims are made responsible for the crime.
Significant progress cannot be expected until institutional cultures are remodelled along gender-neutral principles. Careers of all women scientists can only flourish when the male-as-norm culture is changed. Powerful men have to be encouraged to take responsibility for changing both male and female attitudes. This takes on the aura of a 'Catch 22' situation: why should men work to change a system which is advantageous to them in favour of a system where they share power with what is currently regarded as a less able group?
There is already enough research data to support specific actions for change (CURIES 1996), but only the most optimistic of people would suggest that the current male establishment is sufficiently altruistic to develop, fund and monitor policies that will change educational, institutional and industry ecologies towards neutrality, that is to their disadvantage. At a time when cutbacks in higher education have deepened competitiveness and sometimes distrust in universities, how benevolent can we expect male scientists to be?
Policies and programmes of government and employers need to be developed and resourced to support women presently in science, to create systemic improvements for girls and women at all levels, and to clarify the national importance of promoting a science and technology culture that is attractive to both males and females.
Unless this change in emphasis, from women as the problem to institutional ecology as the problem, is accepted by government planners and industry leaders, then the rather dismal scenario of equality of enrolments in higher education not being achieved in the 21st century and equality of women in the scientific workplace being delayed even further as a consequence will prevail. The present Liberal government’s emphases on economic rationalism and higher HEC charges for science undergraduates, as well as winding back equity support for women generally, can only be counterproductive for women aspiring to careers in the sciences. Bettina Arndt (1997) comments that university resources should be redirected now that the myth that women are disadvantaged has been exposed. Such attitudes and actions will only make the future more bleak for women in science.
Further, the consequences of improved retention rates in schools and improved achievement by girls as a result of present equity initiatives are in danger of sparking a backlash against girls. The possibility that boys may be being left behind is causing alarm in some circles. 'Although girls' academic advances are a cause for pride, there is a danger of going too far' (Gold 1995). A situation that has taken 2000-plus years of effort to begin to address for women has within less than a decade sparked a response by educators, and the focus for many equity projects is now to assist boys to achieve their potential (The Equity Network, 1994).
In an ideal world every person should be encouraged and assisted to achieve their potential. It may be that programs to aid under-achieving boys could in the longer term be catalysts for the development of gender-neutral learning environments that consequently have far-reaching effects on human relationships and institutional ecology. In some programmes, however, boys are being encouraged by providing 'books which were full of adventures and violence, similar material to that in the boys' favourite computer games' (Gold 1995). Such interventions seem directed towards protecting the status quo if not aiming to go backwards to a time when boys’ achievements in the classroom went unchallenged by girls.
When all the issues are explored, contexts analysed and research examined, it seems reasonable to conclude that some gains have been made but the pace of change is slow and may be slowing further. We probably have a better understanding, however, of what kinds of changes are needed and where intervention programmes should best be targeted to produce systemic change. There is no consensus yet as to how to develop institutional ecologies that will result in powerful men using their power to create contexts where science becomes a gender-neutral discipline normal for males and females. In the interim the only way forward for individuals aspiring to or developing their careers in science is to find sponsors, develop networks with male colleagues and continue to persevere.
Arndt, B. 1997. 'How the men miss out', Sydney Morning Herald, September 3rd, 1997.
Byrne, E. M. 1993 Women and Science: The Snark Syndrome, The Felner Press: London, 208 pp.
Cross University Research in Engineering and Science, 1996. The Equity Agenda: Women in Science, Mathematics and Engineering, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, pp. 1-12.
Gold, K.1995. 'Hard Times for Britain's Lost Boys', New Scientist, No. 1963, p. 12.
Hawkes, E. 1996. Review of 'Limited Access: Women's Disadvantage in Higher Education Employment', Castleman, T., Allen, M., Bastalich, W. and Wright, P., in Australian Universities Review, 1, 61-62.
Lewis, S. and Harris, R. 1995. 'Gender and Engineering: Higher Education Data', Data Matters, National Centre for Women: Employment Education and Training, Swinburne University of Technology, November 1995, p 1-4.
The Equity Network, Department of Employment, Education and Training. 1994. 'What About the Boys', The Gen, March 1994, pp. 1-5.
Lesley Warner is an Associate Professor in the School of Biological and Environmental Sciences at CQU, Rockhampton. Her research interests are in the helminth parasites of Australian mammals. She is also Director of Women into Science and Technology, a distance educating bridging program for women, and coordinator of the Sciences Communication program.