Elizabeth Palmer
Here's an encouraging prediction - in about 20 years women and men will make up equal numbers of higher education academic staff. Well that doesn't sound too long to wait. But dig deeper into this statistic and all is not quite so rosy as it seems. In chemistry, if current trends continue, there won't be parity for men and women until 2070. And as for equality in the numbers of men and women professors, don't even think about it before 2120.
These are just some of the conclusions of a recent study commissioned in the UK by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), into why men and women chemistry graduates are making such different career choices. This study was prompted by earlier RSC research, which showed that although equal numbers of men and women consider a career in chemistry, they don't choose the same career pathways: women in particular are leaving academe in droves. The question is, why?
The RSC asked an independent evaluation agency to provide a comprehensive report on the situation, which can be seen in full on the RSC's web site at http://www.rsc.org/.
Quantitative data on trends in the representation of women in higher education (HE) clearly show that while women are poorly represented in HE in general, the gender imbalance in chemistry is worse: in 1997, while the proportion of female undergraduate students in all subjects was over 50 per cent, the proportion of female undergraduate chemists was only 37 per cent, falling to 33 per cent for female postgraduate chemists. The increasingly sharp fall-off in numbers as women move through chemistry careers in academe (see Table), shows that part of the problem is retaining and promoting women in chemistry. While over 40 per cent of chemistry appointments in the past three years have been female, almost all of these have been to research posts. The report suggests that the recent appointment of 46 new male professors is likely to reduce further the headroom for female opportunities.
To gain a better understanding of why the decline in numbers of women is so steep from postgraduate level onwards, the study incorporated focus groups to provide qualitative research on opinions of men and women in chemistry. These groups put forward some interesting - and unexpected - views on the perceived barriers to the career development of women in chemistry.
The issue of childcare is seen as a major barrier: both men and women were virtually unanimous in believing that it is impossible for a woman to advance in chemistry and have a family. Most women who work take on arranging and funding childcare as their responsibility, making the issue of low salaries particularly important for female academics. One female junior lecturer commented: "When I had my second child, I earned £10 a week after paying the childcare, and that's when salary becomes very important. It crossed my mind on a number of occasions ... maybe I should have gone into industry". Long hours spent at the bench make it difficult to find the time for a family, as well as translating into a requirement for more childcare, which low pay makes unaffordable.
The report also identified some important structural barriers. The bottom-heavy structure of chemistry means there are fewer opportunities the higher up the pyramid you go, leading to massive competition for lectureships and professorships. This contrasts with the flatter structure found in industry. Women are concerned about this hierarchy within chemistry and the lack of a career structure for those not on the professorial track: "If you enjoy doing experiments and you want to stay in the lab as a chemist ... then there doesn't seem to be any way of actually progressing a career", explained one female postdoc. Women also perceive academic chemistry as isolating, with segregation between disciplines and grades, which they felt hindered the opportunity for interdisciplinary working: "I don't get to meet people working in organic chemistry and I would like to talk to them about polymers, but I don't meet these people on a level where I can talk about research". Women saw this isolation as being worst in large, long-established chemistry departments.
The particularly competitive culture in chemistry was also commented on by the women, who are more interested in exploring how to reach a solution and in learning from the process, rather than in arriving at a result and rushing to publish. Whereas men stressed the importance of gaining public recognition - "the personal satisfaction" and "buzz of seeing your name in print" - none of the women mentioned it.
One surprise outcome was the finding that women are worried about the consequences of working in higher education institutions (HEIs) because HEIs neglect health and safety issues. A female industry researcher explained: "[HE] is stuck in the 1950s, with poor ventilation or anything else to prevent you being inundated by a chemical ... conditions are cramped, the environment is very bad. You're always worried that what you're using could be bad for you in the future". Men, on the other hand, do not share such concerns about safety: "I used to do a COSHH assessment once a year, sign it, put it in my drawer, and forget all about it", commented one male chemist. "Chemists in general tend to be extremely lax about safety issues. I was, I still am", claimed another. Women also commented on the lack of equipment and technical support in HEIs.
Both men and women think that chemistry has a poor image: "If you say you're doing chemistry, they think you're polluting the world", said a male postdoc. While men were pessimistic about the effect this had on their employment chances: "The perception is that physicists are bright and chemists aren't", women were more positive and thought that chemistry postgraduates were highly regarded by employers: "I'm using my PhD as a stepping stone because I've got all these skills". Men agreed with this: "[Women] are more likely to see the external value of the skills they have acquired during a PhD, and are better able to market those skills".
The drawbacks of a job in academe, most importantly the working environment
and the barriers to promotion, are enough to dissuade large numbers of women
from persevering with an academic career, the report concludes. In addition,
both women and men recognise that women have acquired transferable skills,
which they are able to sell to potential employers outside academe.
Open for discussion
The issue of women in science has attracted interest ever since Realising our potential - the 1993 Government White Paper on science, engineering and technology - concluded that women were the UK's single most under-valued and under-used human resource. Although the RSC's study did not try to provide the answers to this problem, the Society is hoping that the points raised may go some way towards improving the situation by highlighting the issues that merit further discussion and investigation.
This report is based on a study carried out by Evaluation Associates, London. If you would like to make any comments, or would like further information, please contact Sean McWhinnie, Science Policy Officer, Scientific Affairs, Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1V 0BN, Email mcwhinnies@rsc.org
Percentage of female HE staff in UK by grade: 1997-8
Grade %female staff
Professor 0.8
Senior Lecturer
4.9
Lecturer 13.3
Researcher
23.3
Other Staff
22.0
All 16.5
Striking a Balance
Tom Inch, secretary general of the Royal Society of Chemistry, comments The Society's study, which was an attempt to find out why so few women stay on in higher education and attain professional status, raises more questions than it answers. Even the apparent gender difference that women are more concerned than men with health and safety standards presumably only shows a greater degree of perception by the women among those questioned in the focus groups. Most people with experience of university and industrial laboratories recognise that standards are usually higher in industry when regulations are enforced.
The issues that the report raised were in my opinion more to do with the culture, organisation and management style in universities compared with current business practices. For example, compared with most large companies, universities seem to provide their staff with little personal support, whether it be with helping to cope with career or family dilemmas, or whether it be in providing training to enhance overall skills, particularly of postdoctoral workers and junior staff. Such training, even for a research chemist, might be on supervisory skills, financial management, personal management, project management etc. It is a paradox that universities – whose essential role is to educate and train - often forget that their own staff need to be trained to the highest standards.
The report also refers to the highly competitive nature of university life where, to a large extent in chemistry departments, most young staff have to be focused on getting research results and publications that advance their individual status and the prestige of the department. Although of great value, this dedicated approach sometimes becomes obsessive; for all departments a good balance has to be maintained between teaching, training, research and fundraising.
In my opinion, the concerns raised by those interviewed highlighted the fact that too many young university staff do not know where they stand - or what their career objectives should be - because the university strategy, particularly at departmental level, is not articulated. Further, few staff - particularly younger staff, postdoctoral fellows and other contract employees - are provided with either the guidance or organisation to know where their responsibility is in respect of the following three major departmental activities.
The provision of good teaching and training to both undergraduates and postgraduates The pursuit of academic research/PhD training Continuing research/local industry support, entrepreneurial activities including business start-ups, consulting, fundraising (including research grants)
It seems to me that to expect individuals to spread their efforts across too many activities is unreasonable. Therefore, since all the activities are necessary, careful management is essential. With careful management morale may be improved because uncertainties are removed. However, good management as in our best industries, does not sit easily with the traditional individual freedoms of university staff.
Are our young women chemists telling us something?
This article first appeared in Chemistry in Britain, March 2000 and is
reproduced with permission.
Information
Realising our potential – a strategy for science, engineering and technology. London: HMSO, 1993. The rising tide: a report on women in science, engineering and technology. London: HMSO, 1994.
On-line discussion on women in science, engineering and technology: www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/hansard