|
|
|
Update on the Honouring Women's Program
|
I was first introduced to the Honouring Women’s Project by Kellie Baker and
Caroline Oakley from the Office of Status of Women, Department of Prime Minister
and Cabinet. They came as guest speakers to an ACT WISENET lunch in 2004. I was
surprised to learn from them that the reason so few women are successful in
awards is that very few are nominated. Investigation revealed that many women
are not aware of what is involved in nominating or being nominated for awards or
can be overwhelmed by the demands of the process. The result is that we tend not
to participate in the programs. In not participating, we miss out on the
rewards. In an attempt to redress this trend, I prepared an overview of the
steps and timelines involved in the awards process (WISENET Journal 66, p7).
|
|
|
Anna Robinson, immediate-past WISENET National Convenor (2007) |
We are now starting to more regularly congratulate women on some major honours
and awards (for example, see J72 and in this issue, Elizabeth’s story). It was
also heartening to hear from ACT WISENET member Rowena Ball that she
successfully nominated a colleague for a major award recently (Ed. see Rowena’s
comments at the end of this article). Such actions make the nominator noticed as
well. The process works both ways. However participating in the nominations
process is not always easy. Further that she found the outline in J66 helpful.
There can be so many different criteria to address, so many different formats
for submitting the documentation, and so many different outcomes. Sometimes the
honours nominations need to be kept secret. This can be a real obstacle in
honouring women scientists as we do not always understand each other’s work
beyond a certain level of detail, particularly if it is outside our own
discipline. Other awards require the nominee’s agreement because of public
duties and responsibilities associated with the award.
The question arises of whether enough of us are nominating to ensure that women have fair representation. We have so many wonderful outstanding women scientists in Australia but many are still so self-effacing. Unfortunately, Australia has a history of admiring the quiet achievers - but not the quiet achievers who consider themselves nothing special.
We can change all that. How? Ours is the land of the boomerang. I, and Rowena,
and many others are gaining great pleasure and enjoyment from the awards
nomination process. I sincerely hope more of you will participate. Given the
huge number of awards that are currently available, and our reticence in
nomination for all of them, it seemed appropriate in response to Diane Webster’s
request for an update on the program, to revisit the seminar presented by Ann
Moyal, Kim Blackmore and myself on the topic entitled “Women in Australian
Science: Successful despite the odds” organised by Manning Clark House and the
Independent Scholars Association of Australia in 2004 (see WISENET J67, p32).
The following is an excerpt from my talk.
"There is a long history of women assuming a supporting,
nurturing role. In the past, it was not seen as becoming for women to promote
themselves…a concept that is inherent in our language with sayings such as:
“behind every famous man there is a good woman” or as my mother (frequently)
used to say, “ladies don’t behave that way”. This attitude was present from the
home to the hallowed halls of academe. Stories abound of women having their
achievements stolen, overlooked or overshadowed in science – unfortunately not
only in the past. Discussions with a member of the Ombudsman’s Office here in
Canberra some years ago revealed that the greatest number of science-related
complaints were from women who have handed over their scientific data to their
so-called “partners” while in a close relationship. The aim was to provide the
partner with more publications which would create a more secure future for them
both, especially when children came along. We need to be wary and warn against
such action.
Unfortunately an equivalent problem also exists within women’s culture. I
remember at school reading someone’s quirky analysis of the element “woman”.
Isotopes, SW, SSW, OS… One of the properties of this element was: ‘turns green
when placed next to a better specimen’. This characteristic emanates from
historical attitudes where a good future for a woman was dependent on attracting
a good man - so limiting the competition was very advantageous. Today, with
emphasis on equity, the historical reasons for such behaviour is not always
evident; but the habit sometimes remains. We need to be wary and warn against
this too.
Change for the better has occurred in the past 20 – 30 years where, not only is
education freely available to women in Australia, but all are expected to be
educated. I remember once hearing the adage: ‘educate a man and you educate an
individual. Educate a woman and you educate a race’. The importance of gender
balanced education should not be understated. And with education coupled to the
women’s movement, today we see a real and emphatic growth in numbers of
competent women in so many disciplines. Sure, the progress to senior positions
is slow, but we have to recognize that that is partly because women cannot
always progress along traditional paths and more flexible criteria for promotion
are required. It’s hard sometimes to progress as well as change the system. But
change is out there and it is encouraging.
How can we expedite the change? One is by increasing the number of nominations
for awards, prizes and honours. Why? Because they appear on a CV, represent
instant recognition and provide a competitive edge. A real problem is lack of
experience; lack of knowledge as to how the systems work - few even senior
professoriate female scientists understand what is required of them to nominate
or to accept nomination. Also, I discovered that women are more quickly
disgruntled if the nominations aren’t successful then don’t bother again. But
this has to change. Investigations by economist Linda Babcock and writer Sara
Laschever in their book Women Don’t Ask have shown that men ask for what they
want twice as often as women do and initiate negotiation four times more. I
think we need to encourage women scientists to be more resilient, learn more
about the processes, pass on the knowledge, share experiences, just nominate
more often until it becomes second nature."
Bio: Anna Robinson was National Convenor of WISENET from 2002 – 2006.
She obtained a PhD in protein engineering from the Research School of Chemistry,
ANU in 1998 and completed a post-doctoral Research Fellowship, investigating
Glutathione Transferase enzymes at The John Curtin School of Medical Research in
2004. Anna is currently at the Canberra Institute of Technology coordinating the
ANU Associate Degree (specialising in science) and teaching in Forensic Science.
