|
|
|
WISENET Campaign Issues?
This document was originally prepared as a briefing document for Minister
Julie Bishop who attended a luncheon with the ACT link-group in October 2006.
The original document was authored by Sari Ruuska and has been updated for
publication in J74 (April 2007). It is our hope that this article will provoke
broad discussion from the WISENET membership to assist in the formation of a
‘position-statement’ that is available as a resource to all WISENET members.
Please let us know your thoughts on these issues through the WISENET list-serv (wisenet@anu.edu.au)
We’d also be keen to add any new issues that you feel are important. A key
element of this process needs to be the presentation of possible solutions not
just an articulation of the problems. All discussion will be collated into a
‘position statement’ and posted on the web-site for easy access when you need
it.
Key Issues for Women in Science
1. Retaining Women in Science
The minority position of women in science and engineering is to a large degree a
problem of retaining women. At the undergraduate and postgraduate level, there
are many capable women but they don’t seem to rise to higher ranks. There are
few studies on the subject (see refs below), the most recent being a National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) report from the USA pointing out that “the
country’s competitiveness cannot afford to ignore the dearth of senior
scientific women, and that they are hindered not by lack of ability but by bias
and outmoded institutional structures in academia”1. The
major issue that limits women’s continued participation is the expectation that
everyone will conform to the “traditional male” work patterns in research, where
long hours and unpaid overtime become the norm (more and more men are also
finding this incompatible with family life). Among other steps, the report
recommends altering procedures for hiring and evaluation, changing typical
timetables for tenure and promotion, and providing more support for working
parents. For example, typically women devote more time for teaching and
mentoring, yet for hiring and promotion purposes research productivity, measured
as peer-reviewed publications, is most valued.
Specifically in Australia, we see that an additional factor contributing to the low representation of women in science is the unavailability of part-time and flexitime employment. Moreover, the negative impact of childbearing to a career in science is well documented2. A possible way to address the latter issue would be a separate criterion for research grants to recognize that women with young children at this stage of their careers cannot dedicate unlimited time for research, and if they are publishing fewer papers it does not necessarily mean their track record is poor and that they do not deserve research support5.
2. The Lack of Support for Early/Mid Career Scientists
Another issue affecting the participation of both women and men in the sciences is the imbalance between the growth of research training and opportunities for a tenure research career. Short-term research funding, that frequently fails to cover the true cost of running a project, means that project supervisors tend to hire low-paid junior researchers on short-term contracts leaving many scientists without a structured career path. Unfortunately, they often have not even been advised or prepared for an alternative career. The Australian Academy of Science (AAS) has identified this as a national concern, and in 2005 the council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies (DDOGS) published a framework to support the teaching of generic capabilities for research students in order to help them widen their career options3. The President of AAS has also recently pointed out that the main funding body Australian Research Council (ARC) needs to increase its support especially for mid career researchers at fellowship level.3
3. The Lack of Public Acknowledgement for Women Scientists
WISENET is concerned by the lack of women as recipients of major science
prizes. Since the initiation of the Australia Science Prizes in 1990 (now the
Prime Minister’s Science Prizes) only 12 of the 50 recipients have been female4.
Of the 12 awardees, 6 have been Primary and High School Science Teachers. This
means only 6 women scientists have been acknowledged in 27 years. We believe
that the lack of acknowledgement of women and their contributions in so many
areas of science conveys the message that female scientists are invisible and
not highly valued. This is a very negative image and actively discourages
nomination of women.
Presentation of the prize for Physical Scientist of the Year to Dr Naomi McClure-Griffiths and presentation of both teaching prizes to women in 2006 was a substantial improvement over 2004 and 2005 when ALL recipients of Prime Minister’s prizes were male. However, we believe that the following recommendations would ensure that balance in the distribution of these awards is more easily achieved. We would like to recommend:
that the Prime Ministers Science Prize be awarded to one male and one female nominee
that selection criteria be amended to allow for more women to be nominated5 and
that gender-disaggregated statistics relating to nominations be kept and made publicly available on the website for public scrutiny.
There is a precedent for such change: in the US in 2004, the NIH instituted a
new award – the NIH Director’s Pioneers Awards6. All 9 prizes
were awarded to male scientists and there was a public outcry. After
investigation, the responsibility for the awards was transferred to the National
Institute of General Medical Sciences and after changes to criteria the number
of female applicants and finalists increased by 26%.
Note: There has been some discussion around recommendation A. Chiefly, that
women should be able to compete with men, and that rather than have a separate
(and potentially devalued?) award it would be better to have additional
flexibility as suggested by recommendation B such that more women are nominated
and that the selection criteria aren’t biased towards men. For example;
flexibility in the age of the recipient if they have not been full-time for
their entire career.
What do you think? Send your comments to
wisenet@anu.edu.au.
Possible Solutions
WISENET would like the Minister to comment on whether a similar study to NAS should be commenced in Australia, or whether the Government will investigate if the identified strategies should be employed here.
WISENET supports a change in how we assess scientific ability and performance, with higher value being placed on teaching and mentoring roles.
WISENET would support more flexible funding for research grants, with the ability to suspend grants while parents take leave (maternity or paternity leave).
WISENET encourages the establishment of a fund to cover long-term leave allowances, such as maternity leave, which frequently have to be funded from within already over-stretched research grant budgets.
WISENET supports the DDOGS 2005 framework and proposes that government funding for PhD places could be given with the condition that students are allowed the time to attend training courses in communication, intellectual property and business.
WISENET agrees with the AAS that more adequate funding is required for mid-career researchers.
WISENET would like to see more high profile female scientists being given due recognition via awards, which would raise the profile of women in science and encourage more young women into science.
References
1 National Academies of Science (USA) Report (2006): Beyond
Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering.
www.nationalacademies.org .
2 Probert, B. (2005). “I just couldn’t fit it in”: gender and
unequal outcomes in academic careers.’ Gender, Work and Organisation, vol 12, no
1, pp 50-72.
3 Lambeck, K (2006): Restoring opportunities for careers in
research. Australasian Science, 27(6):41.
4 https://sciencegrants.dest.gov.au/SciencePrize/Pages/PreviousPrizeWinners. aspx#Aust_prize
5 Recommendations by Susan Barker, AGM Reports, WISENET
Journal 72:34-35.
6 Mervis J., (2004) Male sweep of new award raises questions of bias, Science 306: 595 also see Fazekas de St Groth, B. (2006), Women in Science, WISENET Journal 71:8-13