Trained Scientific Women Power: How Much are we Losing and Why?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The study “Trained Scientific Women Power: How
Much Are We Losing and Why?” was conducted to
understand the reasons for the loss of trained women
scientists and to identify strategies and provisions
to retain them in Science.
The survey was conducted across India with 568
women scientists and 226 men scientists who had a
PhD in Science, Engineering or Medicine. The survey
covered women and men who were currently
engaged in scientific research and teaching, engaged
in jobs other than scientific research and teaching
and even those who were currently not employed.
The survey covered over 100 questions on personal
and family characteristics, educational background,
employment details, organizational atmosphere and
research and productivity factors. The main findings
of the study and the recommendations drawn from
it are given below:
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Women Scientists: Women in Science
Research(WIR), Women not in Science
Research (WNR), and Women not Working
(WNW)
The complexity of developing interventions to retain
women in Science stems from the diversity in the
characteristics of women scientists across the
different sub-groups of women in Science. The
differences also, perhaps, stem from the different
priorities the groups have because even with several
commonalities among demographic profiles of the
women, differences on important aspects such as
professional prospects vs. childcare or family
responsibilities are seen.
• An analysis of sample details reveals that while a
majority of all the three sub-groups of women were
married, the highest percentage of WIR were
‘never married’ (14.1 per cent). Women who were
‘never married’ are distributed across all age
cohorts. A majority of the three sub-groups also
reported having children who were over 15 years.
However more WNW across all age groups had
younger children (between 0-5 years) compared
to the other two groups.
• A majority of the women also reported living in
nuclear families. A significantly higher percentage
of WNW reported having received no help with
childcare. Thus for WNW, the absence of support
either by choice or compulsion could perhaps be
an important reason for their dropping out of
Science. In contrast, WIR and WNR reported
receiving help from a combination of agencies like
their parental family, marital family and
professional help.
• Interestingly, a significantly higher proportion of
WNW also have had spouses in the same field or
organization, and this could have been another
major factor contributing to their dropping out.
• With respect to organizational details, professional
advantages and opportunities and getting jobs
have been the main factors influencing job
selection. A majority of the responses from all
groups indicated not getting jobs as the
primary reason for not taking up posts
applied to. While more WIR and WNR have
indicated better professional prospects as
reasons for not taking up the posts, none of the
responses from WNW indicated this reason.
• With regard to leaving previous jobs, better
professional prospects have been the most
important consideration for WIR and WNR,
while the temporary nature of the post has
been the reason most often stated by the
WNW. Family reasons have also been reported
as the an important factor by WNW for leaving
jobs.
• WIR and WNR also significantly differed with
respect to reasons for accepting present post. A
greater proportion of WIR have reported
professional advantages as reason for
taking up the post, while for other reasons
such as lack of other suitable options,
freedom and autonomy in work,
permanency of position, etc has figured as
an important reason.
• In terms of working hours, both WIR and
WNR have reported working between 40-
60 hours per week on an average. However,
a higher per cent of WIR have reported working
for 60 hours or more per week compared to WNR,
while a greater per cent of WNR have reported
working between 20-40 hours per week compared
to WIR.
9