EQUALITY GUIdE - KU Leuven

148 Equality Guide
Table 23: FTE m/f-proportion with glass ceiling index per year
Year FTE (m) GPI (m) FTE (f) GPI (f)
2006 Full Professor 394.85 29.3
0.48 1.27
Professor 190.4 37.2
0.88 1.08
Associate Professor 168.05 40.2
0.39 0.91
Assistant Professor 65.35 36.7
Subtotal 818.65 143.4
1997 Full Professor 357.7 8.3
0.42 2.58
Professor 150.1 21.4
1.14 0.91
Associate Professor 171 19.5
0.73 1.78
Assistant Professor 124.3 34.7
Subtotal 803.1 83.9
3.2.3. Mapping external factors
The analyses as described above thus show that a gender problem exists for all statutes:
the male staff at the university is in general to be found in the higher grades than their
female counterparts. But why is this? What causes this gap? And what measures could be
taken to close it?
As the situation was different for the three target groups, different working plans needed
to be developed. For the ABAP for instance, a high drop-out rate was noticed: as an exit
survey already existed, access was asked to these data (see 3.3. Proofing and evaluation).
The female ATP seem to promote, but less so than men. As a new job classification system
was drawn up at the time of the project, access was asked to perform a gender analysis
(see 3.3. Proofing and evaluation).
The female ZAP seemed to hit the glass ceiling, although less hard than in the past. In the
search for causes it was planned to perform a discourse analysis of the meetings of the
boards (evaluation commissions and University Board) that discuss the applications for
promotion and decide who eventually gets promoted. Due to judicial reasons the access