Guidelines for Gender Equality Programmes in Science - GeNet

cannot but contribute to making the
environment less welcoming to women. For
instance, in natural sciences women were
only 13.4% of the full professors (grade A) in
the EU-27 countries in 2006, and only 7.2%
in engineering (European Commission,
2009).
In university departments and public
research institutions, it has been often
argued that the feelings of isolation and other
difficulties are due to the fact that a “critical
mass” of women has not been reached.
Even though women’s equal or greater
presence in specific fields does not
automatically translate into their obtaining
leadership positions, without such a “mass” it
is harder to even lay the ground for change.
A significant presence of women is, f o r
i n s t a n c e, necessary to press for the
introduction of gender studies programmes
( i n d e e d, virtually absent in scientific
departments), and also to affirm styles that
are alternative to the typical masculine
models (Blickenstaff, 2005) and to question
the masculine symbolic perception of science
(Lagensen, 2007) in order to create a more
comfortable environment for women (Gürer &
Camp, 2002). Women’s scarce presence on
the staff of scientific faculties and departments
is also considered a discouraging
factor for female students, as has been
demonstrated by several studies taking into
account the gender composition and atmosphere
in the m i c r o - e n v i r o n m e n t s i n
which women students and researchers carry
out their work every day (Sonnert, Fox, &
Adkins, 2007).
In S&T as much as in other fields, however,
the need for a critical mass seems to be at
odds with the presence of “hidden quotas”.
A German study shows, for example, that
there exists a tacit limit to the accepted rate
of women in research groups and this results
in a “revolving door” effect. This means that if
in a group there is already a 25% rate of
women, the (informal) trend is that other
women will gain access only when one of
t h e m quits her position (Allmendiger &
Podsiadlowski, 2001).
Scarcity of women, especially with regard to
senior positions, is often at the origin of the
frequently reported problem of w o m e n ’s
marginality in research networks, which
are mainly based on informal relations (the
so-called old boys networks). This fact results
in women’s relative isolation or subordination.
Activities related to work-life balance
needs and career breaks because of
maternity also undoubtedly have a role in
reducing the time devoted by women to
informal networking activities. The relative
absence of women in relations among fellow
researchers decreases the level of mutual
exchange into departments and deprives
women of basic instruments for successful
advancement (Gupta, Kemelgor, Fuchs, &
Etzkowitz, 2005).
Work-life issues
In the field of scientific and technological
research, as everywhere else, gendered
social roles as family caregivers obviously
weigh heavily on women. Many studies
highlight the difficulty of balancing professional
scientific activity (that often also
includes international mobility) with care
responsibilities (European Commission, 2005;
Gupta, Kemelgor, Fuchs, & Etzkowitz, 2005;
Z i m m e r, 2003; Meulders, 2003; Staff o r d ,
1996). This situation gives rise to d e e p
psychological and organisational conflicts
in women. Inner conflicts and their effects on
w o m e n ’s scientific careers are particularly
serious also considering the greater degree of
i n t e r d e p e n d e n c y between life domains and
career experienced by women with respect to
men (Nazio, 2009; Martin-Garcia, 2009;
Matysiak & Vignoli, 2008).
As a consequence, women may feel forced to
renounce maternity or postpone it for a long
time, with all the risks entailed, or to slow
down their research activity, often irreversibly
compromising their own possibilities of
attaining levels of excellence, if not even to
give it up altogether. Often the solution is to
lower one’s own expectations and adapt to
models of “reduced careers” that damage the
potential of the researchers (Cacace &
M a s t r o p i e t r o, 2003).
26