Guidelines for Gender Equality Programmes in Science - GeNet

Graph 10 – Female contribution in technology sectors, EU-27 inventors, 2001-2003 (%)
16%
14%
12%
10%
14
12
8%
6%
6
6
5
4%
2%
3
3
2
0%
Source: Busolt, Kugele, & Tinsel, 2009
of women inventors within these sectors is
worryingly low” (Busolt, Kugele, & Tinsel,
2009).
Similar data are also provided by an analysis
made by the American NCWIT ( N a t i o n a l
Center for Women & Information Technology)
on patents in the IT sector licensed by
women in United States and Japan in the
period 1980-2005 (when the patent was
licensed by a mixed group, for each gender
the respective fraction was attributed). Five
percent of US patents were licensed by
women (5.7% if the shorter 2000-2005 period
was considered). In the case of Japan, the
figure was 3% (Observa, 2008).
Women’s under-representation in a wider
context
To better frame this set of data it is necessary
to introduce a further piece of interpretation,
linking the issue of women’s leadership to the
profound changes science and technology
are going through, and the growing
importance of some scientific professional
roles and profiles.
Obviously, pure scientific merit has never
been, even in the past, the only criterion used
to select leadership. There are other
variables that influence career dynamics (e.g.
political affiliations, personal networks or
seniority). Even more important, as the
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu pointed
out, besides scientific power (related to
scientific reputation, which manifests itself,
e.g., in writing books and articles, citations,
participation in seminars, conferences and
workshops), scientific careers have always
been determined by scientists’ “t e m p o r a l
power” (Bourdieu, 2001). This is linked to
abilities such as interacting with publishing
houses, getting funds, managing research
structures, interacting with industries and
policy makers.
This is to say that leadership in the scientific
domain has never been uniquely related to
pure scientific talent, but also to other kinds
of capacities recognised as embedded in the
“profession of scientist”.
However, rapid and deep changes in the
last decades have affected the way in which
science is produced, communicated and
exploited and the overall relationship
between science and society. These changes
have in turn altered the balance between
“scientific” and “temporal power” roles,
conferring more importance to the latter, and
in particular to activities such as communication
and fund-raising.
As for the emerging trends in S&T
production, they are so deep and rapid as to
justify the idea of an overall shift from
“academic” to “post-academic” science
34