On average, the number of women pursuing PhD's at any given university in the western world outstrips the number of men pursuing PhD's. This is on average, so some fields are more male dominated, some are more female dominated. It's interesting that in law, a traditionally conservative field which in the higher professional echelons is most definitely dominated by men of upper class backgrounds, the number of young women trying their academic mettle is dramatically higher than the number of young men.
But as we look up the ranks - junior lecturers, senior lecturers, assistant professors and professors - the number of women dwindles rapidly. In the Netherlands the national average of female professors is only 8%. In the UK it's around 18%, in Australia it's around 17%, in the US it's around 22%. The European average is 15%. And the European goal for 2010 (yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's THIS YEAR!) is 25%. Clearly we are lagging far behind this goal.
So what's to be done? There is always a debate around quotas: some women feel they don't want to be selected for a position just because they are a woman and a quotum needs to be filled, as that undermines their credentials for the position. Some women feel that if there are no quota, they stand a lesser chance of being considered for the position and it doesn't matter what their credentials are.
In a recent presentation at the university I work at it we were shown statistics that among the PhD researchers, women drop out at a much higher rate than their male counterparts (left before completing their PhD) and on average take longer to complete their thesis. It was pointed out that this could be a reason fewer women stream up to the higher ranks, but I am left wondering if this isn't a chicken and egg dilemma. If women know there are more difficulties for them to reach the higher positions, they are more likely to be demotivated and leave before they are done. If women have children, of course it takes them longer to complete their research, as the time taken out for maternity leave affects the duration of their research. And if this, or the fact they published fewer articles during the time they were caring for young babies or children, affects their "track record", then they are disadvantaged when it comes to being considered for senior academic positions.
One woman, Marieke van de Brink, recently wrote her thesis on this very topic, focusing on the process by which women are (or are not!) nominated for professorships. Some of her observations were that the committees who decide on these functions are overwhelmingly populated by men. Because we tend to look for familiar characteristics when we are interviewing people, it has been shown that men prefer to nominate men. The under-representation of women on these committees means that women remain underrepresented in the positions they are applying for. But it also appears that both women and men are harder on female candidates for a position than on male candidates. We test out other women and judge them harsher, expect more of them than their male counterparts.
The measures by which candidates are tested should also be questioned. If a publication requirement is purely quantitative, and a woman has chosen to have children and therefore sacrifice some of her publishing time, she is penalised. It should therefore be a qualitative test as well - in what kind of journals and books has this academic candidate published, have others cited their work, have they contributed to the academic debate or to scientific knowledge in a significant way?
And there are cultural expectations to contend with. In the Netherlands there is a very dominant view that women should carry the lions share of the work when it comes to child rearing, and that they really should give up work or go part time. I have often heard the comment that it's better that this society values the upbringing of children over career aspirations, and that a mother should be with her children rather than outsourcing to strangers, and that children who go to creche full time are neglected. I don't know about other ex-pats, but this sounds like a 1950's nuclear family values argument - I was brought up by my full-time working mother. My parents split up when I was six. I don't feel neglected or scarred or underdeveloped. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I would have been a genius or a more fulfilled indivudal if my mother had been at home with me for years. But whole societies seem to have done just fine with working mothers - in fact cultures which have encouraged women to partake in the workforce in post World War II years have higher measures of equality across the board (Sweden, Finland, Spain, yes even Ukraine!)
So we need to consider how to support those who want to swim further upstream, and look to solutions which go beyond "write more, and finish your PhD on time!" Perhaps there are some structures that can be put in place to support women to do just this, but perhaps some of the measures should be reconsidered because of their silent gender bias.
But as we look up the ranks - junior lecturers, senior lecturers, assistant professors and professors - the number of women dwindles rapidly. In the Netherlands the national average of female professors is only 8%. In the UK it's around 18%, in Australia it's around 17%, in the US it's around 22%. The European average is 15%. And the European goal for 2010 (yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's THIS YEAR!) is 25%. Clearly we are lagging far behind this goal.
So what's to be done? There is always a debate around quotas: some women feel they don't want to be selected for a position just because they are a woman and a quotum needs to be filled, as that undermines their credentials for the position. Some women feel that if there are no quota, they stand a lesser chance of being considered for the position and it doesn't matter what their credentials are.
In a recent presentation at the university I work at it we were shown statistics that among the PhD researchers, women drop out at a much higher rate than their male counterparts (left before completing their PhD) and on average take longer to complete their thesis. It was pointed out that this could be a reason fewer women stream up to the higher ranks, but I am left wondering if this isn't a chicken and egg dilemma. If women know there are more difficulties for them to reach the higher positions, they are more likely to be demotivated and leave before they are done. If women have children, of course it takes them longer to complete their research, as the time taken out for maternity leave affects the duration of their research. And if this, or the fact they published fewer articles during the time they were caring for young babies or children, affects their "track record", then they are disadvantaged when it comes to being considered for senior academic positions.
One woman, Marieke van de Brink, recently wrote her thesis on this very topic, focusing on the process by which women are (or are not!) nominated for professorships. Some of her observations were that the committees who decide on these functions are overwhelmingly populated by men. Because we tend to look for familiar characteristics when we are interviewing people, it has been shown that men prefer to nominate men. The under-representation of women on these committees means that women remain underrepresented in the positions they are applying for. But it also appears that both women and men are harder on female candidates for a position than on male candidates. We test out other women and judge them harsher, expect more of them than their male counterparts.
The measures by which candidates are tested should also be questioned. If a publication requirement is purely quantitative, and a woman has chosen to have children and therefore sacrifice some of her publishing time, she is penalised. It should therefore be a qualitative test as well - in what kind of journals and books has this academic candidate published, have others cited their work, have they contributed to the academic debate or to scientific knowledge in a significant way?
And there are cultural expectations to contend with. In the Netherlands there is a very dominant view that women should carry the lions share of the work when it comes to child rearing, and that they really should give up work or go part time. I have often heard the comment that it's better that this society values the upbringing of children over career aspirations, and that a mother should be with her children rather than outsourcing to strangers, and that children who go to creche full time are neglected. I don't know about other ex-pats, but this sounds like a 1950's nuclear family values argument - I was brought up by my full-time working mother. My parents split up when I was six. I don't feel neglected or scarred or underdeveloped. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I would have been a genius or a more fulfilled indivudal if my mother had been at home with me for years. But whole societies seem to have done just fine with working mothers - in fact cultures which have encouraged women to partake in the workforce in post World War II years have higher measures of equality across the board (Sweden, Finland, Spain, yes even Ukraine!)
So we need to consider how to support those who want to swim further upstream, and look to solutions which go beyond "write more, and finish your PhD on time!" Perhaps there are some structures that can be put in place to support women to do just this, but perhaps some of the measures should be reconsidered because of their silent gender bias.