Gender Equality in Academia and Research

Ιn (country A), 70% of research organisations such as ours have set up a Gender Equality Plan, and their performance in dealing with gender equality is regularly assessed. They now consider investing on gender equality as a strategic issue and a matter of competitiveness and excellence. So do some research agencies, which included scores to that respect in their Reference Evaluation Frameworks. We should follow that example, and anticipate on future trends in (country B).

As stated by law, our institution is responsible for preventing and reporting on cases of sexual harassment. In accordance with EU directives, our national legislation has become very clear on this matter. We have reported cases of sexual harassment, but have no procedures nor skills to comprehensively deal with it. This is first of all terrible for the victims. But if we want to avoid potential legal liabilities, we should invest in prevention through dedicated procedures, mechanisms and staff training.

Our recruitment and internal evaluation procedures have been described as not being transparent by our policy authority. Meanwhile, our gender equality unit has detected gender bias in our recruitments and evaluations. Tackling the latter could be a good entry to challenge and upgrade our procedures!

Our institution has committed to high standards with respect to gender equality and our rector made a nice speech about this last week. And yet, without your knowledge of the organisation and of the people who work in it, we have no chance to succeed. You are the best placed to help us detecting room for improvements, and to co-create and test with us effective solutions.

Since our communication department adopted a gender-sensitive communication, our institution has been quoted as an example at the national level, female colleagues acknowledge that their work is better reflected and news about gender equality issues which are now more frequently displayed on the website are the most tweeted and shared on Facebook. It would be great to trigger the same dynamics in our departments and faculties and to engage in discussion with students.

If we look at it objectively, the case of harassment we had to deal with last year has been extremely costly for us. The case was largely commented within and outside the institution, we appeared to be insensitive and not proactive and eventually our liability was mentioned in legal proceedings. We knew this could happen. Let’s start dealing with this seriously, by securing expertise, investing on prevention, and providing assistance.

Attention to the gender dimension in research content, gender balance in teams, gender balance in decision making is extensively referred to in H2020 and this reflects in the current work programme. This could increase our competitiveness and our chances to be funded, to seriously tackle these issues in our proposals. Researchers should be involved in this process. We know about training sessions to support the integration of gender equality and a gender perspective in proposals. Let’s create awareness among researchers and project managers.

Our department of sociology has a rich record in supporting work-life balance among its academic staff. Did you know that a small fund was created to support childcare for those with parental responsibilities who wish to actively participate in international projects and conferences? It contributed to change the lens through which getting engaged in dissemination and other activities requiring mobility is perceived. Let’s plan a meeting with their management and a few researchers to learn from their experience!

Our institute applied under this gender equality scheme upon the initiative of our Director. We have taken a series of commitments and emphasised the work of our gender equality unit. Our chances to be selected are high. We have to be conscious that we are expected to challenge some of our processes, notably regarding recruitment and career management. Our Director and its team cannot make this change happen without the support, expertise and assistance of the Human Resources Management department. And no action related to career management can be planned and undertaken without your knowledge of the institution. Should we establish a pilot group with your department to diagnose needs and potential challenges with respect to gender equality? We might also foresee how this gender equality scheme can fit with your current modernisation efforts regarding Human Resources Management.

Our data collection is quite exhaustive about aspects such as hiring, career breaks, access to life-long learning, etc. But except for staff categories, we produce little sex-disaggregated data. And yet, we know that career opportunities differ for our male and female staff, depending on the types of position, the scientific discipline and other factors. These differences are regularly discussed informally during talks with social partners, and management meetings in each department. It would be more appropriate to carry out a proper diagnosis to start solving potential issues from the actual situation, not from subjective perceptions or standpoints. Producing such a diagnosis requires external expertise. We have plenty at hand at the department of gender studies, including people working on career management and gender equality in the workplace. Shall we convene a meeting on this?

We are very selective about the profiles of applicants. We try to value different skills and experiences and still, we tend to receive less applications from female candidates, and our female staff have slightly lower chances to be promoted. I think we should put this under consideration in the next review of our process. Perhaps an external audit would be useful to identify potential gender bias? Are our job announcements appealing irrespectively of the sex of candidates? Do we pay enough attention to career breaks and to different experiences in research and research management? Let’s clarify this.

Work environments which pay greater attention to work-life balance are reported to attract more talented researchers and staff and to retain them longer. The quality of time spent at work is also meant to enhance productivity and work relationships. Last but not least, as men and women still have to cope with family duties to different extent, improving work-life balance can help women move up the career ladder and give their full potential. We have developed new tools to select and evaluate people, and to help them develop their skills. And yet, we have paid little attention to work-life issues. A survey or a forum could help us assessing whether this has had an impact, and to collect innovative ideas about gender-friendly work organisation.

As a research centre carrying out research on climate change, we participated in the international conference held in Paris. Policy-makers and NGOs underlined the need to address prevention and mitigation of climate change impacts also from a gender perspective. This eventually materialised in the final agreement signed by 194 countries. We realised that nobody addressed this issue in our team, and that societal impacts of climate change in general were under-investigated at our institution. We learnt that cross-disciplinary workshops were organised by a local university to integrate gender in our fields of interest. We might consider hosting a session and strengthen our ability to address societal challenges and gender aspects in future project applications.

When planning our gender equality strategy, we realised that, across the university, gender was core to nearly 10 % of on-going PhD theses, and that gender was a relevant category for about 40 % of theses currently carried out. And still, outside from Social Sciences and Humanities related fields, we found little evidence of gender-sensitive research. Why could we not use the pool of knowledge accumulated in other fields or departments to irrigate other areas of knowledge? This would enhance transdisciplinary, inter-departmental cooperation and knowledge circulation. It might also benefit our success rate in accessing public funding, which tends to decrease with growing competition.

In a field like ours, laboratory experiments are time consuming, and international mobility is a pre-requisite for a successful career. Women might both be given less opportunities to contribute with their full potential, and discouraged by external factors – such as work conditions or selection and appraisal criteria to take their full share. If we do not change this, it is unlikely that our targets in improving sex balance in our institute will be ever met. More change is needed: we need to put in place active schemes to encourage women’s participation in collaborative projects, and also as project leaders. This implies making mobility more inclusive and less costly. It may also require offering both women and men better integration of career breaks or longer leave periods in their scientific careers.

Let’s reward research projects or papers actively contributing to mainstream gender knowledge across academic disciplines. All fields should be encouraged to contest, and the call for participation should be put in a way that is appealing to researchers working also in technical fields. The same should apply to awards. The idea would be to make integrating gender an incentive for excellent and innovative research. Hence, awards do not have necessarily to be related to gender issues or research itself, but to the fields of expertise of applicants. This is working well elsewhere. Why not here?

Gender equality is not only about complying with legal requirements or individual cases. It also sheds light on working conditions, all along the career path. Recruitment, appraisal, life-long learning, evaluation, career management tools: all these aspects can be considered from a gendered perspective and/or have (negative) gender impacts. Challenging gender bias can help us to challenge other bias about personal circumstances and unravelling intersecting inequalities.
Gender equality matters for all categories of staff, beyond traditional cleavages between permanent and non-permanent staff, academics and non-academics, etc. It is an objective that can create engagement, but also resistances which are better overcome if mobilising social partners. A gender equality unit can be perceived as external to social dialogue, but actually it can be an ally. As we are designing a Gender Equality Plan, we would like you to be a full part of the process, and share your knowledge about working conditions and work relationships with all mobilised stakeholders.

It depends on contexts, but it happens that dialogue with trade unions and other staff representatives turns out to be quite formal. Be it framed by the Law and/or by a collective agreement, it does not always provide space for assessing the status of gender equality, nor to be innovative.
As we are launching what is meant to be a modernisation of our processes and ways of doing things with regard to gender equality, let’s use this opportunity. Let’s use it as a tool for modernising our social dialogue, and making it more inclusive. Besides, gender bias or prejudices rely upon deeply entrenched stereotypes. This requires new ways of sharing ideas and communicating with each other. Co-creation, experience-based or participatory techniques can help us to highlight problems and reach consensus about solutions.