Dunno how I missed this, but the BBC reported on Thursday that UK universities have signed a charter to address gender inequalities in their science, technology and engineering departments.
A University of East Anglia study earlier this year showed that men still occupy the majority of key positions in UK academic science.
It recently estimated that about 50,000 women scientists are not using the sciences and engineering qualifications they gained, even though these skills are considered vital to the UK economy.
Only a third go back to jobs related to their skills after time away from work.
Many take time away to have children but face barriers when trying to return to the science, engineering and technology industries, generally.
The six-point charter is designed to "bring about cultural change in academia" and "recognize, celebrate and publicise" the good practices that already exist in supporting women's role in the SET (science, engineering and technology) fields. While very general, the charter recognizes the importance of implementing change through an examination of cultural values and attitudes that hinder women's advancement at nearly all levels of their professional progress, from PhD completion to job security. What's missing is an examination of women's academic progress - the features preventing women from originally considering SET studies, or preventing them from completing programs already begun.
1. To address gender inequalities requires commitment and action from everyone, at all levels of the organisation
2. To tackle the unequal representation of women in science requires changing cultures and attitudes across the organisation
3. The high loss rate of women in science is an urgent concern, which the organisation will address
4. The use of short-term contracts has particularly negative consequences for the retention and progression of women in science, which the university recognises
5. The transition from PhD into a sustainable academic career in science can be particularly difficult for women and requires active consideration by the organisation
6. The absence of diversity at management and policy-making levels has broad implications which the organisation will examine
I'm a bit torn about all of this. I want to believe that this is a genuine effort here, unlike Harvard's $50 million in hush money, but part of me wonders why it took a women's group specifically designed to address gender inequality to realize that women weren't meeting with success in SET academe. Surely huge groups of women missing in the ranks of administrators and grant holders, professors and researchers should've tipped somebody off? Or are men in the technological fields only aware of missing women when they're looking for somebody to type out a letter or get them a sandwich?
Signing a contract to think about things makes a lovely photo opportunity, but behind the optics it simply reveals a lazy attitude towards gender equality. "Yeah sure, we'll care about women in science...if you draw up a charter, display the research that proves why we should, and lay out our game plan for all future endeavours."
Equally troubling is the involvement of the Athena Project, an organization which claims to "promote the careers of women in science, engineering and technology in higher education (HE) and research and to achieve a significant increase in the number of women recruited to top posts" but which seems to engage in a bewildering display of self-congratulatory back-patting for a group only begun in 1999. Athena's "achievements" for the years 1999-2001 consist of "encouraging good practice" amongst its member universities, while recent years' successes consist of "recognizing good practice." In 2003, we're told, 28 universities "piloted Athena's good practices checklist", implying, of course, that signing things (or "piloting" them, whatever that means) is sufficient action to be recognized for fighting gender inequality. In other words, no worries about actually *doing* anything, just look busy and we'll give you a little plaque to staple to a department head's blazer that says "Ask me about our new deal for women."
But there really isn't much of a new deal at all, so much as there's a promise to maybe start thinking about one, or at least a promise to really make an effort to try to start. Provided, of course, that the boardroom has sandwiches, and somebody else draws up the agenda, does the talking, and circles where universities and administrators sign on the dotted line.
Comments