Women remain substantially underrepresented in scientific organisations relative to their share of the global workforce, according to a new report. The headline findings – that women comprise an average of just 19% of national academy memberships, with fewer than a fifth of such organisations chaired by a woman – raise serious questions about the recognition of women’s contributions within the scientific community.
Scientific academies and international unions play a vital part in shaping the scientific community: decisions made at the highest level determine the focus of global science and influence the practices and behavioural norms which underpin day-to-day work. Women represent 31% of global scientific researchers but surveys conducted over the last decade show that they comprise a significantly smaller proportion of these influential organisations. The latest statistics show that this disparity is slowly improving but that women remain severely underrepresented, particularly in the chemical and physical sciences.
The newest report, published by the International Science Council, the InterAcademy Partnership and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science, surveyed 136 organisations and 598 individual scientists, revealing that the greatest imbalance was in national academies. These state-recognised organisations typically elect prominent scientists and are responsible for promoting academic and research standards and advising the government on scientific matters. Although the number of women elected to national academy positions has risen from 12% in 2015 to 19% today, membership remains well below expected levels. The UK’s Royal Society reports that women occupy just 14% of fellowship positions. This problem becomes even more pronounced at higher levels: only one in five of the academies surveyed was led by a woman and almost half reported no women in any leadership roles.
These statistics are widely underpinned by ‘informal gatekeeping’ embedded within institutional processes for nominating and evaluating candidates for membership. While election procedures are formally open and merit-based, women are consistently underrepresented in nomination pools – likely a result of restricted selection criteria and the importance of informal networks.
Furthermore, interviews with individual scientists revealed a number of additional systemic barriers hampering women’s progress: women were more than four times more likely to miss opportunities due to caring responsibilities and more than twice as likely to experience harassment. These sobering statistics came as a shock to drug discovery chemist Kate Harris at the University of Newcastle. ‘I’ve intrinsically known that there was a bigger issue than we thought but I wasn’t prepared for the scale of it,’ she says. ‘A couple of sentences really stood out to me: “representation does not equate influence” and “participation is comparable; experiences and opportunities are not”. I felt so seen on every level. This concept of: “officially, the framework is there, but it’s not having the impact” translates into academia as well.’
Once nominated, however, women have a reasonable chance of accessing these positions, highlighting the significance of structural barriers (rather than explicit restrictions) in shaping membership diversity within national academies.
This aligns with the report’s findings for international unions which focus on bringing together scientists within a single discipline and rarely rely on nomination for membership. Correspondingly, women’s participation varied between 14 and 59%, depending on the scientific field. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (Iupac) reported that 33% of its members were women – on a par with the scientific workforce – and an average of 40% of leadership positions were held by women.
The Royal Society and Iupac welcomed the report’s insights and both organisations have implemented policy changes to tackle institutional barriers to women’s recognition and advancement. ‘The report demonstrates the need for renewed action at every stage of the academic pipeline, from schools right through to prestigious scientific prizes and fellowships,’ said a Royal Society spokesperson. ‘Women accounted for 26% of fellows elected, on average, over the five years of the report. This is still below parity, but combined with measures like nomination committees – established to ensure that scientists from a wider range of backgrounds are put forward for election – we should continue to see improvements in the years ahead.’
‘Talent and creativity can come from anywhere, hence retaining well-trained science professionals from diverse backgrounds must be addressed by the global science community,’ says Mary Garson, president of Iupac. ‘Iupac needs to look carefully at its prizes and awards portfolio. Increasing the pool of eligible female candidates is required. In relation to transparency of decision-making, our recently approved conflict of interest policy ensures that informal networks have to be declared prior to adjudication of awards and prizes.’
No comments yet