Browse by title

Despite many years of equal opportunities legislation and proactive initiatives, our conclusions show how career trajectories for women in healthcare science remain limited: fewer opportunities are available for women in science compared with those for men; women continue to be allocated a subordinate place within the hierarchical healthcare science structure; young women in science continue to experience disadvantageous treatment and receive inappropriate advice about becoming research scientists. The hierarchical nature of the professional and other structures in healthcare science mean that there are many barriers at which women’s career advancement may stall. We suggest that four mechanisms influence women’s ‘place’ in science, as illustrated in our framework Knowing her place – positioning women in science: subtle masculinities, secret careers, the notion of creative genius, and m[o]therhood. These factors act frequently together to preserve and strengthen what may seem subtle, but are in practice very powerful social structures that keep women firmly in their place in the lower echelons of science. We propose that these mechanisms subtly enforce women’s lower ‘place’ compared with male colleagues and we suggest that reinforcement of such a ‘place’ by these four mechanisms perpetuates the status quo in science. Future research should involve Athena SWAN in exploring ways of encouraging a feminist discourse in science education (which would include input from men). It is noticeable that gender is not part of the science curriculum in universities, and innovative ways of improving this should be investigated. The success noted in the study by Miller et al. (2002) with regard to MBA courses should be studied. We suggest that the range of Athena SWAN’s remit could be extended to include public sector institutes (other than academic institutes) where R & D is conducted but where it may only be part of a wider remit for such establishments. To effect any change in the status quo, organizational culture itself needs to change, and importantly this has to involve men at the top of organizations. Establishing an environment where potential in women to develop can be identified should be a priority, and providing a culture where women scientists can speak openly is vital. Other recommendations include improving recruitment practices, unconscious bias training, mentoring and modifying ways that academic records (publication rates) are assessed and to include the importance of relational skills. Following the proposed exit from the EU following the UK referendum in June 2016, Britain should not retract from the equality and diversity improvements made in the last few years and we recommend that, as a minimum, the government introduces procedures to ensure that shared parental leave nationwide becomes accepted policy.

The most prestigious positions within science globally are held by individuals to whom the description ‘creative genius’ may be applied, and this title is invariably applied to men. Historically, women were not regarded as being capable of being a genius. For a woman to be seen as such, was against the laws of nature. Women scientists are embodied as ‘other’ and situated in a ‘place’ that effectively ensures that they may be excluded from social definitions of creative genius.