Career Chances of Women in Nanoscience – Conditions for International Diversity

1. Prof. Dr. Birgit Pfau-Effinger Institute for Sociology Director, Centre for Globalisation and Governance University of Hamburg Career Chances of Women in Nanoscience – Conditions for International Diversity WomeninNano Winter School Kranjska Gora, Slovenia February 7-9, 2008

2. Gender segregation within Science • The Gender arrangement of modern society was based on a relatively strong gender division of labour. • Since the late 20th Century, considerable change has taken place towards more gender equality in many European countries.. • There was a long tradition of exclusion and under representation of women in science in modern society (see also European Commission 2000) which was challenged in the last decades.

3. Vertical gender segregation: Development of the share of men and women during the academic career

4. Cross-national differences • There are considerable cross-national differences in the degree to which a vertical gender segregation exists in Natural Science. • This is indicated by the share of women in Grade A positions to all staff in Grade A positions, which differs considerably, between 0,0 % in Malta and 18,9% in Portugal. Definition Grade A: normally full professors

5. Proportion of female Grade A staff to total staff in Natural ScienceSource: EC 2006

6. Central questions of this presentation • How can cross-national differences in the gender segregation within Natural Science be explained? • How do career structures and career chances of women differ in a cross-national perspective in Nanoscience?

7. 1. How can cross-national differences in the gender segregation within Natural Science be explained?

8. Conditions that might explain cross-national differences • Family policies of the welfare state the degree of ‚defamilisation‘ in family policies (Esping-Andersen 1999; Leitner 2003) • Cultural factors Cultural values related to family care (Pfau-Effinger 2004, 2005) Cultural values in relation to gender equality • Structural factors The role and pay of academic work in a country (Pfau-Effinger et al. 2008, forthcoming)

9. Family policies as explanatory factor? • There seems to be no systematic variation of the degree of ‚defamilisation‘ in family policies, indicated by the degree of public provision of childcare in different European societies.

10. Proportion of female Grade A staff in Natural Science (blue column) in relation to proportion of children below 3 years in formal care (red column)Source EC 2006, Immervoll/Barber 2005

11. Cultural factors as explanatory factor? (1) • There is no systematic co-variation of the attitudes towards family care with the proportion of women in Grade A staff in Science in different European societies.

12. Proportion of female Grade A staff in Natural Science (blue column) in relation to attitudes towards childcare (red column) Source ISSP 2002 Red column: agree with item "A child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works“

13. Cultural factors as explanatory factor? (2) • There is no systematic co-variation of the attitudes towards gender equality/inequality with the proportion of women in Grade A staff in Science in different European societies.

14. Proportion of female Grade A staff in Natural Science (blue column) in relation to attitudes towards gender equality/inequality in the population (red column)Source ISSP 2002 Red column: agree with item 'A man's job is to earn money, a woman's job is to look after the home and family'

15. Structural factors of the academic system as explanatory factor? Different types of the way in which Grade A level occupation is constructed in a country‘s academic system can be distinguished: • Type 1: grade A positions with a lower teaching load and relatively high funds and time for research (indicated by relatively high expenditure per researcher) • Type 2: grade A positions with a relatively high teaching load and relatively little funds and little time for research (indicated by relatively low expenditure for research per researcher) It is assumed here that the share of women in Grade A positions in relation to the share of men is higher in countries where Type 2 is dominant.

16. Expenditure on research per researcherred column: expenditure per researcher, blue line: proportion of women among theresearchers in a country http://www.cews.org/statistik

17. Findngs in relation to structural factors • The share óf women in grade A positions is on average higher in countries with a relatively low expenditure for research per researcher (see graph). • The share of women in gradeA positions is on average higher in countries with a relatively low pay, also in comparison with other occupations in the country (Saxonberg 2005) • The share of women in gradeA positions is on average higher in countries with a relatively low share of grade B and C staff and their supportive role (EC 2006).

18. Conclusion in relation to the explanation of cross-national differences in women‘s career chances in Natural Science • Family policies do not explain the differences. • Cultural factors relating to childcare and gender equality/inequality also do not explain the differences. • It seems that mainly also the differences in the structures of the adacemic system are relevant to explaining the differences: It seems that the career chances for women in Natural Science are higher in countries where grade A positions are less supported by grade B and C staff, relatively low pay and relatively small research expenditure per researcher.

19. 2. How do career structures of women in Nanoscience differ in a cross-national perspective?

20. On-line survey on women in Nanoscience in Europe at the University of Hamburg, 2007/2008 • On-line questionnaire • Addresses delivered from the partners in the WomenInNano Network • First round: 780 women working in Nanoscience in Universities and public research institutes were invited to participate (anonymously), 260 respondents (about 33%) • Second round: in progress • Elaborated statistical analyses: in progress

21. Description of the sample • Countries included: Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, U.K., USA • 55% women with children • Average age 40,2 years • All grades are adequately included • A: full professors • B: Researchers in positions more senior than newly qualified PhD holders • C: first grade/post for newly qualified PhD graduates (Post-docs) • D: positions in which no PhD is required

22. Current position by age in years

23. Current position by region

24. Current position by family status

25. Type of contract

26. Recruitment for current position

27. Salary by regions

28. Active support of career by the employing institute by Region (Index)

29. Family-employment balance by region

30. Perceived gender differences that are requested in relation to professional competences by region

31. Conclusion: Career structures and chances of women in Nanoscience • A substantial share of women in Nanoscience do not have a permanent contract with their current employer (36%). • Recruitment is common by tenure track; the share of those who are directly approached is relatively small. • A considerable part of the women in Nanoscience has children. • Women in most Eastern European countries earn much less compared with the ‘old’ EU countries. • However, altogether women Nanoscientists perceive the promotion in their institute better in East European countries than in the West. • In East European countries, the share of women is also considerably higher who say that it is easy to maintain a family-employment balance. • Also, in East European countries, less women need to have higher professional competences than men in order to make a career.

32. end Many thanks for your attention!

33. Current Position

34. Questionnaire 1. In which country are you currently employed? ‪ Bulgaria‪ France‪ Germany‪ Italy ‪ Romania‪ Slovenia‪ Spain‪ Sweden ‪ United Kingdom‪ Other, please specify ………………… 2. Of which type is your current employer? ‪ University‪ Public research institute‪ Private research institute ‪ Industry‪ Private organisation‪ Governmental organisation ‪ Other, please specify ………………………... 3. When did you start employment with your current employer? Month/year……………………….……………

35. Women in Science database[1] WomenInNano survey Spain 3% 22% Bulgaria 4% 11% Sweden 4% 15% France 13% 30% Romania 23% 28% Germany 2% 0% United Kingdom 4% 0% Slovenia 10% 9% Italy 17% 7% The share of grade A (full professor/ director) among all women academic staff [1] Since 2001, DG Research has published sex disaggregated R&D statistics collected by the Statistical Correspondents, a subgroup of the Helsinki Group for Women and Science, in the “She Figures” (on statistics and indicators see http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/page_en.cfm?id=2908).

36. Unemployment during the scientific career by country

37. Globalisierung als ein multidimensionaler Mehrebenen-Prozess Family policies Cultural family model Degree Of acceptance Of gender equality Structures of the academic system High versus low Importance of Academic Research Indicators Degree of public childcare provision High degree Versus lower degree Expenditure on Research per researcher Full-time or part-time Employment of mother model? Share of grade A staff among researchers Impact on Promotion chances Of women In Nanosciences 37 Impact factors on promotion chances of women in Nanosciences in a cross-national perspective

38. Overtime in hours/ per week The average overtime in this sample is 12,13 hours per week.

39. Historical change • Women in grade A position most often have started their career already in the 1980s or earlier, which means that the career patterns were more based on continuity and stability. • Younger researchers experience more instability and unemployment within their career

40. Number of employers during the academic career

41. Unemployment during the scientific career by current research position