Abstract
Women researchers are underrepresented in almost all research fields. There are disciplinary differences in the phase in which they tend to quit their academic career: in the natural and technical sciences (STEM), it is in the postdoctoral phase, whereas in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) it is during the doctoral phase. This is indicative of disciplinary differences in the barriers women face in their careers. Related studies on these barriers are more numerous in the STEM field, which in turn limits the scope of potential policies and measures that address the needs of women in the SSH field. This article aspires to contribute to an understanding of the obstacles women from different fields face in their careers and to offer a reflection on various support measures. Using qualitative data (interviews, focus groups, workshop notes, evaluation forms) from a Czech mentoring programme for female junior researchers across all fields, the subsequent analysis reveals disciplinary differences in the perceived career path obstacles in research as well as the attitudes held towards it. Furthermore, the analysis points to the reasons for these obstacles and attitudes by using the concept of professional identity, a useful tool for identifying the barriers to the development of professional career ambitions. Additionally, the analysis utilises Becher and Trowler’s categorisation of SSH and STEM fields into rural and urban categories, enabling one to reflect on the social, cognitive and power features of these fields and the influence these features have on the conditions for the start of an academic career. In order to motivate women to complete their PhD and to apply for a job in academia, this article argues that measures should be taken in the SSH field to promote the involvement of women in the academic community right from the start of their PhD, and therefore, along with mentoring, sponsorship is also needed. In the natural and technical sciences, it is crucial to present women in the late doctoral and early postdoctoral phase with positive female role models – not as token superstars, but as young researchers who are just a few career steps ahead and who have managed to balance their career with a family in the frame of an egalitarian partnership. Furthermore, it is necessary to increase the gender sensitivity of these female researchers in order to prevent feelings of scientific inefficacy arising from the discrepancy between their own intended biography and priorities, and the normative notion of the “proper” scientist, which is strongly masculine instead of gender-neutral. Recommendations are also included for transforming this normative notion of the “proper scientist” – a precondition for wider structural changes within the entire academic environment – into a more gender-neutral one.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For more information, see: http://www.soc.cas.cz/en/department/national-contact-centre-gender-science
It may also be difficult or unpleasant for men to even perform the type of aggressive masculinity associated with the image of the “excellent” scientist; however, this contradiction for women is even stronger and notably occurs not only internally, but also in confrontation with the discipline’s community.
However, this distinction is, of course, largely technical. Different specialisations representing communities within individual fields and disciplines may have different features (Becher and Trowler 2001: 206).
On differences in the publication process in STEM and SSH, see also Stöckelová (2009b: 139–40).
On the different functioning of SSH and STEM research collectives, see also Stöckelová (2009b: 144).
The book is available here: http://genderaveda.cz/en/publications/books-of-interviews/
One woman from STEM withdrew from participating in the book of interviews when, during the process of editing the anonymised interviews, she became dissatisfied with the editorial work and did not want to spend any more time on revisions. Two women from SSH did not give consent in time to publish the edited interviews. One man from STEM wanted to do the interview only as a written questionnaire with open-ended questions, which was not suitable for our purposes.
The small number of men willing to participate might be caused by the fact that men represented only 25% of mentees, a fact reflected in their low “response rate“. The other reason might be that men are less willing to discuss their needs, fears and doubts (Biese 2018).
The majority of Czech doctoral students receive very low stipends, which do not cover their living expenses (Fischer and Vltavská 2014: 71); the average monthly stipend equals 285 EUR, while monthly rent for a small apartment in the capital is approximately 420 EUR. Because of a lack of resources in SSH, it is not common for doctoral students to work on the grants of their supervisors. As a result, most students resort to accepting jobs unrelated to their dissertation (cf. e.g., Stöckelová and Linková 2009: 29).
In terms of Czech law, doctoral candidates have the status of a student.
On the interactions of the two frameworks – the traditional notion of the scientific profession and current research assessment systems – and their role in the strategies of institutional research management, see Stöckelová (2009a: 54–5) for reference to the rational of the law.
In 2016 men represented only 1.89% of the recipients of parental allowance (Czech Statistics Office 2017: 183, Tables 5–7).
Another reason for STEM mentees’ lower gender sensitivity and strong belief in meritocratic principles perhaps might be that as PhD students or fresh postdocs they had not yet been confronted with the deprecation of women. Lorenz-Meyer (2009: 125) illustrates how some women in STEM started to accentuate gender inequities after they returned from postdoc fellowships, applied for their own team and were assessed lower than men even though they had better CVs and performance.
For this purpose, I recommend that mentees in the mentoring programme read the books of interviews with Czech female junior researchers which the department where I work has published. One book (Vohlídalová 2014b) employs a longitudinal perspective, so there is a progression of women’s careers over 7 years. The interviews demonstrate the influence that the type of partnership and approach to parenthood have on women’s careers. From the given sample of women who were all very successful at the beginning of the interview study, only those who lived in egalitarian partnerships or left non-supportive partners stayed in academia and experienced career advancement.
With respect to women’s self-confidence, this phenomenon is described in the literature as impostor syndrome (e.g., Tao and Gloria 2018).
References
Akkerman, S. F., & van Eijck, M. (2013). Re-Theorising the student dialogically across and between boundaries of multiple communities. British Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 60–72.
Arvaja, M. (2018). Tensions and striving for coherence in an academic’s professional identity work. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 291–306.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press (2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1989).
Bieber, J. P., & Worley, L. K. (2006). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students’ perspectives. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1009–1035.
Biese, I. (2018). Men opting out. Presentation at the conference Making it like a man - men, masculinities and the modern career, Helsinki, 25-26 October 2018.
Bland, C. J., Taylor, A. L., Shollen, S. L., Weber-Main, A., & Mulcahy, P. A. (2011). Faculty success through mentoring. The ACE series on higher education. Plymouth: Rowman & Litllefield Publishers, Inc..
Brown, W. (1995). States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Castelló, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubaré, A., & Suñe i Soler, N. (2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factors. Higher Education, 74(6), 1053–1068.
Chandler, C. H. (1996). Mentoring and women in academia: Reevaluating the traditional model. NWSA Journal, 8(3), 79–100.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personal Psychology, 45(3), 619–637.
Cidlinská, K., & Vohlídalová, M. (2017). Gloomy prospects of Czech academic science: Who gets lost and why? In M. Vohlídalová & M. linková (Eds.), Gender and Neoliberalism in Czech Academia (pp. 314–344). Prague: SLON.
Cidlinská, K., Fárová, N., Maříková, H., & Szenassy, E. (2018). Akademici a akademičky 2017: zpráva z kvalitativní studie veřejných akademických a výzkumných pracovišť. Prague: Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences.
Clance, P. R., Dingman, D., Reviere, S. L., & Stober, D. R. (1995). Impostor phenomenon in an interpersonal/social context: Origins and treatment. Women and Therapy, 16(4), 79–96.
Czech Statistics Office. (2017). Focus on women and men. Prague: Czech Statistics Office. https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/45709978/30000217.pdf/92da801e-56d6-4d45-8cef-67497ed59949?version=1.1. Accessed 10 February 2018.
de Vries, J. (2015). Is my bias showing? The role of sponsorship in building scientific careers. Poster presented at Gender Summit GS7, Berlin 2015. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/506ad3dae4b00f5f2f4c9f0a/t/58a50be01e5b6c3a10ae436f/1487211501112/Gender+Summit+poster+JDV+FINAL.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2018.
European Commission. (2015). She figures 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/she_figures_2015-final.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2018.
European Commission. (2012). Structutal change in research institutions: enhancing excellence, gender equality and efficiency in research and innovation. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European union.
Fischer, J., & Vltavská, K. (2014). Doktorandi 2014: Základní výsledky šetření postojů studentů doktorských studijních programů vysokých škol v České republice. KREDO. http://kredo.reformy-http://kredo.reformy-msmt.cz/vybrane-vysledky-doktorandi-2014. Accessed 20 January 2018.
Füger, H., & Höppel, D. (2011). Mentoring for change. A focus on mentors and their role in advancing gender equality. Fribourg: eument-net.
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: what the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts. http://phd-survey.org/report%20final.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2018.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage.
Hašková, H. (2008). Kam spěje česká společnost v oblasti denní péče o předškolní děti? In A. Křížková, R. Dudová, H. Hašková, H. Maříková and Z. Uhde (eds.), Práce a péče. Proměny “rodičovské” v České republice a kontext rodinné politiky Evropské unie (pp. 51–70). Prague: SLON.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281.
Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.
Jenkins, R. (2004). Social identity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jöns, H. (2017). Transparency, tenure track and women’s career trajectories in Germany and UK. Presentation at RISIS Summer School, 25–29 September 2017.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kážmér, L. (2018). Postavení žen v české vědě. Monitorovací zpráva za rok 2016. Prague: Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kogan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming higher education. Higher Education, 40(4), 491–494.
Kosoko-Lasaki, O., Sonnino, R. E., & Voytko, M. L. (2006). Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students: Experience at two institutions of higher education. Journal of the National Medici Association, 98(9), 1449–1459.
Křížková, A., Maříková, H., Dudová, R., & Sloboda, Z. (2009). The conditions of parenthood in organisations: An international comparison. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 45, 519–547.
Lamont, C., Nordberg, D. (2014). Becoming or unbecoming: Contested academic identities. British Academy of Management, 9-11 September 2014, Belfast. http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21215/. Accessed 30 October 2018.
Levin, J. S., & Hernandez, V. M. (2014). Divided identity: Part-time faculty in public colleges and universities. The Review of Higher Education, 37(4), 531–557.
Linková, M. (2009). Ne každý úspěch se počítá: Excelence a genderování vědecké dráhy v přírodních vědách. In T. Stöckelová (Ed.), Akademické poznávání, vykazování a podnikání. Etnografie měnící se české vědy (pp. 72–99). Prague: SLON.
Linková, M. (2017a). The Czech research landscape: Shifts in research organization after 1989. In M. Vohlídalová & M. Linková (Eds.), Gender and Neoliberalism in Czech Academia (pp. 69–92). Prague: SLON.
Linková, M. (2017b). Excellence and its others: Gendered notions of what it takes to succeed in science. In M. Vohlídalová & M. Linková (Eds.), Gender and Neoliberalism in Czech Academia (pp. 159–197). Prague: SLON.
Lorenz-Meyer, D. (2009). Nový pohled na problem “žen ve vědě”: Tři mody genderového jednání v akademickém výzkumu. In T. Stöckelová (Ed.), Akademické poznávání, vykazování a podnikání. Etnografie měnící se české vědy (pp. 100–132). Prague: SLON.
Lund, R. W. B. (2015). Doing the Ideal Academic - Gender, Excellence and Changing Academia. Aalto University publication series Doctoral Dissertations, 98/2015. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/17846/Aalto_DD_2015_098_Rebecca_Lund_verkkoversio.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 30 October 2018.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2009). Identity and agency: Pleasures and collegiality among the challenges of the doctoral journey. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 109–125.
McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A., & Jazvac-Martek, M. (2012). Untold doctoral stories: Can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect? Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 511–523.
Nöbauer, H., & Genetti, E. (2008). Establishing mentoring in Europe. Strategies for the promotion of women academics and researchers. Fribourg: eument-net.
O’Connor, P., O’Hagan, C., & Brannen, J. (2015). Exploration of masculinities in academic organisations: A tentative typology using career and relationship commitment. Current Sociology, 63(4), 528–546.
Pifer, M. J., Baker, V. L. (2013). Identity as a Theoretical Construct in Research about Academic Careers. In J. Huisman , M. Tight (eds.) Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (International Perspectives on Higher Education Research (pp. 115–132). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1479-3628%282013%290000009010. Accessed 30 October 2018.
Pifer, M. J., & Baker, V. L. (2016). Professional, personal, and relational: Exploring the salience of identity in academic careers. International Journal of Theory and Research, 16(3), 190–205.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). Discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82.
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Seikkula, J., Laitila, A., & Rober, P. (2012). Making sense of multi-actor dialogues in family therapy and network meetings. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(4), 667–687.
Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of late modern vocation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of work-life balance: Negotiating “genderblind” terms in organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(2), 147–168.
Stöckelová, T., & Linková, M. (2009). Uvedení do výzkumu: Problematizace vědy a gender. In T. Stöckelová (Ed.), Akademické poznávání, vykazování a podnikání. Etnografie měnící se české vědy (pp. 12–36). Prague: SLON.
Stöckelová, T. (2009a). Politická a morální ekonomie vědy. In T. Stöckelová (Ed.), Akademické poznávání, vykazování a podnikání. Etnografie měnící se české vědy (pp. 37–71). Prague: SLON.
Stöckelová, T. (2009b). Závěrem: Napříč sociálněvědní a přírodovědnou institucí. In T. Stöckelová (Ed.), Akademické poznávání, vykazování a podnikání. Etnografie měnící se české vědy (pp. 133–152). Prague: SLON.
Strauss, A. L. (1959). Mirrors and masks: The search for identity. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Tao, K. W., Gloria, A. M. (2018). Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Role of Impostorism in STEM Persistence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, first published October 15, 2018. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684318802333?journalCode=pwqa. Accessed 30 October 2018.
Tenglerová, H. (2014). The policy of inactivity: Doing gender-blind science policy in the Czech Republic 2005–2010. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 78–106.
Tenglerová, H. (2017). Postavení žen v české vědě a aktivity na jejich podporu. Monitorovací zpráva za rok 2015. Prague: Sociologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vohlídalová, M. (2014a). Academic mobility in the context of linked lives. Human Affairs, 24(1), 89–102.
Vohlídalová, M. (2014b). Rozehraná partie: Talentky sedm let poté. Prague: Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences. http://genderaveda.cz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Rozehrana-partie.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2018.
Vohlídalová, M. (2017a). Academic couples, parenthood and women’s research careers. European Educational Research Journal, 16(2-3), 166–182.
Vohlídalová, M. (2017b). The work paths of women in science before 1989 and today: “In many respects I don’t envy young colleagues”. In M. Vohlídalová & M. Linková (Eds.), Gender and Neoliberalism in Czech Academia (pp. 198–254). Prague: SLON.
Weidman, J. C. (2010). Doctoral student socialization for research. In S. K. Gardner & P. Mendoza (Eds.), On becoming a scholar. Socialization and development in doctoral education. Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Williams, J. C. (2005). The glass ceiling and the maternal wall in academia. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(130), 91–105.
Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N., & Sabelis, I. (2009). Articulating identities. Human Relations, 62(3), 299–322.
Ylijoki, O.-H., & Ursin, J. (2013). The construction of academic identity in the changes of finnish higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1135–1149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper was prepared with support from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports grant no. LE14021, as well as support from the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences RVO 68378025 for the development of a research organisation. I would like to thank my colleagues Blanka Nyklová and Marcela Linková for their support and valuable comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cidlinská, K. How not to scare off women: different needs of female early-stage researchers in STEM and SSH fields and the implications for support measures. High Educ 78, 365–388 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0347-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0347-x