purging

Gosh, it’s been a while. The reason why I’m back is that I found a couple of bad feelings festering on my mind, again, and I think they need purging.

The first is a strong negative reaction I experienced when I considered applying to the UK Royal Society’s Dorothy Hodgkin’s Fellowship Scheme – a scheme specifically aimed at early-career scientists with a need for flexible support. Now, I agree with the principle that scientists with caring responsibilities, or those who have otherwise had their academic career affected by external factors, must have access to some way of leveling the playing field. This is simply because scientific excellence – or potential for excellence – is judged on the basis of productivity, or impact. We may argue endlessly about how to judge excellence, but I think it’s fair to say that, to first order, the development or manifestation of excellence is favoured by the passage of time. Thereby, those scientists who simply have had less time to devote to their scientific interests than what can be naively inferred from their C.V. should, absolutely, have the cause for such taken into consideration when applying for jobs, fellowships, prizes, etc. I also believe that any worker with an established need for flexible support and working patterns should never be denied it.

It seems to me however that, in separating their fellowship schemes the way it currently does (the other is the University Research Fellowship), the RS fails to level the field for those who need it, and seems to award flexible fellowships only to those who have a demonstrable need for such support at the time of application. The application process for the two schemes are in every way identical, with only a single exception – a statement, in the case of the DHF, that demonstrates the candidate’s need for flexible support at the time of application. Based on this, their application continues down the assessment route or not. The scheme notes state that this statement is only read by the Grant’s Office to establish eligibility – the assessment panel will assess each individual based on scientific merit only*.  Thereby, a candidate such as myself – expecting a child and wishing that working part-time for a couple of years was a viable option – will be judged alongside someone who, for example, has cared for a relative throughout their adult life. The playing field, I would argue, is far from being leveled. Furthermore, does this distinction mean that, if I were awarded a URF fellowship and, during the term of my fellowship I developed a need for flexible support, that I would be denied it? I.e., is flexible support exclusive to the DHF? And, if not, what is the point other than reducing the pool of candidates to a randomised and mostly female minority?

It would be a lot simpler (and more fair) for the RS, in a single fellowship scheme, to offer flexible support to all fellows as they develop this need , and to level the playing field amongst candidates by some other method (the European Research Council, for example, simply normalises one’s “career age” by taking into account caring commitments or illnesses). The current separation screams out the wrong message. From my personal perspective, it read: watch out – if you have children and start sharing your science time with these children you’ll put yourself at such a disadvantage that you’ll need to apply to these special schemes if you want to get anywhere. I was so overwhelmed by my negative reaction to this scheme  that I simply didn’t apply – generating some heated discussions with senior academics who saw me as being foolish. Apparently, I should be playing the game – it’s hard getting ahead for everyone, we should take what we get. No. Just no. I want to be judged against the complete pool of scientists out there, and I want to have access to flexible support when I need it, because I need it – not because I pass some eligibility criteria on a certain day of the year.

[BTW, I am very much open to the idea that I’m simply missing the point – I mean, there are very clever people who sit on RS committees who at some point decided this was the way forward. But so far nobody has successfully convinced me that this is the right way to support early-career scientists with special needs. As always, I would love to see my mind changed!]

My negative reaction to this – undoubtedly well-meaning! – scheme can be traced back to my aversion of repeatedly being told that I’m at a disadvantage because I’m a woman. And now doubly so that I’m expecting a child (I may actually snap at the next person who points out to me all the things I won’t be able to do once my baby is born). This brings me to the second event that ticked me off recently. I was sitting through a (again, well-meaning) talk that summarised  the Athena Swan initiative, in particular the needs that motivate it. I don’t know enough about the initiative and hold no strong opinion either way. What stroke me was the endless series of statistics that was thrown at me and at an audience of aspiring women in science that demonstrated our disadvantage in the academic world. It’s a fact, look. You, and you, and you – things WILL be harder for you because you have a vagina. And that, I’m afraid, is a fact (was the claim).

I mean – honestly – does anyone really think this is a good thing to drill on my mind? This brings me to the blogpost that prompted my own. Athene Donald today, although writing within a slightly different context, points out the following:

Telling girls explicitly that maths is meant to be hard appears to be exactly the worst kind of advice to give, as it will simply reinforce stereotype threat; this is that anxiety provoked by being asked to do something where there is a negative stereotype associated with your identity. Tell girls they can’t do maths and they will underperform in maths tests; tell white boys that Afro-Caribbean’s can run faster than them, and their time over 100m will be less than if they hadn’t been told.

And here it is – a term that expresses what I quite couldn’t when I first wrote about it two years ago: stereotype threat. And, two years on, let me make this once again absolutely clear: the only time I feel at a disadvantage is when I’m told that I am. There are many things that I believe do affect one’s career’s prospects: lack of self-confidence, lack of initiative or ‘networking skills’, different sets of priorities, etc. And we may argue, demonstrate even, that some of these personal attributes correlate with gender – but (let’s all say it as one) correlation is not causality. I can change my attitude, I can work hard at turning around my self-confidence, I can beat most of these statistics because I can change those things. But I can’t change the fact I’m a woman. The emphasis on so many of these talks/schemes is on the effect, not on the cause, and that’s what sits so uncomfortably with me. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can only think of one potential cause for the increased gender gap with academic seniority that is potentially genuinely caused by gender, and that is gender bias. But the extent of this bias, in practice, is unknown – and I find it difficult to imagine it constitutes the main cause for the statistics that get thrown at me at every opportunity.

So let’s focus on the causes, not the effects. Don’t tell me that I’m less likely to land a job because I’m a woman, or that choices I may make with respect to caring responsibilities put me in a disadvantaged minority. Do tell me how to develop personal and professional skills that will enhance my chances of a successful academic career. Do tell me, if you must, that there is an increased probability that I may have to work harder at developing these skills because I’m a woman. And, by all means, please do support and lobby for flexible support in fellowships/postdocs/academic positions, and do find a way – start a debate – on how best to assess academic excellence in a way that is independent of caring responsibilities and other commitments.

But, for my own sake and yours – do not tell me I’m at a disadvantage because I was born a woman. I might never end writing these extremely long posts if you do….

* The exception, it seems, is in the case where two candidates are judged to be equal in scientific merit, but I presume this is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “purging

  1. Rita, I think you are missing the point about the Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships. They are for early career researchers who have a current need for flexible working, and I don’t understand why you think you would be disadvantaged against someone with long-term caring responsibilities. Either you have a need for flexible working, or you don’t. If you do, you are eligible but the criteria the panel will be considering thereafter are only about scientific excellence. URF’s now (although not I believe when they were first set up), are able to work part-time too, and the maternity leave policy is in line with most other schemes I believe. You can find out more about the Dorothy Hodgkin scheme and what it sets out to do in my (quite old) blog here http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2011/08/07/whoever-said-life-is-fair/ and more about the RS attitude towards its diversity work here http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2011/10/24/the-royal-society-and-diversity/. If you still have questions I suggest you contact the Grants team at the Royal Society.

    The Royal Society is not in the business of telling women life is harder for them because they are women. They are in the business of trying to level the playing field by ensuring that anyone who has taken a career break, for whatever reason, is not disadvantaged. Its recent record of the gender split for URF’s suggests they are doing quite well on this front.

    • Rita says:

      Hi Athene – thank you for the response.

      I don’t feel I would be disadvantaged against someone with long-term caring responsibilities – exactly the opposite, I feel they would be disadvantaged against me!

      I guess I simply don’t understand why this flexible support can’t be offered to all RS schemes. It sounds like now it is, in which case why have two schemes, and why encourage women, in particular, to apply to one of them? It’s nice to read that the RS “are in the business of trying to level the playing field by ensuring that anyone who has taken a career break, for whatever reason, is not disadvantaged” (and I never doubted the remit, in any case). I simply feel that, in this case, the way this is implemented, is acting to single out researchers with a need for flexible support. It’s that constant “singling out” that sits so uncomfortably with me.

  2. zinemin says:

    I share your frustration. Reading & hearing about examples of discrimination and bias against women has been demotivating for me during my job search. Of course, these things need to be discussed. But what do I do with the knowledge that women will be judged as less competent with the same CV? I would much prefer to hear about some good strategies and about examples of women who managed to have a great career and be happy.
    It seems to me that we need to be really careful not to start expecting the discrimination so much that we give up before it actually happens. I have been at meetings of female physicists which depressed me very much instead of inspiring me.

    On the other hand, of course, it would be important that we fight for a more fair way of judging academic careers. After all, there are people who decided to do their PhD with 30, and they compete with everyone else without a problem, because we do not judge publications/age, but publications/(time since start of PhD). Why not correct the “time since start of PhD” according to times that were actually spent working & getting a salary? This is super-easy to do, and removes the need for any special fellowships for people who have not worked full-time in the past. Also why should it not possible to use a 3-year fellowship for 6 years, working 50%? I don’t see any reason why this should not work out.

  3. Sarah says:

    On the stereotype threat – well said Rita and zinemin. I’ve written a similar post many times in my head but never been able to get the words out without sounding … whiny. All the talk about unconscious bias (which is apparently everywhere! and more or less unavoidable!) and sexism and discrimination just depresses me no end. It makes me worry that I’m starting to question my interactions with colleagues more than I used to – are they saying that because I’m a woman? Are they treating me differently in subtle yet insidious ways that are undermining my confidence…? Even if that were the case, it’s not helpful to think in those terms. It’s far more important to be positive, enthusiastic and excellent in our own rights. I’ve started actively avoiding “women in science” events and discussions – which makes me feel guilty as I feel like I’m letting the side down – but I always come out of those things feeling really negative.

    • Rita says:

      It’s rush hour here – that last comment (next on the thread) was in reply to zinemim and got bumped due to timings, but it works just as well as a reply to your comment.

      You’re right about the fear of sounding whiny. The flipside is that it seems to sound even whinier for having left it this long – I mean, I went on and on and on about that DHF, uh? ;)

      Perhaps we should focus on what the alternative to these events should be – if any.

  4. Rita says:

    I feel quite the same when attending (most) events on women’s careers in academia – disheartened, and doubting myself (and also fearing I’m just an idiot for not agreeing with the wider view that these events are beneficial. Every single time.)

    I don’t know what the answer is on a fair way to judge careers. I guess scientists with caring responsibilities run the risk of ‘loosing’ more than just what is on paper (like parental leave, etc), but that extra bit is too hard to quantify and normalise. And, in any case, the work/life balance of most scientists (without extra caring responsibilities) varies a great deal – from the ones who work 7 days a week, to those who stick to contract hours, to all the range in between. So maybe we just need to accept this scatter and deal with it. I genuinely don’t know. Which isn’t to say there isn’t an answer :)

  5. […] a younger me. A much younger me. Gosh. Do I recognise myself? Yes, definitely. Would I write those words today? No, not for the most part. Do I still believe I’m not a victim of gender bias? No. But […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s