**3. Assessing the rationale and reasons behind inequality**

Women compared with men are largely in lower-paying and lower-status occupations in many countries and this results in fewer opportunities for progression. By contrast, the women that are being discussed in this chapter largely have the same qualifications and jobs as the men, therefore this cannot explain the wage and progression differences observed in the research shown above. In the 1980s, it was suggested that ″women fail to utilise fully their talents, capabilities and interests in career quests which is one of the main reasons why women's career behaviour differs from that of men″ [17]. Thinking has largely moved on since this statement was made; however, this section looks at whether aspects such as interest in STEMM, capabilities and behaviours are different in women to that of men and whether this impacts on their careers.

#### **3.1. Teaching vs. research – balancing roles and esteem indicators**

One theory as to the reduced career progression for women is that once they obtain higher positions (such as lectureships and beyond) they might spend more time teaching than doing research, resulting in fewer papers and grant successes; the latter two are often very important for career progression [18]. There have been differences observed between men and women in the amount and type of research activities undertaken. This is supported by various reports and studies. In the British academic system, women were more likely to hold 'teaching only' roles as opposed to 'research and teaching' roles in comparison with men (30.3% female teaching vs. 22.0% male teaching, 45.3% female research and teaching vs. 56.2% male research and teaching [2]. In 2017, a study throughout the UK showed that female academics still reported spending more hours on teaching and public-engagement tasks and less time on research than did their male colleagues; this was significantly different even after employment contract type, seniority and age were accounted for [19].

A woman's scientific research output (in terms of papers and patents produced) has been shown to vary depending on the country in which they work. Women scientists and engineers in India, for example, produce more 'outputs' than their male colleagues, whereas in Venezuela, male scientists have been found to produce more 'outputs' than female scientists [11]. Numerous studies have found that in general women are less likely to be awarded research grants, ranging from examples in the Netherlands [20], European Research Council [21], North America [22, 23]. The European Commission has shown that women in STEM academia are more likely to face inequality due to bias in most peer review situations ranging from grant and paper success through to curriculum vitae sifts and job interviews [24, 25]. In addition to this, it has been shown that frequently women are expected to obtain higher numbers of publications and grants in order to then achieve positions [26]; an even more difficult achievement, bearing in mind that the funding and publications are less likely to be given to women. Despite this back drop, some studies are starting to show that women in some areas are not facing bias at interview [27], so the environment could be changing.

Research has shown that journals ranging across the STEMM subjects based in the North America offer fewer opportunities for women to become reviewers and that women represent lower percentages of senior or first authorship. 26% of submitted papers have women as first authors, yet during the same period (2012–2015) only 20% of reviewers were women and male editors requested female reviewers 17% of the time in comparison to 22% requested by female editors [7, 28]. These figures were similar to the numbers observed when authors suggested reviewers. Male authors only suggested female reviewers 15% of the time in comparison to female authors who suggested women 21% of the time. On average men and women who were invited to review did not show differences in their responses (decline or accept). As men and women had similar review acceptance rates, women reviewed fewer papers in comparison with the number actually submitted by females. Women reported that they were less likely to be on influential panels, such as editorial boards of journals (32% female vs. 42% male), grant giving panels (21% female vs. 38% male) or become an editor (8% female vs. 20% male) [7, 22, 28, 29]. A number of similar studies for different journals and in different countries have shown similar trends. Journals are not the only place where male to female ratios have been suggested as problematic. From grant reviews through to promotions and job application situations, it has been suggested that with more men in senior positions, there might frequently be more men undertaking the peer review.

#### **3.2. Lifestyle commitments and life balance**

Differential salaries for men and women were also observed in North America. Studies have shown that men in SET occupations earn \$8714 more than women in the same occupations and that in the non-SET occupations men earned \$16,391 more than women [9]. Another study noted that a male physician with less than ten publications will earn approximately \$96,214 in his first year; however, a woman who is similarly situated would earn \$11,691 less [10]. Pay differences are common throughout the world. In 2015, data from 145 countries were assessed and none provided equality of pay for similar work between the genders, with the scale going from 0 to 1 with 1 being the highest score for equality between genders, the top ratio was 0.88 (Rwanda) and the lowest country stood at 0.34 which was Angola, but some countries did not

Women compared with men are largely in lower-paying and lower-status occupations in many countries and this results in fewer opportunities for progression. By contrast, the women that are being discussed in this chapter largely have the same qualifications and jobs as the men, therefore this cannot explain the wage and progression differences observed in the research shown above. In the 1980s, it was suggested that ″women fail to utilise fully their talents, capabilities and interests in career quests which is one of the main reasons why women's career behaviour differs from that of men″ [17]. Thinking has largely moved on since this statement was made; however, this section looks at whether aspects such as interest in STEMM, capabilities and behaviours are different in women to that of men and whether

One theory as to the reduced career progression for women is that once they obtain higher positions (such as lectureships and beyond) they might spend more time teaching than doing research, resulting in fewer papers and grant successes; the latter two are often very important for career progression [18]. There have been differences observed between men and women in the amount and type of research activities undertaken. This is supported by various reports and studies. In the British academic system, women were more likely to hold 'teaching only' roles as opposed to 'research and teaching' roles in comparison with men (30.3% female teaching vs. 22.0% male teaching, 45.3% female research and teaching vs. 56.2% male research and teaching [2]. In 2017, a study throughout the UK showed that female academics still reported spending more hours on teaching and public-engagement tasks and less time on research than did their male colleagues; this was significantly different even after employment contract

A woman's scientific research output (in terms of papers and patents produced) has been shown to vary depending on the country in which they work. Women scientists and engineers in India, for example, produce more 'outputs' than their male colleagues, whereas in Venezuela, male scientists have been found to produce more 'outputs' than female scientists [11]. Numerous

**3. Assessing the rationale and reasons behind inequality**

254 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

**3.1. Teaching vs. research – balancing roles and esteem indicators**

type, seniority and age were accounted for [19].

provide data in this area [15, 16].

this impacts on their careers.

In the 1960s, women were not usually encouraged to pursue their professional career during the early years of child-rearing, mainly due to the concern of the effect of the decrease of their intellectual creativity [30]. 40 years later, one common explanation of continued gender inequality was the fact that women, more than men, hold the burdens of childcare and marriage and this is believed to be the best account for gender inequality [31]. In the 1990s, it was suggested that men tended to have lifestyle advantages over women and were often known to have greater resources, such as money and influential friends [32]. It has also been suggested that the belief that this is so, whether it's true or not, affects women's decisions, their careers and how they are treated [31]. One view that was used to explain gender inequality was that 'women tend to have less time, energy and commitment to invest in their careers and as a result are less scientifically valuable than men' and this is a popular explanation that relates to women's slow career advancements [33].

In the next decade, a study showed that the women in the study believed that having children could be detrimental to their career prospects and felt it was important to plan their pregnancies around their work timetables [34]. Women within the study group had adapted their personal lives to fit into their professional lives. From the 11 women in the study, one had chosen to have no children, six had babies in the month of May to avoid key teaching periods, two women waited until they became professors and two had children as students and postponed their careers. This study provides evidence that child-bearing does affect careers and mindsets of women greatly and that women are trying to avoid career disruption [34].

likely before then) and in investigating women in male dominated subjects, women mentored by men were thought to adapt their intellectual and personal integrations more than women who were mentored by other women [38]. Although this adaptation might assist women to 'fit into the system' better, it may not be the natural style of the woman involved, and long term this could have a detrimental effect on her attitude or wellbeing. A later study on mentors and role models for women showed that 50 of 558 women commented on the lack of female mentors [39]. Women with children within the study noticed that female mentors were often ones without family responsibilities or children, and therefore were not suitable role models when it came to combining family and careers [39]. In the present day, women are still more likely to not identify with an appropriate role model. In a survey of medical academics throughout the UK, women were more likely to report a lack of a role model (16% female vs. 4% male) or appropriate mentoring (29% female vs. 19% male) [7]. In 2017, female STEM academics reported that they had less access to appropriate role models than men but men did not indicate an advantage for themselves [19]. Therefore despite the number of studies throughout the decades highlighting that lack of role models was an issue, it appears that

Is Your Extra X Chromosome Holding You Back? An Insight into Female Education…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71898

257

Stereotypical characteristics of each gender might also play a part in gender inequality. The stereotypical masculine qualities are generally instrumental qualities, for example, competitiveness, dominance and assertiveness [17]. These qualities are usually related to success; however, the stereotypical feminine role is generally qualities that are related to emotion, for example, sensitivity, nurturing and innocence [17]. Stereotypes are problematic in the way that people are viewed, but there might also be real differences in the way that men and women behave. Confidence issues have also been suggested as potential barriers for women in academia. One view is that women might lack confidence when pushing for promotion whilst being seen as aggressive if they do push for promotion [40]. Bandura suggested that women who chose science and engineering tend to have strong beliefs in themselves and must possess the confidence in their ability to go against the social norms [41]. They must be confident that they can thrive when mentors and other supportive associates are lacking [42].

**4. Understanding the potential roles of CPPD and the workplace in** 

in academic STEMM subjects in career progression and equality.

The differences between the roles, opportunities and perceptions of success were explored in the first half of this chapter. These are essential as studies have shown that they are key factors

There are several reasons that contribute to the gender inequality in academia and it has been suggested that these reasons go as far back as elementary school where boys naturally had more interest in studying science than girls. The study on 6th grade students from the United States 42% of girls enjoyed science compared with 63% of boys [43]. It was suggested that this could be one explanation as to why there are fewer females entering the scientific departments, and therefore fewer females possess higher positions within the department [43]. However, by

**developing equality**

females may still not always have access to appropriate role models today.

Conference attendance is also an important esteem indicator in academia and plays an important role in networking and research dissemination. It has been reported that part-time working, career breaks, balancing home and work life and a decreased attendance at international conferences could all have a detrimental effect on career progression [35]. This view is partially supported by evidence from the UK nationwide survey reporting that 54.2% of part-time academic staff were female [2], and it has to be recalled that women, on average, only make up to 29% of the academic population [1]. It has also been suggested that family responsibilities make female scientists in academia less geographically mobile than men and this factor might intensify gender inequalities in occupation and salary [36]. Interestingly, some studies did not indicate a detrimental effect in relation to having a family. In Israel for example it was found that child-raising did not have a negative impact on career progression for female professors in the natural sciences, and the rationale put forward was that these women produced more research papers than their male equivalents [11]. However, child-raising had a small effect on their abilities to travel abroad for international meetings and research opportunities, which is perceived as vital for scientists in small countries [11].

#### **3.3. Confidence, behaviour and role models**

Encouragement in career choices and progression is a key factor in inequality. Due to traditional societal beliefs regarding suitable roles for men and women, in the 1980s males generally received more encouragements for career pursuits and achievements than females [17]. In a survey of medical academics throughout the UK, women that responded were less likely to be encouraged towards promotion (38% female vs. 43% male) [7]. Women are also less likely to believe that gender equality exists when trying to gain a more senior position, with 47.3% of males believing there was equality and just 23% of females agreeing [3, 19].

By 2017, encouragement by management to achieve promotion was still lower in women than in men. In a UK study (43 universities, STEM based academics), 48.8% of women had been encouraged to apply for promotion whereas 59.7% of the men had been encouraged [19]. Outstanding women scientists might not engage in scientific careers simply because they do not have enough encouragement to do so, therefore they question whether they have what it takes to be successful or simply because they lack a female role model that could help them visualise themselves as faculty members [37]. Role models are themselves an important factor. In 1976 it was reported that more women than men were reporting a lack of a role model or mentoring, suggesting that an appropriate role model or mentor was either not available, or not offered to those women [38]. The lack of a mentor was studied in the 1970s (and most likely before then) and in investigating women in male dominated subjects, women mentored by men were thought to adapt their intellectual and personal integrations more than women who were mentored by other women [38]. Although this adaptation might assist women to 'fit into the system' better, it may not be the natural style of the woman involved, and long term this could have a detrimental effect on her attitude or wellbeing. A later study on mentors and role models for women showed that 50 of 558 women commented on the lack of female mentors [39]. Women with children within the study noticed that female mentors were often ones without family responsibilities or children, and therefore were not suitable role models when it came to combining family and careers [39]. In the present day, women are still more likely to not identify with an appropriate role model. In a survey of medical academics throughout the UK, women were more likely to report a lack of a role model (16% female vs. 4% male) or appropriate mentoring (29% female vs. 19% male) [7]. In 2017, female STEM academics reported that they had less access to appropriate role models than men but men did not indicate an advantage for themselves [19]. Therefore despite the number of studies throughout the decades highlighting that lack of role models was an issue, it appears that females may still not always have access to appropriate role models today.

In the next decade, a study showed that the women in the study believed that having children could be detrimental to their career prospects and felt it was important to plan their pregnancies around their work timetables [34]. Women within the study group had adapted their personal lives to fit into their professional lives. From the 11 women in the study, one had chosen to have no children, six had babies in the month of May to avoid key teaching periods, two women waited until they became professors and two had children as students and postponed their careers. This study provides evidence that child-bearing does affect careers and mindsets of women greatly and that women are trying to avoid career disruption [34]. Conference attendance is also an important esteem indicator in academia and plays an important role in networking and research dissemination. It has been reported that part-time working, career breaks, balancing home and work life and a decreased attendance at international conferences could all have a detrimental effect on career progression [35]. This view is partially supported by evidence from the UK nationwide survey reporting that 54.2% of part-time academic staff were female [2], and it has to be recalled that women, on average, only make up to 29% of the academic population [1]. It has also been suggested that family responsibilities make female scientists in academia less geographically mobile than men and this factor might intensify gender inequalities in occupation and salary [36]. Interestingly, some studies did not indicate a detrimental effect in relation to having a family. In Israel for example it was found that child-raising did not have a negative impact on career progression for female professors in the natural sciences, and the rationale put forward was that these women produced more research papers than their male equivalents [11]. However, child-raising had a small effect on their abilities to travel abroad for international meetings and research opportunities, which is

256 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

Encouragement in career choices and progression is a key factor in inequality. Due to traditional societal beliefs regarding suitable roles for men and women, in the 1980s males generally received more encouragements for career pursuits and achievements than females [17]. In a survey of medical academics throughout the UK, women that responded were less likely to be encouraged towards promotion (38% female vs. 43% male) [7]. Women are also less likely to believe that gender equality exists when trying to gain a more senior position, with 47.3%

By 2017, encouragement by management to achieve promotion was still lower in women than in men. In a UK study (43 universities, STEM based academics), 48.8% of women had been encouraged to apply for promotion whereas 59.7% of the men had been encouraged [19]. Outstanding women scientists might not engage in scientific careers simply because they do not have enough encouragement to do so, therefore they question whether they have what it takes to be successful or simply because they lack a female role model that could help them visualise themselves as faculty members [37]. Role models are themselves an important factor. In 1976 it was reported that more women than men were reporting a lack of a role model or mentoring, suggesting that an appropriate role model or mentor was either not available, or not offered to those women [38]. The lack of a mentor was studied in the 1970s (and most

of males believing there was equality and just 23% of females agreeing [3, 19].

perceived as vital for scientists in small countries [11].

**3.3. Confidence, behaviour and role models**

Stereotypical characteristics of each gender might also play a part in gender inequality. The stereotypical masculine qualities are generally instrumental qualities, for example, competitiveness, dominance and assertiveness [17]. These qualities are usually related to success; however, the stereotypical feminine role is generally qualities that are related to emotion, for example, sensitivity, nurturing and innocence [17]. Stereotypes are problematic in the way that people are viewed, but there might also be real differences in the way that men and women behave. Confidence issues have also been suggested as potential barriers for women in academia. One view is that women might lack confidence when pushing for promotion whilst being seen as aggressive if they do push for promotion [40]. Bandura suggested that women who chose science and engineering tend to have strong beliefs in themselves and must possess the confidence in their ability to go against the social norms [41]. They must be confident that they can thrive when mentors and other supportive associates are lacking [42].
