**2. Does gender inequality still exist in academia?**

#### **2.1. An insight into career progression**

Despite changes to the law to promote gender equality in many countries, there is still evidence that suggests that gender inequality persists in academia. For example in a UK wide study encompassing all higher education providers and the National Health Service, only 29% of academics in science and engineering (SET) were female [1]. This variation differed between the traditional sciences with only 9% female academics in the physical sciences, 18% in mathematics and computing, 28% in engineering and rising to 33% in biological sciences [1]. Just 4 years later, in 2010, this figure had risen to 42% female academics in the SET subjects overall [2]. By 2016, across the STEMM subjects, male academics is were still dominating more senior positions (senior lecturer and above) and female academics were in higher percentages within the more junior positions (lecturer and positions leading up to lecturer). 46.5% of the women were graded higher than lecturer in comparison with men at 64.8% [3].

In the UK, between 1996 and 1997, only 6% of professors in the SET departments were female [4] and by 1999, 9.2% of professors in academia (as a whole) were female [5]. In 2006, an increase to 16% of professors in science were women was observed [1], but by 2010, this figure had decreased down to 14.5% [2]. In 2016, this number had increased with female professors in STEMM departments accounting for 32.3% of the positions available, despite nearly equal proportions of male and female respondents [3]. It is also interesting to note that female professorial levels in SET departments were lower than that for non-SET departments in 2010, in which the figure stood at 24%, which is still lower than expected as 50.7% of academics in those subjects are female, but higher than the 14.5% observed in SET subject areas [2]. The 32.3% for the UK was relatively high when compared to European figures, which averaged just 13% female professors in STEMM despite higher numbers of females in more junior positions [6].

An interesting exception was observed in medicine (and subjects aligned to medicine) in which there were more female academics and students than academics and students in 2006 [1], but a difference was still observed at the professorial level. Even with the increased number of women in medicine, in 2008, women made up only 11% of the professorial level clinical academics, despite with a 40% graduation rate over the last 20 years rising to a 60% medical school entrance rate of women in 2006 [7]. In 2008, one in five medical schools did not have a female professor and there were only two out of 33 British medical schools with a female dean [7, 8]. Nursing was also considered to be slightly different to the other STEMM subjects as differences between men and women were not frequently observed in all areas investigated [3].

These statistics were mirrored in other countries. In North America, there was evidence that one in three men and one in seven women worked in an SET occupation in academia [9] and women comprised only 8% of the medical school chairs and just eight of 125 U.S medical school deans were women in 2004 [10]. Women in Mexico, by the late 1990s, comprised only 2% of the higher positions in scientific fields, similarly, Austrian women dominated the lower levels or positions, however they only represent 1.5% of the directors of research units in natural sciences [11]. This evidence indicates that in general more men than women possess higher positions in academia within the scientific disciplines. This is not only the case for the countries in the examples given but is generally reflected in other countries too.

#### **2.2. An insight into income inequalities**

(STEMM) subjects in academia, especially in relation to career development and progression. For many years, females in STEMM subjects have been less likely to progress through the academic ranks. The first half of this chapter explores whether this has changed over the decades. It also explores the rationale, hypotheses and interventions put into place to try and achieve equality. The second half of the chapter then explores the possible interventions and concentrates particularly on CPPD as a form of pedagogy in relation to both males and females in academia. It also seeks to understand how CPPD can be beneficial and highlights areas that might be problematic and need further development. As far as possible, examples from differing countries are used, but frequently research from Europe and North America are referred to as they have generally undertaken more published studies and reports. Naturally, variations in CPPD exist worldwide; as do the types of CPPD available, career demands and even societal and cultural differences and expectations. Therefore it is difficult to capture all practices within all universities in each country. Literature searches were carried out using PubMed and Web of Science using the following key words: women/female; academic/academia; higher education; STEMM; pedagogy; equality; career progression; gender gap. In addition the same words were used to search the internet for articles relating to the media.

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

Throughout this chapter, a number of abbreviations are used depending on the research referenced. These include science, engineering and technology (SET), science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM), continuing professional development (CPD) and continuing personal and professional development (CPPD). The abbreviation used in each instance reflects the

Despite changes to the law to promote gender equality in many countries, there is still evidence that suggests that gender inequality persists in academia. For example in a UK wide study encompassing all higher education providers and the National Health Service, only 29% of academics in science and engineering (SET) were female [1]. This variation differed between the traditional sciences with only 9% female academics in the physical sciences, 18% in mathematics and computing, 28% in engineering and rising to 33% in biological sciences [1]. Just 4 years later, in 2010, this figure had risen to 42% female academics in the SET subjects overall [2]. By 2016, across the STEMM subjects, male academics is were still dominating more senior positions (senior lecturer and above) and female academics were in higher percentages within the more junior positions (lecturer and positions leading up to lecturer). 46.5% of the

In the UK, between 1996 and 1997, only 6% of professors in the SET departments were female [4] and by 1999, 9.2% of professors in academia (as a whole) were female [5]. In 2006, an increase to 16% of professors in science were women was observed [1], but by 2010, this figure

abbreviation used in the reference, otherwise CPPD and STEMM are used.

women were graded higher than lecturer in comparison with men at 64.8% [3].

**2. Does gender inequality still exist in academia?**

**2.1. An insight into career progression**

Results from January 1960-August 2017 were included.

In addition to the differences observed in career progression, inequalities in salary still exist. A salary gap of 30% between female and male medical academics was observed in the UK in 2006 [1]. The researchers noted that this difference was particularly surprising as the educational requirements and career paths were often similar between the genders, and that only those with full/time continuous employment were included in the study and that this was also much larger than the 17% pay difference seen between men and women in the rest of the UK population (from non-academic careers). In 2010, the overall difference was 18.7% when looking across all higher education subjects [2]. When put into context, this equated to a median annual income of £28,839 for women and £35,469 for male academics. In addition, the proportion of male academic staff earning over £50,000 was 31.7%, over double that of the 15% of females earning above that salary [2]. By 2015, female academics were still receiving on average £6146 less than men [12]. Similar trends were observed in America with young female career researchers (mostly doctoral graduates) paid nearly a third less than their male counterparts [13] whilst female workers in general were paid 80% of the total that males were [14].

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 provide data in this area [15, 16].

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

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

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

255

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

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

the environment could be changing.

might frequently be more men undertaking the peer review.

**3.2. Lifestyle commitments and life balance**

to women's slow career advancements [33].
