ISBN printed edition: 978-82-02-78265-8
ISBN PDF: 978-82-02-77802-6
ISBN EPUB: 978-82-02-79312-8
ISBN HTML: 978-82-02-79313-5
ISBN XML: 978-82-02-79314-2
DOI:
This is a peer-reviewed anthology. The introductory chapter has not been peer-reviewed.
Translation from Norwegian: Cathinka Dahl Hambro
Cover design: Cappelen Damm AS
Cover image: Arnold Haukeland: Air, 1961. © Arnold Haukeland / BONO 2022.
The cover image is excluded from the terms of the book’s Creative Commons license and may not be reused in any way without the express permission of the copyright holder.
Cappelen Damm Akademisk/NOASP
The cover of this book shows Arnold Haukeland’s sculpture “Air”, made in 1961, embodying the free spirit of science. The sculpture stands in the middle of the campus at the University of Oslo. This is where staff and students from different faculties meet daily. This book is written in the interdisciplinary spirit of “Air”.
The book is a revised and translated version of the Norwegian anthology
Why is the top level of academia still often dominated by men? Why is this difficult to change? This book offers an in-depth study of why gender equality in academia is hard to achieve – and a study of actions and measures that work. It is based on a broad range of evidence from a multi-method approach including surveys, interviews and action research.
Despite Norway being on the frontline of global gender equality developments the prevalence of men at top levels in academia persists, according to the results of the new study. However, in this “experimental zone” of increasing gender equality, both the resistance and barriers, and the potentials and possibilities, take on new forms. The book includes models of these new forms and mechanisms recreating gender inequality, as well as ways they can be countered. Thus, it is relevant for a wider global community searching for better paths forward to realizing gender equality.
We would like to thank editor Marte Ericsson Ryste for her support in publishing this book, Cathinka Dahl Hambro for her translation and assistance with revision, the institutions that have financed the work, and, not least, all of the researchers and students who have shared their experiences with us.
November 2022,
Øystein Gullvåg Holter and Lotta Snickare
Female students entered universities and university colleges a long time ago. Nonetheless this has not produced a corresponding effect on the proportion of women in top academic positions. At the University of Oslo (UiO), we see an accumulated gender gap, which is particularly visible in the natural sciences and technology, having 40 per cent female students yet only 24 per cent female professors (2021). We recruit fewer women than the recruitment pool suggests, and it is obvious that this systematic dropout of women higher up on the career ladder results in a loss of talent – something we cannot afford. We share this challenge with other European academic communities.
There is little scientific support for hypotheses that the accumulated gender gap in academia is only due to academic traditions and oversight. Nor do the assessment and employment systems appear to be objective enough to bring about changes on their own. We have to deal with this knowledge actively. At the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (MN) at UiO, we have, in collaboration with the Centre for Gender Research (STK), organized this work through the research project “FRONT: Female Researchers on Track” (2015–2019). With the Faculty of Theology, the Natural History Museum and the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, this project has been continued as “FRONT2: Future Research and Organizational Development in Natural Sciences, Technology, and Theology” (2019–2022). Through FRONT we have systematically sought new knowledge as a foundation for long-term measures and further work towards improved gender balance in our organizations. This book describes key elements of this new knowledge, and how such insight may be used when working for change. This knowledge is important internationally, and the initial Norwegian publication has therefore been augmented by this revised English edition.
The absence of women in higher academic positions affects universities’ societal position and is much more than just a challenge for women themselves. Universities are important carriers of culture – they manage, develop, and disseminate knowledge, and educate the citizens of tomorrow. Skewed selection resulting in a persistent gender gap in academia must therefore be considered to be a comprehensive democratic problem. This perspective is rarely addressed in the debate, despite the fact that the university is generally concerned with rectifying social inequality. It should not be the exclusive domain of one-half of the population to define research agendas and manage the development of knowledge in society. The work to rectify gender skewness in academia, therefore, requires particular attention from all leaders and employees in the sector, in synergy with political leadership, and the sector’s range of instruments – if we truly wish to take this challenge seriously.
Recent research has led to increased recognition of the research organization’s and the research system’s central role and revealed that competition for research funding and academic positions is not gender neutral. This recognition undermines the very idea of meritocracy, which is a fundamental ideal in academic culture and tradition. This is particularly important in light of the fact that competition is intensified by the accumulation of competitive advantages. The belief in scientific quality as an objective dimension, unaffected by the system and society within which it is assessed, appears naive. Academia’s subjectivity is well documented in international research, and
FRONT’s objective is to create long-term cultural change to improve gender equality and gender balance in the cooperating units, where the main objective is to rectify the gender gap in top academic positions. With funding from the Research Council of Norway’s BALANCE programme, which aims to improve gender balance in Norwegian research, we have implemented and followed up research-based initiatives with close involvement from the management in the different departments. Through this interaction between research-based initiatives and research on the initiatives, we have developed an extensive knowledge base during the course of several years. This systematic, knowledge-based, working methodology with a long-term focus (10-year perspective), followed up directly by top leadership, is unique in our sector. It has also been vital for achieving recognition of gender balance as a significant organizational challenge in our units. Leading this work and following the organization through comprehensive development has been a pleasure, but also a challenge. It is my distinct conviction that close leadership involvement is essential for success, although of course these efforts must also progress elsewhere in the organization. This book is based on our work and our experiences in the project, and presents our research findings. I believe that the knowledge base developed here will have considerable transfer value both within and beyond the higher education sector.
I hope the readers of this book will find the project and research findings interesting. I also hope that the book can contribute to the important work of change currently happening in Norway and other countries!
Professor Solveig Kristensen, Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences and project leader of FRONT, University of Oslo
Oslo, 1 November 2022
“In my opinion, gender equality is, honestly, very important to us,” says a male leader at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo. He is not alone. A large majority of both employees and students at the faculty say they want a gender-equal workplace. How does this look in reality? Is the faculty gender-equal or not? It is easy to see that there is gender imbalance – in which the top academic and research leader positions are dominated by men – but is the faculty gender-equal? If not, why? And in that case, what can be done to increase gender equality?
The project “Female Researchers on Track” (FRONT) was initiated in the autumn of 2015 by the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo to analyze to what extent a lack of gender equality may be the cause of gender imbalance at the faculty and, if so, what would need to change in order to increase gender equality. The three-year project was funded by the Research Council of Norway as part of the programme “Gender Balance in Senior Positions and Research Management” (BALANSE).
Many studies show that academia is not gender-equal. However, these are normally investigations of an academic organization from a specific perspective, or as a limited process. In this book, we present results from a broader perspective. The FRONT project studied the entire organization – not just focusing on a particular segment – and also implemented measures. Moreover, we have analyzed the effects of the measures, implemented for increased gender equality, through action
The surveys expand the gender-equality research area especially in terms of careers, work environment, and academic culture. Most existing studies are limited to a few topics (such as career or harassment), with relatively few variables. The questionnaires used in the FRONT surveys included many topics and variables, which in turn were developed and investigated further in interviews. Yet the project did not stop there. Within the same organization, we have also implemented a series of measures and initiatives aiming to change the organizational culture towards increased gender equality. These included a leadership development programme for the faculty management, a seminar for PhD supervisors, the establishment of a network for top female researchers, and a career development programme for women in temporary positions. The effects of these initiatives have also been analyzed. What has worked well and what has not worked?
An important dimension of the project’s strategy was that the two parts – research and measures – should work together. This means that research results, in the form of new knowledge, have been used both in designing and implementing the project’s measures. In turn, experiences from the various initiatives have been used in the development of surveys and interviews. This combination of methods has been essential, both in terms of identifying “robust” results, meaning patterns and tendencies emerging across methods, and being able to interpret different data sources in light of each other. The research has taken place in collaboration with the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences and the Centre for Gender Research (STK), both in the University of Oslo.
As mentioned, the book is based on three types of material: questionnaire surveys, interviews and action research.
In this book, we present the results of the project. The authors of the chapters have all followed and worked with the FRONT project in different ways. Some have been involved in all parts of the project, whereas others have participated in the action research or the analyses of the quantitative material. The book is largely a result of collaboration. The two editors have contributed equally to editing the book. At the same time, there has been a certain distribution of responsibility and work with the different chapters. For each chapter, the main author is mentioned first, and then co-authors are mentioned in order, based on the extent of their contribution to the chapter.
The book consists of three parts that may be read separately, but the whole is important, since the parts build upon and develop each other. In the first part, we describe the actual status of gender equality in the faculty. In the second, we present three theoretical models developed to provide a better understanding and insight into the situation, based on the project’s empirical data. In the last part, we analyze the effects of three important initiatives implemented by the project. Each part is prefaced with an introduction. These are written by Holter and Snickare (part one and two) and by Snickare and Holter (part three).
The first part of the book contains six chapters based primarily on the surveys and interviews. In chapter one, “Gender-Equal Imbalance?”,
In the second chapter “Men, Masculinities and Professional Hierarchies”, we analyze the implications of male dominance at the faculty – for both women and men. The empirical material in this chapter reveals a clear tendency, that men experience fewer problems with the work environment than women. We also see signs of informal comradeship among men, of a majority position inadequately examined, and the idea that an academic career is incompatible with family and care responsibilities – not just for women but also for men – as well as a persistent connection between men, masculinity and professional hierarchies.
In the third chapter “Sexual Harassment: Not an Isolated Problem”, we discuss the extent of sexual harassment at the faculty, and show how sexual harassment is connected with other work environment and culture-related issues. Unwanted sexual attention is the most common type of sexual harassment, while other and more serious types (unwanted physical contact, coercion, stalking, physical assault) are rarer. However, most of those who have experienced more serious types of sexual harassment have also experienced unwanted sexual attention. Moreover, there is a strong connection between unwanted sexual harassment and various types of professional devaluation.
In the fourth chapter “Who Is Publishing What? How Gender Influences Publication”, we explore scientific publications at the faculty from a gender perspective. Two models are presented based on two types of statistical analysis. Both show that gender is of little significance when position level, the portion of time for research, and to a weaker degree, total weekly working hours are taken into account.
In chapter five “Experiences in Academia: A New Survey Study”, empirical differences and similarities between women’s and men´s careers are summarized. Where previous chapters have described gender differences in specific areas, such as harassment or publishing, we now examine differences and similarities comprehensively as a whole. We present a
In the sixth and last chapter of part one, “Ethnicity, Racism and Intersectionality”, we examine how life in academia is shaped and affected by ethnicity, that is by ethnic group affiliation. For example, are conditions in the work environment and academic culture, previously examined in relation to gender, also influenced by ethnic background? We also discuss the social class dimension, and how gender, ethnicity and class interact.
The second part of the book builds upon the main findings presented in the first part. In the three chapters in part two, we discuss how the findings may be interpreted, through outlining theories and interpretative frameworks. In chapter seven “The Bøygen Model: The Hypothesis of Accumulated Disadvantage”, the metaphor
In chapter eight “The Janus Model: Why Women Experience Disadvantage”, we use the metaphor
In chapter nine “The Triview Model: Three Views of a Problem”, we interpret discursive practices, and how actors in the academic system understand and formulate questions relating to gender, gender balance, and gender equality. Here, we use three one-eyed cyclopes (from Greek mythology) as a metaphor for the pattern of different perceptions. The model describes three typical views that become clearly visible in the
In the book’s third part, we describe and analyze the FRONT project’s initiatives. The three chapters discuss the implementation of initiatives involving leaders, PhD supervisors, and top female researchers. Chapter ten “From Biology to Strategy: The Development of a Management Team”, deals with the work in the faculty’s management team. In the analysis, we examine the role of the management team – what the team can do specifically – in order to develop sustainable gender equality work in the organization, as well as what the team needs in order to succeed with this.
In chapter eleven “From Resistance to Change? Processes for Change Within an Organization”, we take a closer look at whether the management team’s work for increased gender equality had any effects within the organization. Did opposition to gender equality work increase or decrease? Possible future changes will be examined through an initiative for PhD supervisors at the faculty.
The book’s twelfth chapter “From Exception to Norm: The Development of Resilience in a Network”, is an analysis of a network for top female researchers. By combining gender theory and research on resilience, we analyze how resilience can be created on an individual level in an academic organization.
We hope the book will inspire further research, as well as initiatives to increase gender equality.
Øystein Gullvåg Holter and Lotta Snickare
BALANSE received a grant from the Ministry of Education and Research in 2013. The programme lasts until 2022, and has a total budget of approximately NOK130 million. See more at the Research Council of Norway:
The first part of this book presents the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (MN) in the University of Oslo, and the FRONT study of the faculty. We begin by introducing something that may seem like a paradox: Most employees and students want gender equality, yet the faculty is characterized by gender imbalance, particularly at the top. The following chapters explore crucial topics, such as academic prestige, men and masculinity, sexual harassment, and publishing. The results of the FRONT study – from both questionnaires and interview material – are presented and discussed topic by topic. The central question examines equal treatment. Do the results indicate an approximately equal distribution of advantages and disadvantages among men and women, or do they show a skewed selection and uneven distribution?
The chapters focus on the work environment and academic culture in terms of group collaboration, academic networks, relationship to colleagues, and international competition. The last two chapters in this part summarize the gender differences in our findings, and present these differences together with material regarding other types of social inequality, ethnicity in particular.
This first part consists of the following chapters:
Chapter one “Gender-Equal Imbalance?” introduces the faculty as a workplace, and explores the different perceptions of gender equality and gender balance among women and men.
Chapter two “Men, Masculinities and Professional Hierarchies” addresses gender and equality focusing on men, and how academic prestige is connected with masculinity.
Chapter three “Sexual Harassment: Not an Isolated Problem” describes the extent of sexual harassment, and the most common aspects of the work environment connected with this problem.
Chapter four “Who Is Publishing What? How Gender Influences Publication” addresses questions regarding scientific productivity, focusing on whether women publish less than men and if so, why.
Chapter five “Experiences in Academia: A New Survey Study” describes and summarizes one of the main findings of the study: a gender gap in terms of experiences and obstacles in one’s career.
Chapter six “Ethnicity, Racism and Intersectionality” looks at diversity and social imbalance from a broader perspective, not only gender balance. The chapter focuses on ethnicity and how various dimensions such as gender, ethnicity and class are entwined.
Most staff and students at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at Oslo University want gender equality, both in the workplace and in their private lives. Yet, since they also assume that academia is a meritocracy, the faculty’s gender imbalance is seen as a result of women and men making different choices. Above all, the vertical gender balance, with more men at the top and in leadership positions, is explained by the fact that women prioritize children and family over an academic career. Our quantitative and qualitative data, however, refute the explanation that women deliberately opt out of an academic career in favour of active parenting. Instead, we show that more women than men have failed to fulfil their own career ambitions. On the other hand, we also note that the potential to combine work and family are different for women and men.
The Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo has approximately 1200 academic employees: 400 women and 800 men. Although the faculty has almost achieved gender balance among its bachelor and master students, the middle and higher positions,
*work year, not number of PhD contracts
Although the faculty has a total of approximately 40 per cent female students, the proportion of women varies greatly between departments and degree programmes. While programmes within the biosciences and pharmacy have more than 70 per cent women, there are programmes within physics, mathematics and informatics with approximately 20 per cent women and 80 percent men (DBH, 2020). On the other hand,
There are also major differences within one and the same department. When the FRONT project began, there were twelve research groups in the Department of Informatics (IFI): one numerically female-dominated, one with an even gender distribution, and ten male-dominated.
*work year, not number of PhD contracts
Gender balance and gender equality are often referred to as if they were the same thing, or two sides of the same issue. We consider the degree of gender balance as a measuring stick for gender equality in an organization. But gender balance and gender equality are not identical. Gender balance is first and foremost about representation, meaning there is an equal proportion of women and men within an educational programme, a field of research, or a position category. Gender equality, on the other
*work year, not number of PhD contracts
In Norway and other Nordic countries, gender equality work in academia has been developing since the 1980s, often with gender balance as a primary goal.
In this chapter, we describe how students and employees at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (MN faculty) in the University of Oslo relate to gender equality and gender balance. We begin by describing attitudes, that is, whether or not gender equality and gender balance are desirable. We then go on to describe different explanatory models for a gender imbalance that is obvious to all. Do students and employees consider gender imbalance an effect of a gender-unequal faculty or is it rooted in something else?
We also explore how the proposed explanations correspond to research on academia from a gender perspective – both in our own study of the MN faculty and other national and international research. Our own material is both qualitative and quantitative, meaning that we have worked with two questionnaire surveys, one for students and one for employees, and conducted interviews with women and men in various roles at the faculty. The material and how we collected it are described in more detail in the book’s appendix “Method”.
Many students and employees at the faculty express an explicit desire for gender equality. They want both to work in a gender-equal workplace and have a gender-equal private life. The survey of master students indicates that nearly 80 per cent, slightly more women than men, want an equal distribution of care responsibility, housework, and paid work within the family. Among the master students, only 10 per cent of the women and 15 per cent of the men completely agree that “gender equality has come far enough”. Instead, many wish that gender equality was given more attention.
The interviews with employees indicate a similar pattern. “In my opinion, completely honest, gender equality is crucial to us,” says Aksel,
There is gender equality, but unfortunately not gender balance. The men stay and have careers, whereas the women choose to quit.
(From an interview with Tobias, a male professor)
We have heard versions of the above quote many times during the project’s interviews and seminars. Despite the importance of gender equality and the fact that it is something many people want, there is a common perception that gender imbalance within the faculty is independent of gender inequality, and it rather has to do with women and men making different choices. That the faculty is not gender-balanced is visible in meeting rooms, laboratories and lecture theatres. Gender equality, or the lack thereof, is more difficult to observe with the naked eye. Since everyone knows that the natural sciences attract more men than women, gender inequality becomes unnecessary as an explanation for the gender imbalance.
Another thing that may support the perception that gender inequality is not the reason behind gender imbalance is Norway’s position as one of the world’s most gender-equal countries (see also
She also describes how her altered view of the organization affects her behaviour: “I look for things that are problematic for women. I am more attentive to how women are treated and whether women are contacted in connection to appointment processes etc.” Tirild, also a female associate professor, reflects upon how she, in the same way as the rest of the group of participants, was initially negative to the FRONT project being based on gender research, but that she subsequently changed her opinion. “Gender theory and gender research were not things that could help me in my situation there and then. The theory is interesting at a later stage … I noticed that my boss agreed with me when we spoke before the meeting, but not when we were in the meeting with the others – then he agreed with the men. He criticized me in front of the others who were there. Gender theory became an eye-opener for this.”
The survey among employees at the faculty shows that female employees in particular perceive the faculty as gender unequal. Women’s and men’s experiences with culture and academic community differ in a number of areas. One example is the question of whether the faculty is sexist or not. Of the men 47 per cent, but only 28 per cent of the women, completely agreed that the culture in their workplace is non-sexist. The survey reveals that the image of the faculty as a meritocracy from the interviews is highly abstract and a matter of principle. The more we ask about practical experiences, the more we see other realities emerge.
In surveys and interviews, both students and employees express their support for gender equality. The interviews also show that the
Because I think research also needs women, just to see things in a slightly different way. So I think women in research are important.
(From an interview with Heidi, a female postdoctoral fellow)
Although students and employees agree that they want gender equality, there is less agreement regarding the importance of gender balance. Many would like a workplace or degree programme with an approximately equal proportion of women and men. But since they consider academia a gender-equal meritocracy, their explanation for the imbalance is not gender discrimination but rather individual choices, something that neither can nor should be controlled. Instead, some think the work for increased gender balance can have undesirable effects. Kari, a female postdoctoral fellow, says, for instance, “I think it is better if we get more women, but we should also ensure that we don’t recruit people just because they have a specific gender.”
Those arguing for gender balance often emphasize that women can bring out something new and different in the traditional “male disciplines”. According to them, women and men are different, or they have different experiences, and can therefore contribute different perspectives in the workplace and in research. Some also emphasize representation and democracy, but academic quality is the main issue. In the introductory quote to this section, the female postdoctoral fellow says
Several interviewees attempt to explain how such a gender-equal country as Norway still has a gender-imbalanced labour market. For instance, a male professor, Petter, says, “Norway, in which the opportunities are in principle equal, has kept a gender-segregated labour market, indicating that we have personal gender preferences, rather than systematic obstacles preventing people from thriving.”
Because Norway is one of the most gender-equal countries in the world, Petter is of the opinion that it is entirely gender-equal, at least “in principle”. Therefore, the existing gender imbalance is not likely to result from gender discrimination, but rather from women and men making different choices. According to Petter, this is dependent on “gender-driven motivations.” Several of the interviewees express similar ideas. As an explanation for why so few women study and work in informatics, Leif, a male professor, says, “I think there is this boys’ club, where they […] keep at it like they always have.” Ingrid, a female postdoctoral fellow, agrees. She says, “I don’t think women are as interested in hard sciences, like programming and such.”
However, most interviewees think the most common reason for the gender imbalance is different requirements for women and men – and also that women and men make different choices – when it comes to starting a family. Hedda, a female associate professor, responds to the
Interviews with leaders at the faculty conducted early in the project period, and before the initiatives were implemented, show a view of the academic career path that is largely meritocratic (cf.
I think if everyone thinks they’re going in this direction, we will have a major challenge. We are different by nature, and I suppose I have always been worried that we push too many in this direction.
(From an interview with Leif, a male professor and leader)
The fact that these trial periods, including the need for mobility and the long period of temporary work, cause many to choose to leave academia is not a problem, according to Leif. On the contrary, in the above quote he says it would be a “major challenge” if all PhD students and postdoctoral fellows wanted an academic career. Most of them have to leave academia, he maintains.
It is almost like career guidance, what is it that you need, I had precisely that conversation yesterday with one of our best PhD students. And then I have to ask him directly, “Would you like to do a postdoc?”. Yes, he would. “Would you like to do a postdoc and then quit, or would you like to do a postdoc and then perhaps see where it ends?” Yes, it was the latter. But then you have to go out, you have to travel abroad […] you have to go away and publish something without me.
(From an interview with Sigrid, a female associate professor)
When the female associate professor advises her PhD student on how to pursue an academic career, she carefully emphasizes that he must apply for a postdoctoral fellowship abroad, and prove his independence as a researcher by publishing articles with other researchers than herself. Anne, a female postdoctoral fellow, expresses the same idea. “I know that I must have a period abroad, but after that, I might perhaps come back to Oslo and apply for my own project.”
Both leaders and young researchers agree that the type of career described above is difficult to accomplish in combination with starting a family. Stein, a male professor and leader, describes how he experienced early in his career that all the younger female researchers and some of the men in his group “got a family life” and were forced to divide their time between research and family. He continues, “And then there were these guys, like loners, right – yes, nice people – who remained for a period. […] Yes, the men who settled down, and the women, were lagging behind the “loner group” consisting of only guys since they didn’t do anything else anyway. And they published more often and more [papers], and their careers accelerated.” Stein describes it as equally difficult for women and men to combine work as a researcher with family life. The gender difference is that all the women in his group, but only “some of the men”, chose to start a family. The men who did not start a family instead concentrated entirely on research, and got a headstart in their career before they would start a family at a later stage.
A female postdoctoral fellow, Kari, describes how a career path in academia, with a long period of temporary positions, affects women and men differently. “I believe we women have a bit, are slightly more worried about temporary positions since, having passed 30 and starting a family while having a temporary position is a little […] I think perhaps it is a little more difficult for girls.” According to Kari, women do not have the same opportunity as men to postpone starting a family. It has to happen during the same period in your career that you qualify for a permanent position.
Despite the fact that both leaders and researchers agree that it is difficult to have a career in academia in combination with starting a family, none of the interviewees suggest that career conditions should change. The faculty considers itself part of an international community in which it is not possible for an individual organization to alter anything as fundamental as qualification requirements. The researchers educated in the faculty must be able to compete with international researchers. One of the leaders explains, “If we are to succeed as a university, these people also have to be attractive elsewhere.”
In the interviews with female associate professors and full professors, that is those who have made a career, family and children are also mentioned often, but now as something they will not allow to be a hindrance to their careers. Two associate professors, Sigrid and Agnes, say:
(Sigrid, female associate professor)
And then I’ll sit down and work again when my son has gone to bed. […] And I had a … yes, I worked most of Easter, I worked most of the Christmas holiday, I … yes, I worked most of these red-letter days, right […] I did not get full work days then, since kindergarten was closed, but I would sit and work while he had his nap during the day and after … before he got up and after he had gone to bed and so on.
(Agnes, female associate professor)
Another strategy is to prioritize an academic career and not have children. Kathrine, also a female associate professor, says, “I still don’t have children. It hasn’t been my priority – because – yes, I only wanted to become a good researcher.”
Students and employees, women and men – they all see gender imbalance in the faculty. But at the same time, most of them presume that academia is a functioning meritocracy, and that the imbalance results from men and women making different choices. The interviewees agree that family and children are an obstacle when building an academic career, and gender imbalance is most often considered an effect of women choosing to be more active as parents than men. With such a perspective, the responsibility for gender imbalance is placed mainly outside academia, and consequently, the motivation for changing the system within academia is limited.
Is it the case that women and men at the faculty choose differently? Might gender imbalance be explained by what many interviewees think – that
The high level of dissatisfaction at the researcher level is expected, since this is often perceived as a “dead end” (
We also see some of the same patterns based on age (
Women do not have lower ambitions than men. The proportion of those not experiencing that their ambitions are met in their current position is higher among women than men of advanced age, particularly among those in the 56+ age group. Here, a gender gap appears, more fully described in Chapter 5.
The female associate professors’ descriptions of how they manage to amass many working hours, despite obligations to children and family, in the previous section show high ambition and motivation. The interviewed associate professors also describe how they work to build their research platforms:
But I have used so much energy to achieve this. And this is very good for my future, I hope, and I therefore spend a lot of time on it. I spend 60 per cent of my time on strategy, development and ideas.
(Kathrine, female associate professor)
In the above quote, Kathrine says that she spends 60 per cent of her time on strategic work, which she believes is crucial to her career. Nora says
The interviews with researchers on lower levels, postdoctoral fellows and temporary research positions, describe a slightly different reality. Marit says she perceives “an expression of goodwill” in the research group where she works, which she interprets as a signal that they want her there also after her postdoctoral fellowship. She continues, “So I thought as a kind of idea for myself that it is OK, I’ll do some teaching, it is a way of making myself useful in this group.” Marit’s story is not about becoming a top researcher, the one person to whom both other researchers and the media turn. It is about having the opportunity to continue as a researcher after the temporary position she has now has ended. With that goal in mind, she takes on various tasks to prove her competence, and how much her research group needs her.
Neither surveys nor interviews show that women and men at the faculty make different choices, where women consciously choose a lower career level in order to have time for children and family. For instance, the survey shows that women are less satisfied with their careers than men are. Many wish they were further up on the career ladder than they are. Analysis of the interview material reveals female researchers with high ambition levels, associate professors planning for a career as top researchers, and postdoctoral fellows interpreting and acting on signals in the organization to be able to continue as researchers.
Even if a woman and a man make the same choices regarding career and family, they nevertheless encounter different challenges. Uneven support at home is part of the picture. The survey of employees indicates that many academic households gave equal priority to partners’ careers in
Women are married to other academics more often than men are. Among those who had a partner, 40 per cent of the women and 28 per cent of the men reported that their partner was an academic. When we asked about career breaks due to relocation, either in connection with their own job or their partner’s, women and men gave slightly different pictures of the situation. Taking a career break in relation to one’s partner’s job was unusual for both men and women, although the women had a somewhat longer break than the men, on average. The differences were clearer when asked if the partner had taken a career break on account of their job. The men’s partners had taken a break of just over four months for the men’s jobs, whereas the women’s partners had taken a leave of less than two months.
The interview material indicates the same tendency. Male researchers, to a greater extent than female, have a partner who supports their career. Bente, a female associate professor, describes how she cannot get advice on schooling and similar things from her male colleagues before a stay abroad. “When I asked my colleagues how they arranged for their children’s schooling when they were on sabbatical, no one knew. It was their wives who took care of all the practicalities in connection to the relocation.” Many women, but none of the men, also talk about difficulties getting their partner to accompany them abroad. Maren, a female associate professor, says, “But I do not really envisage a year or six months out, and that has to do with my family situation – that I don’t have a very flexible man in that sense.” Heidi, a female postdoctoral fellow, describes the same thing. “I applied for postdoctoral positions in France. I wanted to work at a lab there. But now I have a Norwegian partner who doesn’t want to live abroad. So now I’m staying here.”
When asked about parental leave, 39 per cent of employees said they had taken parental leave during their time as PhD students or later in their career (37 per cent of the men, 42 per cent of the women). The women who had taken leave have, on average, spent 11 months on it, whereas the men spent on average four months. Of the women who had been on leave 30 per cent experienced difficulties when they returned to work, compared
Respondents living with a spouse or partner were also asked whether they were equally committed to both careers. An overwhelming majority answered yes to this general question. However, the question was followed by a more precise and practical question concerning which partner’s career had actually been prioritized in the past year. As shown in
Even though both men and women frequently say that their career was prioritized or that the prioritization was equal, there were nevertheless considerably more women whose partner’s career was prioritized.
Based on self-reported figures in the survey, it appears that many employees work long hours.
Among the academic employees, the average work week is 46.5 hours (men 46.8 hours, women 46.1 hours). Administrative employees report that they work an average of 39.8 hours per week. Working hours were considerably longer among professors, with an average of 50 hours, than among the lower academic position levels, with an average of 45–46 hours. However, there are major variations in working hours during different periods. In the interviews, several researchers describe how they work 70 hours or more a week, for example, in periods when they work with grant applications, whereas the working week is more normal in other periods. Geir, a male professor, says, “I sat in my basement for three months and wrote the application. It would never have happened unless my wife supported me. Our children are grown now, which makes it easier.” Hedda, a female associate professor, describes almost the same thing. “I wrote the application in a month. But that is not something I would recommend. I worked almost 24 hours a day.”
The academic employees spend, on average, 25 per cent of their working hours teaching, 55 per cent on research, and 11 per cent on administration (the rest is other/unanswered). The proportion of research time was highest among the postdoctoral fellows (80 per cent) and employees in the position category of researcher (73 per cent). Among associate professors, the average was down to 30 per cent on research, whereas professors reported that they spent 37 per cent of their time on research, 35 per cent on teaching, 17 per cent on administration, and the rest on other/unanswered.
If we look at men saying that their partner’s career has been given priority in the past year, an otherwise relatively “typical female” position, an interesting pattern emerges. The question of career divides households into three groups: one where the man’s career has first priority; one in which both parts have approximately equal priority; and one where the woman’s career has first priority. Men in households reporting that the woman’s career has priority do not, as often, report problems related to a culture with long working hours. There is up to a three times greater inclination to talk about this among men whose own career comes first. In cases where the female partner’s career has priority, 10 per cent have problems with the work hour culture, 16 per cent have problems in households where the partners’ careers have equal priority, and 26 per cent report problems related to long working days in families where the man’s career has priority.
These findings strengthen the image that the male career usually has first priority in marriage and partnerships. The man’s job seems to be the biggest “problem generator” within the long work hour culture. A possible reason may be traditions and gender roles that remain from the time when the man was considered “the family’s main breadwinner,” and that demands for long working hours on the man’s part are connected to this.
The surveys, supported by the interviews, do not show, as mentioned, that women opt out of careers to focus on the family. But we can see that women and men work under different conditions in the faculty. The women are married to other academics more often than the men are. The men’s partners took longer career breaks in connection to the man’s job than the women’s partners. The women who had taken parental leave were away from work for more extended periods than the men (an average of eleven and four months, respectively), and experienced more difficulties when returning to the workplace. The men are more often in relationships in which their own career has priority, and are rarely in relationships in which their partner’s career has priority. One in three male professors report being in a relationship in which their career is
Both women and men, students and employees, express the desire for a gender-equal and gender-balanced faculty. But when gender equality is considered an effect of a meritocratic organization, meaning something that already permeates the faculty’s processes and culture, gender imbalance becomes the result of individual choices. In many of the interviews, both women and men describe academia as a functioning meritocracy.
That the interviewees consider both academia in general and their own faculty as a functioning meritocracy is in line with studies by, for example
As stated in the introduction, there is also a horizontal gender imbalance in the MN faculty (which we will look at in more detail in Chapter 2). This imbalance, that women and men choose different disciplines and approaches to the disciplines, is described by most interviewees as personal choices. Women and men are simply interested in different things. Male students, therefore, choose male-dominated disciplines, whereas female students choose disciplines and degree programmes with more women – despite the fact that both female and male students prefer a gender-balanced student environment (
Our study confirms these results. For instance, several of the interviewees describe interdisciplinary studies being defined as less prestigious than studies closer to the core of the discipline, and that the less prestigious parts of a discipline are also defined as feminine.
The interviewees describe horizontal and vertical gender balance within education and research as important, particularly on the societal level (see also
The “ideal career” in academia is characterized by competition, with high demands in terms of constantly applying for prestigious projects and funding, high publication frequency, international mobility, and networking. Our results resemble findings from studies of elite professions in Norway (
The surveys show that women are more dissatisfied with their careers than men are. They want to get further. This is strengthened by the interviews. On the individual level, women try to adapt to the ideal career and the ideal worker. Some choose not to have children, whereas others compensate for lost working hours spent picking up children from kindergarten or helping out with homework, by working at night or on holidays.
That leaders within an organization have a different picture of what women on lower levels in the organization want in terms of work and career was shown almost thirty years ago in the Swedish official report
Nearly all – women and men, students and employees – support gender equality. But since they presume at the same time that academia is a functioning meritocracy, the faculty’s visible gender imbalance is regarded as a result of women’s and men’s different choices. Above all, the vertical gender imbalance, with more men on higher levels and in leading positions, is explained in terms of women choosing children and family over an academic career. That a working culture of long days and temporary positions affects women and men differently is described as undesirable, but nevertheless unavoidable. Career requirements are considered to be objective and inevitable, since the faculty must be able to compete internationally.
The results of our studies do not support the explanation that women consciously opt out of an academic career to be active and present as parents. Instead, they show an academic organization that fails to meet the ambitions of women compared to men, so that more women than men have unfulfilled career goals. Moreover, we see that conditions for combining work and family are different for women and men. More often
The idea of the ideal academic worker (see
Some of the categories in
“Forskningsmeldingen 2009” (“The 2009 Research Report”) says, for example: “The government considers as one of its most important challenges to strive for an equal number of women and men on all job levels and in all disciplines” (translated from Norwegian).
In the EU, 54 per cent of all bachelor and master students are women. In Norway, the proportion of women is 59 per cent (Diku, 2019;
In the EU, only 32 per cent of students, 37 per cent of PhD students, and 15 per cent of professors are women in mathematics and the natural sciences. In Norway, the figures are somewhat higher: 34 per cent, 40 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively (Diku, 2019;
All interviewees are anonymized. Aksel, Wenche, and Tobias, etc. are fictitious names.
A detailed description of the interview material can be found in the appendix “Method”. We conducted interviews with two objectives in mind: investigating how women and men perceive their workplace, and investigating the effect of different initiatives.
See more about this in Chapter 5.
This applies to the employees – we know less about ambitions among those who have left the faculty. Satisfaction with ambitions also varies somewhat with other variables in the survey, although this does not have a particularly strong effect with regard to gender. It is somewhat higher among participants having Norwegian family backgrounds compared to those having non-Norwegian backgrounds. Respondents whose parents had a high level of education
The proportion of time for research reflects, in part, the contents of the different positions. Postdoctoral fellows have 0–25 per cent teaching as part of their contracts, whereas researchers are not supposed to teach at all.
As already mentioned, those participating in one of the FRONT project’s long-term initiatives changed their perception.
See also earlier publications in the project, e.g.,
See Chapter 2, “Men, Masculinities and Professional Hierarchies”.
This is described in more detail in a previous publication from the project:
A “classic” description in Norwegian gender research is Hanne Haavind’s article «Makt og kjærlighet i ekteskapet» (1982). She later revised the model towards increased gender equality (Haavind, 2006).
The normal work week in Norway is 37.5 hours.
Research on gender equality in academia addresses men’s experiences to only a limited extent, and the significance of masculine norms is also poorly elucidated. In this chapter, we present our results on the effects of male dominance in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo. We first discuss whether it is an advantage to be a man at the faculty. Our data mainly confirms this. The main career challenges and problems affect men as well as women, but less frequently. We were not able to identify a specific “male” pattern of problems. Instead, the most frequent problems among the men resemble the problems among the women, like unfair competition and devaluation. In the interviews, some men feel “as affected as women” and oppose specific measures for women. Yet the survey data shows that women are more affected, especially in some respects, like combining career and care leave, and unwanted sexual attention. There are also signs of informal comradeship among men, an inadequately examined majority position, the idea that an academic career is incompatible with family and caregiving – not just for women, but for men too – and tendencies towards a persistent connection between men, masculinity and professional hierarchies.
In Norway, as in other countries, the “problem” of boys in school, and boys’ poorer results compared with girls, has been a matter of media attention and research (
That men and masculinities have received little attention in research on academia from a gender perspective has various implications. For instance, a frequently discussed topic here is that women are stopped by various barriers in their career development. However, that some men are also affected by the same barriers affecting women is not elucidated. Individuals experience obstacles across gender divisions, although women experience them more.
When research largely fails to address men, the chances of understanding what happens when women are pushed out or decide to withdraw towards the top levels are also reduced. For example, does this happen due to opposition from the men in the organization, or are there other primary factors at work? When men’s perspectives and experiences are not addressed in research, the arguments are often characterized by an abstract model of competition between the genders, in which one gender loses and the other wins. Gender becomes like two “classes” with opposing interests. However, this is neither in line with gender equality research, nor recent gender research. Gender research emphasizes that we, both women and men, “do gender”
It’s not that I devalue women. But I have realized that I “speak highly” of men. I talk about their competence differently. I recommend them more often for things.
(Aksel, male professor and leader)
Is being a man an advantage at the MN faculty? Based on our data, the simple answer is “yes”. Considering that Norway is a relatively gender-equal country, this result is not quite what one would expect. The surveys, in particular, demonstrate a significant gender gap in men’s favour, a plus for men statistically speaking. Our qualitative data, interviews and observations, confirm this. For instance, in the above quote Aksel describes how he has realized that he “makes” men competent by praising their competence and recommending them for various tasks – without promoting women to the same extent.
When asking master students, “Have you experienced negative social treatment from peers/fellow students in your master programme/group?”, only 9 per cent of the men said yes compared with 28 per cent of the women. The corresponding figures for the same question on
The differences continue among the PhD students. For instance, PhD students assess their supervision differently based on gender. Thus 9 per cent of the men and 13 per cent of the women say they were not encouraged by their PhD supervisor to continue to do a postdoctoral fellowship, and 12 per cent of the men, compared with 19 per cent of the women, were not introduced to international research networks by their supervisor. Self-esteem as researchers is also more visible among men. For example, 43 per cent of the men and 31 per cent of the women say that they think they have “talent” for research.
Also, among employees, men report career problems considerably less often compared with women. Only about half as many men as women respond “yes” to questions on whether they are negatively assessed or scrutinized in the workplace, or whether they have to work harder than their colleagues to be evaluated as legitimate researchers or employees. More men than women feel that there is a supportive culture in the workplace, and fewer men feel that professional isolation or colleagues’ attitudes affect their careers negatively. If we look at all factors in the employee survey having negative effects on careers, it appears that men fare better (fewer problems) than women on two-thirds of the factors in question, whereas one-third of the factors are approximately equal for men and women.
As a tendency, being a man is a statistical plus in the faculty, but it does not mean that
A number of the interviewees also believe that it is not gender alone that causes problems, but rather other conditions. For example, when difficulties combining a research career with starting a family is discussed, Stein, a male professor and leader, describes how “the men who settled down, and the women, were lagging behind.” In his opinion, there is no difference between men and women who start a family. They will meet the same career obstacles. The difference lies in the fact that more men do not start a family during the critical period of qualifying for a permanent position – and they can therefore focus entirely on work. Martin, a male postdoctoral fellow, also emphasizes that it is not gender, but the amount of care work that negatively affects career opportunities. “Having children affects men’s careers just as hard as women’s,” he says. “Just as hard” is not in line with our material, but there is a clear enough tendency that it
Thus men also experience problems with the work environment and culture, and it is natural to ask whether men experience problems
Here, the material is surprisingly silent. In the surveys, men and women
Men are the majority on the professor level in all MN departments except one. Five departments are male-dominated on student and recruitment
Some of the differences between women’s and men’s experiences and perceptions were most visible in the department having female dominance in recruitment positions and male dominance on higher levels. Even though this is not a common situation in the faculty, it is common when looking at the university as a whole. In this situation, men on the lower levels see a majority of women among their peer colleagues. However, higher up in the position hierarchy, men are in the majority, and the unit can therefore implement gender equality measures with affirmative action for women. Mads, a postdoctoral fellow, illustrates how some men find this unreasonable. “If you’re getting as much help as the women do, it is no wonder that you succeed.” Heidi, a female postdoctoral fellow, also describes how her male postdoctoral colleagues find the faculty’s gender equality measures unfair.
So I’ve also spoken about this a little with at least two entirely different postdocs who are both men. And I’ve received the exact same reaction, that they were, ah, a bit grumpy because they think that we [the women] get help while they don’t. Because it is also very difficult for men to get a position, and they are in the minority in the department.
The female researchers in the same department also talk about minority situations. Hedda, a female associate professor, says she has “grown up” in the department. She has been a student, a PhD student, and a postdoctoral fellow there. During the entire period, she had many female colleagues, and did not think much about gender balance or gender equality measures. Now, when she has a permanent position as an associate professor, things look a bit different. “Now I suddenly find myself being the only woman in a room,” she says. Siri, a female postdoctoral fellow in the same department, confirms Hedda’s description. “So there are several female top researchers, but of course, there are more men. […] It doesn’t really feel male-dominated. Not in a way that you think about. […] But on the other hand, most of the professors are men, so you can often end up in a situation where you are the only woman.”
The female researchers in departments with male dominance from student to professor levels also talk about their minority situations. For instance, Kathrine, a female associate professor, says she feels lonely. “I feel quite lonely right now, without any female role models. I am in a field in which I am often the only woman in a group of 20 to 25 men. Yes, so I would like to see more women.” She describes what she misses. “It is more that men are usually more, they talk more easily with men, they find it less embarrassing, I think […] so in a way, there is comradeship among men that they don’t have with a woman. And since there are not enough women, we don’t have the same [situation]. […] I have no friendships with women.”
Neither men nor women reflect upon their situations when they are the majority. For both men and women, it is the minority position that is experienced negatively, and thus is also commented upon.
Although men, as well as women, describe gender balance at work mainly as an ideal, they also report difficulties with cross-gender cooperation. Erik, a male professor in one of the departments where men are in the majority, from student to professor levels, describes, for example, how he is happy to meet with his PhD students off campus: “If we need to talk about something more complicated, I think we have better discussions if we go for a walk together.” According to Erik, working like this is
None of the men mention problems with the work itself: that women might perform worse than men; have a different idea about how research should be done; be less adequate writers, and so on. It is working with women outside the university’s office premises and laboratories that many men find difficult. They describe a concern that the women might feel uncomfortable, or think that the men want something more than just being colleagues. For instance, some like to go to a cottage to concentrate on their writing for a few days. Doing this in a research group with only men is fine, but it becomes difficult if there are women in the group. In the same way, going to conferences with female colleagues or PhD students is described as more awkward. The formal part of the conference is no problem, but problems arise in the more informal parts, such as the journey itself, having beer in the bar with colleagues from another university, or dinner and socializing in the evening.
It is not only in departments where women are in the minority that men feel more comfortable with other men than with women. Svein, a professor and leader of a research group in one of the departments with more female than male students and PhD students, says: “I have more female PhD students than males in my group. But the men are much more active. They invited us seniors to play football […], and we went for a beer afterwards. So I … the situation now is that I know them better. But I can’t say no just because the women don’t ask.”
Women also describe difficulties with cross-gender cooperation. Mostly the informal situations become problematic in terms of working with men, although there is less emphasis on the informal parts of professional activities. Instead they often mention purely social situations. Marianne, a female postdoctoral fellow in a male-dominated research group, says, “There is nothing wrong with the other members of the group […] but all the things we do together revolve around sports or alcohol. I am not interested in that, and I feel uncomfortable and excluded.” In a workshop discussion about how important the informal parts of, say,
Do the difficulties with cross-gender cooperation described by both women and men have an impact on the researchers’ professional work? Since men are in the majority on the professor level in all MN departments except one, and five out of nine departments are male-dominated on student and recruitment levels too, do men thus have better access to networks and support from colleagues than women? When we asked about access to networks in the employee survey, there was no gender difference in the responses on networks within Norway. But the men reported, somewhat more than the women, that they have secured access to international networks through their supervisor. Compared with 19 per cent of the women, 12 per cent of the men said they had no such access. There was also a clear gender difference in responses when we asked about which factors they considered crucial for becoming successful in academia. The greatest difference related to factors that men emphasize less than women. For instance men, to a lesser degree than women, think that good support from a senior/mentor, a network and mobility are crucial for success. They are also less concerned with role models. One possible interpretation is that men place less emphasis on things in which they already feel included. They are surrounded by male mentors and role models, and do not need to emphasize this. It is natural for them to belong to networks and get support from senior researchers. Therefore, they do not take notice of this the same way that women, who feel more excluded, do.
In the interviews, however, both women and men describe networks and support from colleagues in higher positions as highly important for one’s opportunities to build a career in academia. Differences in answers between the quantitative and the qualitative material may be because “network” was not defined in the employee survey. The question may therefore have been interpreted narrowly, that it related primarily to formal networks. The interviews describe mostly the importance of
My boss at the time, my professor, invited this guy to come to us. I was a new PhD student, and we met the first day he came here and we started talking about what we had done, what we wanted to do, and he said, “Hey, I have something, maybe this might interest you.” And I said, “Wow, this looks exciting. Perhaps we could do something together here?” And that’s how it all began to roll, you know.
There is strong agreement that in order to succeed, you need to have an extensive and strong international network. Certain names within one’s field “open doors”, and it is in one’s interest to be close to these people. The interviewees describe how they became members of such networks by being introduced through colleagues or supervisors. Having access to a network means, for instance, better opportunities for appointments, particularly to lower positions as PhD students or postdoctoral fellows. The person appointed to the post does not necessarily have to be part of the network. It is enough to be recommended by a network member.
However, some of our qualitative data show a clear gender pattern, in which men network with men and support other men to a greater extent than they network with women or support women. The interviewees are very aware of this. The underlying understanding is that people want to surround themselves with others like themselves, since this makes them more “comfortable”. This thus has different consequences for women and men. Henry, a male professor, says, for instance:
Maybe, maybe there is some bias. Sometimes it is easy to put your finger on it. I have definitely heard opinions from male, let me say, older male professors who don’t expect enough from their female students, don’t expect the same. […] In figures, it is an environment dominated by men and where I’m guessing that men feel comfortable, perhaps more than women. Because I mean,
Marit, a female associate professor, describes the same thing, but from an “outsider perspective”: “They think they are “pro” gender equality, but they behave as if […] they unconsciously favour, perhaps, a man – without being aware of it themselves. Not because they do it on purpose, but perhaps it is just because you are not entirely aware of what you do or say.”
The interviewees, both women and men, describe how the networks that are decisive for a career in academia are often formed in informal settings and built on “chemistry”, in other words, that people enjoy and are comfortable in each other’s company. At the same time, both men and women describe problems with cross-gender cooperation. Male PhD supervisors explain that they feel more comfortable in their relations with male PhD students than with females, and female researchers describe how they feel left out in male-dominated work environments. As men are in the majority, both in the faculty and in higher education as a whole, these findings indicate that men have better access to informal networks, and thus career opportunities, than women.
But I am in a group that doesn’t have very high status. My discipline is considered a little softer. We work very interdisciplinary.
(Grete, a female postdoctoral fellow)
As we have already pointed out, the MN faculty is gender divided. Five of nine departments are numerically dominated by men on all levels, whereas the four remaining departments are gender balanced or have female dominance on the student level, and only one has gender balance on higher levels also. Gender division is also visible within the
For a long time, gender equality research has emphasized the importance of divisions of labour in society (women in “soft” jobs, men in “hard” jobs), and how the unequal rewarding of these areas contributes to goals of gender equality not being achieved (e.g.,
Our qualitative material clearly shows that some research areas and groups have higher status than others. When Grete, in the above quote, described her field of research to a seminar group, and how being “interdisciplinary” was a minus, the participants clearly understood what she meant. Many of them referred to Grete’s description in their own presentations. Jorunn, also a female postdoctoral fellow, said for instance, “My field of research is also considered soft. It does not have high status either. I think it is because my group consists of researchers from two different departments.” Marit, a female postdoctoral fellow, also describes how her group is considered “soft”. Despite the fact that she is working in a group with low status, she nevertheless feels that she, as an individual, is regarded as competent, even outside the group. She believes this is due to her educational background being within the discipline’s core. It is “very technical theoretical”:
I think that this particular goodwill reaches outside the group too. Because I have a very technical theoretical background. But our group is considered soft, as a soft approach within the discipline. I am well aware that many of those who consider themselves at the core of the discipline, which is heavily technical or highly mathematically technical, they think perhaps that what we’re doing is a little soft and maybe not an actual part of the discipline.
The surveys confirm the qualitative material at this point, showing a minus factor for interdisciplinary and “soft” subjects (see Chapter 5). According to our data, these are not the easiest paths to a successful career at the faculty.
In the survey among master students, we asked whether they believe that their master programme is considered to be feminine or masculine. Of those responding 10 per cent said “yes” feminine, 18 per cent responded “yes” masculine, and 69 per cent responded “neither”. On questions about which disciplines have the highest status, feminine or masculine, 11 per cent responded masculine, and 1 per cent feminine. However, most responded that the disciplines had equal status (30 per cent) or refrained from responding. The results can be interpreted to suggest that many of the master students believe that gender equality is already established – gender
How do professional hierarchies affect the men’s situation in the faculty? Do men perform better within male-dominated disciplines? On account of anonymity, the variable “department/unit” was omitted from the database containing the results of the employee survey. In order to still be able to investigate the effect of professional hierarchies, the variable “professional hierarchy” was created, in which the units at the faculty were merged into the following three professional hierarchical levels:
The middle level corresponds to disciplines in the middle (informatics, geosciences, chemistry)
The low level corresponds to the “softest” disciplines (biology, pharmacy)
The levels were partly inspired by the classical positivist professional hierarchy formulated by Auguste Comte nearly 200 years ago, although the categorization is obviously quite rough, with major variations within categories.
The professional hierarchy shows the anticipated connection to gender in our data. The high level is numerically male-dominated, with approximately two of three researchers being men, whereas the low level is female-dominated, with two of three being women, when all position levels are taken into account. Gender balance influences the work environment and culture. Yet some of the main problems, such as negative professional attention and unwanted sexual attention, are distributed somewhat similarly. The data suggest that gender balance plays an important role, especially when connected to other factors, like the “soft/hard” hierarchy.
Professional hierarchy, alone, does not have much impact on the important variables in the study, including environmental ones, such as negative professional attention and unwanted sexual attention, and cultural variables, such as the unit being non-sexist. This also holds true when controlled for gender. The pattern emerging from separate analyses of men and women is approximately the same. The differences are small and insignificant.
The most important reason why professional hierarchies do not play a much more explicit role here may be that the variable is too general, in addition to potential local variations. The tripartite hierarchy variable does not include gendered division of labour, and the prestige hierarchy within each discipline. The situation at the Department of Informatics illustrates this numerically. In the department’s six largest master programmes, the proportion of women varied in 2020 between 14 and
The survey nevertheless indicates clear gender differences at one crucial point in relation to the significance of the professional hierarchy variable. This is the question of whether one feels that one’s career ambitions have been fulfilled in one’s current position, as shown in
Here the difference between men’s and women’s experiences is very clear. In lower prestige levels/areas with many women, women are more often satisfied (ambition fulfilled) than men. In the high level/male-dominated disciplines, men are satisfied more than twice as often as women. These differences are not due to different position levels, since control for position levels shows that this plays a minor role.
The graphs for the two genders draw a relatively convincing picture of professional hierarchy’s – or gender distribution in the work environment – implications for the experience of satisfaction with one’s
The empirical material in this chapter reveals a clear tendency: Men experience fewer problems related to the work environment than women. We see signs of informal communities among men, a majority position that is inadequately reflected upon, and the idea that an academic career is incompatible with family and caregiving – not just for women, but also for men. There are also indications that professional hierarchies – gender distribution in the academic community – are significant in terms of experiencing satisfaction related to one’s career ambitions.
That men experience fewer problems related to the work environment and academic culture than women is not a result specific to our material. On the contrary, these results are in accordance with results from other studies, carried out in similar academic institutions and organizations, in countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom. The FRONT questionnaire survey for employees is based on the questionnaire forms from the Irish survey Integer, and the survey Asset from the United Kingdom (
The material in this chapter must be seen in light of the “gender gap” in experiences described more extensively in Chapter 5 “Experiences in Academia: A New Survey Study”. The effect of women’s substantial problems with the work environment and academic culture was formulated back in the 1990s in the hypothesis “accumulation of disadvantage”. The hypothesis, which is based on studies from the U.S. and other countries, claims that there is not
Could tendencies towards informal fellowship among men found in the empirical material be one of the reasons why men report fewer problems with the work environment and academic culture? What does it mean to other men that a number of male researchers say they feel more comfortable including men than women in informal settings and networks? Informal comradeship among men is an element described in many theoretical traditions, and is often referred to as
Homosocial means male-oriented – not necessarily gender-unequal. Yet it is associated with gender inequality in historical as well as modern research. Homosociality has been connected with domination or “master suppression” techniques in Nordic research (
What happens [for those outside the homosocial structures, our comment] could, in fact, be that “nothing happens”, or that something that should happen in one’s career does not – you are not seen, heard, read, referred to or quoted, invited, encouraged. You are not supported, valued and confirmed. (
According to
Networks are undoubtedly important for work and careers in academia (see e.g.,
At the beginning of a career as a researcher, long-term, temporary positions are common. For younger researchers to remain in academia, they need to be seen and employed by more experienced researchers in
Our study confirms and elaborates the results from the other studies referred to. That men are more comfortable with other men and, therefore, to a greater extent build networks with men rather than with women, is reported by both men and women at the faculty. At the same time, there is another conflicting tendency in our material. As described in Chapter 1 “Gender-Equal Imbalance?”, both women and men state that they want gender equality, and above all on the student level, gender balance as well. There is thus also a preference for
In Chapter 1 “Gender-Equal Imbalance?”, we described a perception in the organization that women leave academia because it is difficult to combine an academic career with parenthood. The notion of the ideal academic worker (see
These findings are strengthened by European organizational studies, which reveal new characteristics of men compared with more traditional masculinity (
The theory of hegemonic masculinity may help to explain the association between academic prestige and masculinity in the empirical material. The theory describes a social-psychological level of a partly hidden and partly unconscious interaction among men resulting in an unofficial ranking – which is not necessarily in accordance with the formal organizational structure. Men in “hegemonic” positions are not necessarily leaders or superiors.
Several features of academia make this theoretical perspective relevant. The system is hierarchical, with researchers on lower levels depending greatly on those working on higher levels. The work day is characterized by informal relationships, which are clearly visible in our data, for
The classical theory of hegemonic masculinity assumed a relatively
We can thus understand how hegemonic masculinity theory may lead to the “missing link” in the relationship between men and professional prestige in academia. We are dealing with an underlying mechanism that translates real power relations into other, gender-neutral terms. On the surface, nothing is being said about masculinity when there is talk about who will become the new academic “shooting star”. Gender-neutral norms prevail. At the same time, the hegemonic masculine power system can play a role in relation to neutral valuation.
The FRONT material provides a good deal of support for the hypothesis of a modified form of hegemonic masculinity. Interviews provide evidence that men, particularly on higher levels, take masculine advantages
The questionnaire surveys show that each gender feels most at home, and their ambition level is best looked after, in disciplines where their own gender is well represented (not in the minority). Men are much less inclined to think that the culture in their department could be sexist than women, and they are also less critical of the academic community in general. Hegemonic masculinity theory assumes that the formal meritocratic model “cracks”, and does not function as intended in crucial phases and contexts. It implies that there are essential factors at work for this to happen, including traditional gender roles, competition, anxiety, and power. Much of this is in operation along a career path towards the top in academia.
In phases of reorganization and threats of shutdown, work organizations can resort to more traditional gender power (
As a group, men experience fewer problems with the work environment than women do as a group. The gender gap in men’s favour, revealed in the questionnaire surveys (elaborated in Chapter 5), is confirmed by qualitative data from interviews and observations. Both among students and
This does
For both women and men, an academic career is seen in contrast to family and caregiving. Men can experience gender equality initiatives at the faculty as unfair, since they believe the initiatives partially favour women. This is often because they consider themselves equally burdened by family responsibilities and housework, and thus are basically in a woman’s traditional position.
Men’s dominance in higher positions affects both the work environment and their career paths. Both men and women maintain that being in the majority, as opposed to the minority, has an impact on their work. In our data, the majority usually benefits – one feels more “at home”. Men say it is easier to work with other men, whereas women often express their minority position as feeling lonely or excluded. Both genders claim that informal situations in connection with work are the most difficult for those in the minority. They also report how networks that are decisive for building a career in academia are formed in these informal situations, and that being comfortable in each other’s company is vital for this type of networking. Despite clear descriptions of being in the majority as opposed to the minority, the significance of being in the majority is not reflected upon very much by the majority group.
The faculty is not only gender-divided across departments, gender division is also obvious within departments. It often becomes even more visible, the more detailed the statistics – on the “micro level”.
Moreover, the qualitative material clearly shows that specific research areas and groups have higher status than others, and the quantitative material points in the same direction. Disciplines and groups highest up in the hierarchy often have a low proportion of women. Professional hierarchies – or gender distribution in the work environment – influence the experience of satisfaction with one’s career ambitions. Women are
See the introduction to part three for a description of the theory “doing gender”.
The material and how it has been collected is further described in the book’s appendix “Method”.
Also referred to as “scarcity value” in survey research.
This hard/soft division is also called production/reproduction, human-oriented/technically-oriented work, and horizontal division of labour, in research. Historical research has emphasized how this division between “hard” masculinity and “soft” femininity became more prominent and systemized in modern times and through industrialization, although it existed to some degree in earlier periods too (
A more detailed list of subjects within each programme might have given more visible gender connections, but this was not within the scope of our study.
Data from Integer and Asset are described in more detail in Chapter 7.
Is sexual harassment in academia an isolated problem, or is it linked to the academic work environment and culture? Research at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo supports the latter view. Results show how sexual harassment is associated with problematic features of the workplace organization, environment and culture. This is especially clear in the case of unwanted sexual attention, which is closely linked to professional devaluation and other problems. Other more serious forms (unwanted physical contact, coercion, stalking, assault) are less frequent, yet clearly associated with unwanted sexual attention. The chapter presents and analyzes sexual harassment data in view of other recent research, and discusses why this topic is important, and how research can be improved.
Sexual harassment is still part of working life in the Nordic region, including academia. Disclosures and debates, for example in connection with the #MeToo movement, have uncovered an unpleasant reality in many countries, Norway included. However, sexual harassment is a relatively
All through its different definitions, research shows that women are more exposed to sexual harassment than men, and that young age increases the chance of exposure (
In this chapter, we not only describe the extent and degree of sexual harassment in the organization we investigate, the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo, but also the circumstances and conditions linked to it. We first asked about “unwanted sexual attention” without narrowing it down to “harassment”. We then followed up with four detailed questions on: unwanted physical contact; pressure to go on “dates” or perform sexual favours; stalking; and physical assaults. This comprises a sufficiently detailed approach so as to include grey zones and cases of doubt.
Our material is considerably broader and more detailed than surveys focusing on sexual harassment usually are. It contains 190 variables on career development, work environment, academic culture,
We begin the chapter by describing background and method of the study moving on to the extent of sexual harassment compared to the two other types of harassment – bullying and racist harassment – asked about in the survey of employees at the faculty. We then demonstrate how sexual harassment is connected to a number of other features relating to the work environment and culture. We address who is behind the sexual harassment, and descriptions of “acceptance” of harassment in the interview material. Finally, we discuss our results in light of other research.
What is sexual harassment? What is unwanted sexual attention? When concepts are new and disputed, the chances of obtaining good information through questionnaire surveys or interviews may be reduced. However, new concepts such as “unwanted sexual attention” may also reveal
Qualitative studies of sexual assaults and harassment demonstrate the importance of this open approach. The expression “unwanted sexual attention” was used in a pioneering Norwegian study back in 1992, where it was defined as an “invasion and attack on one’s integrity” (
A consistent result from studies of sexual harassment is that the problems are surrounded by taboos and silence, often with a large amount of shame, guilt and denial among the victims, including what is referred to as “identification with the abuser”, among both male and female victims (
In Norway as well as other countries, the #MeToo movement became a signal for more research, including survey mapping. In Norway, the signal was interpreted differently by different actors, however. Institutions, now facing requirements to uncover the main problem, favoured a “narrow” model, mapping the scope of sexual harassment, defined strictly. The legal aspect also aimed at uncovering the “worst” or clearly illegal cases. On the other hand, researchers mostly favoured a “broad” model, with more extensive details and context questions in the surveys. Discussions in the higher education sector led to a national scope survey in 2019 (
Underlying issues in this discussion are: the question of
Our data on sexual harassment are primarily taken from a questionnaire survey
In the survey, approximately one in five employees mention problems with bullying or harassment.
Bullying and sexual harassment are the most widespread harassment problems in the study. In the faculty, 14 per cent of the women and 10 per cent of the men have experienced bullying, 12 per cent of the women and 3 per cent of the men have experienced sexual harassment, and 5 per cent of the women and 3 per cent of the men have experienced racist harassment. The figures show that a number of those who said they had experienced harassment had experienced several types of harassment. The tendency is that women experience problems more often than men – here as well as in other areas (see Chapter 5). The gender difference is particularly large in relation to sexual harassment.
In order to capture the phenomenon of sexual harassment as a whole, and to avoid underreporting, we began, as mentioned, with a broad definition. In the questionnaire, we first asked about unwanted sexual attention. We then followed up with four detailed questions on: unwanted physical contact; pressure to go on “dates” or perform sexual favours; stalking; and physical assault.
Results show that unwanted sexual attention is considerably more widespread than the four other types. In the faculty, 7 per cent had
Most of those who have experienced unwanted physical contact have also experienced unwanted sexual attention. This proves that the more serious types of sexual harassment, such as unwanted physical contact, are strongly associated with unwanted sexual attention. One of the main results of our study is that serious harassment, including physical assault, is relatively rare, whereas unwanted sexual attention is fairly common. 12 per cent of the women and 3 per cent of the men have reported experiences of unwanted sexual attention. However, the study shows that unwanted sexual attention increases the chance of more serious sexual harassment.
In the survey, we explore experiences of academic devaluation through several questions and statements, such as “I constantly feel/felt under scrutiny/judged by my colleagues/peers.” Such negative academic attention is, surprisingly, strongly associated with unwanted sexual attention. Those who have experienced unwanted sexual attention have an approximately 60 per cent greater chance of experiencing negative academic attention, compared to those who have not experienced unwanted sexual attention. This applies to all employees. Among the academic employees, this connection is even stronger. Here, those who have been exposed to unwanted sexual attention have more than twice the chance of experiencing negative academic attention.
Is this a pattern that varies by gender? The figures are small, particularly for men, but as far as we can see, the pattern is more or less the same for both genders. If we include everyone who has experienced unwanted sexual attention at the faculty, not just women, we see a fairly similar picture compared with analyses of just women.
Also, those who had been exposed to unwanted sexual attention often report other problems in the work environment, in addition to negative
We do not know what is cause and what is effect in this picture. It might be that most reporting of unwanted sexual attention is a causal factor in relation to reporting other features of the culture in the unit. One can imagine that several different conditions come into play, for example: some are more exposed than others; some environments are more characterized by problems than others; and some respondents are more critical or have a higher tendency to report negative experiences. We will return to this in the discussion.
What we can say with certainty is that there are clear and significant connections between unwanted sexual attention on the one hand, and various forms of academic devaluation on the other. The pattern is clear across the six variables mentioned above, and it also emerges for other variables.
Are these results also valid when we control for other conditions? Multivariable analyses of the most important variables associated with unwanted sexual attention show that gender appears as the strongest associated variable.
In order to acquire more insight into this, we also analyzed possible “causes”, defined more strictly – class, ethnicity, supervisor’s gender, and a few others – and restricted the analysis to women. The supervisor’s gender entered the picture rather weakly. One can imagine that a
The results of our analyses generally confirm that the problem dimension is relatively independent of ethnicity and class, but strongly linked to gender.
In the survey, we asked about 12 different conditions related to the work environment. We found clear connections between important conditions related to the environment and unwanted sexual attention. The analyses showed four important factors, as shown in
In addition to asking about types of harassment, we asked who is behind this – leaders, supervisors, colleagues or students. The distribution of responses regarding sexual harassment largely resembles the two other types of harassment (bullying, racist harassment). Colleagues are most frequently involved. But there are also some important differences. In
We see that bullying is a more “vertical” dimension than unwanted sexual attention, which is more “horizontal”. In other words – leaders and supervisors are more clearly in the picture in relation to bullying, whereas colleagues and students are more clearly involved in unwanted sexual attention. There is thus a considerable similarity in the “perpetrator” profile for the two types of harassment, but also a clear difference.
On the whole, we see that harassment – based on the groups behind it – provides a picture strengthening the impression that the problem is not an isolated one. It occurs across different groups. Leaders, colleagues and others are involved. Since we do not know very much about the overall degree of contact within these groups – leaders, supervisors, colleagues and students – neither do we know much about whether any of the groups are overrepresented. That colleagues appear vividly in the picture may be interpreted to suggest that this represents the main part of professional contact (rather than that this group is overrepresented). Leaders are perhaps somewhat more strongly represented, especially in terms of bullying, and students somewhat more weakly (again, especially in bullying) than one might have expected. We do not know. What becomes clear is that the problem arises from negative interactions between people in all groups – leaders, supervisors, colleagues and students.
No. No. N … no. No … I mean, that [laughter] is a bit difficult, but that, we had one professor, an old professor, in our department who was, but it was something that everybody knew, that he could be a little like … not that much … he was just very, like, hugging and stuff [laughter], but of course it’s … so there were stories about it and things, but that is like … yeah, it is almost like a cliché. But it’s, yeah. It hasn’t [laughter] deprived me of any sleep, it’s more like, OK, I’ll move away from there [laughter].
(Siri, a female postdoctoral fellow)
The interviews in which harassment does appear nevertheless describe an organizational culture strongly signalling that some types of harassment must be accepted. In the introductory quote to this section, Siri, a female postdoctoral fellow, describes the harassment type of unwanted physical contact. Siri is careful to point out that she could handle the situation. She was not afraid of the older male professor. The fact that he embraced and touched the younger female colleagues was something everybody knew about, something that happened regularly, nothing harmful. The women were expected to be able to act in an appropriate manner, by pretending that nothing is going on and move away.
Marianne, a female postdoctoral fellow, says that she was threatened by students on two different occasions. She is alone in a room with a student and afraid of not being able to leave the room: “He doesn’t touch me, but it was a horrible experience, and … yeah. He … yeah, he said a lot of things, he yelled, he began to ….” On the other occasion, she is with a group of students and feels that she, as a lecturer, is responsible for everybody’s safety: “And he is standing, he is banging his fist on the table, yelling, ‘You, woman, you bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,’ and it was like … so I tried to say … OK, that’s enough now, we will address this in another meeting. […] He doesn’t want to leave the room, so ….” Marianne feels that the organization’s focus when handling the situation is that the students have their exam. They are given new supervisors and other exam forms. “I do realize that it has administrative consequences, but it also has … I don’t know, personnel consequences, and there must be a person handling this.”
Marianne begins her description of the incident by saying, “Yeah, I’ve completely forgotten this.” She continues, “No, because at the weekend,
That “we have such experiences, that we place them somewhere else,” is an appropriate summary of a tendency in the interview material, in line with research on underreporting – and with the picture that emerged in the questionnaire survey. When we ask systematically about different forms of harassment in an anonymous survey, the threshold for reporting is lower. When we, in the interviews, do not ask directly about experiences of sexual harassment, few participants address the topic.
In 2019, a survey of bullying and harassment among employees in the higher education sector in Norway was conducted (
According to Norway’s largest student survey SHoT (
On the whole, the SHoT survey shows that 31 per cent of the women and 8 per cent of the men have been exposed to some kind of sexual harassment. The questions were formulated differently than in the FRONT survey, but the main tendency is the same: Women experience this roughly four times more often than men (
As mentioned, our questions on harassment are not limited in time, but apply to the participants’ entire period at the faculty. Studies show that unwanted sexual attention and sexual harassment are strongly linked to gender (women) and age (young) (see e.g.,
However, we have an indirect indication that part of the reporting for our question on unwanted sexual attention is not very far back in time. On the question of whether the culture in the department/unit is non-sexist, only 15 per cent of those who have experienced unwanted sexual attention
What is new in our results is that we are able to show that unwanted sexual attention is not an isolated problem, but is instead linked to other variables in the work environment. Of those who have experienced unwanted sexual attention, 37 per cent also report experiences of negative academic attention, compared with 15 per cent of those who have not experienced unwanted sexual attention. In other words, the chance of experiencing negative academic attention is approximately 2.5 times greater among those who have experienced negative sexual attention. This is not only a new, but also an astounding result, in light of the fact that unwanted sexual attention has been addressed only marginally in work environment surveys. However, the result is in line with other recent research on sexual and other types of harassment in working life. Harassment and other negative attention often go hand in hand, in that the person who is exposed to this is also devalued as a professional (
In our study, the connection between sexual harassment and other conditions in the work environment and academic culture emerge in a comprehensive and systematic manner. We see that some features of the work environment play a particularly strong role. Among these are: professional devaluation, unfair competition, and the feeling of not fitting in. Unwanted sexual attention thus has a larger scope than is often assumed, and is thus connected to other variables that are more “normal” in everyday academic life, such as academic devaluation. The results confirm previous research relating to the many negative side effects of sexual harassment, and show that doubting one’s own abilities is part of the picture (e.g.
“It has to do with what you want to admit to yourself that you have been part of,”
Research on flirting and sexual attraction demonstrates a complicated and often subtle interaction, traditionally characterized by different gender roles and a structural inequality in relation to what each gender offers and seeks (see e.g.,
Studies of various forms of harassment and bullying began, naturally enough, with information from those who had been exposed to it (see e.g.,
Research shows that the chance of exposure to sexual harassment is greater in some occupations than in others. Physical contact and close personal contact increase the chances. Actors and service personnel are more exposed. The same applies to alcohol in job contexts (
“Culture” has become more visible, also in institutions’ attempts to prevent sexual harassment. There is a desire to change the culture, not just reduce damage. But if we are to change the culture, we need to know how it actually works. It is not sufficient to register only the “worst” cases of harassment. We must include the setting – the environment, culture, context – and the grey areas too. This is an important argument for using a broad definition of sexual harassment as a basis, and not just criminal cases. As we have seen, the grey zone of “unwanted sexual attention” provides new and vital information both as to the extent of the problems and how they are connected to other variables.
Academia does not necessarily score high on factors like physical contact. But it scores high on “close personal contact”, for example between a supervisor and a PhD student, and other structural features that may increase the chance of sexual harassment. This has to do with a strong and unequal power balance between levels (such as the supervisor/PhD student relationship), major insecurity relating to one’s job situation, and a high degree of competition. Both power and insecurity play significant roles. Often, it also has to do with individual relationships not being open to the surroundings, for instance in small academic communities. All of this may help explain why the proportion experiencing unwanted sexual attention and other forms of sexual harassment can become relatively high in academia, even when other factors might perhaps not indicate this (e.g.,
In an overview of recent studies of sexual harassment in Norway,
Some researchers have argued that increased attention to sexual harassment in the wake of #MeToo has not resulted in an equally increased theoretical understanding. The causal conditions are still unclear. In a retrospective view of the Norwegian study by Brantsæter and Widerberg from
In this chapter, we have concentrated primarily on
Our results reflect this interpretation as still being relevant. Harassment has to do with actors, but also with hierarchies and structures. In part two of this book, we discuss further how such neutral structures may contribute to a gender gap in academic experiences.
Our study shows that sexual harassment is still an extensive problem. Moreover, it shows how sexual harassment is clearly connected to other conditions in academia – such as work organization, culture, and environment. Among the respondents, unwanted sexual attention is linked to academic devaluation and outsiderness. Furthermore, we see that unwanted sexual attention is the most widespread type of sexual harassment, whereas other and (usually) more serious forms, such as unwanted physical contact, coercion, stalking, and physical assault, are less prevalent. However, most of those who have experienced more serious types of sexual harassment have also experienced unwanted sexual attention. The five forms of sexual harassment for which we have data are connected and form a pattern.
The occurrence of unwanted sexual attention is much higher among women than among men. This also applies to the other forms of sexual harassment. This is known from previous studies. However, we also see a new, clear pattern – less well-known. Results show a strong connection between unwanted sexual attention and academic devaluation, and deprecation in various forms. In other words, sexual harassment is not “isolated” or “unique”. It is part of an overall pattern.
The fact that the proportion who have experienced one or several types of harassment is so high (1 in 4 women, 1 in 5 among all respondents), and that harassment is so strongly connected to other conditions of environment and culture, is a refutation of the idea that this problem applies to only a few, and represents isolated incidents, in which unwanted sexual attention involves a few very special cases.
The extent of sexual harassment and its connection to academic devaluation emphasizes the need to work against imbalance and gender discrimination, and raise awareness of the importance of gender equality in academic institutions. Systematic work over time is needed to change an environment and culture in which harassment still occurs. Improved research and a more systematic knowledge base are central to this work. Further research may build on the breadth of our study, in which sexual harassment is investigated in terms of career development, environment and culture, and at the same time develop the level of detail. It can study connections between various forms of harassment, and monitor changes over time.
According to
A similar criticism (of a too narrow definition of the problem) may be directed at the term often used internationally, “gender-based violence”, which is strongly focused on violence, but does not clearly include sexuality. The academic debate on how conditions may be mapped, and what
The questionnaire survey comprised 843 employees, and was conducted in 2018. The project material also consisted of a student survey, interviews and action research, described more closely in the appendix “Method”.
Such as “bullying/harassment” in the questionnaire form (without specifying the grounds for this).
The figures apply to the entire sample in the employee survey (N = 843).
The methods are described in more detail in the appendix “Method”.
The FRONT employee survey (N = 843) paired correlations.
The association may include cause and effect both ways, but this is probably the main direction (see Chapter 8). The analyses are bivariate, with correlation as a yardstick for association or possible connection in the material. The figures apply to the entire sample. For some variables, the associations are even stronger if we look only at the women in the sample.
Based on factor and regression analyses. The arrows represent associations in a regression analysis, in which the factors are controlled for each other. We first selected the 12 most important variables through pairwise correlation with unwanted sexual attention, then grouped the variables through factor analyses selecting a four-factor solution, and finally tested the solution through regression analysis (shown in the figure).
Regression analysis, standardized beta values.
Figures from the employee survey, all employees (N = 843).
We also have a certain indication of this based on multi-variable analyses.
This chapter examines scholarly publishing within the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo from a gender perspective. The question posed is whether women publish less than men, and if so, why. Based on the reported number of publications over the past two years, the study applies multivariable methods to investigate the relationship between the number of publications and factors such as position, total worktime, and gender. The analyses show that gender has little significance when these other factors are taken into consideration. The results are discussed in light of other studies on publishing practices.
Publishing has become an increasingly important prerequisite for succeeding in an academic career. Outstanding scientific accomplishments, so-called scientific excellence, are often assessed based on the individual
Several bibliometric studies have revealed a gender difference in the number of publications and citations (e.g.,
Studies of publishing in Norwegian universities show the same result as international studies: Women publish less than men here too. In 2018, a female researcher in Norway produced 1.15 publication points
No satisfactory explanations for these gender differences have been given, however. For example, the fact that women and men most often find themselves in different research areas within academia, and therefore operate within different publishing traditions, cannot explain more
As mentioned, it is commonly thought that gender affects publication rates, and that women publish less than men. Our empirical material was gathered from a questionnaire survey sent to all employees (N = 843), and from interviews with researchers on various levels (N = 85). The data in the employee survey are based on researchers’ self-reporting the number of their publications during the past two years.
So what has the strongest effect on publication rate? Or, more precisely, where are the strongest associations? The employee survey shows a surprisingly low correlation between published articles in the past two years, and the number of hours spent on professional work in the past week. The correlation is low for women, and even lower for men. It seems that investing in more working hours per person, or reinforcing a culture of long working hours, is not a good strategy for increasing one’s publication rate.
However, we see that position level is clearly associated with publication rate. The figure below shows how the publication rate increases with position level.
The PhD students publish primarily towards the end or after their candidate period. Thus it is not surprising that the rate appears low here. Furthermore, we see the rate roughly doubling towards a high position level. This is not surprising either, as publication rate is an important criterion for moving up levels.
As mentioned, this is based on self-reported figures for publishing. It is possible that the top levels slightly overreport (what we call the bragging factor). The publication rate in the figure applies to all types of publications – single author, first author and co-author – in an index counting all types equally. It is possible that the statistics for the top level are somewhat affected (or inflated) by large groups of co-authors. For instance, professors might, in their role as leaders of research projects, often contribute as co-authors. For these reasons, the impact of the position level may be slightly exaggerated, both in our analyses and in the figure above.
Other factors affecting publication rate are: achieved career ambition, academic level, and years of experience in academia. Support from one’s supervisor is also important. Our analyses indicate that publishing is a “social” phenomenon and not a “mechanical” consequence of, for example working hours. Those who publish a lot are
But what actually decides how much researchers publish? In the previous section, we have seen how much women and men report having published. But is gender the most important variable for publishing? Our material also includes many other aspects of the researchers, such as how they assess their supervision, and who their mentor has been. What happens when we include these variables in the analysis?
We explored this in two phases. First, we looked at how all the variables in the survey were associated with the publication rate for different types of articles, through pairwise analyses. We then selected the most important variables and analyzed these further through multivariable regression.
The pairwise analyses showed that several variables were clearly associated with publishing, including: position level; the portion of working hours spent on research; number of years as a researcher; and assessment of PhD supervision. Many variables, including parents’ education level and unit/department, were not clearly or significantly associated. Achieved career ambition was clearly associated but is probably more of an effect than a cause of publishing.
The main result from the pairwise analyses was that gender did not enter the picture as a significant factor in explaining publishing. But was this correct, or was it perhaps spurious? In order to find out, we followed up with other types of analyses. The multivariable analyses showed approximately the same result, however. Gender did not appear among the most important associations or causal factors, based on explorative regression analyses. Working hours entered the picture a little more clearly than in the pairwise analyses, but overall the results were very similar.
An analysis is shown here (with standardized beta values).
The Figure shows associated variables (possible “reasons”) why researchers publish a lot. The researcher’s gender (and class background) seems to be of little importance when corrected for other variables.
Position level is clearly the most important factor, having a strong connection to publishing. On a more moderate level, two features related to working hours come into play. The quality of time, that is the portion of time spent on research, is more crucial than the quantity (working hours per week). When position level and the other “structural” variables are included in the analysis, ambition level is less crucial.
We also ran the analysis separately for each gender. The result for women was that five variables are at work in regard to publishing: position level
A consistent major finding is that gender is of relatively little importance. This is confirmed across various statistical analyses. The correlation between working hours and publishing is relatively moderate, 0.176. If we include gender, hardly anything happens (partial correlation 0.175).
In the employee survey, we have also looked more closely at taking parental leave and leave in connection with family or care needs. Neither has a clear effect on publication rate, even though longer periods of parental leave have a slightly negative effect for women. The reason why this has only a weak and unclear effect is perhaps primarily that the survey did not have the same time limitation for these questions. The questions on publishing included the past two years, whereas the questions on leave included one’s entire career.
In order to test this, we looked at publishing among younger participants, whose periods of leave were closer to the past two years. But even here, we found no clear correlation between time spent on parental leave and (lower) publication rate, neither for men nor women. In other words, we do not see any clear indications that use of parental leave reduces publication rate.
At the same time, the FRONT material shows that many, especially women, experience problems when they return to work after care leave (see Chapter 1). It may seem as if the
These results are surprising and must be described as preliminary, since the time periods are still different, and since we have not asked
That publishing and the number of citations are essential parts of a researcher’s reality is also evident in the interviews. Cecilie, a female postdoctoral fellow, describes the ideal researcher in this way: “A typical top researcher within my discipline, you publish a lot, and often in high impact journals.” Heidi, also a female postdoctoral fellow, says the certainty that she had good publications was what made her decide to remain in academia after completing her PhD. “Because you know how tough it is to get a position, but everybody thought I had a good chance of making it. So it was also very … I wasn’t really hesitant myself, it was … everything worked out well, I had a number of good publications, and it was a natural choice to do it. Yeah.” Despite difficulties getting a permanent position, both Heidi and her supervisor thought she would succeed because she had such good publications.
Many of the informants think that the number of publications is given too much emphasis, for example, when allocating research funding, and that publications are the only thing that counts. “At least I feel that often the only thing that counts is publications,” says Cecilie, a female postdoctoral fellow. Tone, a female associate professor says the same: “And then, if I submit a CV to the Research Council, and say that I have been a member of such-and-such committees, and
The informants agree that there is a conflict between research and other duties, such as teaching. Marit, a female postdoctoral fellow, says that she would like to write more articles based on her PhD dissertation, but that she has no time for that now: “I think that, yeah, but I can’t do that now when I am in another project and have teaching duties as well, so I think that I have to do it next year.” Sigrid, a female associate professor, also describes how teaching takes time she would otherwise have spent on writing: “I spend whatever time it takes on teaching. But of course, that is at the expense of me being able to sit and write. This is detrimental to research, since it does not affect other deadlines, it can’t, they are deadlines.” Tone, a female associate professor, describes having time for writing precisely as her “greatest challenge”. The teaching schedule has priority:
So it is my greatest, my greatest challenge to take those weeks when I’m not supposed to be disturbed by anything, when my only task is to complete articles that have been lying there waiting for me, I want to get them out there because it will help me. […] and I know that as soon as I’m allowed to concentrate on it fully, I will finish it. There is not that much left. But it is just not done, because every week there are new things that I have to do. So I never get those hours.
Ingeborg, a female professor, also wishes she had more time for research: “I really would love to have time for research, in order to be able to do research outside of holidays and things.” Since she has no time for research during her ordinary working hours, she usually writes during her holidays: “One of the journals has a deadline for a special issue after summer, because then you can write something during your summer holidays. […] I sat here writing now in July, and the rest of the family were on vacation.”
When the interviewees describe the publication system, it becomes evident that they think some articles within certain research areas are easier to write than others. Sigrid, a female associate professor, says: “It is not really taken into account that it actually takes time. Because within some areas it doesn’t take that much time, perhaps the experiments are done quickly, and then you can just spit out an article. Whereas other things take longer to finish. And this is not taken into consideration.”
Another problem discussed in the interviews is the different publication practices within different disciplines and research groups. This makes it difficult to assess competence based on the number of published articles. Anna, a female associate professor, says that some researchers have many publications because they belong to a big research group “in which they are [listed as co-authors] on all the publications written within that group.”
The interviews describe who should be listed as authors of articles as a matter of negotiation. Heidi, a female postdoctoral fellow, says: “Even though … the rule says in fact that you are only supposed to list the names of those who actually contribute to the research work, those who write the article. But I can easily say that this is often not the case.” This is a problem for Heidi. She is a postdoctoral fellow and needs to show independence in her research, in order to apply both for research funding and positions: “I’m a postdoc, so I need to be independent of my supervisor, autonomous. So ….” But publishing is also important to her former supervisor, and in many disciplines it is common that the person who received funding and leads a project is also listed as an author on all
There seems to be a convention here that the project leaders are listed last on the publication, which implies that, yeah, they are the boss. And in that way, it seems as if the first is the most important, and the second might perhaps also be a little important, and then all the names between the last two and the first two actually mean very little.
Heidi says she originally wanted to take some of the co-author names off one of her articles. But when she asked some of her colleagues, they advised her against it:
Because you put yourself in a kind of unfriendly situation if you do. You are very dependent on what the bosses think. And if the boss does not get his name on a publication, he might perhaps interpret that very badly. And the others could become your boss on other projects.
Jorunn, a female postdoctoral fellow, says that the senior researchers in her research group are very “all right” about not being listed as co-authors on all her publications. “They don’t have to be part of all the publications, and … when you’re applying for projects to the EU, for example, you have to show independence, right. I think they are very … they have been very all right.”
Senior researchers also describe how author crediting is a matter of negotiation. According to Sigrid, a female associate professor, there is a balancing act between building one’s own career, and at the same time helping the people she supervises on the way to their careers as researchers:
So I’ve also been honest and said to him, “Right now I am dependent on the articles that you come up with, so you will be the first and I will be the last author,” because that means … in our field being the last kind of means that you’re senior. But after that, he must be allowed to be the last author, and that is simply to let him build his career. And in a way, that is not smart of me, but I know it is good for him.
Our interviews show that writing articles often must give way to other tasks – despite the fact that the informants consider a large number of
Our analysis shows that women and men publish roughly the same amount, at least based on self-reporting, when other factors are included in the analysis. When testing for a wide set of variables that may influence publishing, two stand out from the rest – position level, and the proportion of working hours spent on research. Women and men are decidedly unequally distributed in the position hierarchy at the faculty, with an increasing gender imbalance from the PhD level up towards the professor level. Our study also shows clear gender differences in the proportion of working hours spent on research among associate professors and full professors.
We also find that publishing and publication points are central, but also often controversial topics in the researchers’ everyday lives. This is evident from the interviews. There is a clear tendency that a point is not “just” a point. It is subject to different assessments depending on context.
Although prestige and publishing are not the same things, our results show researchers who prioritize publishing highly. “Publish or perish” is part of the mentality, preferably on the high or excellent level. This applies to women as much as men. It appears that publishing increases one’s chances to submit grant proposals for research projects (although we do not know for sure what is cause and effect in this context). We know that the chance of being granted research funding increases greatly with publications. As we described, the number of publications is also connected with ambition level, but this effect is not very clear when other variables are included in the analysis, and not even significant in analyses of men. Perhaps ambition is mainly an intermediate variable (leading to more time to write, publish, etc.), rather than a basic causal variable. The interview material generally provides little support for maintaining that the ambition level is lower among women than men.
These are strong and somewhat dramatic results. But – are they realistic? The findings in this chapter show that different factors influence publication rates. The analyses are partly exploratory, and which factors are at work and how strongly they work vary somewhat between the analyses. Nevertheless, the overall tendency is clear: Gender disappears from the multivariate models and does not appear clearly as a separate causal factor.
Our results are not unique. Other recent research controlling for several factors points in the same direction (e.g.,
The fact that a small proportion of researchers publish an extremely large amount also affects gender differences in publications, between men and women (see
Our results draw attention to the work organization, such as time for research as part of working hours – more than gender or conditions at home. The fact that care leave does not strongly nor clearly affect publication rates negatively is one of the indications of this. Other research also shows that “the family explanation” for women’s lower productivity is insufficient (
Based on the gender gap in career obstacles described in other chapters in this book (see Chapter 5), one might presume that the result would be fewer publications and lower ambition levels. But this is
The analyses in this chapter provide a ranking of conditions that affect publishing, although we cannot always be sure what is cause and effect.
We also see – here as well as in other places in our study – that class background, measured through parents’ level of education, works only relatively weakly (and somewhat differently among women and men). This might perhaps be interpreted to mean that class can work both ways in relation to publishing, and/or that much class-based selection has taken place before the position levels for which we have data. Nor do we see any clear differences based on ethnicity (see Chapter 6). All of this points to the fact that there are conditions here and now, especially relating to work organization and culture, that play a role, rather than background factors in themselves, though these also work indirectly.
Our study involved questions relating to publishing and included many questions on conditions related to environment and culture, which have not previously been included in the picture. However, the study does not constitute an in-depth examination of the topic. For example, the interview material described researchers who have been assessed in very different ways, based on different peer reviewers and committees. We need more systematic knowledge here. Social-psychological factors, such as ambition level, self-confidence, and gender roles should be better elucidated, as should organizational culture, support, and networks. The analyses in this chapter are a contribution to further research.
Our study shows that the idea that women publish less because they are women must be modified. On average, women publish less than men
The main result from the analyses of the employee survey and the interviews is that women and men, when given roughly equal conditions and equal support as researchers, publish roughly the same amount. These findings draw attention to the work organization and the organizational culture, more than to gender issues, or family or home conditions. The fact that care leave does not strongly nor clearly affect publication rates negatively is one indication of this conclusion.
In Norway, research publications are registered and awarded publication points through the Norwegian Publication Indicator (NPI). These points play a central role in competition for academic positions. See
The data reflect the “normal” situation before the covid-19 pandemic, which – according to international reports – had a negative impact, especially on women’s publication rates (see
The survey did not ask about publication levels (levels 1 and 2, in accordance with Norwegian standards).
This applies to the total amount of working time. The portion of this that can be spent on research is essential, as shown below.
The work was carried out in collaboration with Åsmund Ukkelberg at the analysis firm Ipsos.
The figure is based on explorative regression analysis and does not constitute a causal model (
While male associate professors spend 35 per cent of their working hours on research, the figure for female associate professors is only 24 per cent. The difference is also considerable among full professors, where male professors report spending 39 per cent of their working hours on research, whereas the figure for female professors is 33 per cent.
The possibility that the results may be spurious are discussed in the appendix “Method”.
We see a tendency towards a lack of satisfaction in relation to level of ambition to be associated with more publications among women, particularly on the middle-level. The figures are small, however, N = 38 women on the researcher level. Among men, it is slightly more often the satisfied who publish the most, or there is little difference between the groups.
Thanks to Knut Liestøl for this formulation.
See more about this in Chapter 6 and the appendix “Method”. Our material is too limited to allow us to take a closer look at “weak but nevertheless important” background variables. For instance, this applies to the ethnic dimension, including several relatively different sub-groups, but also the class dimension, with different education levels. The point here is simply that some variables form a clear foreground linked to the work situation, so that gender, class, and ethnicity play a relatively minor role.
The chapter provides a summarizing review of the main findings of the FRONT project with respect to gender and gender equality on different career levels. The review is based on two surveys, an employee survey with 190 variables and 843 respondents, and a student survey with 79 variables and 213 respondents. Among students, negative experiences are significantly more common for women than men, particularly when it comes to social treatment. Among employees, women experience markedly more challenges involving factors such as negative scrutiny, unwanted sexual attention or partners whose careers were given priority. The data also reveal differences in several other factors, but these were often moderate. Thus, it is typically a complex process with many components, resulting in an “accumulated disadvantage” for women. The differences were found on all career levels but with a clear tendency towards more challenges for women on higher levels. The observations from FRONT are discussed in light of other studies, a main conclusion being that the situation is surprisingly similar in different countries.
Do women and men experience that they have roughly the same opportunities and challenges during their careers or are there major differences? Is there a gender gap in basic experiences within academia? Previous chapters have described gender differences in specific areas, such as views on gender equality, experiences of harassment or opportunities to publish. Is it only in some particular areas that women’s and men’s experiences of the work environment and organizational culture differ, or is there a general tendency, a pattern? If so, what does this pattern look like? In this summarizing chapter, we take an overall look at differences and similarities in women’s and men’s experiences, and review results from different areas.
The chapter builds on various types of material from the FRONT project, but primarily on two quantitative surveys, an employee survey with 190 variables and 843 respondents, and a student survey with 79 variables and 213 respondents.
In this chapter, we present a systematic review of the results from the FRONT project relating to gender and gender equality on different levels in a career. We begin by describing women’s and men’s experiences on the lower, middle, and higher levels. We then compare our results with two similar questionnaire surveys, one from Ireland and one from the United Kingdom. Finally, we discuss the results in light of other research.
The student survey was limited to master’s students within a few disciplines in the natural sciences (48 per cent from the master’s programme in information technology, 33 per cent from biological disciplines, 7 per cent
Responses to questions about gender and gender equality were, in some cases, relatively similar among female and male students (as mentioned in Chapter 1). The large majority
The biggest gender difference emerges in the experience of having been poorly treated in the degree programme, either socially or academically. The survey posed the question, “Have you experienced negative academic treatment from peers/fellow students in your Master programme/group?” and a similar question on negative social treatment.
Figure 5.1 shows the proportion (in percentages) of those who have experienced negative academic and social treatment. We see how such negative experiences are considerably more common among female than male students, and that the gender difference is quite substantial in relation to social treatment. Women report having experienced negative social
The students report academic and social downgrading not only by fellow students, but also by lecturers and others. Negative attention, social or academic, was connected to both lecturers and supervisors (14 per cent), and to fellow students (18 per cent). However, only a small proportion (3 per cent) answered yes to a more direct question of whether they had “experienced that lecturers or advisors have treated male and female students differently”, in the sense that one gender was treated better than the other.
On questions about whether they feel at home in the degree programme, 56 per cent responded that they feel at home socially, compared to 65 per cent who felt at home academically. In addition, 63 per cent of the women felt at home academically, compared to 67 per cent of the men. We also found a tendency for students who do not feel at home in the degree programme to have mothers with lower educational levels (see Chapter 6).
A similar gender difference in men’s favour emerged for other questions in the survey. Often, the tendency is not that strong, and it does not always constitute a “gender gap”, but it is nevertheless clearly visible. This is apparent, for instance, when we look at experiences of gender balance in student groups and learning environments. On questions about what types of student groups the students prefer in terms of gender balance, 24 per cent responded that they prefer a relatively gender-balanced group, 6 per cent responded that they prefer a group numerically dominated by their own gender, and 4 per cent said that they prefer a group dominated by the opposite gender. However, as many as 66 per cent dismissed the question, and ticked off the alternative that gender does not matter. This is in contrast to responses to some of the other questions in the survey
The survey also addressed the connection between gender and academic hierarchies, with questions on whether the students had experienced certain topics or courses as being gendered (masculine or feminine) and, if so, how this was related to the topic’s status. Here, many responded that the topics and courses they followed were neither feminine nor masculine (see more in Chapter 2). At the same time, they said that masculine areas enjoyed higher prestige. Hardly anyone said that feminine areas had higher prestige. The results may be interpreted to imply that the master’s students have great faith in meritocracy and gender equality – gender
The male students were more positive about the learning environment and the classroom situation than the females. 22 per cent of the women experienced the social environment as not inclusive, compared to only 10 per cent of the men. Also 12 per cent of the women think there is too much focus on competition, compared to 3 per cent of the men.
The students’ assessment of the social environment at the unit/department, according to gender. The figures represent percentages. Source: FRONT Student Survey (N = 213).
Briefly summarized, we can say that the material shows an overall gender difference. Sometimes the pattern is both extensive (many have experienced this) and clearly visible (the gender difference is substantial). One already mentioned example is that 16 per cent of the women have experienced negative academic treatment (often or a few times), compared to 10 per cent of the men. The corresponding figures for negative social treatment are 28 per cent for women and 9 per cent for men. The gender difference is not as big for other variables, but it is visible as a broad and overall statistical tendency across variables. The results provide a basis for using the term “gender gap”.
When female students report greater problems or obstacles than the males, particularly regarding “social” negative treatment, and indicate that this often comes from fellow students, there is reason to ask whether attitudes among fellow students contribute to the problem. We do not have material to elucidate this in detail, but the survey contained variables addressing attitudes to gender and gender equality. In this section, we will take a closer look at how this turned out.
The question was deliberately exaggerated in order to reveal an ideological view, in other words, not just whether men and women are two different genders, but whether this is something “fundamental” that must also be “acknowledged”. However, some of the students might have interpreted this in a more straightforward way, simply whether the genders are different or not. As stated in a commentary to this question: “If this were a sociology assignment, I probably would have said no, but in a biology assignment, yes”. The distribution of answers may be influenced
We will now take one step up the career ladder and look at conditions on the middle-level, focusing on PhD students and postdoctoral fellows. The analyses are based on the employee survey, which included the PhD students (N = 623 academic employees). Here, we asked about reasons for choosing a PhD/doctoral career (see
The PhD students assess their supervision somewhat differently based on gender. The results show that 13 per cent of the women and 9 per cent of the men feel that they were not encouraged by their PhD supervisor to continue and do a postdoctoral fellowship. Also 19 per cent of the women compared to 12 per cent of the men were not introduced to international research networks by their supervisor. In relation to Norwegian research networks, the differences between the genders were somewhat smaller. Here 19 per cent of the men and 16 per cent of the women report having received clear support from their supervisor to apply for a position. There is little gender difference in terms of experiences of academic support and encouragement from their supervisor to publish and present their own work, as well as general academic support from the supervisor. Here, men’s and women’s assessments are approximately the same. Although we do see a “gender gap” in experiences, this does not apply to all areas, as one would
As shown in
Thus, it is even more interesting that the evaluation of supervision is fairly gender-equal in the material. One might expect the women to be more satisfied if they had female supervisors, and men if they had male supervisors, but instead, supervisors of both genders came out relatively
The PhD level is characterized by many as being a phase of life in which they start a family, and many have children. PhD students, postdoctoral fellows and researchers, who have children and take parental leave, often experience problems returning to work. This pattern affects women more than men. There is a major gender difference on this point. Of the women who had been on leave 30 per cent experienced difficulties when they returned to work, compared to 5 per cent of the men. This was confirmed by qualitative research in the project, where women often talk about problems following parental leave (
We see few signs of women “dropping out” in this phase, for example that the ambition level decreases. On the other hand, we see clear signs that competitive pressure is becoming tougher. For instance, problems with a long hours working culture, and the experience of having to work harder than colleagues in order to be recognized, are most frequent on the PhD level (especially among men). This coincides with an increasing proportion of researchers who start a family and have increased caregiving responsibilities to take into consideration, which still affects women to a greater extent than men. We see a tendency for young researchers – even though they want gender equality – to make adjustments, in practice, that give the man’s career first priority (see Chapter 1).
What happens, then, when women and men enter research communities as academic employees, such as postdoctoral fellows, researchers, associate professors or full professors? In this section, we will first look at assessments of the work environment among all employees. Assessments and experiences often have very unequal distributions linked to gender.
The women reported twice as often as men that their partner’s or spouse’s career has been given priority in the past year and were almost twice as often as men dissatisfied with their work-life balance.
There is a substantial gender difference in many variables related to problems that have hindered careers (see
The connection to gender is clear across levels. Women experience negative academic attention more often than men, regardless of level. When it comes to whether you have to work harder than your colleagues in order to be assessed as a legitimate researcher, 24 per cent of the women said yes compared to 15 per cent of the men. The gender difference is significant. And in terms of whether the culture in the department/unit is supportive, only 10 per cent of the women strongly agree, compared to 16 per cent of the men.
As we can see, gender differences vary in strength across the different variables, but a general trend is noticeable and becomes particularly clear when looking at the overall picture and the variables combined. 22 per cent of the women compared to 16 per cent of the men think that professional isolation has negatively affected their careers (
In this chapter, we have presented the results on three main levels of the career ladder – master students, doctoral students and employees. In this section, we will take a closer look at the position levels among employees.
The columns in the figure represent percentages of men and women, divided into four position levels, relating to six work environment problems (they “strongly agree” or “agree”). The material should be interpreted with some caution due to low numbers in some categories.
The most common problem among the participants in this analysis is the problem of a long hours working culture that has hindered their careers. The figure shows that the problem of a long hours working culture is relatively substantial, meaning frequently reported, compared to the other problems. Furthermore, we can look at the gender distribution on each level and see how great the distance is between
The second most common problem is constant scrutiny. This problem is also fairly consistent across levels, but the gender difference increases at the full professor level.
The third most common problem is having to work more than colleagues in order to be recognized. Here, gender differences in the responses are small on the PhD level, and somewhat mixed on the next levels, while they are considerable on the professor level. On the associate professor level, men report this problem more often than women – one of the relatively rare cases of “inverted” gender gap in our material (gaps to the detriment of men, see also Chapter 6).
The problem of colleagues’ attitudes also shows greater gender differences on the professor level. Overall, the gender gap is larger towards the upper levels.
The figure shows that the problem of career priorities in the household applies particularly to women on the associate professor level. This is where gender differences in problem reporting are greatest for this specific variable. The analysis
*The column for problems with leave is not precise at the professor’s level due to limitations in the data material (19 women but no men reported this).
The gender gap in problem reporting is seen for all position levels. Moreover, when averaging out the fluctuations caused by moderate group sizes, a clear trend towards a larger gender gap is seen for the top levels.
The list is ordered according to importance, with variables having a large gender gap at the top. Here we see how gender difference is very large for some variables on top and smaller down the list. The list does not show the extent of the problem, but it shows women’s reporting relative to men’s. A problem having more than 200 per cent on the list indicates that women experience the problems more than twice as often as men.
Approximately two-thirds of the environment and culture variables in the survey have clearly visible gender differences. Some of these are major differences, where women are involved more than 150 per cent more often, whereas some are smaller, down to 110 per cent. The strong
Overall, the questionnaire surveys among students and employees show that women and men have different experiences, and that women report greater problems with regard to environment and culture than men do.
The material we have presented offers a detailed empirical picture of women’s and men’s different experiences of the work environment and culture. The picture rectifies the idealized image of a purely meritocratic university. In the project’s research group, we were surprised by the breadth and extent of the gender gap in the results from the two surveys compared to the official Norwegian image of gender equality.
Yet the material comes from one faculty – the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo. How typical is this for academia in general? Is the situation at the MN Faculty special or representative for UiO? Are the patterns similar or different at other faculties? Is the situation special or representative compared to other European universities? Does other recent international research support this new picture? In this section, we begin by looking at similarities and differences between the faculties at UiO before moving on to a European comparison.
Based on our analyses of gender balance and position levels, the situation at the MN Faculty is relatively representative of UiO. All the faculties have a clear underrepresentation of women on the top level. What separates them is differences on the lower level (PhDs) and where on the career ladder we find the reduction in female percentages, as shown in
We do not have systematic gender-divided data relating to experiences of the work environment and culture across the faculties. The material we have indicates some common main features, such as increasing imbalance (numerical male dominance) towards the top,
Although the natural sciences have often been represented as relatively gender traditional and male-dominated, it is not a given that this is the situation at a Norwegian university today. The natural sciences are relatively male-dominated, but this is not tantamount to poor gender equality – perhaps the realists are simply “boring but peaceful” (as stated by one of their own). In light of the development of gender equality, it is possible to formulate two hypotheses: (1) the natural sciences are more traditional; but also that (2) they can be more aware and innovative when traditional problems are put under a critical spotlight through increased demands for balance and gender equality.
How typical is the gender gap within the natural sciences at the MN Faculty compared to universities in other places? Here we have solid data, particularly from two larger surveys similar to ours from Ireland and the United Kingdom. The questionnaire in the employee survey in FRONT is based partly on the questionnaires used in these studies, and the surveys can therefore be compared more precisely. The first study, Integer, was carried out in Ireland in 2012, and the second, Asset,
Many of the Irish results correspond to ours. They provide an almost surprisingly identical picture. A similar list of “problem variables” is selected from the analyses.
Some differences also emerge. In the Irish study, men and women are about equally satisfied with their work-life balance. In our employee survey, on the other hand, women are dissatisfied approximately twice as often as men. This may be interpreted in relation to different social traditions and notions of gender equality in the two countries. Women are more gender-equal and set higher standards in Norway than in Ireland. Differences between the institutions also come into play. The university in the Irish study (Trinity) has an even lower proportion of women among the academic staff, and at the top, than UiO (
Results from the study in the United Kingdom also correspond to ours (
In the British study, the researchers found that the gender gap with additional disadvantages for women, which was visible in many areas, varied according to age. They concluded that the size of the gender gap
A study of the mentor system for women at UiO (
Conditions in Norway are different from Ireland and the United Kingdom, and one should be cautious about transferring results from one country – or one organization – to another without further ado. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the FRONT material, to a great extent, corresponds to the results from similar surveys in Ireland and the United Kingdom. In fact, the tendency is overwhelmingly similar, with approximately the same patterns. This comparison supports a hypothesis of relatively common socio-cultural mechanisms in academia across countries.
Both employees and students often think that gender should not matter. For instance, two in three master’s students respond, as mentioned, that gender balance has no significance in the group’s work. A possible
Gender equality research shows that many people want gender equality, while many also emphasize the importance of gender difference (see e.g.,
Among the master students in our material, the women are slightly more gender equality oriented than the men. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to ask the same gender equality questions in the employee survey, but the tendency is similar and known from previous studies. On the “attitude level”, the differences are often small. Most people want gender equality. This is in contrast to questions that apply more directly to the “practice level”, in other words, questions about experience and practice. It is especially here that women’s and men’s responses differ (see e.g.,
On the PhD level, we see that answers to a broad question about reasons for choosing to do a PhD, including influences from family, friends and researchers, do not differ very much by gender, although some tendencies are clear. The biggest gender difference that emerges relates to an
Generally, the results must be seen in light of both career development and life phases. The notion that the genders are fundamentally different, and other results, may be interpreted in light of
That gender difference is important is, therefore, not just a question of attitudes, but also something that reflects many students’ and researchers’
Across genders, we see that the parents’ educational level is important in terms of who is admitted to a master’s degree programme. Thus 66 per cent of the students said they had a father with higher education, and 64 per cent had a mother with higher education (fairly evenly distributed by gender). Students with parents with higher education are strongly
Attitudes and practice must be viewed in light of life situations. Gender equality research shows that attitudes often change from the young adult phase to the toddler phase. Women especially tend to become more critical of the existing (im)balance when they have children. The students in our sample have usually not yet started a family, and few have children. Students who said they were single totalled 57 per cent, while 34 per cent were cohabiting partners, and 9 per cent were married. Only 4 per cent had children. Many of the master’s students were also in a phase of life where they were in the process of becoming established as cohabiting partners, though few had children at this point.
The student survey shows a mixed picture on the attitude level, relating to both gender equality and the emphasis on gender difference. On the practice level, we see a different and less gender-balanced picture. Here, female students have one and a half to three times as great a chance of encountering obstacles in their careers, in the form of academic or social downgrading, as do the male students. Most of this downgrading comes from fellow students, some from lecturers, supervisors and others. Only a minority of the students say that this happens “often”. However, it happens “sometimes”.
In the employee survey, there is a clear element of gender-skewed selection. The comparison with studies from Ireland and the United Kingdom shows mainly the same trends across countries, position levels, culture, work environment, and other conditions. Gender appears as an independent dimension, usually in women’s disfavour. The main tendency is that women are still worse off than men. This applies statistically, although more gender equality has been achieved in some areas. The material shows that there are still considerable additional costs for women who pursue an academic career. This is evident, for instance, from the experiences of imbalance between work and private life, and dissatisfaction
Gender roles and gender stereotypes are a part of this picture. Stereotypes have gendered consequences in women’s – and mothers’ – disfavour. The interviews showed different expectations of women and men when it came to, for example, collecting children in kindergarten, and the possibility of attending arrangements in the evening.
When looking at this pattern as a whole, and taking into account that it was probably even stronger in earlier days, it is not surprising that a lack of gender balance is seen at the top, or that it has been changing slowly. The relative absence of women in top positions, for instance in the natural sciences, is connected to women experiencing more obstacles and less support than men. The most important pattern, within a somewhat more gender-equal academia today, may be a lack of support in the sense of “non-events”, such as not being referred to or invited (
The work displacement, in the sense that women spend more of their work hours on teaching and administration while men spend more time on research, found in our material is strengthened not only by the British study, Asset, but also by other studies. (see e.g.,
The comparison with the Irish study, Integer, and the British study, Asset, provides support for a hypothesis of relatively common socio-cultural mechanisms within the natural sciences across countries. Some features are also similar to conditions in male-dominated prestige disciplines and elite jobs in general (
The empirical picture presented here reveals gender differences seen separately, independent of other variables in the data, regardless of whether the differences are perhaps
Such a strategy, where gender and gender equality are seen separately in order to achieve the best possible elaboration of the picture, would
In the introduction to this chapter, we asked whether there is a gender gap in experiences within academia. The material we have reviewed confirms this. In this chapter, we document some of the most important differences. For example, we show that female students experience the environment as not very inclusive approximately twice as often as male students, and that they experience negative academic treatment approximately one and a half times as often. Female academic employees experience twice as often as men that they are under constant scrutiny, and one and a half times as often that they have to work more than their colleagues to be recognized. This pattern also includes a number of variables where the gap is smaller, such as problems with colleagues’ attitudes where women have “only” a 140 per cent greater frequency than men. As many as two-thirds of the environment and culture variables show clear differences with regard to gender.
The chapter presents material based on three important career stages: master’s student, PhD student, and academic employee in higher position levels. Analyses show major gender differences in all stages. Moreover, we see that the gender gap appears across units at the faculty. The gender gap forms a clear pattern, although the problem picture varies somewhat, depending on for example, position level and discipline.
We then compare the FRONT material to international research. Two European surveys similar to our own employee survey reveal a similar gender gap within the natural sciences. We then discuss these results in light of gender role theory and gender-divided career paths. The significance of gender differences in relation to other types of social inequality – ethnicity in particular – is further elucidated in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 presents a model for interpreting the gender gap documented in this chapter.
First, a smaller questionnaire survey among master’s students (N = 213) and then a larger survey among employees including PhD students at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, the University of Oslo (N = 843). See also Appendix “Method”.
The questionnaire was answered by students from randomly chosen lectures and reading rooms. See also Appendix “Method”.
The proportion who responded “often” + “sometimes” is presented in the figure. Most of these responded “sometimes”. Negative social and academic treatment was not defined any further in the questionnaire. We do not know specifically what the students had in mind when responding to these questions, but we see no sign of them being particularly “difficult” to answer, based on the response rate or the comments in the questionnaire form.
The figures are too small to be able to say this for certain, but the difference in the level of competition between departments may be significant.
This was a common hypothesis in early studies of women’s careers in male-dominated occupations (see e.g.,
Hedonism or pleasure orientation does not gain much support, neither here nor elsewhere in the study.
The hypothesis that the questionnaire surveys are characterized by “more critical” or problem-reporting women compared to men is discussed in Chapter 1 and Appendix “Method” in this book.
It may seem that the choice of a male supervisor increases the publication rate a bit, but we do not know for sure – see also Chapter 4.
Some of the position categories, divided by gender, are a bit too small – coincidences may come into play, especially in relation to less common problems. The sample consists of PhD student N = 156; postdoctoral fellow 86; associate professor 69; full professor 111. Moreover, the gender differences presented here are not controlled for other background variables. The material is too limited. However, we do not believe this would have made much of a difference. Gender is largely an independent dimension in the material, as shown in Chapter 6. Note that the problems were not time-limited in the survey. They may include previous experiences, not just experiences at the current position level, although we have reason to believe that they mostly concern experiences here and now (see Appendix “Method”).
The figure also shows some cases of “reverse gender gap”, i.e., more widespread problems among men than among women (i.e., having to work harder than colleagues, and problems with colleagues’ attitudes, on the associate professor level). This appears only sporadically in the FRONT material (see Chapters 2 and 6).
The analysis here is simple and descriptive. We show what gender is associated with. We take a closer look at other background variables that may be important when interpreting gender differences in Chapter 6, and at possible causes of the problem patterns in Chapters 7, 8 and 9.
Detailed analyses confirm this picture. For example, we see that the proportion on the professor level who experience academic devaluation in the sense of constant scrutiny is 9 per cent among men and as much as 38 per cent among women.
For example, in that a larger proportion of female students means a greater chance of reporting sexual harassment, based on the fact that it is generally mainly women who report this problem. On the other hand, it is conceivable that faculties with a larger proportion of men will also have a larger proportion who harass others. In Chapter 3, we discuss the material on sexual harassment in more detail.
N = 4,871 researchers in the natural sciences/STEM disciplines.
Gender neutralization was described as part of “domination techniques” or “master suppression techniques” already in early women’s research (
Subject to the fact that biology students had a higher proportion of women in relation to the other student groups in the survey.
It may seem a bit striking that a university that otherwise strives for a very active role in recruiting students and researchers here can be presented almost as an innocent “victim” of gender traditionalism in society in general and in the family in particular.
Some previous research indicates that teenagers and young adults can be more “gender traditional” than adults in the phase with small children (
In Chapter 2, we further address men and masculinities in relation to gender equality and demonstrate how gender equality varies somewhat across genders (
Statistically significant difference from bivariate analysis (SPSS). As mentioned, some of these are relatively weak correlations (for example that women have 110–120 per cent frequency compared to men), whereas other parts are stronger (usually 130–200 per cent, sometimes even more).
Research on discrimination and the effect of working towards equal status is significantly more advanced in academia in relation to gender than to other forms of discrimination. A relevant question is the extent to which analyses and measures to promote gender equality can contribute to advancing equality in other areas, including ethnic background and skin colour. And conversely: What can insight into discrimination on the basis of ethnicity bring to work on gender equality? This is the starting point for a review of the ethnic dimension of the FRONT survey’s empirical material. In this chapter, the university is seen as an international workplace. Thus the extent to which relations within the work environment and professional culture are influenced by ethnic background is investigated. The primary focus of the review is ethnicity, but the chapter also discusses how dimensions such as gender, ethnicity and class interrelate. In conclusion, the results are discussed in light of other research on intersectionality, stigmatization and gender roles.
Historically speaking, equality work in universities has focused on equality between men and women. More recently, gender has been accompanied by diversity, a term primarily used in reference to ethnicity and ethnic diversity.
In Norway and other countries, there has been considerable debate on whether gender equality and diversity are aligned or can in fact be conflicting goals. There is also a fear that increased emphasis on diversity will weaken gender equality efforts. Since research on differential treatment/discrimination and the effect of equality measures is considerably more developed in relation to gender than other potential grounds for discrimination, a relevant question is whether analyses and work based on gender equality can contribute to equality in other areas, including ethnic background and skin colour. And conversely, how can knowledge on ethnic discrimination contribute to gender equality work? Therefore, based on our analyses of gender differences, we wished to explore the ethnic dimension in our empirical material. Both the survey of the employees and the interview material provided an opportunity to conduct an analysis with regard to ethnicity. The questionnaire survey contained variables providing information on the respondents’ origin, and some of the interviews included questions on diversity and differential treatment based on ethnicity.
In this chapter, we explore how life in academia is formed and affected by ethnicity. We begin by describing our material and definitions. Next, we describe a main feature of our material – the university as an international workplace. We show how four ethnic groups are distributed in terms of position level and other variables. In the employee survey,
An ethnic group can be defined as a group within a larger society, which considers itself a group in relation to others, and is also identified as a separate people by others (
This law prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnicity (including national origin, descent, skin colour, language). Thus ethnicity, like gender, is a
Several studies indicate that the extent of experienced unfair or differential treatment on the grounds of ethnicity is considerable in Norwegian working life. As many as 22 per cent of descendants of immigrants have reported differential treatment in the workplace in the past year (
In Norway, the term “race” is not a valid category; it is not used in official registries and therefore not included in our study (unlike some countries, like the U.S.). Two variables in the questionnaire survey provide information on the ethnic dimension:
In the analyses below, we divide the ethnic dimension into four main categories. These are defined as follows:
Majority | = | Norwegian nationality, not descendant |
Descendant | = | Norwegian nationality, foreign or mixed family background |
Western | = | Non-Norwegian (foreign) with western nationality |
Non-western | = | Non-Norwegian with non-western nationality |
We should mention some limitations in the material and this categorization. According to the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act (2020, § 6), “Ethnicity includes national origin, descent, skin colour, and language.” We asked about nationality and family background, but not about skin colour. Neither was language addressed in the employee survey, although the interview material offers information on this issue.
The law distinguishes between direct and indirect differential treatment (§ 7 and § 8): “‘Direct differential treatment’ means treatment of a person that is worse than the treatment that is, has been or would have been afforded to other persons in a corresponding situation.” Indirect differential treatment is “any
We should also add that differential treatment and discrimination are two different things. Differential treatment implies that groups are treated differently or affected differently by a practice or rule. It is connected to what sociologists call social stratification. In some cases, differential treatment is justified. For example, a requirement for proficiency in Norwegian in a job announcement may affect different ethnic groups differently, yet still not be discriminatory if the position involves teaching in Norwegian. “Discrimination” is reserved for those cases where such differential treatment cannot be justified, that is it does not have a factual purpose (as defined in the law relating to equality and the prohibition against discrimination). The topic of this chapter is, first and foremost, differential treatment, not discrimination in the legal sense.
The survey used in this and other chapters in the book was answered by 843 employees at the faculty. The interview material consists of 93 interviews, of which two-thirds were Norwegian employees and one-third were foreign. The interviews included questions related to diversity and differential treatment based on ethnicity/sexual orientation/age etc., but were primarily oriented towards questions concerning gender equality.
The material is extensive but also limited. It is, for example, too small to say anything about different experiences based on each individual nationality. Our ethnic categorization is also rough (western/non-western), and conceals major variations within some categories, perhaps especially for descendants. Nevertheless, the material is relatively representative and contains answers from both majority and different minority groups. Moreover, the breadth of questions that can be tested in relation to ethnic differential treatment is considerable – much more than in previous research.
The huge span of the ethnic dimension is shown in
Norwegian nationality | Foreign nationality | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Majority | Descendants | Western | Non-western | |
Number of respondents | 459 | 63 | 268 | 53 |
Percentage of the entire sample | 54 | 8 | 32 | 6 |
Proportion of women | 43 | 53 | 42 | 28 |
Proportion of young (below age 35) | 34 | 31 | 43 | 55 |
Proportion of middle-aged (age 35–55) | 49 | 55 | 50 | 45 |
Proportion of seniors (age 56+) | 17 | 14 | 7 | 0 |
Proportion of PhD students | 15 | 13 | 28 | 36 |
Proportion of postdoctoral fellows | 5 | 9 | 23 | 13 |
Proportion of associate professors | 7 | 9 | 10 | 13 |
Proportion of full professors | 16 | 14 | 13 | 0 |
Proportion with high parental education* | 24 | 36 | 30 | 12 |
Proportion with high father’s education** | 40 | 45 | 52 | 17 |
Proportion of academic employees | 66 | 66 | 87 | 91 |
Note:
Majority = Norwegian nationality, not descendant
Descendant = Norwegian nationality, foreign or mixed family background
Western = foreigner with western nationality
Non-western = foreigner with non-western nationality
*High parental education = scale value 12 and above (on the basis of a 14-part scale of the father’s plus the mother’s level of education)
**High father’s education = scale value 6+, on the basis of a 7-part education scale
But is the distribution fair and balanced across the various career levels of the researcher’s career, or do some groups fare worse than others? The proportion of professors is roughly the same for the majority (16 per cent) and descendants (14 per cent). Overall, the four groups are fairly evenly distributed on higher position levels. The only obvious exception is non-westerners, who are absent on the professor level, which may be an effect of the fact that this group is considerably younger than the other groups. It may also be the case, as mentioned, that some of the employees with non-western backgrounds have changed citizenship as adults, and therefore become part of the group “descendants” in our statistics.
It becomes clear from the Table that the minority groups are
Westerners make up the largest group with non-Norwegian nationalities. Like non-westerners, they are overrepresented on lower career stages, now especially on the postdoctoral level, not the PhD level. They are also somewhat older than non-westerners. We do not see any clear indication that they are underrepresented on higher position levels.
It is important to emphasize that an even distribution by position level does not automatically mean that differential treatment does not occur in an organization. One can imagine that the distribution of different groups upwards on various levels appears relatively balanced or equal, and that everyone seems to have equal opportunities. Yet at the same time, there may be strong guidelines within the organization, making it more difficult in practice for underprivileged groups to achieve higher positions, be they women or foreigners. For example, both women and ethnic minority groups report that they have to work harder than their colleagues in order to achieve professional recognition (see below). This might mean that the path to positions on higher levels is longer for these groups. In other words, the results broken down by position level do not mean that differential treatment does not occur. A clear trend in our material on position level is that underrepresentation in regard to gender is consistent, whereas ethnicity is more varied (see Chapter 5). At the same time as we see few non-westerners at the top, we similarly see few women.
Work displacement means that an employee is given fewer meriting assignments. Within academia, where research counts as the most meriting activity, work displacement can consist of an increase in administrative tasks, or teaching at the expense of time for research. Consequently, it becomes harder for the employee to qualify for a position on a higher level. However having plenty of time for research can be a double-edged sword. A lot of time for research is good – it is how you qualify. But teaching and administration are also good – that is how temporary employees make themselves indispensable in the workplace, and thus might increase their chances of an extended contract, and finally a permanent position. We see this in the interviews, in which temporary employees attempt to “make themselves indispensable” in order to remain in the faculty. For example, Marit, a female postdoctoral fellow, says:
My strategy is that we are a fairly small research group with few permanent employees, many students, and a popular degree programme. So we have many students and quite a lot of teaching, so I thought as an idea for me that I take on teaching. It is a way of making myself useful in this group … so I’m thinking of keeping that up, and hang on a little and see how far it leads me.
In the questionnaire survey, we ask how working hours are actually divided between the different tasks, and how employees wish they were divided. Our data show that the majority group spend slightly more time on administration than the other groups. This is not unexpected, considering that foreigners (particularly non-Scandinavians) have more problems with the language and culture. But the results should be interpreted with caution – it may happen that some work displacement should actually be considered to be ethnic allocation of assignments (
A Norwegian study reveals a tendency in which Norwegian women often apply for positions emphasizing administration and teaching, whereas foreign men more often apply for research-oriented positions (
Let us take a look at experiences of racism in the employee survey, since we have measured this through questions explicitly mentioning this topic. Three questions deal with this: whether the respondent has experienced unwanted racist attention;
These are figures for the entire sample, however. The extent of racism is highly dependent on “the seeing eye”, or the position of the person responding. Unwanted racist attention has been experienced by only 1 per cent of participants with Norwegian family backgrounds, compared with 8 per cent of those with foreign or mixed family backgrounds. Among participants of non-western nationalities, 11 per cent have experienced unwanted racist attention compared with 4 per cent of western foreigners.
The analyses show that roughly one in ten from exposed groups (descendants, non-westerners) have experienced unwanted racial attention. This indicates that experiences of unwanted racial attention are not
We asked who is responsible for the unwanted racist attention. The results show that colleagues are behind approximately two-thirds of this. Again, the picture largely resembles unwanted sexual attention. We also asked about the culture in the unit/department in regard to racism. The vast majority agree or strongly agree that the culture is non-racist. Only 4 per cent of employees disagree or strongly disagree with this. By comparison, 5 per cent disagree or strongly disagree that the culture is non-sexist. The tendency is similar. Although there are experiences of racism (or sexism), they are considered to be more the exception than the rule in academic culture.
Direct questions on unwanted racist attention and racism show that the problem exists, and that the extent of the problem largely depends on whom you ask. The extent is considerably greater in exposed groups, than in less exposed groups. The majority report fewer problems than the minorities, in the same way that men report fewer problems than women, in relation to sexual harassment. The tendency here, as in analyses of gender, is that the more general the question, the greater the support for the “equality” response option. Almost “everyone” agrees that the culture is non-racist, generally speaking, especially among the Norwegians. Among the minorities, there is also still a large majority in favour of this view. Also, descendants and non-westerners agree – the culture in the faculty is generally good.
Another indication of equal treatment in the organization is the experience of bullying and harassment regardless of grounds for discrimination. Descendants, but not other minorities, more often report bullying than the majority. Among descendants, 19 per cent report bullying compared with 11 per cent of the majority. This is an indication of a problem, independent of direct racism. The difference is roughly the same across genders. We see no particular profile among the descendants compared to the majority in relation to who is responsible for the bullying. The most
In other words, we find a considerable, that is more than marginal, proportion of experienced racist attention and racism, and a larger proportion who have experienced bullying, among descendants. The problems depend on “the seeing eye” – and are experienced much more often in exposed groups than in the majority group. At the same time, assessments of the culture in the unit are mainly positive, also among minorities.
We have described the placement of various minorities on position levels, possible work displacement, and experiences of unwanted racist attention. This says something about diversity-related challenges, but it only tells part of the story. In order to understand more of this picture, we need data on work environment and academic culture, similar to what we have on gender. As mentioned, minorities may be relatively well placed in the position hierarchy – but the costs of getting there may be different.
Work Environment Problems by Different Groups (in percentages) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Majority | Descendants | Western | Non -western | |
I have to work harder than my colleagues in order to be recognized | 12 | 30 | 24 | 37 |
I am constantly scrutinized/judged by my colleagues | 14 | 20 | 18 | 26 |
I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that it might affect my career | 20 | 33 | 19 | 28 |
I do not get the opportunity to participate in important committees/meetings/projects | 15 | 33 | 23 | 18 |
Problems with colleagues’ attitudes | 14 | 20 | 23 | 15 |
We see a clear (and statistically significant) variation for the experience of having to work harder, and the feeling of being scrutinized and judged. We also see quite a bit of variation in relation to raising issues. But for having the opportunity to participate in important committees, meetings and projects, the picture is somewhat less clear. The same applies to problems with colleagues’ attitudes and a number of other environmental variables not presented here.
The Table should be interpreted with caution. It only shows how problems are experienced within the four groups. It does not say that they are
The experience of having to work harder or being scrutinized and judged does not necessarily have anything to do with competitive environments. It could also relate to the costs of cultural differences. The degree of differential treatment may be relatively limited. On the contrary, the environment may be characterized by encouragement of international collaboration, but there is nevertheless a “Norwegian cultural curriculum” that the minorities must learn. This may be part of the explanation for why the minorities report more working hours a week, despite the fact that we see no indication that they have less time for
One claim in the debate, which also shows up in the interviews, is that globalization entails competition, which may weaken Norwegian gender equality. The idea is that international competition means that male applicants, with less background and work methods based on equality, will oust a Norwegian “bedrock” of researchers, especially women. Some put this into a time perspective – some of these international environments are reminiscent of Norway in the old days:
What you have kept [in today’s university] is the job insecurity, low wages, the necessity for major work endeavours, especially in Norway, with gender equality now in particular, right, so it is obvious – before, the men could just go to work, and then they had a stay-at-home wife, you know, but you can’t work 12 hours a day any more, modern PhD students can’t and won’t, not men either. And then, then there are many, then there are many things that … I mean a lot of tensions, to put it mildly. (Kristoffer, male professor)
This train of thought is most visible in interviews with men in our material, and less common among the interviewed women. To a lesser degree, these saw international competition as a problem in terms of gender equality.
If international competition is a threat to gender equality, we should be able to see tendencies of this in detailed analyses of the ethnic dimension. For example, there should be a greater proportion of households in which the woman’s career has priority, or where there is an equal priority in the majority group than in various minorities. Is this the case?
The Table below shows how essential factors in the family situation (among those with a spouse or partner) are distributed among the four groups (in percentages).
Majority | Descendants | Western | Non-western | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Proportion with partner/spouse | 82 | 70 | 78 | 68 |
Partner/spouse is an academic or researcher | 30 | 21 | 36 | 41 |
The woman has taken leave due to the man’s job (average, months) | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 |
Partner/spouse and I are equally dedicated to our careers | 56 | 55 | 53 | 64 |
Man is more dedicated* | 33 | 25 | 30 | 29 |
Woman is more dedicated* | 7 | 0 | 9 | 0 |
The partners’ careers had equal priority in the past year | 57 | 52 | 46 | 47 |
The woman’s career had first priority in the past year* | 12 | 16 | 13 | 3 |
Note: The figures represent proportions in percentages within each group, except the figures for the woman’s leave due to the man’s job, which represent the average number of months on leave (*indicates that the figures are taken from men’s reports, but the reporting is highly similar across genders).
The proportion of participants who are married or cohabitants is quite similar between the groups, if we take different age profiles into account (non-westerners are younger). We see a relatively large element of homogamy (married to equals) among those who have academic partners, at least in the majority group. Here as many as 50 per cent of those with an academic partner have a partner working in a discipline related to the respondent’s own discipline. Natural scientists seem to be fond of each other. Figures for the minorities are a bit too small to say anything about this dimension. Similarly, figures for taking a leave of absence (leave/career break) are small, but they provide a certain picture of the situation.
We see no essential difference in the assessment of career motivation or dedication across ethnic groups. On the contrary, the proportion with balanced dedication is relatively similar. A few differences emerge when we take a closer look at prioritizations in the household during
What does the data say about the assumption that internationalization is a threat to the Norwegian gender equality model? It is a mixed picture. Norway is not alone in increasing gender equality. The different ethnic groups’ households are relatively similar, and the difference we do see might be explained more by other factors, such as age and position level. We see some signs of lower acceptance for women’s careers, meaning that women are less dedicated than men, among two of the minorities, but these are uncertain and may be caused by other conditions. Actual prioritization of the woman’s career in the past year is, in fact, slightly lower among the majority than among descendants, but higher among westerners than non-westerners.
In other words, we see that minorities have different “gender equality conditions” in the household/family, and the hypothesis that they are generally less gender equal is only supported to a limited degree. We have a few indications that traditional gender roles matter more, for instance, with less reporting than in the majority, that the woman’s dedication to her career is greater than the man’s. But as to who in practice has had priority in the past year, descendants score higher than the majority on giving the woman priority. The results correspond to other research on descendants’ social mobility, especially among women (
The interviews in FRONT confirm the faculty’s international profile. As mentioned, approximately one-third of the interviewees are foreign citizens,
The most common explanation for additional problems for non-Norwegians at the faculty, described in the interviews, suggests cultural differences rather than racism, discrimination or direct differential treatment. These cultural differences involve such things as language, but also understanding how things work in Norway, including formal and informal rules of the game at the faculty. For example, there is major international variation in terms of what a position as a student, postdoctoral fellow or professor actually means in practice. The foreigners feel that it takes time to familiarize themselves with the rules of the game.
When differential treatment is mentioned it is usually implicit, a type of bias that is not necessarily conscious. Li, a female PhD student, says:
You don’t speak as fast to Chinese people because sometimes you expect poorer English, and the English is poorer, perhaps much poorer sometimes. But you know – there are some mechanisms – you see the young male researcher there, you see him, or you wish to help him get into the discipline, but what about this Chinese girl? Well, she will probably soon go back to China, you know. And, of course, that may be true – but it is not fair. There should be equal opportunities in a situation like that. Even though many Chinese researchers have to go back for many reasons. But still.
Here we see both linguistic problems, as well as a tendency that foreigners, who may be likely to return to their home countries, are passed over. The investment does not benefit the unit (or the Norwegian job market). Consequently, the Norwegian candidate may be preferred. The example illustrates how structural conditions may contribute to differential treatment.
All the interviewees who do not come from Norway (or Sweden/Denmark) describe difficulties learning Norwegian. However, their views on whether they actually need Norwegian in order to work at a Norwegian university differ.
“So the beginning was a bit difficult for me because I wasn’t that good in Norwegian,” says Ella, a female associate professor, when she describes how she experienced her first period in Norway. She continued to describe how informal contact between colleagues during lunch and by the coffee machine is what happens in Norwegian. Planned, professional discussions normally occur in English, however. Thea, a female associate professor, thinks she manages well with English. “They said, ‘It would be great if you learned Norwegian,’ but I mean, everything is in English. I am used to the English system. I came from an international group, I spoke English every day, so I was never … I never thought of it as a problem.” Hannah, a female associate professor, agrees and says, “Speaking English is so natural, even with Norwegians, that I don’t think it – for most people – occurs to us to switch into Norwegian. When you’ve established a relationship through one language, that kind of becomes the language of that relationship, so if you start with English, that’s the way it is ….” Kathrine, a female associate professor, has a different opinion. She is working hard to learn Norwegian because she needs it in her research collaborations, and in order to build networks with Norwegian researchers. “The meetings are in Norwegian, so I had to improve my Norwegian,” she says. To some, like Thea, it may be “natural” to continue in English – especially within research collaboration – but at the same time, the administrative language at the University of Oslo is Norwegian, as is the language of instruction on the undergraduate level.
Li describes how English may also be excluding, as mentioned above. “You don’t speak as fast to Chinese people, because sometimes you expect poorer English, and the English is [in fact] poorer, perhaps much poorer sometimes.” English is normally a greater challenge for non-westerners, such as from Asia, than for western employees, and linguistic problems can easily be perceived as slow-wittedness. The importance of English
These quotes illustrate how “networks” must be interpreted broadly. It is not only about acquaintances and collaboration but also about opportunities for funding and positions. Earlier, we described professional hierarchies and prestige (see Chapter 2), and here the more personal prestige system emerges. Having a “well-known name” is an advantage, and this varies with nationality.
Thea’s statement that “in Germany, the peer-reviewers are German,” may also illustrate cultural barriers, regardless of language – that there is a lot to learn when you come to Norway. Thea observes that some things are different (“these committees must get to know you, both Norwegians and non-Norwegians”), but she nevertheless interprets the Norwegian financing system based on a German model. However, the Norwegian model is different. The procedures for application processing vary considerably between countries, and the Research Council of Norway’s system means that quality assessments, with few exceptions, are based on assessments made by foreign referees.
In the employee survey, the lack of networks does not appear as a problem factor among minorities. That may be because the question is formulated differently than in the interviews. In the survey, we ask whether the respondents have been encouraged to establish their own network. Most of the respondents answer this question in the affirmative, including non-westerners. We do not ask whether they have managed to establish a network of their own or how difficult this has been. These topics came up in the interviews.
Coming to Norway as a young employee, on the PhD or postdoctoral level, without a family is one thing. Staying in Norway with a family is a different matter. A number of participants describe how they experience problems of integration only after they start a family – before that, they lived in a “university bubble”.
“I came here because I got a scholarship, and I was in the university bubble, and it feels like I lived entirely in that bubble. It was a bubble with a very hard shell – I spent all my time at the university and only socialized with people at the university. I worked out at the university’s gym, I was involved in clubs at the university.” Hannah describes how she lived in a
Thea describes much the same. Her husband also had problems finding a job, an experience she shares with many in the same situation. “We have many colleagues here whose partner hasn’t got a job. And it is super frustrating! And I think we foreigners have been very naive, that we believed that we have come to Norway, and Norway is a rich country with a low unemployment rate. But I think, for many, it just hasn’t worked out. And that can be dramatic.”
We see a tendency for the interviewees to find it easier to talk about their partners’ difficulties in Norway than their own. This may, of course, be because they actually
As we have seen, the results reveal a pattern of problems and challenges related to ethnicity. For instance, a higher proportion of minorities say that they have to work harder than their colleagues and are constantly scrutinized and judged. Some of these problems also emerge in relation
Research on education shows that social class background is an important factor for selection in academia. Students with parents having long higher education levels are decidedly overrepresented compared with those whose parents have the least education (
The FRONT project has data on mothers’ and fathers’ levels of education, as an indication of social class in the questionnaire surveys. We have an extended scale for educational levels (seven levels) and ask about both the mother’s and father’s levels. That education is a narrow and incomplete indicator of social class is beyond doubt, but not a discussion we can address here (for further discussion, see e.g.,
As shown in
In our material, there is a clear tendency for the outliers on the scale for educational level to behave as expected, based on a hypothesis that a lower educational level among parents will increase the chances of experiencing problems. Descendants whose parents have a long university education report fewer problems than those whose parents have a low level of education. But the groups in the middle of the scale, westerners and the majority, do not report as expected based on a hypothesis of a straight line relationship. This probably contributes to the effect of class appearing lower than it actually is. It should be taken into account that class is a “movable target” in relation to ethnicity and gender. A career often involves social mobility, but rarely gender mobility or ethnic mobility.
The proportion having different levels of education has changed greatly over time. High university education among parents was rarer a generation or two ago than today. However, this difference is not very dramatic in our material. The parents’ average level of education is roughly the same among the young and middle-aged, but noticeably lower among seniors (age 56+).
We took a closer look at parents’ education in regard to gender. Is the effect different based on the mother’s or father’s level of education? And is it different for women and men? Here, the results are clear. The answer is “no” on both counts. The mother’s and father’s levels of education have roughly similar effects. As far as we can see, both are problem reducing in roughly the same way. Moreover, analyses show that this pattern is relatively similar across genders.
Briefly summarized, we can say that class has an effect quite independently of gender and ethnicity, but the effect is less obvious in the material than one might expect, based on the fact that class is such a central dimension in research on education. It is not surprising that the
The FRONT material provides an opportunity to analyze the importance of the dimensions ethnicity, class and gender, in relation to career, environmental and cultural problems. What are the challenges connected with these, and how do they interact with each other? Before we can analyze this, it is important to identify each of these dimensions as clearly as possible. We will, therefore, first consider each of them separately. The analyses shed light on effects in relation to a number of environmental and cultural variables. The result is three different “problem profiles”.
Here is the problem ranking based on ethnic difference, showing some characteristicss of the ethnic problem profile:
Have to work harder than colleagues (correlation .155)
Reluctant to raise issues (.117)
Reluctant to speak my opinion (.104)
Constant scrutiny/assessment (.074)
All in all, the effect of ethnicity is visible on approximately 10–20 per cent of the environmental variables in the survey.
Here is the profile in relation to social class:
My area of research has low status (–.116)
Limited job opportunities (–.104)
Have to work harder than colleagues (.071)
The effect of class is visible on 5–15 per cent of the variables in the survey.
The problem profile in relation to gender:
No access to role models (.135)
I cannot express my preferences (.132)
Culture with long working hours (.115)
Have to work harder than colleagues (.107)
Lack of supervision (.106)
My area is too interdisciplinary (.105)
Reluctant to speak my opinion (0.97)
Periods of part-time work (.094)
No participation in committees (.093)
Lack of support (.092)
Constant scrutiny/assessment (.087)
My contributions are not valued (.084)
Professional isolation (.079)
The effect of gender is visible on approximately 50–65 per cent of the variables in the survey.
We see that ethnicity, and particularly class, have fewer visible effects on the problem level than one might expect compared with gender. If class and ethnicity are important dimensions, why are they not more visible? Is the faculty more characterized by gender division than ethnic or class-related division? What does the “gender gap”, as described in Chapter 5, mean if we also consider other important background dimensions?
In order to take a closer look at ethnicity, class and gender in relation to each other, we analyzed each dimension – including the other dimensions in the picture. This is often called intersectional analysis, for example in gender research. The idea behind this is that various forms of differential treatment must be understood in a broader context, and as a whole. Thus, intersectional analysis may provide a better understanding of different groups among students and employees. The “classic” point of departure for intersectional theory is a situation in which different types or grounds of discrimination, for example, being black
Firstly, we see that the background dimensions – ethnicity, class and gender – are largely independent of one another. It is not the case that one of them stops working when the others are included in the analysis. The effects are essentially the same, yet somewhat moderated. In other words, the problem profiles are relatively similar, regardless of whether other background variables are included in the analysis or not. This applies particularly to the two clearest profiles (ethnicity and gender).
Secondly, it appears that the intersectional effect remains limited, even if we apply different methods to bring out the connections. The grounds for discrimination may be “added up” (a technique that has been criticized) or “multiplied” (for further discussion about the methods, see, e.g.,
Thirdly, we see that the intersectional interplay that actually exists cannot be summarized in one simple formula. The most obvious intersectional effect has to do with ethnicity and gender, but only partially how one might expect – that a low ranking in one dimension goes hand in hand with a low ranking in the other. One could easily presume that a low ranking in the ethnic dimension (ethnic = minority) would go hand in hand with a low ranking in the other (gender = woman). This group ought to have the highest score on problem variables, like having to work harder than colleagues and academic devaluation (scrutiny). But the empirical results are different. It is the men, not the women among the minorities, who most often report problems compared with the majority of the same gender.
In our material, such connections are best revealed through detailed analyses. The figure below offers an example.
The columns show the proportion of “yes” answers (strongly agree or agree) in percentages for two important problems, divided by gender and ethnicity.
A relevant term from role theory is
As mentioned, 11 per cent of non-westerners, and 8 per cent of descendants say they have experienced unwanted racist attention at the faculty, mostly by colleagues. A survey of young researchers in Norway shows a similar tendency (AYF, 2019). There, nearly 25 per cent of foreign-born researchers reported discrimination due to their immigrant background. The researchers emphasize that experiences of discrimination and sexual harassment have a strong negative impact on wanting to recommend an academic career to others, and that discrimination is a particularly strong factor.
Is racism part of a broader pattern of differential treatment? Here, our results point in slightly different directions. We find a clear underrepresentation of non-westerners on the top level (professors),
At the same time, it becomes clear from our study that the “problem profile” related to gender is more extensive than for ethnicity. Why are problems so much more visible in relation to gender compared with ethnicity and class? One interpretation says there are two factors at work. One factor is more reporting and criticism in relation to gender than to ethnicity and class, and another factor is that gender differences
Let us first look at the subjective hypothesis. The point of departure here is that different research methods, including an anonymous questionnaire form, are influenced by the threshold for reporting problems. If this threshold is different for the exposed groups within various dimensions of discrimination, the results will provide an incorrect picture of the actual extent. They will be somewhat spurious and misleading. Conditions related to shame and stigmatization – typical factors behind low reporting – are perhaps stronger in relation to ethnicity than to gender, and may therefore contribute to such a result.
But is this something we know? It is true that we have a number of interviews with foreigners who talk about better conditions in the Norwegian university system than in their home country. This relates to a more equal opportunity to combine being an active parent with pursuing an academic career, and that women are treated better in Norway. Other than that, the signs are not so clear. Some interviewees mention a “being grateful role” among foreigners. But all in all, the hypothesis must be described as uncertain.
The objective hypothesis is that differential treatment in relation to gender is
To put this in perspective, one can imagine what would happen if the university were as clearly ethnically (or class) segregated as it is gender-segregated. This would undoubtedly result in criticism and debate. It could easily be considered a type of apartheid. Gendered segregation, which is not found in the other areas (ethnicity and class), may explain some of the differences in the extent of the problem.
This does not necessarily mean that
Based on studies of men and masculinities, it is not surprising that problems related to being in an ethnic minority position are more visible among men than women. This can be linked to patterns in which men are (still) expected to be superior and that the fall, therefore, becomes greater when they are not (see e.g.,
On the other hand, we see that not only do minorities report unwanted racist attention far more often than the majority, they also report bullying more often (among descendants). Moreover, they report work environment problems more often, particularly experiences of having to work
Analyses of problems connected to ethnicity, class and gender show that each of these dimensions works relatively independently, yet they may be affected by each other. We essentially find the same picture in analyses including the interaction effect between dimensions. This may be interpreted in the sense that intersectional interaction is relatively limited. However, this applies on an overall general level, and not necessarily to individual cases. The most visible interaction effect appears in relation to ethnicity and gender. The effect is partly to be expected, that low status in both dimensions offers the most chance of reporting problems – but also, somewhat more unexpectedly, that the effect of ethnicity is often greater among the men than the women in the study.
All in all, the results indicate that differential treatment based on gender is more visible and extensive than differential treatment based on ethnicity. The class dimension is even less visible. We have discussed this from a “subjective” hypothesis, that the threshold for reporting problems is higher in relation to ethnicity and class than to gender, and from an “objective” hypothesis that gender segregation is, in fact, greater than segregation related to the other dimensions. The two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
The results and the limitations of our study are indicative of a major need for further research. How do various ethnic groups experience the situation? Within some groups, the proportion of people who have experienced unwanted racist attention or associated environmental problems may be considerably higher than what emerges in our material. “Descendants”, “westerners” and “non-westerners” are all heterogeneous groups, for example in terms of skin colour. More targeted studies might reduce such problems. Our interview material includes experiences of racism and discrimination, but it is not an in-depth coverage of diversity issues. For instance, we do not know much about the “construction of whiteness”, how it happens, or how important it is. What becomes clear is that problems of unwanted racist attention and racism are not marginal,
We asked whether gender equality and diversity are opposing goals. Our study demonstrates that a gender equality research approach, using questions and variables derived mainly from gender research, can be extended to provide new insight into ethnicity and class. These dimensions would not become “diminished” through a gender equality approach. Instead, they can be better identified and understood.
“Diversity” is used as a collective term for a reduction of the various grounds for discrimination mentioned above, normally with ethnic diversity or equality as a main issue (in addition to gender equality). Other grounds of discrimination, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability and age, are more seldom discussed.
A study of the higher education sector in Norway shows that “mathematics and natural sciences (45 per cent) and technology (34 per cent) had the highest proportion of immigrants and descendants of immigrants among researchers and academic personnel in 2014, whereas the social sciences had the lowest proportion (17 per cent).” These percentages had increased considerably during the period 2007–14. The University of Oslo was among the institutions with the highest percentages (
The actual proportion of non-westerners among employees at the faculty is possibly somewhat higher, since the survey had more drop-out among employees in recruitment positions, where many non-westerners are found, than among permanent employees.
Interviewees were not chosen specifically based on nationality or ethnicity.
The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud represents the interests of those who are discriminated against. The Ombud also work to prevent discrimination and promote equality. The office of the Ombud is a government agency, but the Ombud operates independently from the government and cannot be instructed by other authorities.
The Ombud must therefore protect against eight grounds of discrimination. The list of grounds has increased. In 2016, there were six grounds. The two most recent ones are protection against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expressions. It is interesting to note that discrimination based on social class is (still) not on the list – although we cannot discuss that here. It is well known within educational research that social class is a discrimination factor (see e.g.,
“Nationality” was not defined in more detail in the questionnaire survey (which was in English), but we assume this is usually interpreted as citizenship. Nor was “family background” defined in any more detail. It had the response options “Norwegian”, “Mixed (both Norwegian and not Norwegian)” and “Not Norwegian”.
“Western” was defined as OECD countries minus Japan, South Korea, Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Colombia (and Norway), the rest as “non-western”. Note that “descendant” does not necessarily mean children of non-western parents (this proportion is unknown to us).
We have a lot of data on differential treatment, but little on what constitutes discrimination – that would require another investigation.
The interviewees were not specifically selected based on nationality or ethnicity. The proportion of non-westerners was small, but the Norwegian/foreign nationality distribution was approximately the same as in the questionnaire survey, which is roughly one-third foreigners.
The questionnaire survey consisted of 190 questions on career development, choice of natural sciences, supervision, career breaks and use of leave of absence, as well as one’s situation as an employee, including work environment, academic culture, ambitions, satisfaction and family situation (see Chapters 1-5 and Appendix “Method”).
Probably also because some of them have other western family backgrounds and have changed to Norwegian citizenship (we do not have precise data on this proportion).
The non-westerners also constitute a relatively large proportion of the position level “researcher” (which is not included in
At the same time as a lower percentage of employment from abroad may be factual, based on a greater proportion of unqualified applications.
The question on the desired distribution of working hours was posed immediately after the corresponding question on actual distribution. “To achieve promotion/success in your job, what percentage of your working time do you think you need to spend/should have spent on each of the following areas?” with the response options: teaching, research, administration, consultancy/expertise, and research value creation. The two last alternatives received very few answers.
The employee survey was in English, and the question was formulated in the following way: “Unwanted racially motivated attention (such as racist remarks, questions, jokes, teasing).”
The question was not time limited.
The figures are for the MN faculty.
Questions on the culture in the unit are very generally defined in comparison to the more specific questions on the environment discussed below.
In other words, they encounter somewhat more pressure in their work situation. But culture probably also comes into play, meaning it takes time to adapt to the Norwegian culture and mentality, also for foreigners with western backgrounds, or when one changes to Norwegian citizenship when acquiring a permanent position in Norway.
Many of these researchers were strongly focused on career and competition. A possible interpretation is that it did not suit their self-image to address unfair or too fierce competition.
Somewhat uncertain due to small figures.
The central importance of informal rules of the game – “How things are done here at the faculty” – also emerges in relation to gender in the material (
That is, a tendency resembling the one we find in relation to gender.
Not learning Norwegian when one is required to make a long-term commitment may involve a certain work displacement on a given level, for example a researcher or associate professor who cannot contribute to teaching in Norwegian, meaning that others on the same level must do it instead.
For example, the employee survey was in English, not Norwegian, which may have weakened the response rate.
The Research Council of Norway.
Referee = qualified peer reviewer providing an independent assessment.
This perhaps often happens when developing a kind of “transitional language” or a preliminary working model for understanding. Here some of the new things about Norwegian culture are included in the picture, such as gender equality, but the “old” background, for example experience from the German higher education system, nevertheless characterizes understanding and general sensemaking in relation to the organization.
In a study of the engineering culture in a private oil company (
Only statistically significant correlations are included in this overview.
Here, class is encoded in line with ethnicity and gender, meaning that low status in the dimension is ranked on top and high status on the bottom. Those with high class status thus talk a little less often about the problem of having to work more than their colleagues (.071).
Minorities are here defined as non-westerners plus descendants, in order to obtain more certain data material.
This result seems to apply to the leadership level in the higher education sector generally. A count conducted by the trade journal
Better data on this requires, among other things, insight into employment processes, see further Orupabo & Mangset (2021), discussed in Chapter 8.
On western dominance in research and theoretical development, see also
On stigmatization, see e.g.,
“Encourages” in the sense of passive and indirect facilitation – not that one consciously seeks to promote greater gender divisions. But the education programmes – presumably especially on the master level – are designed in such a way that, in practice, they create great gender differentiation among the students (see Chapter 5).
The exception, the absence of employees from non-western countries on the professor level, may, as previously mentioned, at least partly be explained by other factors, including lower age and an early career phase.
The purpose of the analyzes presented in the book’s first part was to understand attitudes to gender and equality among students and employees at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo, as well as the significance of gender in the organization. The chapters document a considerable divide between the institution’s meritocratic ideals and students’ and employees’ actual experiences, particularly in relation to gender. Female students and employees report problems and disadvantages more often than their male colleagues. This creates a statistical pattern reflected in a number of variables such as career, work environment and academic culture. The “gender gap” remains also when controlling other variables relating to career, such as position level, age, social background and ethnicity (see Chapter 6). This pattern is particularly visible in the statistics gathered from the questionnaires. However, the interview material also demonstrates a significant element of skewed selection and uneven distribution of disadvantages among women and men in the organization.
The primary purpose of the three models, the Bøygen model (sometimes spelled the Boyg in English), the Janus model and the Triview model, is to shed light on various factors that affect gender imbalance. The Bøygen model shows how accumulated disadvantages for women influence their career patterns. The Janus model explains why women experience obstacles and disadvantages through a blend of gender differentiation and gender stratification. Lastly, the Triview model describes various perceptions of gender imbalance and related topics at the faculty, and how these affect academic culture and career development.
The three models may be seen in connection with each other, but they represent different perspectives. The Bøygen model has a partly social psychological perspective, whereas the Janus model focuses on social structures or institutional processes. The Triview model, on the other hand, deals with culture and discourse within the faculty, that is various prevailing views on gender and gender balance.
The models’ theoretical background involves theories on gender and equality within various disciplines, including theories on gender role structures, gender and power, social inequality, organization theory, and discourse theory. This is described in more detail in the various chapters. We wanted to avoid “locking” the models to one specific theoretical tradition. Instead, the models are made to be interpreted and developed further based on various disciplines and academic traditions. In other words, they are intended as a “meeting place”. Consequently, the models do not require taking a stance in the debate on nature and culture in relation to gender, what is most important, and so on. They require only an agreement that gender includes essential cultural and social elements. Our strategy was to develop models that may be applied across disciplines, rather than polarizing the debate, in which case gender becomes
The three models were developed as part of the FRONT project to obtain an overview of the comprehensive data material, and further develop academic discourse both within the project and at the faculty. They are, in other words, unique to the project, although they are in part based upon models and findings from other research, as referred to in the relevant chapters. The intention behind the models is to describe dominant patterns found in the material and how these patterns may be connected. Each model has a metaphor, a keyword, characterizing the process or the pattern it is meant to describe – Bøygen, Janus and Triview. The models are intended as working tools to better understand the results, rather than as a final conclusion.
As part of the project, the three models were presented and debated at seminars for employees at the faculty. The intended purpose was that employees would assess the models and their validity themselves, and generate a dialogue between the project’s researchers and its participants. For instance, the Bøygen model shows how external resistance may cause inner doubt on the individual level. Is this a relevant perspective? Are there other types of responses as well? The Janus model assumes that women (and men) face a combination of horizontal and vertical discrimination – is this a helpful perspective? Is it true, or not, that the centre of gravity shifts somewhere during the course of a life and a career, from horizontal differentiation to a more vertical and apparently gender-neutral ranking?
The Triview model describes how various views on gender balance lead to different types of both strategies of change and resistance to change. However, is it true that the perception of a lack of gender balance is characterized by three principal views, namely that it is not a problem, that it is a women’s problem, or that it is a systemic problem? These were questions that each individual could explore within their own research community or academic culture. The models were then further developed based on
Each chapter presents a model based on our analysis of the empirical results in the first part, in light of other relevant research and theory.
Chapter 7 on the Bøygen model summarizes research on the gender gap (from Chapter 5) in view of international research. Moreover, the chapter describes the hypothesis of the accumulation of disadvantages, and sketches a “Bøygen model” from this, in which several obstacles or disadvantages contribute to skewed selection. Bøygen creates inner doubt within the individual, who faces an invisible adversary.
Chapter 8 on the Janus model addresses the structural conditions contributing to Bøygen’s significance. It describes how equal discrimination based on gender exists alongside an indirect gender ranking. What may be regarded as “different” early in a career, in practice often means “inferior” later. The accumulation of disadvantages for vulnerable groups – in this case women – is not only about random incidents. They follow a dominant pattern from legitimate differentiation on a lower level to concealed and illegitimate gender ranking on a higher level. The model demonstrates the impact of gender role structures, even at a faculty where most people want gender equality.
Chapter 9, on the Triview model, addresses discourse and culture viewed from the three most common perspectives on gender balance reflected in the FRONT material: that the imbalance is not a problem or merely a small problem, that it is a women’s problem, or that it must be regarded as a systemic problem. Divided discourse on gender balance is linked to academic culture and organizational sensemaking. The chapter also includes a summary of connections between the three models.
Material from the FRONT project shows significant gendered differences in how the working environment and organizational culture are experienced. It is not a single factor that negatively affects women, but a complex process involving many components over time – with different causes and modes of action – together giving an accumulated disadvantage. These processes and their effects are summarized in a model called “Bøygen”, after the creature who creates obstacles and counter-forces to Peer Gynt in Ibsen’s play. The academic version of Bøygen operates partly through an “accumulation” of disadvantage throughout the academic career, and partly through experiences that tend to cause loss of self-confidence and motivation. External resistance and lack of support translates into inner doubt. The Bøygen model is discussed in relation to international research on the effects of barriers to women in academia. The model is the first of three theoretical contributions to the project (Chapters 7, 8 and 9) based on the empirical content in Chapters 1–6.
The material from the FRONT project described in the first part of this book demonstrates a considerable gender difference in experiences with the work environment and organizational culture. Women experience more problems than men from student level to top academic positions. How should these results be interpreted? Do they indicate that women and men have unequal opportunities for making a career in academia? Do they face different challenges? Do these experiences of the academic work environment and culture affect their trust in their own ability to succeed as scholars – and thus also their desire to continue their career in academia?
In this chapter, we will look at the material from the FRONT project in light of international research and discuss whether we are, in fact, dealing with a coherent
The chapter is organized in the following way: In the first part, we briefly summarize the results from the FRONT project. The second part presents international research on how experiences from the work environment and organizational culture might affect careers. Then we present the Bøygen model, summing up the evidence and describing how the model works. In the next part, we discuss how the model may explain a part of the overall picture of persistent numerical male dominance at the
Results from the FRONT project at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, University of Oslo, described in the first part of this book, demonstrate what we referred to as a “gender gap” in terms of experiences within the work environment and culture. This gap is sometimes relatively small, sometimes moderate, and other times very large. For instance, the results show that women experience negative social treatment three times as often as men do, academic devaluation twice as often, and professional isolation one and a half times as often. Additionally, they experience many other problems more often than men (see Chapter 5).
One main feature is that this gap is seen throughout. In other words, it is visible on a number of variables and questions in the survey. This fact not only applies to questions in which one would expect women to report more negative experiences than men, for instance, that women experience sexual harassment more often. But it is also the case for a significant number of questions where one would not necessarily expect a clear gender difference, such as those related to academic evaluation and professional isolation. The gender gap is visible on different position levels. Those responsible for the problems – those contributing to, for example, academic devaluation and professional isolation by exposing others to negative attention – are fellow students, colleagues, supervisors, and leaders. In other words, no distinct group stands out as particularly responsible. Instead, there is a pattern within different groups on all levels.
In the survey, the gender differences found in the responses are often considerable in the more summarizing questions related to work environment and career. One way to interpret this is that these answers
In international research, one of the problems affecting women particularly is called
Differences between women and men in the experience of the work environment and organizational culture similar to those found in the FRONT material were described already in the late 1990s when
Similar results have emerged from Nordic research. In a study of Finnish academia,
According to
The hypothesis of accumulated disadvantage has received considerable support in scholarly debates in relation to the natural sciences, especially in American research. Astrophysicist Meg Urry maintains that, “women were leaving the profession not because they weren’t gifted, but because of the slow drumbeat of being underappreciated, feeling uncomfortable and encountering roadblocks along the path to success” (
In a British and an Irish study of academia, the researchers also found a gender gap in additional disadvantages for women visible in many areas (
Other recent research points in the same direction. “Evidence shows that patterns of inequity in physics drive talented women out of the field” (
A physics major asks a senior male professor for advice on getting into a good doctoral program; he suggests that she flirt more at conferences. In his letters of recommendation for students applying to graduate school, a professor consistently describes his male students as “brilliant” and “outstanding”, while praising the women for being “conscientious” and “hardworking”. His male students are accepted to more competitive doctoral programs. (
According to the researchers, stories like these must be interpreted in context. They are “examples of the kinds of comments and situations that, taken in aggregate, can combine to create an environment that is unwelcoming for aspiring female physicists” (
The hypothesis of accumulated disadvantage was formulated as a response to the question of why women dropped out or were squeezed out from a career in academia despite the fact that much visible gender discrimination had disappeared. What researchers like
Historically speaking, gender discrimination in academia has gradually decreased, but it has also changed character. The door to higher education and research, once completely closed for women, was eventually opened – but this does not mean that gender has become insignificant (this is discussed further in Chapter 9). Current governance in academia is characterized by an emerging corporate culture (
When looking at this pattern as a whole, and taking into account that it was probably even stronger in earlier days, it is not surprising that a lack of gender balance is seen at the top, or that it has been changing slowly.
The hypothesis of accumulated disadvantage for women is thus essentially confirmed in our material (see also Chapter 5). However, it has some limitations and should be interpreted as a helpful “working model” rather than a fully developed model or theory. The hypothesis is not particularly precise. Accumulation may be interpreted as an additive index (an aggregate), in which small and big obstacles are counted together like a pile of different disadvantages randomly dispersed. This is hardly the case. The different parts of the pattern are connected and not randomly distributed. For instance, we see a tendency for negative social treatment to be more common on lower career levels, whereas negative academic treatment is more common on higher levels. The hypothesis does not say much about different “tracks” or gender-typical career paths, which are important in our material.
Neither does the hypothesis say anything about who or what creates these accumulated disadvantages or what causes the most important elements of the pattern. Is it primarily people, such as colleagues, or is it indirect structural conditions like the prioritization of certain types of academic interests and engagements, which are more compatible with men’s life patterns, preferences, and career development than women’s (
In the following paragraphs, we present a model that further develops this hypothesis by summarizing the results from recent research on the gender gap in academia.
The Bøygen model is based on material on the gender gap and accumulated disadvantage from the FRONT project, as well as other research. The model may help explain why women on higher levels are often ignored or decide to pull out shortly before the top level – and therefore, why the top level remains numerically male-dominated.
As a metaphor, we use the character “Bøygen”, known from Nordic folklore and used by Henrik Ibsen in his play
In the FRONT research team, we knew about the hypothesis of accumulated disadvantage from Nordic and international research, but the Bøygen model was developed chiefly from the FRONT project’s own results. Some of the international research is from countries well behind Norway in terms of gender equality (e.g., the USA), and also it is often several years old. Would a similar pattern appear in today’s Norway? We did not know.
The Bøygen model describes a tendency working over time, particularly in two ways. In part, disadvantages pile up or accumulate in experiences during the academic career, and in part, this accumulation leads to a loss of self-esteem and motivation in the longer term. External resistance becomes inner doubt – unless such tendencies are actually prevented or countered. For example, this could mean that although a woman might be genuinely viewed as a top researcher or very close to being qualified as a top researcher, she may not think of herself in such terms, and she might instead choose to “withdraw” from the tough competition at the top.
The Bøygen model is, first and foremost, a summary of the empirical research on the accumulation of disadvantages. It describes a clear empirical tendency, but this does not mean that the model governs everything that happens, or that it cannot be counteracted. Rather, the FRONT material says a lot about how researchers both modify it, work against it, and adjust to it through their career.
The model combines sociology and social psychology. It assumes that external (sociological) resistance
The Bøygen model is quite general, and it can describe many different experiences. In our opinion, this is in many ways an advantage. The model enables broad research based on different hypotheses. For example, it can be developed from
At the same time, the challenges become clear. As mentioned, the FRONT material consists of many
The Bøygen model is based on the assumption that external resistance eventually – as a main tendency – will result in individuals from the underprivileged group withdrawing from competition. This applies particularly to the type of resistance in which the underprivileged, for example women, are
However, inner doubt and loss of self-esteem are just a few possible responses to a work environment characterized by an uneven distribution of burdens and benefits. Theoretically, for instance, it is possible to distinguish between a compliant, a conflict-oriented and an innovative response to the organization’s formal and informal demands (
As mentioned, FRONT’s student survey demonstrates that female students more often experience negative social and academic treatment than their male fellow students, whereas the male students more often experience increased self-confidence during their studies (see Chapter 5). The results comply with a large student survey reporting that female students experience more pressure, anxiety and psychological problems than male students (
These results indicate that accumulated disadvantages are turned into personal concerns. They involve personal costs in the form of mental health issues. International research on students confirms that negative
Overall, the Bøygen model attempts to provide a summary of extensive Norwegian and international research material on the accumulation of disadvantages. Here, the model is empirically sound. It also has substantial support in terms of how disadvantages and obstacles lead to inner doubt, but it is slightly less solid and not fully specified here. What kind of “inner” or psychological effects are we talking about? These are obviously complex connections that will require a more refined version of the model. The interview material and the action research in the FRONT project confirm that self-confidence and self-esteem are essential for the development of future top researchers, for instance. At the same time, most of the women try different strategies
As research on gender in academia has gradually uncovered an interaction between different factors and problems maintaining imbalance and disadvantages for women, the need for better interpretations and
“The Medusa effect” (
According to the Medusa model, such patterns of masculine superiority (Matthew) and feminine reaction patterns (Matilda) are developed in interaction. The overall effect has a clearly negative term – Medusa. Of what does this Medusa effect consist? The researchers emphasize two key elements – institutionalized codes and gender stereotypes.
What surprised us the most was that several tenured employees and seemingly well-established female professors across the institutions expressed feelings of being socially isolated and professionally marginalized. We use the term “the Medusa effect” to analyze the factors that possibly contribute to such experiences. In particular, female professors in traditionally male-dominated disciplines made statements about professional rivalry and exclusion. Resistance was expressed through direct or subtle attempts at professional marginalization. Among the mentioned (domination) techniques used by colleagues from the work environment were: withholding common resources, lacking information, exclusion from informal networks, ignoring people at meetings, as well as not citing or referring to publications. Another was “converting” to less prestigious duties.
The results are similar in the FRONT material. The Medusa effect is based on theories of gender as an interactive relationship, not just a
Research on accumulated disadvantages has focused primarily on women’s problems. But is Bøygen actually a gendered figure? Does it only apply to women? Based on our material, the short answer is no – it affects both genders. However, women are affected considerably harder than men, and the ways in which it happens are more prominent and involve more obstacles. The problem pattern is broader and clearer for women than for men, both in the student and the employee survey. This is also visible in our interview material. Several men experience
It is nevertheless possible to imagine Bøygen appearing in different shapes – such as different shapes for women and men. Our material does not contradict this possibility. However, it is still mainly in relation to women that Bøygen becomes visible as an overall pattern. We do not find a gendered “problem profile” among men in the same way as we do among women (for a more detailed description, see Chapter 5).
The Bøygen model is developed from data relating to gender differences. Is it also relevant to other dimensions of social inequality, such as social
Systematic research addressing gender in relation to other dimensions of social inequality is still relatively rare (at least in the natural sciences). We mentioned the Asset study, which addresses sexual orientation and disability, among other dimensions. Here, the researchers found a tendency that the benefits for male respondents were limited to those who identified as heterosexual and those who did not have any functional problems (
The empirical mapping in the FRONT project covered a large number of areas and aspects related to academic work-life and career development. The core of this is experience data, that is, questions concerning how the participants experienced their careers. The results demonstrate a wide and consistent tendency that women experience larger problems or obstacles. These findings in FRONT are supported by international research.
This is thought-provoking in view of different social conditions and traditions, especially in terms of gender equality. Countries like the US and the UK are far behind Norway on international surveys.
The Bøygen model uses a dramatic metaphor, and in some ways, the differences are, in fact, dramatic. In the FRONT material, women report twice as often, or more, than men that they experience professional devaluation and other problems. Although some differences are moderate, they still count as part of a broad tendency. Much is “statistical” – that is, disadvantages that may perhaps not be as clear here and now, in each individual case. According to international researchers, skewed selection is often hidden, and the same can be seen in our data. It may appear negligible at first; the differences are not that dramatic. But as the Bøygen model shows, the overall effect can be considerable, and it may
The results show that the accumulation of disadvantages is not only a tendency appearing in many different areas (environment, culture, assessment, etc.). They also demonstrate a
The Bøygen model emphasizes the accumulation or piling up of problems, but it does not distinguish as clearly between different types of problems and their possible causes. It is an explorative model, a preliminary map that may be specified further in light of other research, as we discuss towards the end of this chapter. Nor does the model say much about what kind of structural conditions are involved in the gender gap. This is described in more detail in the next chapter, where we describe the two “faces” or modes of operation regarding gender, and how the link between these two contributes to the fact that problems are often hidden or interpreted as purely individual matters.
Work displacement is our term for “academic housekeeping” tasks that are unevenly distributed, including an unproportioned portion of peer reviews, oppositions, arranging conferences and other tasks, compared to “core” research activity.
It is important to emphasize that the Bøygen model was not a model, hypothesis or idea that the FRONT research intended to prove. Rather, it was an interpretation that developed gradually as we analyzed the data in the project. It is, therefore, in line with the grounded theory method in the FRONT project (see e.g.,
Both factors are obviously both “sociological” and “social psychological” if they are analyzed in more detail. Here, we only present the main angle and tendencies.
That is the “middle level” theory development, following, for example,
“Symbolic” includes negotiations involving gender in the organization, for example, among men or women, not just direct interaction between the genders. The theory of hegemonic masculinity emphasizes the development of masculinity in the interaction between men (see Chapter 2), whereas discourse theory and the theory of performativity focus on how different masculinities and femininities are performed or communicated (see Chapter 9).
In 2020, Iceland was no. 1 on the gender gap index (the most gender-equal), Norway was no. 2, Sweden no. 4, Ireland no. 7, Great Britain no. 21 and the US no. 53, in a ranking of 153 countries (
Why is there an entrenched gender imbalance in the upper echelons of academia, while there is growing gender equality at the lower levels? This chapter investigates the extent to which there may be structural underpinnings to the gender imbalance and presents a model for identifying these structures called the “Janus model” (from the Roman god Janus with two faces). Janus has a friendly face (gender differentiation) and a strict face (gender stratification). The chapter opens with a review of research on gender differentiation and careers, and the background for the Janus model. The starting point is the strong gender differentiation that characterizes academia, especially at the lower levels, while the drop in women and continued numerical male dominance mark the top levels. The model describes how differentiation contributes to stratification at higher levels such that women are in the minority especially at the top. What is at first difference, gradually becomes rank and status. The Janus model shows how accumulation of disadvantage and the Boygen model (Chapter 7) combine with structural conditions. The final part of the chapter looks at criticism of the Janus model, empirical nuance and theoretical development, and links to other new research.
Why does it take such a long time to create gender balance at the top in academia? Previous chapters have shown how academia is characterized by both an increased orientation towards gender equality and persistent gender discrimination, revealing a gender gap in experiences of the work
In this chapter, we discuss these structural modes of operation, and present a model to identify them called “the Janus model”. Our point of departure is that gender-imbalance in academia is both horizontal and vertical. The horizontal dimension includes the division into male-dominated and female-dominated disciplines, whereas the vertical includes gender-imbalance in top-level positions. The first refers to a situation in which the genders are different but equal, the second to a situation in which the genders have different ranks or statuses. These are two quite different ways in which gender has significance in academia, but they are nevertheless connected. The model has its name from Janus, the Roman god with two faces. In the Janus model, the university has two modes of operation or “faces” in relation to gender. One is a friendly or smiling face in which gender is visible, but only as a difference, a differentiation. The genders are distinct from each other but equal in status and value. They are not ranked. The other is a stern face in which gender is ranked, but this hierarchical ranking appears to be gender-neutral. It seems to have little to do with gender.
In the first part of the chapter, we discuss research on gender differentiation and careers, and describe the model’s background. Our point of departure is the strong gender differentiation that characterizes
Gender-based work distribution and gender role structures are key topics in research on gender and gender equality (see e.g.,
In academia, major changes have taken place in terms of student distribution within many disciplines, particularly from 1980–2005, as the proportion of female students increased.
This could be interpreted as a result of the students’ own choices, but also as a result of the way in which the degree programmes are designed and facilitated.
The fact that the university is a gender differentiating system means that gender matters. Different genders end up pursuing different educational paths. Academia is characterized by a gendered work distribution that becomes particularly visible as students begin to choose specializations and areas of expertise. This is a
Young men thus more often enter disciplines or subject areas with numerical male dominance, whereas young women enter disciplines or areas with numerical female dominance. Gender differentiation
The university is also a stratifying system. Some move up, others fall out. This is the institution’s mode of operation – selection is part of the job. However, the selection is supposed to be meritocratic, based on each individual’s performance and achievements, not on ascribed or attributed characteristics. The university should counteract – or at least not reinforce – social inequality linked to gender or other traits of a person. This provides the best possible chance to develop talents and respond to social responsibility. In other words, there is nothing wrong with “stratification” in itself. However, universities have an explanatory problem when stratification is clearly connected to social inequalities or grounds for discrimination,
Gender stratification means that the genders have different outcomes in terms of status, prestige, power, economy, etc. An example may be a high proportion of women on the lower levels of a discipline, while men on the top level still dominate the same discipline. The term describes the inequality but says nothing about motive or the driving forces behind it.
In order to understand how gender differentiation and gender stratification are connected in academia, we have created what we call the Janus model. It has its name from the Roman god Janus, the god with two faces. Janus was known for combining two different forms or having two
The two faces correspond to the two modes of operation in the model: a “nice” differentiating mode, and a “stern” stratifying mode. The model shows how the two recreate gender imbalance at the top. It also shows how the centre of gravity changes towards the top of the career ladder. The “friendly” face is most visible on the lower levels. The “stern” face becomes more visible on higher levels.
The Janus model builds on the results from the FRONT study, especially the two surveys carried out at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. These findings present evidence of a gender gap in experiences (as documented in Chapter 5) – yet the obstacles change shape along the career path. For instance, young women experience more social devaluation, whereas older women experience more (or continued) professional devaluation. The model emphasizes that what is first “different” in terms of choice of education and career path, can become gradually more “ranked” or stratified. Gender matters in ways that result in renewed inequality, for example in the absence of women at the top. In this way, the Janus model helps explain
The Janus model demonstrates patterns, and how they may be connected in general, but it does not fully explain what happens on the individual level. However, an imagined example may illustrate the connection between the model’s two mechanisms.
A fundamental idea in the model is that open discrimination based on gender may be avoided through a
Well, there are exceptions [to the formal regulations]. We just need to get things done. The last researcher we recruited came in more randomly. He is the one sitting down the corridor there.
(Professor, male)
In the above examples, gender works
Based on this model, gender difference becomes embedded in the system’s mode of operation, which has a negative effect in the long run, especially for women. Thus, the model slightly resembles the Bøygen model, and the hypothesis of accumulated disadvantages for women (Chapter 7), while at the same time enabling the interpretation of
The Janus model describes
In principle, there is nothing “wrong” with Janus’ two faces – taken individually. Gender differentiation is legitimate in academia, as in the rest of working life. As already mentioned, stratification is legitimate, too, as long as it is neutral, objective, and not skewed. The problem arises when the presumably neutral meritocratic selection in reality involves gender bias, as our research indicates. Each of the two main tendencies – differentiation and stratification – may thus appear legitimate and meritocratic in themselves, if they are considered individually. It is the connection between the two that becomes problematic, and this is usually hidden and difficult to see in context.
The Janus model describes two structures in academia – differentiation and stratification – that together contribute to maintaining gender-imbalance. The model demonstrates how these structures can make it more challenging to create change with regard to academic culture, prestige and gender-balance, particularly at the top.
The model is not based on the idea that women’s problems – slightly simplified – can be explained only as a result of male resistance. The point is rather that this is how the organization works, “This is how we do things here”. There does not have to be a very strong degree of male dominance or active discrimination within the organization. On the contrary, the men within the organization often emphasize the things they do to promote women and gender equality – as they do in our material. However, assessments indirectly related to gender affect academic institutions and cultures. The road from “different” to “inferior” can be short.
The Janus model thereby helps explain why the FRONT material shows a widespread
How well are the model’s hypotheses empirically substantiated? Let us examine the model’s four central hypotheses:
The first hypothesis is that structural factors can largely explain the persistent imbalance alongside explanations related to personal interaction and individual actors. We do not know precisely what “largely” means here. The model does not claim that structures mean everything and actors nothing. We do not take a stand, we are just saying that both are operative.
The other hypothesis is the distinction between horizontal and vertical gender difference, gender differentiation and gender stratification, which is well founded in research. These are partly overlapping patterns, but also distinct tendencies with different modes of operation.
A third hypothesis is that horizontal gender segregation (gender differentiation) changes in the direction of a vertical division (gender stratification) towards the top of the career ladder. The model assumes that both tendencies are operative on all levels, but with changing emphasis. The “stern” face becomes more important on the higher levels, whereas the “friendly” face becomes more ambiguous. The significance of differentiation is reduced, whereas the significance of stratification increases.
What do we know about this change? Here, research is less unequivocal, but we nevertheless have substantial support both in the FRONT material and other studies. For instance, the major British Asset survey on the natural sciences found that stratification increased on higher position levels (
However, the sequence does not
A fourth hypothesis is that the combination of the two structures, and the way in which gender de facto impacts meriting and prestige towards the top of the system, are
That gender stratification and gender discrimination are largely indirect or hidden is confirmed both in the FRONT material and other research (see e.g.,
As described, the Janus model is created based on empirical findings. But the model also has a theoretical background. That gender-related discrimination and gender oppression in general have taken more indirect, hidden forms is a well-known view within research on gender and gender equality (see e.g.,
Based on critical theory of power and social stratification (social inequality and dimensions of discrimination), a stratifying and discriminatory social mechanism
According to critical theory, oppression becomes gradually more subtle and hidden in modern society. Oppression is transformed into a “compromise mechanism” (
The gender system is central in this critical perspective on power in society (
The Janus model is founded on the distinction between stratification and differentiation in research on gender roles and gendered division of labour. It is not alone in describing gender discrimination as an indirect process. For example, in her model of the gender system,
The Janus model takes this a step further through a more general division between differentiation and stratification. It is a structural model. When the two structures are connected, problems arise. This will tend to recreate the Matthew effect (men are credited), the Matilda effect (women are bypassed), and the Medusa effect (combining the two) as empirical patterns in academic communities and cultures, and reestablish a neutralized male norm.
Models that can be tied to the Janus model have also appeared in other recent research. In a study of academic recruitment at three Norwegian universities,
An obvious criticism of such models, including the Janus model, is that the division into some “important” tendencies or factors is too simplistic and thus misleading. Who knows whether these are the most important ones? Should we not instead look at how they are connected in real life? Most people know that the link between “different” and “inferior” is close when it comes to gender. Could this be a better point of departure?
That gender power and gender difference are often linked is correct, empirically speaking, but this does not diminish the importance of the analytical distinction between them. Gender stratification and gender differentiation are two different things. Low atmospheric pressure and rain are also often connected, empirically speaking, but we do not drop the analytical distinction because of this.
In its first, simple form, the Janus model, as described in
We therefore saw the need for further empirical development, and some attempts towards a more empirically precise model were created and presented. None of them were perfect. However, they demonstrate how the model may be used as a working model and developed further.
Here, we no longer accept a “simple” diagonal line from differentiation to stratification but try to nuance it based on our knowledge of the empirical pattern. The broken line (blue) represents a correction of the diagonal. The figure is not a full solution but an example of how the Janus model may be improved based on new empirical data.
The point of departure is both our empirical data and other recent research. As already mentioned, we see increasing gender differentiation on the lower levels of the career ladder, but the direction becomes less clear higher up. The main point is that stratification builds upon differentiation, but differentiation probably does not diminish once it has been established. The upper half of the broken line is perhaps, empirically speaking, more vertical – the degree of differentiation is more or less the same, although the explicit
It is also uncertain whether the uppermost part is more gender-stratifying than the levels below. However, research presents a picture of strongly gendered-skewed selection at the top, related to prestige and funding of excellence and outstanding research (
It may also be the case that gender stratification is more prominent on the lower levels (although it is often hidden behind differentiation) than presumed in the first version of the model. This has been corrected to some extent in the second,
It is also possible to imagine more “ideal” versions of the model, where Janus has largely abdicated, and the model no longer has the same strong effects. A simple version was presented at the seminars (
This version of the model is an outline of possible future development. On the one hand, we presume that socialization, family and gender roles still pull the curve upwards (to the left in the figure). On the other hand,
The action research in the FRONT project has demonstrated that these types of models are “useful to think with”, particularly when they are empirically open and flexible and do not require researchers to take a stance in advance. They can explore on their own. Are the obstacles that women encounter a mix of horizontal and vertical discrimination? Is it true, or not, that the main emphasis shifts over the course of one’s life and one’s career path from horizontal differentiation to more vertical and apparently gender-neutral ranking? Each and every one can examine the conditions within their own research community and their own academic culture. Once you have two faces, you may just as well have many. The Janus model, both in its first, simple version, and later with a possible empirical modification, has functioned as an eye-opener and created curiosity in the FRONT project’s seminars and other initiatives.
The material from the FRONT project, not just from the action research, but also from the questionnaires and interviews, suggests some crucial points of improvement in the Janus model, although we have not had the opportunity to explore these in detail. Among other things, it concerns “tracks” and “connections”.
The model starts with the general assumption of an even diagonal from student to professor upwards on the career path. In practice, experiences are more varied. The model displays a macro pattern, that is, a general tendency on the institutional level, but conditions are somewhat different on the intermediate or meso level (the organization), and on the micro level (the small group, the individual). Although the sum total, a
Committee A is perhaps gender-neutral, but it is succeeded by committee B, which more informally takes gender into consideration in its recommendation. Students A and B are perhaps evaluated gender-neutrally, yet the assessment is indirectly based on gender, because the evaluation of central and peripheral disciplinary fields is connected to gender. The FRONT material indicates that indirect mechanisms such as these are essential. For instance, the material shows that young men more often than young women think they have “talent” for research (Chapter 5). Researchers promoting their own talent are more frequently cited (
This is not – officially speaking – about gender discrimination. But this is how it often works, in objective terms. Women are worse off. In the next chapter, we discuss this in more detail, addressing discourse and ideology, and how structures affect culture.
The core of the Janus model is the two faces of academia – the division between a friendly face centred on difference, and a stern face centred on power. The division or split often occurs over time, through the delay described above, as the significance of (open) gender differentiation
However, both tendencies are also often present here and now in the FRONT material, when “different” drifts into “inferior” in regard to women. This usually happens when gender becomes subject to a “symbolic translation” (
What is referred to as
Based on the FRONT material, gender distribution often corresponds to how “soft” or “hard” the subject areas are assessed. Gender differentiation is linked to the academic prestige hierarchy in the sector (see Chapter 2). It also includes to what extent women and men feel “at home” in the different disciplines and subject areas.
One question that has emerged in the debate concerning the Janus model is whether it applies to academia in general or only to the natural sciences. Is there any reason to assume that the model is more relevant to the natural sciences than to other disciplines? We do not know for certain, but we presume that the model’s main features are applicable across disciplines. It is a common feature that the proportion of women decreases considerably towards the top in academia.
At the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo, the proportion of women on the PhD level is 44 per cent, and it drops to 22 per cent on the professor level. Within medicine, the percentage drops from 61 per cent on the PhD level to 36 per sent on the professor level. Within the social sciences it drops from 62 per cent to 34 per cent, in the humanities the drop is from 60 per cent to 36 per cent, and within
This may indicate that even though some things are characteristic of the natural sciences, the main features of the pattern of accumulated disadvantages and the Janus model are much the same (the effect is at least quite similar). We do not know this for sure until the FRONT study is replicated in other disciplines.
It is possible that the natural sciences are “backwards”, but they might also be at the forefront of change precisely because the problems have been so obvious.
What I also thought was really nice, then, was, in a way, to have awareness of this, to be a little aware of, in a way, why … if the candidates are equal, why would you prefer one over the other, and then be a bit aware of that you perhaps, yes that you perhaps unconsciously may prefer the man, and that you need to think about that when you make assessments.
(Female master’s student with experience from student politics, interview)
Another important question is whether the Janus model applies to different dimensions of social inequality, or if it applies only to gender. Both the Janus and the Bøygen (the Boyg) models are developed on a broad basis grounded in theory of social inequality, not only gender and power. Critical gender role theory has had a certain “intersectional” approach for a long time, in which researchers examine various grounds for discrimination, such as gender and class, in connection – something we also do in the FRONT project (Chapter 6).
The Janus model is more specific with regard to gender, while also including important factors relating to ethnicity and class. It is more specific because the gender division is much more apparent than other divisions in our material (Chapter 6). Gender is much more marked as an “accepted difference” in degree programmes and career paths than ethnicity and class. Class (parents’ educational background) does admittedly play an important role in recruitment to academia, but it is also highly under-communicated. The material demonstrates ethnic segregation, but gender segregation is greater (Chapter 6).
The Janus model thus can help to identify various factors within other dimensions as well, such as ethnicity and class. It is a “combo model”. The combinations are doubtlessly somewhat different within other dimensions, but the method itself may be helpful. Being “strange” or “somewhat different” is treated differently upwards on the career path. The model is a contribution to a mapping of this terrain.
The Janus model describes academia’s two faces – one friendly, one stern. It contributes to an understanding of why gender balance is difficult to achieve on the top level in academia, and why gender segregation persists. Although the organization works towards gender equality, important structural and cultural mechanisms counteract this effort. Considerable acceptance of gender segregation at the beginning of a career is part of a pattern that disqualifies women or makes them withdraw further up on their career path. The result is referred to as a “leaky pipeline” in international research. Difference becomes ranking. This is the core of the Janus model. Gender difference that is considered legitimate at the beginning
The Janus model can facilitate an explanation of how accumulated disadvantages and “Bøygen” (the Boyg) work over time. The work environment may be supportive of gender equality, while professional, structural and cultural mechanisms work to the detriment of women. The model can explain how gender imbalance is sustained, despite an emphasis on gender equality and relatively limited direct gender discrimination within the organization.
Disciplines such as medicine and odontology went from being male-dominated disciplines to having a clear majority of women. The same development took place in higher education within the social sciences, law, economy and administration, and some of the humanities (
In other words, along the lines of a “system problem”, see Chapter 9 on the Triview model.
We use “social inequality” as the term is commonly used today, i.e., social stratification related to gender, ethnicity, sexuality and other traits, often referred to as “grounds for discrimination” (see Chapter 6).
Differentiating or treating the genders differently is what we call gender differentiation. The ranking of genders we call gender stratification. We are “dusting off” a forgotten distinction within gender role sociology (
Partly with question marks, indicating where this pattern seems to be most common.
Among these are also studies of the “technology culture” characterizing some parts of the faculty (
In addition to problems towards the top of the career ladder, skewed selection leads to segregation, often with unfortunate effects for the highly underrepresented gender in a discipline. This is discussed in Chapter 9.
Structural or “passive” discrimination and “active” discrimination based on gender are often connected (
In other words, gender relations are, to a greater extent, personal and – according to economic research – more characterized by distribution and gift exchange (including household and family relations) compared to class relations, which are characterized more by commodity exchange and market relations. For a case study of labour and family in technology communities, see
For an example of recent Norwegian research looking at gender and other grounds for discrimination in connection, see
Everyone knows that the top levels of academia are still often imbalanced, with more men than women. This is commonly described as an absence of women, or a “leaky pipeline” towards the top. But how is this imbalance understood and reflected upon? And what does the understanding of the problem of gender imbalance mean for the overall culture of the organization? This chapter looks at how gender and gendered differences are described and discussed at the University of Oslo’s Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, extending the social analysis (Chapter 7) and the structural analysis (Chapter 8) in the direction of discourse and cultural analysis, based on the very concrete main issue of the FRONT project: the top-level imbalance. Why is it there? What do faculty staff and students say, about this? Three typical views appear in the FRONT material, and are presented and discussed: first, that the gender imbalance is
It is an objective fact that there exists a gender imbalance in positions and disciplines at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo, yet it is nevertheless possible to describe and interpret this in various ways. This is already evident in the way gender imbalance is often discussed: There is an “absence of women” or “women drop out”. The imbalance thus becomes something that primarily concerns women. When 78 of 100 professors at the faculty are men, one might imagine that men’s “presence” would be a topic for discussion, but this is usually not the case.
In this chapter, we take a closer look at how gender and gender differences are referred to and discussed at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. Our point of departure is how gender imbalance is interpreted in different ways by staff and students at the faculty. We describe three typical points of view: 1) the gender imbalance is not a problem; 2) it is a women’s problem; or 3) it is a systemic problem, and we connect these to sensemaking within the organization. In this way, we complete the empirical picture of the Bøygen (the Boyg) model from Chapter 7, and the structural picture of the Janus model from Chapter 8, by adding a more cultural and discursive model. We have called this the
The chapter is organized in the following way. In the first part, we present the Triview model based on our material. We then look at the model from a historical perspective, above all related to material on the recruitment of women at the University of Oslo. In the next part, we discuss how the three views affect both equality work and daily life in the organization, and what significance these views may have for working to create change. We also consider the model in light of theoretical developments and organizational change and innovation, which is the topic of the third part of this book.
Early on in the FRONT project, we became aware that staff and students perceived gender imbalance in very different ways. This became particularly obvious through interviews and action research, where we
Not a problem
A women’s problem
A systemic problem
A slightly dramatic metaphor for the three views is the one-eyed cyclops of Greek mythology. The three oldest cyclopes (in Hesiod) were known as Thunder, Lightning and Light. Each sees with only one eye and often causes trouble for humans. The model presumes that each view has a certain metaphorical resemblance to such a cyclops.
The point is to emphasize that each view can be somewhat one-eyed. They are one-eyed because they each provide one specific interpretative framework having significance both directly regarding the problem of gender balance, and indirectly in terms of other features of academic culture and work organization. If “the eye that sees” does not recognize the lack of gender balance and gender equality, it will affect the organization.
In the first view, “not a problem”, the interviewees emphasize that the situation is fine as it is. It will adjust itself in due time, and an absence of women is not a problem within these disciplines in academia.
Traditionally, the harder sciences have been considered more masculine, and men have that is traditionally, I don’t know if there is something about the male brain, that it is more … [I] think that such abstract, mathematical problems are more interesting than the more practical.
(Professor, male)
Historically speaking, this view can be traced back to the period when the door to academia was closed to women, without that being considered a problem (for men). This is described further below.
In the FRONT material, the view, “not a problem”, is more common among men than women. In the interviews, the reasons why imbalance is not a problem are primarily connected to women’s family responsibilities and preferences. According to this view, the imbalance is usually interpreted as a result of women’s (and men’s) own choices, and it is therefore not a problem, at least not a major problem. For example, if women and men choose that women take more responsibility for children and family, they should be allowed to do so – even if it means that academia is gender imbalanced in the higher positions. Another important characteristic among those holding this view is a strong faith in meritocracy. “Here the only thing that matters to us is qualifications,” one of the interviewees stated. The idea is that gender is insignificant in assessment and recruitment processes – and that the lack of women in academia is caused by prevailing circumstances and attitudes in society at large and, therefore, not something that academia can change.
The other view, that the imbalance is a “women’s problem”, is based on the premise that the absence of women in top positions is a real problem that should be taken seriously, and that academia needs more women. Again, the reasons for the imbalance are often explained by women
A “women’s problem” is not necessarily considered unfavourable for women. It is just something “different”.
Whether it is caused by stagnant gender roles or simply that women are more interested in, in that part of life, I can’t tell, but I believe that, that simply – women choose otherwise.
(Professor, male)
Some of the interviewed men in top positions also claimed that women not choosing academia are “smart”. They choose to leave academia in favour of better-paid jobs and better working conditions in the private sector, or a more protected position in the public sector, a job they can combine with collecting children in kindergarten at four o’clock. They prioritize a “reproductive advantage” over an academic career.
The idea of imbalance as a women’s problem appears in various ways in the interviews. Women may be considered weak, as victims, or as underestimated and strong. Common to these ideas is that women are considered to be special, whereas men become the general or neutral. These points of view are thus clearly focused on women.
The third view, that gender imbalance is a “systemic problem”, allows greater insight into the fact that the problem is everyone’s responsibility, and (implicitly at least) also men’s responsibility. Gender imbalance is tied to the work organization, the institution’s and the organization’s mode of operation, environment and culture.
“Systemic problem” is a point of view that most clearly emerges in the project’s interviews of those experienced in the academic system
These tendencies in the interview material correspond to results from the surveys and the action research. For instance, we see that the willingness to regard gender imbalance as a systemic problem is closely connected to gender equality efforts of the faculty’s leadership (see Chapter 10, “From Biology to Strategy”).
Considering the three views together, it becomes clear that they vary in terms of where you are on the career ladder, as well as to which gender you belong. Men at the top are less inclined to criticize the system than women farther down in the organization. They have a more optimistic view of how the work organization operates and are more concerned with defending meritocracy. In interviews, they often talk about a work organization under pressure, related to competition and internationalization. Men, less often than women and juniors, agree that the system is characterized by male dominance even though they often agree that an academic career in their field, especially internationally, is “masculinely” designed.
This resembles a rule formulated in Nordic research on men back in the 1980s by Lars Jalmert: Men are more willing to talk about male dominance at a distance than at close range and in relation to themselves.
Women, minorities and younger researchers are generally more critical of the system’s mode of operation than men are. For example, we ask whether the work environment is not really meritocratic – that is, if the respondent experiences having to work harder than colleagues in order to be recognized. Here, the proportion of affirmative answers is considerably larger among women than among men, and larger among ethnic minorities than among the majority (see also chapters 5 and 6).
At the same time, these groups are less familiar with how the system works and do not, to the same degree, see the system from within. The results of this skewed selection become clear from below, but the actual system that creates this skewed outcome is often vaguer for those on lower levels.
The views in the Triview model have an important historical dimension. Insight into this dimension is key to understanding how traditional perspectives on gender can be maintained, and still be part of the framework for discourse at the university.
Many believe that academia has long been open to women and men on roughly equal terms. They are not aware of how recent many of the changes related to gender have been, historically speaking. This needs to be included in the picture in order to understand the situation today.
In Norway, women were gradually accepted into a purely male academy from the late nineteenth century. But this was a slow process. It has been 140 years since the “artium law”
For example, Helga Eng was the third Norwegian woman to receive a doctoral degree (in 1913), and she later became the first female professor of pedagogy (1938) – after 25 years. The University of Oslo did not get its first female professor of medicine until 1972, psychology in 1973, law in 1987, and political science as recently as in 2000. It was sarcastically
Medicine and the natural sciences were among the few disciplines to admit women initially, and the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo were early in hiring their first female professor, Kristine Bonnevie, who became a professor of biology in 1912. But afterwards the proportion of women changed very slowly. A Norwegian study of women in medicine demonstrates how strongly the male role model persisted (
In many disciplines, there were still only men in professor positions until the 1970s – or even later. The imbalance continued in many fields, such as theology, which still had only a marginal proportion of female professors in the 2010s.
As late as around 1970, women amounted to only approximately 20 per cent of graduated students in the faculties at the University of Oslo, with the exception of the humanities, where the proportion of women had risen to approximately 40 per cent (
Christina Franzén, head of the Business Leadership Academy in Stockholm, summarizes how “gender difference” has been interpreted:
Those who know their history know that women, for a very long time, have not been considered suitable for holding positions of power in society due to their biology. This has been the case throughout our Western history. For instance, Aristotle believed women to be unreliable because they were more developed in the lower parts of the body than in the upper ones. For a long time, even in the twentieth century, it was considered dangerous for women to think. Too much thinking could result in women’s wombs wandering around their bodies, negatively affecting their reproductive ability. This could, in turn, lead to hysteria, a term deriving from the Greek term hystera, meaning uterus. In other words, being hysterical was connected to women’s reproductive organs. (
Throughout the history of women in academia, we see a tendency in which their absence (and men’s presence) is explained by way of statements rather than empirical arguments. The discourse on gender balance began with a “thunderous speech” in the nineteenth century. One did not precisely
Another version of the view “a women’s problem” is not about the absence of women as a problem, but that their
The views in the Triview model make more sense in light of such longstanding male-dominated traditions in which women, until relatively recently, historically speaking, have been considered special or “divergent” compared to a “male normal”.
The three views in the Triview model have a basic historical foundation, a period in which they were most dominant as explanations for
Note that the model relates to the academy’s dominant self-understanding of gender and gender imbalance – rather than, for instance, how feminist or critical researchers understand these issues. These researchers have criticized gender imbalance as a systemic problem for a long time. It should also be noted that there were counter-arguments and alternative views in each historical phase. Triview deals only with the main rule or the main view.
Although each view in the model has its historical background, an essential feature of the model is that the three can be
Do the three views have any practical implications for the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences? Do they affect only the willingness to work for gender equality, or also how the work for change is organized? According to
A general characteristic in research on gender in academia and other high-status professions is that ideology and discourse play an important role, not just structures or actions (see e.g.,
Thus the Triview model describes three views that may also be referred to as paradigms, and are connected to different ways of understanding and different types of discourse on gender. The three become particularly clear in questions about the lack of gender balance. The three may be used individually or in combination, and the effect may be that changes are put on hold or terminated.
At the same time, it is important to delimit the model from ideology or myths. The cyclops as a metaphor is only valid to a certain extent. Each view is
This potential for further investigation and change is usually (not always) weakest in the non-problem view (the cyclops Thunder), somewhat more prominent in the women’s problem view (the cyclops Lightning), and strongest in the understanding of a systemic problem (the cyclops Light). Generally speaking, the systemic problem perspective is clearly the perspective that, to the greatest extent, allows increased knowledge, thematization and the possibility for change. At the same time, here and now, the chance of gaining support for gender equality measures may increase if they are presented from a more traditional perspective, such as solving a women’s problem.
A final important, empirical point is that the triview of gender imbalance is not a peripheral or isolated element. It is strongly linked to views on other important issues and topics. The view of “meritocracy” in particular is clearly connected in the material. The greater the willingness to problematize gender imbalance, the greater the chance to take a stance in contrast to a “relentless” or purely objectivist interpretation of meritocracy. Ideas relating to competition and internationalization are also clearly connected.
Those who are concerned that gender balance is a systemic problem are also often of the opinion that a Norwegian university should not only “adjust” to increasingly challenging international competition – but also take the lead in developing alternative models. Such a model could, for instance, be based on Norwegian or Nordic advantages as welfare states with solid traditions for collaboration, both in research and in working life generally. At the same time, they often express scepticism towards what we might achieve in Norway – a more “welfare oriented” academia might not be able to assert itself in international competition. Academic culture, at least in the natural sciences, is to a great extent international,
Based on our material, the triview is linked to sensemaking in the organization. Gender may seem like a peripheral problem in many STEM disciplines, but it is connected to other important factors. Gender balance often
The view of gender balance reflected in our material is not only connected to views of other central academic issues, such as meritocracy, publication points, and prestige, but also to what makes sense in the organization. This perspective forms an underlying paradigm or is a part of this paradigm, to use
The FRONT material does not include a complete and detailed mapping of the three views and types of discourse we describe here, and it
For example, the non-problem view is more controversial now than it used to be, and those adhering to this view, for instance on the grounds of biology, often emphasize that they are no experts on gender. They say they “do not really know”, but they use biological gender difference as a hypothesis or working explanation. This especially applies to some of the male professors. Among the master’s students, we see that men, in particular, emphasize the genders as “fundamentally different”.
We assume that the dominant interpretation within the Triview model will have a major impact on what is actually done in order to rectify the problems. Institutions characterized by a more “advanced” view will achieve greater changes compared to those characterized by a “medium” or “backward” view.
The Triview model is an extension of a division already well-known in international research on gender and organizational development. Should we solve the imbalance problem and the lack of gender equality by “fixing the women”, or should we rather “fix the system”? (
The material demonstrates how the interpretation of a lack of gender balance is essential not only in a concrete manner, when it comes to job appointments, but also more generally for the organization’s culture. Gender often lurks in the background – it is not addressed but is nevertheless indirectly or implicitly part of an overall picture, as a crucial general condition, for instance in assessments of academic hierarchies and prestige (
An important distinction between the three views concerns what is possible and what is impossible. If a problem is not perceived as a problem, the chance of it being possible to do something about it is greatly reduced, or at least the motivation to investigate and possibly do something is reduced. If it is a women’s problem, perhaps the organization is held more accountable, even though it is first and foremost considered women’s responsibility to change the conditions. If it is a systemic problem, the scope of possibility increases even more. Doing something, creating change, becomes possible and relevant. This is in line with research on reorganization and restructuring in the workplace, and demonstrates the contrast between a “scope of possibility” and a “scope of impossibility” associated with hopelessness. Employees who are involved early in reorganization processes, informed along the way and activated as participants, develop a “scope of possibility” in their own understanding of the process, and are better at dealing with reorganization and staff reductions than employees who are left within the “scope of hopelessness”, for example because they lose their job.
“Hopelessness” does not, however, characterize the situation in academia, but rather “impossibility” – the idea that gender differences are what they are and impossible to change. In some ways, the scope of hopelessness and the scope of impossibility resemble each other, including the actual effects – both lead to passivity and a lack of proactive response (
As already mentioned, the scope of impossibility is often indicated through presumed biological barriers in the interviews. If gender imbalance is explained in terms of genetics, hormones or brain differences, one cannot and should not do anything.
Since I am in [the natural sciences], I must be allowed to say it, it is a larger, whether it is the gender environment or genetics, I believe it is genetics, but there is a larger variability in cognitive abilities among men than among women. The way I think, you know, it has to do with X and Y and things, it has to do with chromosomes, you know, and … of course, this means that more men are not very smart, and also that more men are really smart. And if you
(Male top researcher)
It says something about the debate climate that this man begins by saying, “I must be allowed to say it”. What was perhaps fine to say ten or twenty years ago is no longer acceptable. He
Discourse theory is key to understanding the culture of the faculty under investigation. It focuses on communication, positioning and power. We use discourse theory in combination with other perspectives in this book, such as structural theory (Chapter 8), without claiming that discourse is definitive or that gender is a purely discursive issue. The Triview model’s point is that discourse plays an important and active role, and that words and actions
What, then, decides whether the organization adopts a systemic perspective and develops a greater degree of gender equality and gender balance? Research on the organizational level shows considerable variation,
At the same time, women may be well represented, or in the majority, in various disciplines without that fact automatically creating increased gender equality. The significance of gender proportion is clear, but many other conditions contribute to the situation, including discourse and academic debate, informal culture and prestige.
A case study of the meaning of gender within a specific research tradition (action research) illustrates this point. The study demonstrates how both discourse and demography played a role, contributing to a devaluation of gender perspectives in the early development of action research (
Regardless of which eye is used, the three cyclopes all have their faces turned approximately in the same direction – towards women. Although the view “women’s problem” is the only view that makes this highly explicit and clear, the other views also have a women-focused understanding of the problem. This also occurs within the systemic view, for instance, when one uses the new term “systemic”, or “system problem”, yet one still thinks of the problem in traditional terms as a “women’s problem”. What is the consequence of this? What happens when the problem is perceived as a women’s problem? What happens when men “disappear”?
The problem revolves around women, although in slightly different ways. It is
In many people’s opinion, it is a women’s problem, be it in the natural sciences or society in general including women’s responsibility for children and family, and this is the main issue that needs to be changed.
According to some respondents, it is a systemic problem, the idea being primarily that the system needs to change the conditions for women through special facilitation.
The consequences of thinking about the imbalance as a women’s problem rather than a common problem, including a male problem, are not small or trivial. As a tendency, gender discourse is pushed back to the idea of the woman as gendered and the man as normal and neutral
The imbalance is a ratio, and in order to understand that, both sides must be taken into account.
By revolving around gender as female, or something that primarily has to do with women, the debate also establishes a focus and “burden of proof”. Focus is directed at women, and as a tendency, the consequence
Finally, in this discussion, we will take a closer look at how the Triview model may be linked to diversity and the intersectional perspective that was presented earlier in the book (Chapter 6). We will also address how the model is connected to the two other models described in Part 2, the Bøygen and Janus models.
The Triview model was developed based on material on gender, but in our opinion, it is also relevant in terms of other dimensions of social inequality, such as social class and ethnicity. The point of departure is the relation between the “normal” and the “deviant”, a
Such changes, which are not only limited to gender, require that institutions address diversity and social inequality on a broad scale. Taking gender balance seriously can be a “door opener” for this. But it is also important to learn from the problems related to the “systemic perspective” in other types of diversity work. The term “system”, for example, is very broad and can easily become vague, and the idea that “everyone” should rectify it may, in practice, mean that little is done, and no one takes responsibility. “Everyone’s responsibility” may also mean “nobody’s job” (
The Bøygen model (described in Chapter 7) is relevant with regard to other types of social inequality, not just gender. The model describes how devaluation and obstacles drain self-confidence and motivation, and contribute to the exposed group being shut out and/or withdrawing from the most intense competition. The main features of the model probably apply to all “special” groups subject to devaluation. Likewise, in the case of the Triview model, we believe that the model’s main features have general relevance
The Janus model (described in Chapter 8) is different and is probably more specific in regard to gender than the other two. Here, we are less certain of its general relevance. The background for this is that gender division is much more visible than division based on other dimensions such as class, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. In our view, it is broader, more prolonged, and more internalized within the higher education system and academic sector.
How may we interpret the three models in connection to each other?
In light of discourse and culture, the Triview model may be seen as a continuation of Bøygen. Both models describe how the vulnerable group is not only overexposed to obstacles but also responsible for correcting them. The connection is clear.
As a point of departure, one could imagine that the three views (non-problem, women’s problem, and systemic problem) were more or less evenly distributed along the diagonal in the Janus model (see Chapter 8). The significance of gender differentiation is high on the student level, whereas gender stratification becomes more visible on the higher levels. Also, employees with more experience in academia think more often in “systemic” ways about problems. But it is not that simple. The inadequate recruitment of girls and women to important natural science disciplines has long been recognized as a problem, regardless of whether it has to do with the women or with the system’s mode of operation. And although higher-level employees often have a greater awareness of the system, criticism of the system is not necessarily greater here – it is often rather the opposite, since the notion of a “pure meritocracy” is strong, as we have demonstrated in previous chapters.
Students often perceive gender differentiation as a natural result of inherent gender differences (see Chapter 5). In the middle-levels with young researchers, where competition is often fiercest, many “external” considerations come into play, such as family and care responsibilities. Here, men’s careers often still have priority, without that necessarily being perceived as a systemic problem.
At the highest level, permanent academic employees in top positions, we find more awareness of the fact that the system, and how the university is organized, may have something to do with the issue. Although we also find more of a “story with a happy ending” emphasizing gender-neutral assessment in a well-functioning meritocracy. This may be linked to the hypothesis of accumulated effects, and the Janus model discussed previously.
As previously described, the material in the FRONT project reveals a major gender gap in terms of experiences, with women experiencing
The three models can contribute to an understanding of these patterns. According to the Bøygen model, criticism tends to be individualized and turned inwards – “there is something wrong with
The Triview model describes how the problem of gender imbalance is perceived and discussed at the faculty. It is characterized by three typical views – the problem is small or non-existent, or it is a women’s problem, or a systemic problem. There are two persistent features, especially in the first two views. They both focus on women, and men are barely given any consideration. Moreover, the problems are only to a small degree understood as symptoms of ongoing gender discrimination. Everybody “wants” the best. Both the faculty and the university prioritize gender equality. As a male top researcher and leader expressed in one of the interviews, leaders farther down in the system are “expected” to take gender equality into account. The Triview model, especially the two first and most common views, reveal a situation characterized by relatively little knowledge about the actual situation. The FRONT material shows other features. We see that additional burdens for women are greater than first assumed (Chapter 5), that they constitute a coherent pattern of accumulated disadvantages (Chapter 7), and that a combination of gender difference and ranking creates a structural mechanism working in women’s disfavour (Chapter 8). The Triview model helps shed more light on discourse and debate relating to this. It demonstrates a division
We see clear signs that the Triview discourse, which most often still revolves around the non-problem and the women’s problem, contributes to
The Triview model identifies a pattern of views and a discourse that tend to create passivity and lack of real change, since – among other things – it still revolves mainly around women as a gender, yet it is not static. In order to understand the model’s relevance, and conditions in academia more generally, it is, as mentioned, important to emphasize how
In the first part of this book, we asked whether imbalance has to do with
What happens when they try, now armed with new systemic understanding and support within the organization, is the topic for the next part of the book.
The cyclopes can be regarded as the natural scientists of their time – they were blacksmiths, a somewhat eerie and suspect occupation related to weapons, among other things. If we take the metaphor even further, one can imagine the non-problem as Thunder, the women’s problem as Lightning and the systemic problem as Light. This is very loose but not entirely misleading.
Such views are often based on an understanding of gender role differentiation as a “functional advantage” to society and/or families. For an updated overview of research on “comparative advantages” of gender division in families, see
This analysis is based on the overall project material, including what women say about men, but with a relatively low number of direct interviews with men (see Appendix “Method”).
Artium equals the British General Certificate of Education and American High school diploma.
However, the proportion of female theology professors increased from 14 to 29 per cent in 2020 (UiO, 2020).
See e.g.,
Or a “male norm” (
For a more detailed review of women’s gradual admittance into academia, see e.g.,
Kuhn’s analysis was, among other things, based on how the “wrong paradigm” could result in being burned at the stake in the later Middle Ages – early astronomy was denounced as the earth, not the sun, was considered the centre of the universe. The paradigm idea means that one can not only look at “pure facts” but also at how they are chosen, interpreted and presented. An evolutionary theorist notes: “Science is not a collection of facts, contrary to popular belief, but rather a
Bergh emphasizes that if you look at the development over time, it becomes clear that changes begin to occur around the same time as the feminist movement grows stronger. Advocates for gender equality fought within political parties to nominate women. Only after women are elected does general opinion begin to change. At the same time, the majority change their view when they start to see the results of what the minority has accomplished. The significance of gender proportions was also part of the Norwegian academic debate on “shrinking institutions” (with, e.g., Harriet Holter and Hege Skjeie), which we can only mention here.
Both – or more precisely – all genders must be taken into account. Here, we primarily note the absence of analyses of men.
This applies even though we also see tendencies of ethnic specialization, such as more non-ethnic Norwegians in vocational education, including technology, and few in the humanities. Selection with regard to social class is also relevant, although we cannot address that here.
We have examples of discursive power in relation to ethnic minorities and groups from a lower social class background in the FRONT material, but we do not have systematic data on this. For example, a minority might be seen as “exotic” but also “threatening”.
That is, the connection at the model level. We do not claim that it is empirically proven, although it is substantiated in our material.
Here we also need to consider that the system is strongly characterized by selection, and thus also by drop-out upwards in position levels. Unfortunately, we do not have systematic data on perceptions among those who have dropped out of the gradually more challenging competition towards the top. However, based on the indications we do have, they are characterized by both critical and personal elements (cf. “inner doubt” as a component in the Bøygen model).
In addition to the research described in the first two parts of this book, the FRONT project has consisted of various measures, in order to promote gender equality at the faculty. An important strategy has been
The three chapters are based on some common methodological and theoretical points of departure. The research following the measures was based on methodological elements from action research. This implies, among other things, that the researchers worked directly with the initiatives, and that these were developed and adjusted along the way in line with new knowledge that came to light. As a theoretical framework, the “doing gender” perspective was chosen, with particular emphasis on
Action research was developed as early as the 1940s by, among others, Kurt Lewin and John Dewey (
One branch of action research is action-oriented gender research, which combines research on gender with both learning and action theory (
An essential difference between action research and other types of research is that the researcher becomes an agent of change through actively participating in the process. The researcher’s position and function may vary, as can the dilemmas that may arise (
Action researchers have often been regarded as external agents of change, although some action research traditions have emphasized the internal organizational process, in which the researcher should be a neutral mediator, who helps create change based on the employees’ wishes as formulated, for example in dialogue conferences (
In FRONT, the external agency was clear – the measures were designed to improve gender balance in the faculty. The internal agency was developed and formulated among the participant employees along the way, in order to help implement the measures and overcome obstacles and barriers.
The researchers following the measures described in part three of the book had somewhat different roles.
The empirical material consists of field diaries and interviews. The researchers took notes by hand during the workshops, and at the end of each day they reviewed their individual notes and wrote a joint field diary. Flip-over sheets and other material produced by the participants were also collected and documented in the diary. In addition to the field diary, the empirical material for Chapters 10 and 12 consists of individual interviews with the participants. The semi-structured interviews took one to two hours each and were recorded and transcribed.
In the introduction to each chapter, we describe how we collected the material relevant to the chapter, as well as how we worked with the analysis of the empirical data.
The work within the initiatives was based on a scientific perspective, in which people create and construct their reality through interaction and dialogue with each other (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This involves seeing organizations as social constructions, and gender as an integrated part of the organization’s practices, culture, and power relationships (e.g.,
The FRONT project’s main objective was increased gender equality in the faculty. From an action research perspective, the first step in this work for change was to engage the organization in exploring and understanding where and how inequality is done – in other words, what is the point of departure for working towards the change that is about to happen? In the practical work with the initiatives, we therefore needed a method that could help increase awareness of and interest in how gender is, in fact, done in the organization. Choosing a method meant taking several things into account. For the method to work as an adequate point of departure for the initiatives, it had to be relatively easy to understand, and thus easily communicated and applied to the employees’ work for change at the faculty. At the same time, the method must be scientifically
The
According to
In the work with measures and initiatives in the FRONT project, we chose to use
Acker’s efforts were aimed at understanding the “gendered” organization’s modes of operations – that is, an organization that “does” gender even if it is officially neutral. Acker’s model for organizational change has later been developed further by Nordic researchers (among others,
The first approach is
According to Acker, culture is the focus of the next approach to examining how gender is done in organizations. The organizational culture becomes visible, and is expressed through symbols such as names of positions, duties, groups and meetings, work wear and dress codes, web pages, and different types of rewards, as well as the layout of the premises and the types of pictures hanging on the walls. The culture shows who is expected to work in the organization, and what they are expected to do. This means that the culture legitimizes the organization’s gender and power structure, and at the same time makes it natural.
Acker’s third approach to examining gender-doing in an organization is interactions. This entails all the situations within an organization
The last analytical approach is identity work. Acker describes identity work as bringing together the conflicting expectations of gender that exist in an organization into an understandable whole. We all interpret different expectations within an organization in terms of how someone with our gender, in our position, should behave. A major part of doing gender happens automatically, in that we adjust to expectations without being aware of doing so. If we are aware of the expectations, we can instead choose either to adjust to them, modify them, or break with them.
The four approaches model was used by the participants in the initiatives to examine their own organization. Their own and others’ observations have been systematized through the model’s four approaches, which in turn made it possible for the participants to discover patterns and structures in the organization’s everyday life.
The three chapters in the third part of the book differ from one another. We have obtained the empirical data from a range of measures and initiatives, we have collected it in different ways, and we have chosen to analyze it based on different theoretical frames of reference. However, we have been inspired by action research in all three studies, and all groups of participants have used the four approaches model described above to examine and systematize their own and others’ experiences of how gender is done within their organization.
In Chapter 10, “From Biology to Strategy: The Development of a Management Team”, we describe a series of workshops for the faculty’s management team and discuss the management team’s role in gender equality work. What can the team do, specifically, to ensure a culture change towards gender equality in the organization? And what sort of
In Chapter 11, “From Resistance to Change? Processes for Change Within an Organization”, we examine whether the management team’s measures have had any effect within the organization through an ana-lysis of another initiative, namely workshops for PhD supervisors on the topic of gender equality.
In Chapter 12, “From Exception to Norm: The Development of Resilience in a Network”, we analyze the effects of a network for female professors and associate professors. We examine what it means to be in the gender-minority group, and discuss how a network may develop resilience within an academic organization.
Note that this agency was in fact internal to the faculty and the university, who had asked for the project – but not to the local units – institutes and independent sub-organizations.
The development of the doing gender tradition is discussed and analyzed by Snickare (2012).
Research on gender equality projects emphasizes gender equality as a management responsibility, but not many studies focus on how management can organize and implement the process in order to achieve sustainable change. What should the management team actually do? How does the team need to develop in order to be capable of doing what needs to be done? The analysis in this chapter is based mainly on qualitative material in the form of interviews and notes from five workshop days with the management team at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at Oslo University. The data show how the methods and tools that the management team acquired in the workshops have not only given the team members knowledge in the areas they addressed during the workshops, but also the confidence to determine how to proceed in new areas. The concept of sensegiving (cf.
Researchers widely agree that the management team plays a crucial part in promoting gender equality in an organization. Therefore, the FRONT project chose to design an initiative, “Cultural Change Through Management Development”, specifically for the management team of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Oslo. The intention was to change the culture throughout the organization by providing leaders with the knowledge and tools needed for gender equality work.
In this chapter, we analyze the process of working with the initiative. We look at what the management team can do to develop sustainable gender equality work in the organization, and what the group needs to be able to do this.
Structurally, this chapter begins with a short summary of research on the importance of management’s role in gender equality work. This is followed by a description of the initiative that was implemented, data collection and methodology relating to this, and the theoretical framework of the study. In the main part of the chapter, we will describe two scenes, one from the first workshop and one from the last, to illustrate how the participants’ group discussions changed. We then analyze the process in the group and conclude by presenting and discussing our results in the light of other research.
Comparatively little research has been done on how gender equality can be organized and implemented to achieve sustainable change (
What is needed is not primarily the commitment of individual managers. Among other things, gender equality programmes require showing how various processes together impact an organization, and how leadership is constructed. This can only be achieved if the management team is on board (
A common way of initiating equality projects is to begin with awareness-raising efforts (cf.
Despite the increasing amount of research from a gender perspective on the conditions and opportunities in organizations, the process of improving gender equality can still be slow (
In a study of efforts to increase diversity,
As described above, management is often identified as the key to success when changing an organization. But not many studies exist on how management can organize and implement the process in order to achieve sustainable change. What should the team actually do? What does it mean, for instance, to take responsibility for equality work? How does the team need to develop in order to be capable of doing what needs to be done? If awareness is not enough, what else is needed? We will examine and discuss these issues further in the chapter.
The purpose of the initiative, “Cultural Change Through Leadership Development”, was to provide the faculty’s management team with the knowledge and tools they need to engage actively in gender equality work, which means to act according to a conscious gender equality strategy, and to encourage and facilitate a change-positive organizational culture. The initiative, which was designed by FRONT’s research group on behalf of the management team, began with three meetings with the management
The initiative was inspired by both the research on leadership and gender equality described above, and by the action research methodology described in greater detail in the introduction to Part 3 of this book. In the workshops, short lectures on gender and organization focusing on academia were alternated with reflection, exercises and homework. This theoretical knowledge was reflected on and used to structure the participants’ experiences, as well as observations from their own organization that constituted the homework.
The analysis in this chapter is based mainly on qualitative material in the form of interviews and notes from the five workshop days. The two researchers who led the workshops took notes by hand throughout the workshops. At the end of each workshop day, they went through their individual notes and combined them into a joint field diary. Flipchart sheets and other material produced by the participants as a group were collected and documented in the field diary. In addition to the field diary, the empirical data for this chapter consists of individual participant interviews. These semi-structured interviews were carried out one year after the workshop series ended. They lasted for one to two hours and were recorded and transcribed.
The analysis began with an inductive approach to the material, which was examined several times to identify recurring themes in the form of similarities and differences. Coding was based on the informants’ own descriptions. In the next phase, the material was interpreted according to the critical sensemaking theory described in the next part of this chapter. In our analysis, we look at the role of the management team – what it can do in practice – in implementing a sustainable equality process in the organization, and how the team needs to evolve in order to be capable of doing this.
That organizations change constantly is an established fact within organizational research today. However, discussion continues on the pros and cons of the two most common perspectives of change – planning and organizing, respectively (cf. Iveroth &
The organizing perspective involves seeing organizations as evolving and in perpetual motion. Change is the normal state and takes place, for instance, in the form of interactions during day-to-day activities: in actions and formal or informal meetings, for example when colleagues discuss business or chat around the coffee machine. Management’s role in the organizing perspective is primarily to make sure that strategies for change are comprehensible by applying various sensemaking and sensegiving processes (cf.
Sensemaking has long been a popular approach in organization research, and consequently, there are several definitions. Brown et al. found that sensemaking is often described as “those processes by which people seek plausibility to understand ambiguous, equivocal or confusing issues or events” (Brown et al., p. 266). In his ground-breaking work, Weick defines sensemaking as having a number of interrelated characteristics: sensemaking is a
Sensegiving is an elaboration of the concept of sensemaking.
Sensegiving is management’s task – giving meaning to change – while the people in organizations, especially those in key positions, need to address sensemaking, that is, making sense of the changes, according to
As a consequence of our revised perspective on strategic change initiation in terms of sensemaking and sensegiving, a different view of the top management’s role during the beginning stages of change emerges. The CEO (and ultimately
From the above, we conclude that it does not suffice to plan and implement strategic change focused on cultural change and equality. We also need to focus on and create awareness of how sensemaking and sensegiving can create more understanding for change, and thus make it more enduring.
So, what happens when theories on leadership and organizational change meet empiricism? We will now present a more concrete picture of the workshops with the management team, using one example from the early phase, and one from the late phase of the initiative, respectively.
“I was thinking about women and men. That we’re biologically different.”
“I wrote fairness. We’re different, but the purpose of working with gender equality is that it should be fair. For example, biology shouldn’t affect recruitment.”
The first workshop has just started, and the participants, three women and eleven men, are looking at a wall full of post-it notes. The task for each is to think of five to eight words or sentences that come to mind when they hear the word “sex”, and write them on post-its. The notes are stuck on the wall, and each person then presents their note by reading it aloud and commenting on why they chose those particular words. The mood is friendly and a bit giggly.
Nearly all the participants associate the word sex with physical bodies. Their comments include words like “women”, “men”, “similarities” and “differences”, saying that women and men are biologically different, and that the word sex first of all makes them think of sexual attraction and
Many also chose words and terms such as gender equality and equal rights, describing how they associate sex, i.e. gender, with working to achieve these goals. Others said they thought of how different women’s and men’s lives are: from education and recreational activities for kids and youths, to the gender-segregated labour market, and unequal distribution of labour at home. Several also mentioned cultural differences, such as what discussions are like depending on which gender dominates in numbers.
When participants were interviewed about the workshop, they referred to the post-it exercise, saying that they felt free to write and say what they wanted. Kristian, for instance, said he “feels that the atmosphere is very good – nobody just sits around and doesn’t want to take part”. Kari describes the same thing, saying that even though the workshop “was inconvenient timewise, and the theme was a bit heavy, but once you’re there, everybody does their best. You discuss when it’s time for discussion, and you help to keep the discussion going.”
Several participants also say that they find the issue of equality hard. Stein says, “It’s not at all easy to understand. Even with the best intentions, if you do things wrong nothing will get better – or at least, progress will be very slow.” Wenche stresses that this is a difficult issue and that it’s easy to make mistakes. She has the requisite competence now, but she didn’t when the project started, and “without the skills you tend to resort to simple solutions that don’t lead to sustainable results.” Similarly, Olav describes equality work as a field where they previously found it hard to know what to do. He says, “I always have the urge to try to do something, but I didn’t feel that it was so action-oriented.” Kristian says almost the same thing, “I feel like we see it as a common challenge and that we constantly meet the challenge, and that we perhaps feel that we aren’t doing enough.” Management has agreed that they want equality, he says, but it’s been hard to know what is needed, and what actions to take in order to combat any inequality.
The purpose of the exercise with post-it notes is to examine and bring the group’s thoughts on the workshop theme out into the open. After the exercise, the FRONT project was presented, and the participants
“All faculty management need the awareness and skills to work with gender equality.”
“The recruitment process – every step from advertising to evaluation of candidates needs to be reviewed. For instance, we should discuss training for members of evaluation committees.”
The third workshop is nearing its end, and participants work in groups of four. The atmosphere is focused and discussions are lively. The workshop began with the task of writing down all the issues they felt were important to address on flipchart sheets. These issues were then arranged according to themes that the participants worked on in groups. The areas that eventually emerged, in addition to leadership development and recruitment (see above), were career guidance and research strategies. Participants said that gender imbalance in the organization is partly a result of women and men not obtaining the same career support in the form of recommendations, invitations to networks, etc., in their daily working life. Increased awareness of how gender affects career guidance is therefore essential. Equality is also crucial in the faculty’s research strategy. The management team must ensure that this is reflected in the recruitment.
I thought we were only going to discuss gender and equality – but we’ve talked about what is important for us now … the faculty’s strategic issues. What we never have time to talk about at our Thursday meetings.
In the interviews after the workshops, participants describe how their views on gender equality work have changed. In the above quote, Olav says he no longer sees gender equality as a separate issue but more like a perspective on other issues, and part of the faculty’s strategic work. Wenche describes how gender equality in the workshops “became a springboard or a starting point for other major issues”.
Seeing gender equality as a facet of the faculty’s strategic work means that the participants perceive management’s responsibility more clearly. “Firstly – as a leader you really need to have this on your agenda,” says Wenche. “Management should be the trailblazers,” says Silje. Aksel elaborates on management’s responsibility, “Someone needs to own the perspective. You need someone to own the overarching problem”. Taking responsibility for the issue as a leader is to “own the perspective”, that is, to admit to a description of the organization as being unequal, and to state that gender equality is important to work on, says Aksel. He adds that he as a leader builds organizational culture through leading by example, “This is how we do things here”. Stein also emphasizes management’s responsibility. If management shows that the issue is important, the organization will follow suit. He says, “If management has the respect of the organization – when we say that gender equality is a serious issue, then it will be taken seriously.”
Kari describes how the workshops have led to team-building in the management team. They had time to talk to each other. “Team-building, absolutely,” Silje replies to the question of how the workshops impacted the management team. She describes how the nervousness she felt at the beginning of the first workshop was soon dispelled, “Okay, I felt … I’m not going to feel bad about taking them away from their work, because this was good”. Kristian concurs. He says the workshop theme was important, but that it was also an opportunity for the management team to spend time together, which “had a team-building effect”.
The above scenes are from the 6-month series of workshops that the management team attended. At the start, several of the participants were
It feels like … I don’t know what to do. That’s a dilemma.
(Interview with Aksel)
As a leader, Aksel is aware that he should be driving the efforts to improve gender equality at the faculty. This is expressed in policy documents and at meetings. But, as he says above, he doesn’t know what he is supposed to do in reality, and that troubles him.
As described in the introduction to the third part of the book, our efforts on this project have focused on the doing-gender perspective. This means that gender – and thus, gender equality and inequality – is something that is done by individuals, mainly in relation to other individuals, but also separately. The doing is often automatic. We are so accustomed to it that we don’t see, or think about, when it happens. Doing gender forms patterns and structures that in turn influence how we do gender. But the doing not only replicates these patterns – the way it is perpetually done either replicates or breaks down these patterns. When gender is done automatically, it follows the patterns, replicating them, while doing gender with awareness can either recreate the patterns or break them (cf.
I think that even if I felt it was demanding, it did something to me, having these meetings and that I was really forced to think seriously about my own opinions, how things are perceived, and how things are done.
(Interview with Kari)
Kari describes her experience of the workshops as demanding. It is demanding, having to analyze her own thoughts, how things are perceived and done, and to see what happens in the organization. It is difficult and demanding, bringing “deeply ingrained” things into the open, to become aware of previously automatic behaviours. Aksel says that he “has trouble seeing his own bias”. He does not question that he “does gender”, for instance by treating and judging women and men differently. But he finds it hard to define how this happens, what he does specifically. This matches Stein’s description in scene 1, and his statement that the equality issue “isn’t that easy to understand”, while Wenche says that “without the skills you tend to resort to simple solutions”.
I am very data-driven. I’m always on the lookout for underlying causes, how bad it is, what the facts are, what we know about the mechanisms here.
(Interview with Aksel)
A management team needs knowledge of the field where it wants to achieve change. In this instance, knowing where and how gender equality and inequality are done in their faculty. They need to know where and what needs to change for gender equality to increase, and how they should work to achieve it. During the workshops, this knowledge was developed in several ways: through lectures on gender theory and gender research; through the participants examining their own activities; and by sharing experiences and performing analyses together.
But the seminars contributed to raising awareness, which I think was necessary in order to see what this is really about.
(Interview with Silje)
Participants had opportunities to practice their ability to notice things in the organization that can have effects depending on gender. Observing what goes on at meetings improves the ability to notice things that are usually taken for granted: who talks; who listens to whom; how body language changes; who is included and excluded; who controls the agenda and formulates problems; who sits next to whom; who talks to whom during coffee breaks, etc. Observation is also one way of approaching problem formulation, in order to identify the actions and contexts that consolidate gender inequality.
Participants were asked to make observations individually prior to each workshop. At the workshops, they then reported on what they had done, what they had noticed, and their interpretation of what they had
You get to hear the perspectives of your colleagues from departments with similar but not identical problems. And then you see that, “Well, we might have one or two challenges in common”.
(Interview with Olav)
Gender theory provided participants with tools to analyze their own activities. As described in the introduction to part three, an adaptation of Acker’s model (
Studies with a gender perspective, based on empirical data from both the participants’ own organization and other fields and activities, were also used to offer a better understanding of the participants’ own activities. By comparing, noting similarities and differences, they could bring “deeply ingrained” behaviour into the open. Descriptions of gender inequalities in other organizations offer approaches and methods that can be used to examine phenomena in your own organization.
Working with your own discoveries, combined with listening to and reflecting on the discoveries, observations or research made by other participants – and together analyzing and highlighting patters from different angles, is one way of guiding a knowledge process on gender issues in organizations. It is often hard to discern how actions help establish patterns or enable alternative approaches. The learning itself takes time, and the material needs to be processed in several stages. It is comparable to the “development stage” in analogue photography (
In the first stage of the process towards change – development (
Challenging ideologies and mindsets requires a collective effort. Hearing the examples and reflections of others enables participants to discover things in themselves or their everyday life that they may not otherwise have noticed. While a personal episode can seem like an exception, on hearing that several others have had the same experience we begin to see a pattern.
The development stage described above generated awareness of the organization’s “current image”, that is, the picture of the organization on which to base an analysis, and identify problems in relation to the desired result. This first stage is a period of learning and exploring how gender is done and given its meaning within the faculty. Development can take a long time or happen fast, but the “current image” that eventually emerges, the new picture of the organization, is the starting point for the next stage. Discoveries are summarized and compiled, and strategies for what needs to change are discussed and elaborated in stage two, mobilization (
(Interview with Kristian)
Several of the interviewees mention that not until they become aware of the underlying causes behind routines – why things are done in a certain way – can they see what needs to change, and also understand why change will encounter resistance. In the above quote, Kristian relates how the workshops have made him more aware of “the underlying mechanisms of why things don’t happen automatically”. Stein says that the workshops gave him “a clear and distinct picture of what the problem is”. Olav agrees and says, “What we learned in these workshops is that we can’t expect things to sort themselves out”. Olav is describing an awareness that gender equality in the organization will not happen automatically. Something has to be done to achieve change.
On the final two workshop days, participants looked at these questions: What is the problem? In what contexts are undesirable situations reiterated? How can we understand what happens? What do we need to learn more about? It was important at this stage to allow time for deeper study and analysis, to achieve a clearer idea of how the change should be planned. Participants often want to move ahead to action and change directly, before studying and analyzing the matter properly, and to skip making a thorough analysis of “the underlying mechanisms”. Several participants also described how hard it was to refrain from making action plans during the first two workshop sessions. Olav, for instance, says, “I felt we had discussions, and that we dealt with the themes, but what I wanted, I felt I always had the urge to try to do something, but I didn’t feel that it was that action-oriented.” He describes how the discussions triggered him to want to act after the workshops, that he wanted to do something. During the workshop, participants were told not to plan or discuss “action”. Instead, they should start analyzing and describing the current situation in the defined problem areas, and to present examples of contexts where undesirable situations and gender inequalities are reproduced. The workshop concluded with a discussion of the problem
After the first discussions, participants decided to focus in the first stage on four problem areas or themes: research strategy, recruitment, career guidance and leadership development. In the next stage, making plans for concrete change, the Acker model described above was used. Participants discussed what actions would lead to a new current situation. Should the change be achieved with: new procedures, a new culture, new patterns for interaction, or more awareness?
Based on the group’s new awareness and observations, they embarked on both analyzing the areas that had been revealed in the process, and planning for concrete measures to achieve change. This was accomplished partly through reflecting on the questions above in order to find actions that could change the current situation. The last two days were different compared with the first workshops. Participants now focused on concrete issues related to their own organization. This was widely appreciated.
Plans for concrete measures were based on the knowledge and awareness gained during the previous two workshops. This includes knowledge of how gender is done and the effects it has on an organization, and how to examine the organization from a gender perspective. It also means how to continue creating new knowledge and awareness, but also knowledge on how changing the culture means doing things in new ways, and that this does not happen automatically, and always encounters resistance. Therefore, it must be implemented by management.
The management team has agreed that its role in the faculty’s gender equality work is important. This task includes being the
When the management team describes its approach to gender equality, they say that it is “on the agenda”, or that they “own the perspective, the overall problem”. They refer to gender equality as part of, or a perspective on, other issues. Olav, for instance, says that he thought that they would “just talk about gender and gender equality” at the workshops, but instead they discussed the faculty’s strategic issues. Participants describe how they were given methods and tools in the course of the workshops to identify gender inequality. They have focused on some particular areas and now know how inequalities arise, whereas other areas remain unexamined. But these methods and tools make them feel confident about how to move on and start working on new areas.
A large share of an organization’s equality work consists in demonstrating that equality is yet to be achieved (
Identifying processes and situations where inequalities exist, that is, demonstrating with concrete examples that gender equality strategies are necessary and important since gender equality is yet to be achieved, is one way for management to take responsibility for gender equality work. The
Therefore, a key role for management here is
The management team describes their work with sensegiving in two ways. The first is to ensure that gender equality is a priority in the
The management team is fast to take action, it wants to get things done. Participants can feel frustrated by seminars that focus on describing problems in depth and generating new knowledge and awareness, instead of planning and setting goals to act on. Olav, for instance, says he was disappointed with the first workshops because they weren’t action-oriented. He had “the urge to try to do something”. Taking the time to explore and understand how gender inequalities arise, however, is something that the management team later considered to be crucial to achieving sustainable change. “Without these skills, you tend to resort to simple solutions”, says Wenche. Olav emphasizes that he needs to understand the “underlying causes”, in order to initiate change. The management team, for instance, starts the work on the recruitment process by comparing experiences, reading up on research and ordering the organization to examine factors that they need to know more about. Not until then are they ready to decide on how to proceed. Several participants describe how their attitude to equality strategies has changed in the course of the project. When they came to the first workshop, they thought equality work was hard, since they didn’t know how to approach it in practice. Aksel expresses this clearly, “I don’t know what to do.”
By examining, in the course of the project, how inequality is done in practice in the organization’s processes, it becomes clear what needs to change and what the management team can do to achieve sustainable change. Change implemented without knowledge usually only leads to
But it is not sufficient that management knows how inequality is done in the organization. The process-oriented approach to organizations that doing gender entails means that change has to be implemented at every level. Knowledge of where and how gender inequality is done in the organization, and what needs to change in order to achieve gender equality, must permeate the entire organization.
The management team increased its knowledge and awareness of how gender inequality is done by applying gender theory as a tool. This included an adaptation of the Acker model (
The management team opted to apply a uniform type of knowledge process throughout the organization. As described in the introduction to part three, the doing gender perspective and an adaptation of the
As explained above, applying sensegiving and communicating a method for identifying where and how inequality is done in the organization means that management takes an active part in the equality strategy. Gender equality is often perceived as a difficult problem by management. This is a new field for many, and equality issues often encounter resistance. Addressing gender inequality in an organization means working with complex processes of change (
Several participants use the word team-building to describe the effects of the workshops. Their answers vary when asked who they consider to be in charge of the management team’s gender equality strategy. The participants also give examples of how the process is promoted in different areas in addition to this gender equality project: in management team meetings; in budgeting; in staffing; in the departments; in research; and in working with teaching and student recruitment. More than half of the participants are identified by others as promoting the process in various ways.
Our results indicate that if management feels that responsibility for the equality strategy is shared, then they take a more active and managerial role. The group can share the responsibility because they have increased their knowledge and awareness of gender equality and strategies together.
Many of the participants report that their attitude to gender equality work has changed during the workshops. Equality is no longer a separate and difficult issue but a starting point for other issues. This will be a starting point that adds to strategic issues, which means discovering new ways to achieve goals, new solutions. All interviewees describe this as being positive. Their expectation was that they would simply discuss gender equality, a field that most of them were uncomfortable with, but discussions instead encompassed the faculty’s strategic issues, the issues they never have time to talk properly about, from a new perspective.
Our results indicate that discovering that gender equality is integral to, or an element of, the faculty’s
The management team’s task in gender equality work can be described by the term sensegiving, as influencing employees’
Management is often identified as the key to success when changing an organization. In chapter ten, the role of the management team in gender equality work is analysed, as well as what the team needs in order to address these issues. But has the faculty management team’s commitment to gender equality work had any effects on the organization? Has the discourse changed? Are things done differently? This chapter analyzes the effects of the management team’s efforts by studying a seminar series for PhD supervisors. The series consists of two parts: five seminars before the management team embarked on gender equality work, and seven seminars after. The data show that when the management team clearly stated that gender-related challenges remained within the faculty and offered a theoretical approach and method for the organization’s gender equality work, the seminar discussions moved from resistance, denial and ambivalence, to an interest in understanding one’s own role and potential for improving gender equality. When the management team contributed to the knowledge base through education in gender perspectives and offered a method for the organizational work that all employees could apply in their everyday activities, this opened opportunities for change at all levels in the organization.
Our analysis is based on material from a workshop series for doctoral student supervisors, where the aim was to encourage research management on all levels to engage in gender equality work. The 5-hour workshops were held on twelve occasions for groups of 25–30 participants. Supervision of doctoral students is a common point of reference, and is something that researchers undertake throughout their career. A workshop on gender equality for those supervising doctoral students was therefore considered to be a good starting point in the efforts to change the faculty’s culture.
The chapter is structured as follows: We begin with a short summary of research on resistance to gender equality work. Next, we describe how the workshops for doctoral student supervisors were carried out, and how the data we analyze was gathered. The main part of the chapter focuses on describing the change that took place in the groups, using two scenes: one from one of the first and one from one of the last workshops respectively. Finally, we analyze and discuss our results in light of other research.
Gender equality work can be described as a complex development process aimed at changing an organization’s structure and culture, thereby influencing the scope of action and power relationships of individuals and groups (e.g.,
Resistance to gender equality is defined as resistance to change towards greater equality and wanting to maintain the status quo, as opposed to, say, resistance to a dominant social order, where resistance strives to effect change (
Different ideas on what gender equality work should achieve, and how it should be carried out in an organization, can be seen as another form
Lack of knowledge is often considered an obstacle to gender equality, and projects therefore frequently include training aimed at enhancing awareness of inequality within the organization (e.g.,
As described earlier, gender equality work often meets with resistance. Although management commitment is pointed out as being crucial for gender equality work to be successful (e.g.,
The purpose of the workshops was both to increase the participants’ awareness of gender inequality in the organization, and to provide an opportunity for them to share their experiences and thoughts. Reflecting on one’s own experiences and those of others, in combination with research-based knowledge, is one way of developing an understanding of how gender is done,
Workshop activities were inspired by the action research methodology described in detail in the introduction to Part 3 of this book. They were planned and carried out by the FRONT research team. One of the researchers participated in all workshops, while others participated in parts of the series. The researcher who participated in all the workshops has been employed by the same organization as the participants, but in a different capacity, and can thus be described as an
Analysis began with repeated examination of the material, to identify recurring themes in terms of similarities and differences. This inductive approach to the material had the informants’ own descriptions and terms as the starting point. In the next phase, the material was compiled into two scenes. The first is based on one of the earliest workshops, and the second is from one of the workshops that took place after 18 months. The scenes are written according to a method used in action research. It is based on analyses and discussions in the research team rather than exclusively representing the individual researcher, but the subjectivity is intentional and is comparable to field notes, a practice report, or a page from a diary, in which the researcher’s encounter with the field is essential. The method includes a phenomenological analysis and is not an attempt to “objectively” describe what takes place overall. The descriptions are limited to certain specific cases, as they were actually perceived, without any form of analysis or filter. The scenes thus illustrate different aspects of the
In the analysis, we will focus on whether the gender equality work within the faculty’s management team has had any effect within the organization. We do this by analyzing whether resistance against gender equality has increased or decreased during the workshops for doctoral student supervisors.
So, what does resistance to gender equality work in the organization look like? We describe it through two workshops for PhD supervisors, one early and the other late in the project.
It is 11:00 a.m. and time to start the workshop. There should be 24 men and six women in the room, but several places around the six tables are still empty. I am annoyed. It is impossible to divide participants into groups with so many absent. For instance, the women were supposed to be in twos in the groups, but I now see that two of them are alone at their tables. Also, one table has only three people, and another only two. So, they have to be moved in order to make the discussion groups large enough. Why did so many people enrol and then just not turn up?
The workshop starts with asking the participants to evaluate statements about women and men doctoral students, individually, before discussing them with their group. The group discussions are subdued and lethargic, except at one table, where one of the men draws a Gaussian curve, while explaining with gusto that average intelligence is the same in male and female groups. However, there are more men than women at
A few minutes into my lecture on research on gender in academic organizations, a man raises his hand and asks if all the studies I will cite were carried out in the USA. When I reply that many of the studies are based on empirical data from the USA, but that I will also include studies from Norway and Sweden, he says that studies from the USA cannot tell us anything about what it is like at a university in such a gender equal country as Norway. The man sitting beside him agrees, and points out that the studies are also old. He has noticed years such as 2009 and 2012 in the references. After proceeding with my lecture, I get another question about the quality of the studies I cite. A male participant asks if there are any quantitative studies within gender research? Most of my references are interview studies, and interviews only show what individuals think about things, he adds. When I explain my views on qualitative research, and try to get the group to discuss a few of the results I have described by asking if this feels familiar to any of the participants, a compact silence fills the room. Finally, a male participant breaks the silence by asking if there is no recent material from Oslo University. In that case, it might be interesting to discuss it.
I have prepared a case study for the participants to discuss in groups after coffee. They can choose from four cases and talk about as many of them as they have time for, and in any order. The case studies are:
A supervisor who is planning to attend a conference with a doctoral student of the opposite sex. When colleagues find out, they ask if the relationship is purely professional.
Choosing between a woman and a man for a doctoral student position, with suggestions that the woman is likely to become pregnant, in a project that is already running late.
An assistant supervisor finds out from the woman doctoral student that the main supervisor (in charge of the research project where the assistant supervisor is working) makes negative remarks about women researchers.
What consideration a supervisor should give to a doctoral student’s personal situation when distributing tasks.
I go round the tables and listen, answer questions and occasionally comment. At one table, one of the men asks a woman participant in his group for her opinion. Has she ever seen or experienced any gender inequality at Oslo University? She answers evasively that she does not feel discriminated against, but has heard from colleagues at foreign universities that it is hard combining family life with a research career. Everyone at the table nods and says that this is probably the case. They agree that a research career and family life are hard to combine for both women and men, even in equal opportunity Norway. But in view of the competition for international jobs, publication and research funding, that cannot be changed. At another table, one of the men asks if the others agree that there are
When we gather to discuss the case studies, it turns out no groups chose case A. When I ask why, they answer that the situation is too far-fetched. That sort of thing would never happen at Oslo University. Case B is also dismissed, with the comment that if a project has no room for a doctoral student to take parental leave for a year, then the planning is wrong. As for case C, the groups that chose it describe the formal channels available for a doctoral student to lodge a complaint and possibly change supervisor. This is not a matter for the assistant supervisor, and thus this is another wrongly-constructed case study. Most groups chose case D. They agree unanimously that a supervisor should not meddle in the doctoral students’ private life. All doctoral students should have equal opportunities, such as being invited to participate in conferences, and deciding for themselves whether or not they can attend.
The workshop concludes with one of the deans explaining why the faculty wants to address gender equality. Participants have no questions and the workshop ends. As I go round the room tidying up papers and coffee cups, the woman, who was asked in her group whether there was any gender inequality in her faculty, comes up to me and says she has something to tell me. Her research team was recruiting a doctoral student and there were many qualified applicants. A few days ago, when they were interviewing, she noticed that women and men were judged according to different standards. That study you described in your lecture, that is just what it is like here too, she says. We referred to the men as competent, and the women as ambitious and hard-working, and even if the comment was immediately followed by an apology, it was also mentioned that it was very likely that the women would take parental leave for a year or so. When I ask why she did not speak up at the workshop, she replies that when she had mentioned it in the recruitment committee, everyone
A few days after the workshop, I receive an e-mail from a woman participant, requesting a meeting. When we meet, she says the workshop was unsettling. She felt that as a woman she was expected to be able to describe in which ways the faculty was gender unequal and what should be done to make it more equal. That her role in the group was to prove to the men that gender inequality existed.
The workshop is about to begin, and I am nervous. Nearly 18 months have passed since the last time, and so much has happened in the project. My introduction will be entirely different, and I wonder how the participants will react to it. Will they all get up and leave when I tell them that the management team claims that gender imbalance in the faculty is at least partly due to gender inequality? After all, I do not have any results yet from studies carried out in the faculty.
I welcome everyone and talk about the gender equality project that this workshop is part of. I also say that this is the first workshop after an interval of more than a year. I then go on to explain that the faculty’s management team, during five workshops days, have been working on gender equality in the same way that they will be working today. The management team, like them, were aware of a gender imbalance in the faculty. Some departments, for instance, have few women professors, even though most of the students have been women for a long time, while others have research teams that are predominantly female or male. Based on research on academia from the perspective of gender equality, the management team came to the conclusion that this imbalance was at least partially caused by gender inequality in the organization. They decided to proceed according to the research perspective of “doing gender” and a method based on Joan Acker’s research,
The workshop continues along the same lines as before. Participants are asked to comment on and discuss a number of statements about doctoral students, they listen to lectures on gender equality in academic organizations, and they discuss case studies. No matter what part of the programme it is, discussions become lively as soon as participants are divided into smaller groups. Not everyone takes part, but more than half of the participants at each table seem to get very involved. As I move around the room, I hear them sharing personal experiences with each other. For instance, one says that he feels it is much easier to talk about things while going for a walk. The discussion is much more focused than at a meeting in the office. But he does not know how to do this with his women doctoral students. Can he go for a walk with them outside the university campus? Another says that he wants to go away for a weekend to write with his doctoral students. But he feels that would be difficult in a mixed-gender group. A third asks the others for advice, explaining that he had had knee surgery and could not get to work and had invited a woman doctoral student to his place so they could work together. He goes on to say that even though they sat in his study all the time, and did not talk about anything personal or private, he would nevertheless not have dared do that if his wife had not been home the whole time.
The discussion moves back and forth. Some say that all supervision should take place at the university. Neither female nor male doctoral students should be exposed to situations that could be perceived as informal, and consequently uncomfortable. Others say that even if you skip writing weekends and walks, academic life unavoidably includes informal situations. Not inviting your doctoral students along to the pub after a conference dinner would be the same as not sharing your network with them. One supervisor says he never thinks about gender. He has never experienced any awkwardness with regard to inviting both female and male doctoral students to his informal networks. Another describes how he tells his women doctoral students that it is okay if they do not want to join him for dinner after the conference.
The women participants are in the minority, as usual. They do not participate as actively as some of the men in the discussion, and they often describe a more formal approach to supervision. They might possibly have coffee in the university cafeteria with a doctoral student. But this would be an exception, since 99 per cent of supervision takes place in the office. Someone adds that drinking beer at conferences as a way of building networks is overrated. The important thing is to make contact during the sessions themselves, when research is actually being discussed. Another describes her experiences as a doctoral student, how she, as the only woman in a group of men, often felt uncomfortable in informal situations.
When it is time for a coffee break, I am happy and relieved. This workshop is going so much better than the ones a year and a half earlier. I am alone in the classroom, making a few adjustments to the course material, when one of the women participants enters and approaches me. She says she wants my advice. She was recently appointed head of division, and discovered that teaching duties are unevenly distributed. A few of the older male professors teach hardly any classes, even though this is included in their job description. When she mentioned this at a group meeting and presented a fairer proposal, the men who would have had to teach more protested. Especially one, who was very rude to me, she says. But nobody spoke up against him. They let him battle it out with me. I know exactly what you should do, I tell her. I was planning to let you all work on case studies after the break. But forget about the case studies in your group and discuss this instead! You will get lots of useful tips from the others in your group. No, I cannot do that, she says. That is too personal. When the other participants return to the room, she takes her seat.
After a lively discussion about the case studies, it is time for the dean to round off. The participants continue to be talkative. For instance, someone asks a question about how to give career advice to doctoral students and receives a concrete answer.
We have chosen to interpret the above scenes as development phases – before and after an intervention. This is a useful starting point, we feel, but are aware that a process of change naturally has both intermediary phases and different trajectories for groups and individuals. In effect, one and the same scene includes various understandings and behaviours in relation to gender, represented by different participants. We can discern clear tendencies in the scenes – while the material also contains wide variations.
The first of the two scenes above is characterized by various forms of passive and active resistance (
These mixed messages can also be seen to indicate that resistance adapts to the process of change (
The discussion about how it is hard to combine a career in academia with family responsibilities reveals yet another form of resistance, what
If we interpret scene one in relation to hegemonic masculinity (see
Moreover, dismissing three out of the four case studies as unrealistic can also be seen as a form of resistance. Change requires a shared understanding of where and how gender inequality is created in the organization (
Whereas the workshop in scene one is characterized by various forms of resistance, the resistance described in scene two is less pronounced. Both women and men participate in the often lively discussions and contribute many personal examples. Gender inequality is no longer seen as something that exists elsewhere or only concerns women. The issue has been moved to one’s own organization, and is about relationships between women and men.
However, although major changes occurred from scene one to scene two, there are still differences in how the women and men participate. Whereas the men dare to share their personal experiences, the women more often choose to remain silent. A few of the men are very open and share deeply personal experiences, while most are active in the discussions but slightly more restrained with their own experiences. None of the women participate as actively in the discussions, and all are more hesitant in describing personal experiences. When the workshop leader asks a woman participant to tell the group about her leadership dilemma, the woman responds that it is too personal. The women also describe a more formal approach to doctoral students and supervision, compared to the men.
As individuals in an organization, we deal with sensemaking,
Gender equality work affects how individuals perceive themselves and their identity as women or men, by highlighting and examining how identity construction is done and influenced by surrounding structures (
We have chosen to base the workshops and seminars in the FRONT project on a revised version of Acker’s model
At the workshop described in scene one, it is obvious that several of the women participants are reluctant to discuss gender inequality, even though they see that the organization is unequal. Some, for instance, seek out the workshop leader during the break or after the workshop has ended, instead of sharing their experiences with the group. The women are quieter than the men even in the workshop in scene two, when it comes to talking about personal experiences, and again they contact the workshop leader during a break. The women’s reluctance to describe their experiences of gender inequality can be interpreted as a fear of exploring the identity construct of a female researcher. They want to be seen as competent researchers. To describe their experience of gender inequality means defining themselves as women, and thus as members of a subordinate group, which is associated with feelings of shame (e.g.,
Part of men’s identity construction consists in belonging to a superior group. In the second workshop, they describe, for instance, an imbalance of power in relation to their female doctoral students. A factor that is not mentioned, however, is that their superior position may have had positive effects for them as individuals, for instance by benefitting their career. A critical scrutiny of the identity construct of man
Thus, sharing and reflecting on one’s own experiences within a gender-unequal organization can be unfavourable to one’s own identity construct. For women, seeing themselves as a subordinate group also means seeing themselves as part of a group that is not expected to achieve as well as the superior group, and therefore does not get equal career opportunities in the day-to-day activities of the organization. Conversely, for men, this entails seeing themselves as members of a superior group, who get more and better career opportunities than they deserve, since competence is regarded as an effect of their superiority. For both women and men, an identity construct that acknowledges gender inequality in the organizational structure is also an identity construct that is hard to consolidate with competence.
There were major differences in participation and discussions in the workshops from scene one to scene two. The forms of resistance had weakened and changed, and the active resistance that was obvious in scene one was totally gone in scene two. More women shared their experiences of gender inequality, even though they were less forthcoming than the men.
The purpose of the workshops for doctoral student supervisors was to increase participants’ awareness of gender inequality in the organization. In addition to lectures, the workshops included exercises that provided a framework for participants’ discussions. The lectures offered a theoretical framework for how gender is done in organizations, which
Why, then, is resistance so much stronger in the workshop in scene one than in scene two? The workshops had the same structure, mixing lectures and exercises. What had changed in the eighteen months that had passed? We will start by examining the underlying reasons for resistance in scene one.
The workshops provided exercises and models, but participants were expected to fill them with descriptions from their own lives. These could be everyday situations where they had been unfairly treated or judged, and where they, in turn had treated and judged others’ gender unequally. To be in a position to share their experiences, gender inequality and the participants’ various positions in relation to it, their identity constructions, needed to be made visible. This requires women to identify with a subordinate group, and men to identify with a superior group. Even if women and men as individuals relate to, and are influenced by, structures of gender inequality in different ways, sharing their experiences of inequality divides them into two groups, subordinate women and superior men.
According to critical power theory, a subordinate group is in a better position than the superior group to see both the mechanisms of subordination and the superior group’s privileges.
The discussions in the first workshop scene can be interpreted as resistance to being divided into a superior and subordinate group respectively, and to change in general. When one woman is asked about her experiences of gender inequality, she answers that she has no such experiences, that is, that no change is necessary.
In the 18 months that passed between scenes one and two, the management team had worked with sensegiving
When management acknowledges the lack of gender equality as a serious problem, it is no longer up to the individual to decide whether the organization is gender equal or not, or whether or not this is a problem. Since defining the organization as unequal, and stating that something needs to change, is to challenge the prevailing order, both in terms of the existing power structures and identity constructions, those who continue to argue that nothing needs to change often win. This reveals the organization’s inertia (see, for instance,
As described above, the workshop in scene two begins with a summary of management’s views on, and measures to promote, gender
Management has not only addressed sensegiving by clearly stating that gender inequality is a problem. They have also utilized tools for analyzing the organization. As described in the introduction to chapter three, a processual approach to gender, meaning seeing gender as an integral part of everything that goes on in an organization (e.g.,
The fact that management not only described inequality as a problem, but actively addressed the problem utilizing methods of working with change, is also likely to have influenced the atmosphere in the group. Management was able to show where and how inequality is done – not in every separate case, or in every research team, but through examples from their own organization. Since management’s approach is based on a processual perspective on gender, and Acker’s model for examining where and how gender inequality is done in the organization, both the approach and method are legitimized by the organization. The problem – gender inequality – is not dumped on the workshop participants with instructions to do something about it. Instead, they are provided with an approach in the form of a processual perspective on gender and tools to achieve change, in the form of Acker’s model.
The FRONT project included workshops for doctoral student supervisors. Participants displayed strong resistance during the first workshops. In subsequent workshops, group discussions showed that a change had taken place. The forms of resistance had abated, and both women and men participated in the often lively discussions and contributed many personal examples. For both women and men, sharing and reflecting on experiences of gender inequality entails positioning themselves according to gender: as subordinate women and superior men. This is an identity construction that both men and women find hard to reconcile with their self-image as competent researchers, and it therefore awakens strong resistance. Moreover, gender equality work also challenges the organization’s power structures, and generates resistance. If management changes the framework for sharing experiences by establishing that the organization is gender unequal, and provides an approach and tools for examining how gender inequality is done, resistance weakens.
Passive resistance, often in the form of avoidance and ambivalence among the participants in the organization, is discussed further in Chapters 7, 8 and 9 of this book.
See the introduction to Part 3 for a definition of “doing gender”.
See the introduction to Part 3 for a more extensive discussion and definition of the various roles of the researcher.
A description of the doing gender perspective and Joan Acker’s model is found in the introduction to Part 3 of this book.
For a more detailed description of the term “sensemaking”, see Chapter 10.
The model is described more extensively in the introduction to Part 3 of this book.
The perspective on knowledge and how knowledge is developed is the same as for the work with the management team described in Chapter 10. The premises for the workshop are different, however. The participants were not acquainted beforehand, which leads to lack of trust in in the group, and the format is limited to a half-day instead of five full days.
Critical theory on power is discussed more extensively in Chapter 8.
For a more extensive description of the term “sensegiving”, see Chapter 10.
See, for instance, research on decision-making and setting the agenda.
Combining gender theory with research on resilience, this chapter analyzes the effects of an action research project aimed at increasing the number of women in senior research positions at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at Oslo University. As a part of the project, the faculty management nominated fifteen women professors and associate professors to attend a programme to improve their skills in writing articles and research applications. Individual interviews with all participants prior to the programme revealed that they would prefer to build a network where they could share experiences and discuss various topics. The two-year programme was therefore structured as a forum where we as action researchers offered theoretical input on topics chosen by the participants and worked with dialogue tools, focusing on these topics, in a structured and time-efficient exchange of experiences. The analysis shows that resilience is an essential skill in organizations characterized by critical scrutiny and competition. In the chapter, we describe how the network participants become more resilient by reflecting themselves in, and sharing experiences with, each other. Being in a context with other recognized top researchers without being the odd one out – the woman who has to prove herself – improves the ability to cope with adversity.
Being a researcher means constant exposure to critical scrutiny in an organization characterized by tough competition for jobs, research funding, and publishing. In the first part of this book, summarized by the Bøygen model in chapter seven, we show that women in academic organizations experience more obstacles and problems than men throughout their careers. On the whole, academia is characterized by critical logic, in which researchers – especially women researchers – need to cope with setbacks and stress. Against this background, the FRONT project decided to design a measure for women senior researchers. The purpose of this sub-project was to attain the goal of more women in leading research positions, among others in management positions in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo, but especially as leaders of larger research groups.
In this chapter, we take a closer look at the measure for women senior researchers. We describe the design of the measure and examine how it was perceived by the participants.
The subsequent part of this chapter is structured as follows. It begins with a short summary of the background for the measure, followed by a detailed description of its structure. Then we move on to data gathering and methodology of the study, as well as its theoretical foundation. We then describe the results and analyze developments within the participant group in light of other research.
Networks and collaboration are essential to both career development and research productivity (
Competition for positions, research funding and publication is fierce within academic organizations. As a researcher, you are constantly exposed to critical scrutiny. Peer review requires that applications for jobs or funding and articles submitted for publication or conference participation are examined for flaws and weaknesses by colleagues. A very large number of submitted applications and articles will never be approved or published. Altogether, this means that academia is characterized by a critical logic, where researchers need to cope with adversity (e.g.,
Recent Nordic studies show that tough competition in an organization can reveal and reinforce masculine hegemonic tendencies (
Resilience is the process of adapting in the face of adversity and stress. It involves maintaining flexibility and balance in life, as we deal with stressful circumstances and feel questioned by ourselves or other people. Many studies show that decisive factors for resilience are social support and interpersonal relationships (e.g.,
In this study, we use action research to explore the relationship between the lack of support systems for women researchers and their academic success. By combining gender theory with research on resilience, we analyze how resilience can be created on the individual level in an academic organization.
As a part of the FRONT project, department heads at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in Oslo University nominated eighteen female professors and associate professors to take part in a programme for female researchers. The nominees must have the ability to lead major research projects, to be top researchers. The FRONT research team began by conducting individual interviews with all nominees. The interviews revealed that the nominees explicitly wanted access to a qualified network where they could share experiences with other women researchers.
A general challenge for all programmes, training schemes and measures is how to apply skills and learning to the participants’ everyday life and reality. In a comprehensive meta-analysis focusing on identifying the most effective kind of leadership training,
Based on this want of a network for sharing experiences, and on the research described above, the 2-year programme was designed as a forum where we, as action researchers, offered theoretical input on themes chosen by the participants. The themes suggested by the participants were essential to understanding and managing day-to-day activities in the participants’ various tasks and roles. With these themes as our point of departure, dialogue tools were applied to enable structured and time-efficient exchanges of experience. To create a safe space for sharing
The two researchers who followed the project have had somewhat different roles. One has been engaged full-time in the FRONT project,
This chapter is based on individual interviews and a group interview, and the researchers’ notes and observations from programme activities. Immediately after each completed workshop day, the researchers examined their own individual notes and wrote a joint field diary. Flipchart sheets and other material produced by the group were also gathered and documented in the field diary.
Analysis began using an inductive approach, where all the material was studied several times, to identify recurring themes, similarities and differences. In effect, the coding was based on the participants’ own descriptions. In the subsequent phase, the material was interpreted according to the theory of resilience and self-compassion described in the following section.
Within organizational research, resilience is defined either as a trait, a capacity, or a dynamic process (
Thus, resilience is built by interaction between individual traits, acquired abilities and environmental factors. The work environment, for example, is central to most people throughout their working life. Here, resilience is about responding positively to work-related adversity by, for instance, creating beneficial and nurturing professional relationships, responding to feedback as an opportunity to learn rather than as negative criticism, and coping and calming down when encountering setbacks.
Self-compassion is a concept used in both clinical and non-clinical contexts. From a non-clinical perspective,
Self-kindness – being understanding and caring towards ourselves instead of being critical when we fail or experience difficulties.
Common humanity – the awareness that all humans suffer, fail and are imperfect.
Mindfulness – the ability to observe our own pain without being caught up and swept away by our feelings.
Several studies show that even short-term exercises in self-compassion can have major effects. A common intervention in clinical studies is to ask clients to write kind and considerate letters to themselves when they feel self-critical, “as if they were writing to their best friend”.
There is very little research on self-compassion from a gender perspective. A meta-analysis by Yarnell et al. from
From these perspectives, we conclude that mental resilience and self-compassion are essential skills in organizations characterized by critical scrutiny and competition. Environmental factors such as workplace culture and relationships are vital to building resilience and self-compassion, but both these skills can also be improved with practice.
As mentioned previously, the department heads had been asked to nominate candidates for this programme. Nominees should be researchers with the potential to build and lead large research teams. No criteria were specified for the nominee’s career stage, except that they should have a
Hedda, for instance, told us that she had participated in a similar network earlier in her career. Being nominated for that programme was the first time she felt that she was acknowledged as a qualified researcher, someone with a future in academia. She says, “And I think that’s the first time in my career anyone told me, ‘You know, you’re going to make it, if not here then somewhere else, so don’t give up!’”. She adds, “When you reach a make-or-break point, being acknowledged can make all the difference”. Today, she is an established researcher, and being nominated, being acknowledged by the department head as a researcher with the potential to lead large research teams, is not as important. She already knows she has that potential.
For Kari, on the other hand, the nomination changed her perception of herself as a researcher. Until then, she had seen herself as a teacher, primarily, but being nominated made her see that the department head had confidence in her as a researcher. She says, “I saw myself as a teacher. I thought that was what they wanted … what they had ordered. I didn’t perceive myself as a leader of a research team”. Participating in the network gave her more agency. She adds, “After the first meeting … that boosted my self-confidence … and I realized it would actually be possible to write an application. Now, I’ve applied for research funding … and got it”.
Several participants accepted the offer to take part in the programme even though they, like Hedda, felt they had passed the stage in their career where they needed it. Anna said yes because she likes sharing her experience with younger researchers. She says, “But I also appreciate being able to share knowledge. We’ve all had our problems, and I can see that when someone else describes it now, I’ve experienced the same thing. And I think the group discussions are good and honest”.
Sigrid also chose to participate although she was unsure of the benefit to her personally. “I thought, well, the head of the department chose me, I was asked to do this, so I’ll try to get something out of it that’s good for me.”
I can tell you a bit about what it was like before I became an associate professor. So, I’ve published frequently, and been very active in the international community, and I started to get a lot of invitations. Then I transferred to the university, and there I was … in the past, I was the one doing everything. I was a post-doc or a researcher doing the research. But now I need to delegate instead, I’m learning how to make others do the work, and yeah, I’m changing a little bit.
(Marthe, associate professor)
An associate professor is expected to take an active part in building a research team. Even if the associate professor has had several previous, temporary post-doctoral or research positions and applied for various kinds of research funding or jobs, the associate professor position involves new demands. One must apply for other kinds of research funding, and the role of leader of a research group is more pronounced. Marthe, recently appointed associate professor when the network began, describes the change in the above quote. She was a successful and well-published researcher with a large international network when she started as an associate professor. Her new position meant not only that she had to stop experimenting in the laboratory herself in order to build and lead a team of doctoral candidates and post-docs, but also that she would lead the process of building a laboratory in practice, involving everything from ventilation to equipment, as well as developing new courses and teaching students on graduate and master levels. When she cannot focus on research, the number of papers she publishes per year decreases, which she finds frustrating.
One thing an associate professor needs to know, and which several participants mentioned, is how to handle rejected applications for funding. For Marthe, the new role involved applying for new kinds of funding, and she often received rejections. She says,
The last two years, let’s just say I’ve been failing a lot. But also winning a lot. Learning from the failures, I got better and better, and I did get some funding. So, I mean, that’s how it is. It was heartening to hear all of you and other people. It helped me with this sense of failure. And now I just say to myself, “Okay, so I failed, like everybody else”.
For Thea, the group has changed her perspective on herself as a researcher and what funding she should apply for. “It’s true that during the process, and by listening to the rest of the group, and especially the meetings we had with the others who had applied for big projects, encouraged me to think even bigger and especially not to be afraid to fail.” Thea says that the group encouraged her to “think big”. She is now planning to build a larger research team and is not afraid of having her application for funding turned down. Maren has had a similar experience of being in the network, and was encouraged to apply for new kinds of funding. “At least, I think this group has given me a bit more momentum than I had before. Yeah, pushed me to apply, and other stuff.”
Few associate professor positions are advertised, and competition is often fierce. Several network members describe how they, as relatively new associate professors, feel pressured to prove their worth, that they are qualified researchers and will contribute to the milieu to which they were recruited with top research, realized through publishing and research funding. Bente relates, for instance, that she finds it hard to say no to assignments. “If I always say yes, then everyone will see that I’m qualified. So, I say yes.” She also describes how the breadth of the network,
Agnes has almost the same experience. She feels that teaching takes so much of her time that she has little left over for writing applications and articles to the extent expected of her. But to admit that she has more teaching hours than she can cope with would be the same as saying they had recruited the wrong person. She adds, “Being able to discuss with others who are, or have been, in the same situation has been incredibly helpful in this relatively demanding start-up phase of my academic career”.
Talking to others in the network, and sharing experiences, has meant that personal feelings of inadequacy or failure can be identified as actual problems, things that need to change. Agnes continues, “I was really, really fed up with everything, and this trio coaching, where I managed to put into words what I really feel, helped me to see that this is actually a big problem … It was good to realize that, okay, this is a problem, so I have to do something … it was really an eye-opener”. When Agnes identifies the problem as being outside herself, she also becomes more able to take action. She can do something to change her situation. Discussions in the network also helped Kathrine see her situation from new perspectives. She emphasizes the importance of having an exclusively female network:
So, first of all, being part of this group helped me a lot, because I’m in an environment where all my colleagues are male, and I have never had the opportunity to discuss things more deeply with a female researcher on my level or higher. … So, for me, it’s very encouraging, and very positive to share things in the group. … Compared to a year ago, it has helped me a lot having a network, to understand what steps I can take to improve my career profile. I have people to ask too, that’s very important. And women, also. Which, for me, it’s completely new, it’s like paradise.
The network has helped young researchers handle the fiercely competitive academic culture, critical scrutiny and frequent rejections of various kinds of applications. Sharing experiences has also made them see their individual problems as something outside themselves, which they should address. But what has the network meant to more experienced researchers? Those who were unsure of whether they had anything to gain from participating.
Silje says that academia is so individualistic that the network gave her something she needed, “a sense of community”. Ella agrees. She says she lacks opportunities for informal contact with colleagues. There are very few women in her workplace, and her male colleagues socialize in ways that make it hard for her to join in. For instance, they jog and enter marathons together. She says,
When we meet with female colleagues we go and have coffee, things like that. And then we talk shop and such, and create a group. The same happens for men, because in reality we’re all the same. But they do it in a separate context. And since they are the majority, they think everybody knows, but of course that’s not the case, because we weren’t there. And that doesn’t even occur to them.
Ella says that informal groups of only one gender can be a problem, especially in workplaces like hers. The information exchanged in the group does not reach those outside the group. The network gives Ella information about the faculty that is not available elsewhere to her as a woman. Had she been a man, she would have been able to get the information when she was out running with her colleagues. Younger researchers also describe how, through the network, they obtained information, which they would not have been able to obtain otherwise. Kathrine says,
Thanks to this network, I’m also more aware of things happening in the faculty. … I have more contacts, and it helps me understand a bit better what I need to do. … And the network helped me quite a lot, I feel I’m in a safe environment, and if there’s something I don’t know, I can just ask. This is good. This is exactly what I needed, a group or human resource, a source of information, and awareness.
>I feel I’ve been seen. And that’s important. In another way perhaps than how I’m acknowledged in the workplace. … Being able to discuss kids and stuff, that it’s a problem not getting home on time, that sort of thing. That there are things we find … challenging for family life. It may sound strange, but little things like that.
Nora says that she can’t talk about all aspects of her life with her male colleagues. They see her as a skilled researcher. But to maintain that image, she can’t mention her kids, or the demands on her as a mother. That would mean emphasizing gender differences, that she is the only woman in a male group.
Maria says that the network fills a need by not including her close colleagues. “Yes, I felt that this was a forum I needed, people who are neither friends nor colleagues.” She feels that she can talk about things in the network that are hard to mention to friends and close colleagues. Friends work in other sectors and do not share the same experiences or know how an academic environment works, and colleagues are competitors. The network provided this opportunity. “Talking more about general things and experiences, without it getting too personal, which it does with colleagues, when everyone knows everyone. It can be hard. … I felt it was very useful. And when we had coaching, that was very good. It forced me to dig deeper. There were things that had been painful, and I felt it was really good to have the chance to debrief.”
Since network participants were in different phases of their careers, from all the faculty departments, this was a place where Maria could talk to people who understood her problems without being in a competitive situation. She adds,
But it was also about being in the same situation, without being too close. I didn’t need to worry about tactics or positioning, or that she knows him, or that they’ve worked together, so I had to … I felt it was like taking a break from it all, like a safe zone. I have colleagues I can talk to as well, but it often feels like I’ve said too much. I realized how much I needed this.
The programme was designed as a qualified network, because the nominated women researchers were very clear about wanting to build a network where they could share experiences and discuss various subjects. They also describe in the interviews how important it is for them to meet other women through a network. Even if their contact with male colleagues is good, and they have many female friends, they miss having a place where they can meet and talk to other women researchers. Marthe’s description of this opportunity to talk to other women researchers is, “It’s like paradise”.
Men are in the majority on the professorial level in all faculty departments except one. On the student and recruiting levels, males have a majority in five departments, while two are more or less gender balanced, and women dominate two.
Being a minority entails working under special conditions (
Understandably, a network for women researchers would be welcome in departments where women are in the minority, but why do women in departments with a majority of women researchers also feel this is important? As described in the introduction to part three of this book, the FRONT project is based on a processual approach to gender, that is, seeing gender as an integral part of everything that goes on in an organization. Gender is something that is
Even in departments where the majority of professors are women, the descriptive norm for top researchers remains male. For female academics, this means having to deal with being women in a profession, a role, constructed by and for men – in addition to being severely underrepresented in their department, as most of the network participants are (cf.
In a study based on the interviews with the participants prior to the start of the network, Thun shows that the responsibility for handling “awkward” situations is individualized, and that women handle these matters themselves (
Something that is stressed in all the interviews is the importance of sharing experiences with other women researchers in similar situations. Being able to hear the experiences of others and comparing them with their own not only helps participants see that rejected funding applications are a matter of course for research leaders, but can also increase their own scope of action. Several participants say the network discussions
All participants also agree that sharing experiences meant that they gained new perspectives on their own situations, and saw new possibilities for what they could do to solve problems, etc. When seen in relation to other people’s stories, personal experiences that were previously perceived as one-off events or personal failures start to form patterns and structures. When the individual problem is seen as part of a structure, this opens up new possibilities to act. If, for instance, an individual sees the problem of delivering excellent results in both teaching and publishing as a personal shortcoming, the ability to find a solution is different than if expectations for one’s work efforts are considered unreasonable. Likewise, demands and evaluations from students can be handled differently if they are regarded as part of a structure with different expectations for female and male researchers, rather than as personal shortcomings.
Shifting the perception of a problem from personal shortcoming to something outside the individual entails seeing it as “a real problem”, something that can and should be dealt with. When personal experiences are aggregated with the experiences of others, patterns and structures become visible. Recognizing these patterns happened gradually, however, and interactively with the other participants. For example, the group strongly resisted the gender theory framework for the project when it was presented at the first network meeting.
The theories encountered strong resistance in the participant group. The dichotomy of structural explanation models and individual agency became very clear. References to gendered structures were perceived as irrelevant and obsolete, positioning women as the passive victims of a male dominated structure. The participants saw structural explanation models as a way of avoiding personal responsibility, and treating women as less aware and in need of targeted support. Alma describes the group’s reactions. “We kind of agreed that we weren’t interested in this gender
I think we became more aware of the facts, and also recognized that there were these domination techniques. So, I think this is more important than I perhaps would like to admit.
Maya agrees with Alma and adds:
Yes. Maybe we are afraid, or I’m afraid, of receiving negative judgment, or whatever. But if you read situations without judgement, like you read a text, and you see the cold facts, that’s the whole point. I admit I am biased. And that’s not a man’s fault, that’s society, how it is. So, to realize this also made me relax. It’s like, I know I can work on it, and I see it. Like now, I’m recruiting for a PhD position, and I just see the qualities of the candidate, not their gender or where they come from.
When the participants, through sharing their experiences, gradually discovered how individual episodic stories were part of a structure, their attitudes to gender theory changed and they saw it as a useful tool in the process of change. Understanding how academia is systematically constructed, in some respects, on traditionally male values and concepts that can impede women, was no longer a theoretical model but something based on their own experiences.
The common elements in their stories gave them a sense of being part of a possible process of change that grew into something greater than an individual striving to write better applications, no longer being devastated by rejected funding applications, or blaming themselves for not being able to set boundaries. From at first perceiving their ability to take action and responsibility for their individual situations being limited by an understanding of structures, they later on became more empowered through understanding the structural framework. A structural model of how gender organizes academia created more space to manoeuvre, instead of creating the feeling of being a victim.
As described previously, resilience is an individual’s ability to handle change in a positive way, and to recover quickly from setbacks and adversity (
In the paragraphs above, we show how participants in a network for women researchers become more resilient, mirroring themselves in and sharing experiences with each other. Being in a context with other recognized top researchers without being the odd one out, the woman who has to prove herself to be included, is energizing. In the safe zone, they are not
Sharing experiences enhances the ability to cope with adversity and handle problems by changing one’s situation. Realizing that even the most prominent researchers have their funding applications rejected, for instance, means that fear of failure need not limit one’s actions. Similarly, identifying obstacles as “real problems” rather than individual shortcomings also increases one’s ability to act. Sharing experiences and examples also changed the perception of gender theory and models, from limitations to individual freedom of action, to useful tools for navigating an organization. Once the theories were linked to their own reality through concrete examples, participants were able to use them to reveal structural gender inequality.
Participants stressed that it was the genuine exchange of experiences that formed the core of the network. As described earlier, the purpose of the process-oriented network meetings was to provide a safe zone, with a clear, recurring structure, where participants could share their experiences. The idea behind checking in and checking out was to give the workshop a clearly defined framework. By checking in, participants could connect with each other and mentally transfer their attention from their hectic work-life to the workshop theme. Similarly, gathering for a concluding session including reflection and check-out was intended to
Gender balance is described and discussed in greater depth in Chapters 1 and 2.
See Chapter 7 for more on internalizing disadvantages and setbacks.
We here describe the three parts of the data material in the FRONT project at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the University of Oslo: the questionnaire surveys, the action research and the interviews.
The FRONT project was originally planned as an exploration of initiatives with a limited emphasis on research. It soon became clear, however, that more research on conditions at the faculty was needed. Consequently, the research part of the project was expanded to include two questionnaire surveys. The two surveys consisted of a detailed questionnaire (18 pages, 190 variables, N = 843) sent to all employees of the faculty (including PhD students), and a shorter questionnaire sent to a sample of master students (N = 213), making a total of 1056 respondents. The project was thus based on a broad combination of methods, including both quantitative and qualitative types of data, as described below. This expansion not only provided a better basis for knowledge, it also became important for the initiatives, since the results were reported back and discussed among employees and management at the faculty in the latter part of the project period, which resulted in greater interest and involvement.
The
The questionnaire form was developed based on a combination of recent international studies of gender differences in academia (particularly the European Asset and Integer studies:
The
Altogether, the two surveys provide greater breadth and depth of detail in the data material than what has prevailed in studies of academic careers. For example, questions regarding gender balance are connected with work environment, academic culture, gender equality, and other dimensions of social inequality. The surveys cover a total of 269 variables (190 in the employee survey, and 79 in the student survey). This breadth enabled cross-sectional analyses, as well as providing greater detail and depth in many areas, resulting in new information and findings not previously known.
Questions were formulated through collaboration in the FRONT team, the project’s resource group, and with the faculty leadership. We wish to emphasize that a shared, open and curious approach characterized this collaboration. The attitude has been to put all facts on the table regardless of whether the problems were big or small. In other words, the researchers on the team were not inhibited because of critical questions and analyses.
The student questionnaire was distributed in paper format to master’s students in randomly selected lectures and reading halls in late autumn 2017. The students were studying computer science, biology or physics. Computer science made up the largest group. The response rate among the students was approximately 95 per cent (N = 213). Women constituted 44 per cent of the sample, men 55 per cent, and others 1 per cent. The majority were between 22 and 25 years old. Those with Norwegian nationality made up 73 per cent, whereas 27 per cent had a different nationality.
Both the student and the employee surveys motivated many respondents to make comments, which was an option at the end of the form. The comments consist of both praise and criticism of the working and learning environment. There is some skepticism to the surveys, mostly from men, but this is sporadic, and not common in the comments.
The employee questionnaire was answered by 843 people (485 men and 358 women), of whom 705 are currently employed, and 138 are former faculty employees. The latter group consisted primarily of former PhD fellows, in addition to some who had recently retired. It is difficult to state the exact response rate for each position category, as we do not know how many actually received the questionnaire form, and many, particularly on the recruitment level, changed positions around the time when the form was distributed. However, we can obtain a relatively realistic picture
As mentioned, the surveys include 1056 respondents in total. An analysis of dropout from the employee survey shows that men responded slightly less often than women (roughly in line with other similar surveys), and that the PhD fellows responded less often than the rest – but apart from this, the survey is relatively representative of the faculty. Typical reasons for not answering were “too little time”, “the form was too long” and the like. One can also imagine that “association to employer” (Ipsos distributed the form, but the faculty leadership sent out a reminder) and “aversion to issues concerning gender and gender equality” also contributed to a lower response rate. However, we do not find any clear indications of this. Nor do we see any clear signs of skewed selection (dropout or skewed distribution) on questions relating to gender equality. The response rate is slightly higher among women than men, which is common for this type of survey.
Data analysis was carried out by the FRONT team (primarily Holter), partly in collaboration with Åsmund Ukkelberg from Ipsos, in order to identify the material’s main patterns. The collaborative method included
A chief goal of this work was to produce “robust” results across techniques, in other words associations that are clear and consistently statistically significant. The FRONT team led by Holter used mainly SPSS for the data analyses, in combination with Excel, Open Office Draw, and other programmes.
The next step was to remove spurious or self-evident associations, and test what we were left with, considering the impact of background variables, and other essential variables as they gradually emerged more clearly in the analyses – for example, experiencing academic devaluation and unwanted sexual attention.
The analyses showed a considerably larger gender gap in experiences than the early interviews in the FRONT project showed. “Statistics see what you do not see,” Arnoldo Frigessi claims (
Figures from the questionnaire surveys in this book represent primarily only statistically significant gender differences with a few exceptions, in which the absence of gender difference is essential. This is commented on in the text, for instance in the figures in Chapter 5, in which variables that do
With all this in mind, we consider the hypothesis that “particularly critical women” have answered the employee survey to be unlikely, as well as the possibility that “particularly critical men” have dropped out. However, the project did not include a dropout study, with an analysis of those who chose not to answer the questionnaire.
There are important research challenges related to what our results tell us, and what they do not tell us. They say
It is also clear that both the questionnaire surveys and the interviews may be improved – as is always the case in retrospect. Some variables clearly point to significant differential treatment, such as academic devaluation, unwanted sexual attention, and problems following care leave. These deserve more elaboration and more detailed investigation, in addition to more questions on gender equality. We have reason to believe that the inclusion of more such critical questions and a larger sample,
We asked about place, but not time, in relation to important work environment issues, such as harassment. This is a weak point. We do not know for certain, then, how much reporting is characterized by experiences here and now (for example, on the current position level), compared with older or long-term experiences (current and previous position levels).
The chapters in the book’s first part are based primarily on the questionnaire surveys in combination with the interview material. Here, we discuss the main results, topic by topic, in relation to gender balance and gender equality. Methodological remarks are included in each chapter. The statistics are mainly bi- and trivariate analyses. The chapters in the latter half of the book’s first part include more multivariable methods and controls for other dimensions of social inequality.
In Chapter 4 “Who is Publishing What? How Gender Influences Publication”, we apply a multivariable analysis. If gender is included along with other variables in the analysis, particularly position level and the number of working hours spent on research, a separate gender factor becomes hardly visible. These are self-reported data, but as far as we can see, they are fairly realistically reported. Statistics indicate that the idea of women publishing less “because they are women” does not hold true.
Chapter 6 “Ethnicity, Racism and Intersectionality”, presents the most important ethnicity-related problems in the material, and compares these with issues related to gender and class. Here, we apply multivariable techniques in order to uncover
Chapter 7 “The Bøygen Model: The Hypothesis of Accumulated Disadvantage”, elaborates on the empirical data presented in Chapter 5 “Experiences in Academia: A New Survey Study”. The hypothesis that obstacles and inner doubt are connected is verified and presented in a model.
Chapter 8 “The Janus Model: Why Women Experience Disadvantage”, distinguishes between legitimate gender differentiation and illegitimate gender stratification. Stratification takes over from differentiation, as a main tendency upwards on the career ladder. We also discuss more complex connections between these two elements. That gender stratification comes into play is shown empirically, for instance, in Chapter 3 “Sexual Harassment: Not an Isolated Problem”, and in Chapter 5 “Experiences in Academia: A New Survey Study”.
Chapter 9 “The Triview Model: Three Views of a Problem”, presents a model largely based on qualitative empirical evidence from the project (and supported by the surveys), particularly in terms of culture and informal communication.
The quantitative material from the questionnaire survey and the analyses uncovering gender-related patterns enlarged the picture significantly, in relation to early interviews and the qualitative material in the project. It provided an opportunity to develop the models described in the book’s second part.
As already mentioned, the FRONT project consisted of various measures to promote gender equality at the faculty, in addition to research. FRONT’s strategy has been to combine the implementation
In the next section, we start by describing the research following the measures before describing the rest of the interviews.
All the interviewees are anonymized. When quoting Aksel, Wenche, Tobias, etc. in the various chapters of the book, we use fictitious names.
The initiative analyzed in this chapter was five seminar days for the faculty’s management team, on the topic of gender equality. The management team, a total of 14 people, consisted of the dean’s office and heads of the departments. The initiative started with a two-day seminar. Three months later, the group met again for one seminar day, and a further three months later, the initiative concluded with a two-day seminar.
The analysis in the chapter is based on qualitative material in the form of notes from the five seminar days, and ten individual interviews. During the seminars, the researchers took notes by hand, and when the day was over they reviewed their individual notes and wrote a joint field diary. Flip-over sheets and other material produced by the participants were collected and documented in the field diary.
One year after the seminar series ended, individual interviews with the ten participants who had been present at all seminars were conducted. The
The two researchers who followed the project played somewhat different roles. One of the researchers met, as the project’s coordinator, the participants in connection with other project related activities. This researcher conducted the individual interviews and planned the initiative’s activities. The other researcher was only involved in the actual implementation of the seminars.
The analysis itself began with an inductive approach to the material. All the material was reviewed several times to see whether it was possible to identify recurring themes and potential similarities and differences. The coding was based on the informants’ own descriptions and concepts. In the next phase, the material was interpreted based on theory of sensemaking.
The initiative analyzed in Chapter 11 is a seminar series for PhD supervisors. The purpose of the five-hour long seminars was to increase the participants’ knowledge of gender imbalance in the organization, and to provide them with the opportunity to share experiences and reflections. Each seminar group consisted of 25–30 participants from some of the faculty’s nine departments. All the seminars were arranged in the same way: check-in, theoretical input, case discussions in small groups, and a conclusion by the faculty leadership. All employees at the faculty with supervision responsibilities on master or PhD levels were invited to attend the twelve seminars.
The analysis in the chapter is primarily based on qualitative material in the form of notes from the twelve seminars. The qualitative material was collected through participant observation and is documented as a field diary. During the seminars, the researchers took notes by hand, and when the day was over, they reviewed their individual notes and wrote
In this chapter, two of the seminars are described as two scenes. The first scene is based on one of the first seminars, whereas the second scene is based on a seminar held 18 months later. The scenes are written according to a method (used in action research, among other things) which is intentionally subjective, even if it is based on analyses and discussions in the research group, and therefore does not represent the individual researcher alone. It is comparable to notes from fieldwork, a practice memo, or a diary entry. The researcher’s encounter with the field is central. The method includes phenomenological analysis and is not an attempt to say anything “objectively” about what is occurring generally. It is limited to a few specific cases, as they were actually experienced without any kind of advance filter. The scenes thus illustrate various aspects of the change work. The participants are different and react differently. Some are skeptical to the FRONT initiatives, whereas others are more positive.
Here the analysis also began with an inductive approach to the material, where notes were reviewed several times to see if it was possible to identify recurring themes as well as potential similarities and differences. In the next phase, the material was interpreted based on a theory of resistance and change.
The initiative analyzed in this chapter is an organized network of 18 female associate professors and full professors. The two-year long initiative was structured as a forum, in which the two researchers offered theoretical input on various topics chosen by the participants. Dialogue tools were used to shed light on the topics through a structured and effective exchange of experiences. In total, the network participants met on eight occasions. The initiative began with a two-day seminar followed by two all-day seminars and five half-day seminars. The project’s coordinator participated in all the seminars, and designed and organized the
The analysis is characterized by an inductive approach to the material. All the material was reviewed several times to see if it was possible to identify recurring themes, and similarities as well as differences. The coding was based on the informants’ own descriptions and concepts. In the next phase, the material was interpreted based on theories on organizations and gender, as well as resilience.
As several of the project’s initiatives were aimed at women from postdoctoral to professor levels, interviews with women on these position levels were also emphasized in the research following the initiatives. In mapping the situation at the faculty, we also conducted ten interviews with men in permanent academic positions, and with men and women on master and PhD levels. The interview method, which we referred to
One part of the Horizon 2020 project GENERA involved an analysis of the organizational culture from a gender perspective in departments of physics in 18 European countries, through interviews with women and men in different position categories. The structured interviews were conducted based on an interview guide designed by GENERA’s research group. We participated in GENERA by conducting 10 interviews based on this interview guide. We also carried out another nine interviews at the Department of Physics at UiO using another method, “The Biographical Narrative Interview Method”, in order to obtain more material. All these interviews were carried out by a research assistant from the FRONT project. The interviews were conducted in English, recorded and transcribed.
The nine interviews with female postdoctoral fellows at the departments of physics, biosciences and informatics were conducted by the FRONT project’s postdoctoral fellow. All the informants had participated in the FRONT project’s ten-day career programme for female postdoctoral
Prior to the implementation of the FRONT project’s initiatives, we conducted interviews with the faculty’s vice dean for research, two heads of departments, three postdoctoral fellows who had participated in a career development programme at the Department of Biosciences, and others who were working with research leader development at UiO in various ways. These interviews were conducted by the FRONT project’s full-time employee and the project’s postdoctoral fellow. The interviews were recorded, and some of them were transcribed. These interviews were not used for research purposes but were conducted to develop the implemented initiatives.
The work of the FRONT project has continued in a new project called FRONT2 (Future Research and Organizational Development in Natural Sciences, Technology and Theology, 2019–2023). The material from FRONT2 is currently being collected and is not yet fully analyzed, but it is part of the picture in terms of our interpretations and discussions, for example of men and masculinities in this book. The material includes both individual interviews and focus groups.
Ipsos developed the database and guaranteed anonymity in the material, which was submitted to FRONT (in the student survey, the questionnaire form was anonymous). The research team in FRONT worked with an anonymized version of the database delivered by Ipsos.
Mainly multivariable analyses with one “response variable” (statistics) or “dependent variable” (sociology). In sociology, the term “multivariate” is often used for multivariable analysis. See also Chapter 6.
New studies can, for example, provide better detailing of “long-term experience” compared to “fairly isolated experiences”, in the most important problem areas.
Meaning different types of social stratification, which
Sensemaking theory is described in Chapter 10.
Theory of resistance and change is described in Chapter 11.
For a description of the theories see Chapter 12.
For an early example of the development of interview methods in relation to men see