By: Dr. Laura Kuhlmann, ORT Times Science Writer
Early during my PhD, I was often asked why there are so many women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) from my home country of Romania. Indeed, Eastern European universities score highly in gender diversity in research despite less funding available for research and education. In contrast, many well-funded North American institutes struggle to recruit and retain women in STEMM.
Many reports have tried to explain persistent gender imbalances in the workforce. Arguments range from presumed biological differences between the sexes/genders to social factors such as gender constructs and biases. Both biological and sociological arguments have furthermore been used to erase non-binary and trans individuals. New policies addressing biases and favouring diversity hiring can help recruit more gender minorities in science, but these policies are only a bandage solution. Women are, for example, still encouraged to ‘lean in’ and adopt perceived ‘male behaviours’, such as competitiveness and individualism, historically considered beneficial for a successful career. We thus continue to conflate gender with ability and behaviour, which can lead to a toxic work environment.
One solution to this imbalance might be to shift the focus of diversity programs away from gender and towards emphasizing valuable character types and behaviours. For example, mathematician Eugenia Cheng proposes two behaviour defining terms: ‘congressive’ (collaborative, community oriented) and ‘ingressive’ (competitive, prioritizing individual achievements). While acknowledging that traits exist on a spectrum and are modifiable through experience and training, she notes that STEMM still favours ingressive behaviours, despite growing support for congressive approaches. The value of, and need for, multidisciplinary collaborative projects has been further highlighted during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.
Another approach is to emphasize long-term, over short-term goals. While some projects are necessarily time-sensitive, deciding the value of researchers based on a few years of activity is often ineffective. Long-term success—such as societal/clinical impact, scientific innovation and trainee success—cannot be captured in a fast-paced evaluation environment. Furthermore, the overlap between women’s reproductive period (here gender differences are relevant) and early-career job precariousness in STEMM hinders many women’s research careers. Supporting young mothers could enhance women representation in STEMM. I know this from personal experience: when I was born, my mother, then a recent chemistry graduate, took one year off work to raise me. Subsequently, my grandparents helped with my upbringing, since in Eastern Europe multigeneration raising of children is more common. This arrangement allowed my mother to resume and advance her career. She is now a Professor at the University of Bucharest, Chair of the Faculty of Biology and has headed the creation of a new research institute, while also serving as a role model for trainees. The long-term benefits of supporting a young mother in returning to work became, in hindsight, undeniable.
Therefore, allowing for a slower science, coupled with parental support (such as paid parental leave) would help retain more gender diverse, talented scientists.
Ultimately, to accelerate innovation and avoid past mistakes, we should revise our efforts towards building a more gender diverse workforce in STEMM.