Memorandum 37
Submission from the UK Resource Centre
for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (SET)
1. INTRODUCTION
AND SUMMARY
About the UKRC
The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science,
Engineering and Technology (SET) works to significantly improve
the participation and position of women in science, engineering
and technology occupations in industry, research, academia, and
public service to benefit the future productivity of the UK and
the lifetime earnings and career aspirations of women. It is the
UK's leading centre providing information and advisory services
to employers and organisations in the SET sectors and supporting
women entering, returning and progressing in these fields.
Summary
1. Detailed arguments and proposals are contained
in the main body of the submission.
2. A separate science or SET department in itself
would not help gender equality and thereby improve science policy.
It could diminish progress across similar and equally occupationally
segregated industries and jobs, by creating silos.
3. Current policy formulation of science is inherently
weak as decision making bodies are not gender/diversity balanced.
UKRC disagrees with the proposals from the government to drop
the PSA target for women to be 40% of SET boards. Policy would
also be improved through smarter strategy which joins up policies
in different domains and machinery and champions to ensure that
gender objectives and targets are set and achieved.
4. Successful consultations attract a high
number of quality responses from diverse groups. But in addition,
from the point of view of the UKRC and its stakeholders, success
subsequently depends on how well gender or gender based concerns
are clearly embedded into the policy being consulted on.
5. UKRC believes that engaging more women
in science is essential, and it could form a virtuous circle,
assisting with the take up of STEM education and employment opportunities.
Better representation of women at all levels of engagement, decision
making and delivery would help shape and influence policy for
the better, as would a focus on women's concerns and interests,
and the use of a "gender lens". This submission includes
many suggestions.
6. We propose that UKRC has a more central
role in the analysis, monitoring and gender impact assessment
of science/SET policy at an early stage of development.
7. We propose that UKRC has a role in scrutiny,
regarding any gender implications of science/SET policy.
2. STRUCTURES
TO PUT
SCIENCE AT
THE HEART
OF POLICY
MAKING
IUSS asks:
2.1 Whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee on
Science and Innovation and the Council for Science and Technology
put science and engineering at the heart of policy-making and
whether there should be a Department for Science.
UKRC response on departmental arrangements
2.2 Our interest is in the way science and science
policy, and policy generally can be improved as measured by the
increased participation of women in science and science decision
making. We argue that a separate department will not in itself
create progress. It could even create silos between related areas
of occupational segregation.
2.3 It is imperative that the conditions in the
UK are right for women's full contribution to SET because we need
a "representative and well qualified scientific workforce".
We believe the formation of a Department for Science in itself
will not be sufficient to put gender at the heart of science.
To do this, requires understanding, a measured plan, and senior
civil servants having the will to make progress, with support
from expert agencies like the UK Resource Centre for Women in
SET.
2.4 A separate science department could potentially
be a silo in relation to other sectors that are equally gender
segregated (eg ICT, construction) and limit progress on all fronts.
Gains made in these and other sectors are often transferable and
companies cut across sector boundaries. Such problems were the
case with the old DTI/OST structure. By contrast with DIUS now,
we are seeing more joined up thinking about education and employment
pathways, and a greater understanding of occupational and vertical
segregation and the position of SET within this.
3. THE FORMULATION
OF SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING
POLICY
IUSS asks:
3.1 About how Government formulates science
and engineering policy—the strengths and weaknesses of the
current system.
UKRC response on the formulation of science and
engineering policy
3.2 UKRC argues that science and engineering
policy formulation would be improved by:
— Facilitate an integrated, cross departmental
approach to women and SET across all of the relevant policy areas
— Institute an integrated strategy
on women in SET on the whole "leaky pipeline" of supply
— Charge the Minister for Science and
Innovation with being the "Women and SET Champion" within
Government, working with the Ministers for Women on occupational
segregation, discrimination and the impact of caring responsibilities.[147]
— Reinforce the strategic importance
of women in the supply of talented scientists and engineers at
every formal opportunity in policy.
3.3 It is our view that effective action
to address women's disadvantage in SET and put gender on the agenda
requires complex, cross cutting analyses and responses. SET is
notoriously male dominated especially at senior and decision-making
levels. Policy making at the higher levels also lacks an integrated
gender perspective. This leaves the "gender questions"
unasked.
3.4 Gender analysis and relevant solutions
are rarely included in higher level "mainstream" reports
like Leitch and the STEM initiatives. Another opportunity was
Race to the Top which could helped mesh policy on skills and the
under representation of women in SET. Initiatives within science
policy need to join up with for example, the Women and Work Commission,
SET Fair (2002) and UKRC's expert advice.
3.5 A key weakness is the lack of women
on science and engineering decision making bodies. More equitable
representation would help with excellence and with shaping priorities.
The government should retain the 40% target for women on SET bodies.
3.6 UKRC contends that "smarter"
strategy on science, policy more widely and gender equality would:
— Join up the policy domains of gender
equality, gender in SET, with those of science and innovation,
skills and employment.
— Formulate policies with clearer,
more explicit gender equality and diversity objectives, with targets
where relevant.
3.8 The Science and Innovation Minister
acting as the Women and SET champion should lead this, linking
with the UKRC as the lead delivery body, well placed to advise
on policy impact as well as good practice. The expert group on
women in SET can also advise.
3.9 We also recommend a cross departmental
body with a brief to ensure an equality framework within all the
relevant SET policy fields. Diversity and women's diversity should
be addressed through action to increase, for example, black and
minority ethnic people's representation in SET. The key contractor
for women in SET, the UKRC for Women in SET can advise this body.
4. TAKING ACCOUNT
OF THE
VIEWS OF
THE SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING
COMMUNITY
IUSS asks
4.1 Whether the views of the science and
engineering community are, or should be, central to the formulation
of government policy, and how the success of any consultation
is assessed.
UKRC response on involving the community and consultation
success
4.2 Consultations need to attract a good number
of high quality responses, from diverse groups. We also recommend
that:
— Success for UKRC would be:
— Explicit statements about addressing
women's equality and representation (going further than passing
references to under representation or diversity)
— Effective machinery, champions and
action to improve women's involvement in science
— Requirements for disaggregated statistics
and monitoring
— Discourse/language demonstrating
an understanding of gender (power) relations and the gendering
of society
— Targets to assist with increasing
the numbers of women (or men) in specific areas
— Commitments to positive action
— Commitments to flexible working and
approaches for equal opportunities
— Provisions for "culture change"
in science and science policy
— Support for the work of the UKRC
— Recommendations for "integrated
strategies" with focus on all aspects of supply, demand,
retention and progression of women in SET (ie we can't just focus
on girls/schools/university).
4.3 However, it is still rare for mainstream
policy to clearly acknowledge and address women's under representation
in science and engineering. It is rare even that diversity or
inequality generally is mentioned. Signaling equality and issues
of under representation at higher levels supports and guides commitment
at implementation level.
4.4 The UKRC is an organisational member
of the science and engineering community. It works with employers
in the sector, universities and colleges, intermediary organisations
and individual women scientists and engineers. The UKRC makes
regular submissions to departmental consultations and select committees.
It also reports on its own work and service delivery and collates
or commissions research into the under representation of women
in SET. The formal responses encompass a wide range of policy
areas—education, employment and skills, equality, as well
as science and education.
4.5 The UKRC can see the linkages between
these policy areas and assist with integrated policy development.
The following case study uses a recent consultation.
Case study
4.6 During the development of the Vision
for Science and Society (DIUS lead), with encouragement from DIUS,
UKRC conducted a very successful (secondary) consultation to enable
the voice of more than 200 stakeholders concerned with women
in SET. The report[148]
can be found on our website: www.ukrc4setwomen.org
4.7 The UKRC gathered a great deal of opinion
and evidence from this exercise. There were many practical suggestions
concerning excitement and valuing science, confidence in the use
of science and a well qualified and representative work force.
4.8 The suggestions about the workforce
resonated with recommendations from SET Fair (2002) and to a very
great extent confirmed our strategy.
4.9 The consultation implied that the government
wished to be informed and guided about a vision for science in
society and practical steps. It was in this spirit that we all
engaged.
4.10 For the UKRC, success would be a vision
that encompassed active efforts to:
— Address problems and issues in relation
to gender imbalance and women's representation (on engagement,
confidence, involvement, education, employment and media.
— Include recommendations which reflect
the advice and findings of our consultation submission
4.11 In conclusion, we draw attention to
the online survey element of the consultation. Respondents focused
on the SET work place. Too many painted a sorry picture of work
in higher education, in academic research and in industry. This
is not news to UKRC, but of great concern. This is why a strong
steer in the forthcoming vision focusing on the under representation
of women in SET and positive action to address it would indicate
a "successful" consultation to us, and we believe most
of the individual women (and men) who contributed.
5. ENGAGING THE
PUBLIC AND
INCREASING PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE IN
SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING POLICY
IUSS asks:
5.1 How can we engage the public and increase
public confidence in science and engineering policy.
UKRC response to issue of engagement and confidence
in science and engineering policy
5.2.1 UKRC argues there is no single solution
to women's increased confidence and engagement in science and
scientific policy. We need measures to address several inter related
factors concerning women's:
— needs and interests being reflected
in scientific practice and policy priorities, and in government
and policy generally
— equal representation in the leadership
and governance of science.
5.2.2 UKRC also argues that improvements
across these domains:
— require a commitment and good practice
on gender equality
— would be accelerated by full implementation
of the Gender Equality Duty
— would be aided by systematic positive
action initiatives nationally to increase the number of women
in the SET workforce, including targeting and outreach.
5.2.3 UKRC consultation participants called
for these gender related changes to improve science and science
policy:
— Engagement of women and men equally
with science issues and policies
— Scientists to share knowledge and
not protect their status. Scientists need also to explain to other
professionals
— Inclusiveness and balance in the
viewpoints which define science priorities
— Fairness in the distribution of impacts
and benefits of science and technology policies for men and women
— Conscious consideration of possible
areas of unfairness to women or men (in government and public
sector policy, business practice, education policy and related
areas)
— The promotion and involvement of
more women to positions of leadership and policy formation
— Fixed quotas on all public committees[149]
— Gender Audits of all new science
policy for equity and transparency
— A science communication policy that
reaches and represents women as well as men
— Stronger guidelines for press and
media reporting on controversial science issues. A kitemark for
good reporting.
5.2.4 UKRC consultation participants also
offered large number of suggestions to increase confidence and
engagement amongst women as citizens. Targeting was an essential
feature:
— More consultation and discussion
through organisations like UKRC
— Take science out of the laboratory,
boardroom or committee
— Meet with women on their own terms
— Selective and targeted use of media
and new media (including popular media) to ensure all women are
reached
— Promotion of role models eg women
scientists better represented in the media
— Target women in science fields who
don't see themselves as scientists (eg health professionals)
— Use women's non SET networking sites
and women's organisations
— Outreach activities with adult women,
including mothers
— Businesses to engage more in outreach
activities
— Use specialist women in SET networks
and groups
— Support for organisations such as
UKRC that reach and work with women
— Debating forums in every city
— Engage with the voluntary sector
— Orchestrate events where women are
likely to come on their own
— Demonstrate the relevance and utility
of science in addressing concerns often held by women
— Disseminate female oriented research
— Undertake more research that redresses
gender bias/neglect
— Influence the professional bodies
engaged in SET
— Public national campaigns via TV
to raise awareness of what individuals can do to make a difference
— More direct engagement with communities
5.2.5 Media and communication in increasing
engagement and confidence:
— Science communication—women
scientists should play an appropriate role that enhances their
standing as scientists, raises the profile of women scientists
and women's interests in science, and improves the standards of
communication.
— Media—representation—women
as scientists need to be better represented in the media and representations
of women scientists should never be gender stereotyped or sexist.
Additional background to the recommendations
5.3 UKRC believes that making science more
clearly relevant to women as a diverse but identifiable group
would increase engagement overall. This is right for society
and right for women's equality. Some science issues have an obvious
gender dimension but not all do. However whether women have a
gender based interest or not—women's views, needs and concerns
as 50% of the population, are always relevant. We also believe
that engaging more women would also assist with the take up of
science or STEM education and employment opportunities, forming
a virtuous circle.
5.4 Relevance, confidence, understanding and
"scientific literacy" are all essential elements. Each
must be approached with a willingness to explore a wide variety
of gender dimensions, which are sometimes "concealed"
from us.
5.5 If women and girls form a greater proportion
of the "disaffected", the disinterested and the scared
as they are said to do, then government, business and the voluntary
sector should be targeting them to increase their understanding,
their confidence and their engagement.[150]
This is a good example of the need for positive action (through
targeting and outreach for example).
6. THE ROLE
OF STAKEHOLDER
ORGANISATIONS
IUSS asks
6.1 About the role of GO-Science, DIUS and
other Government departments, charities, learned societies, Regional
Development Agencies, industry and other stakeholders in determining
UK science and engineering policy.
UKRC response to questions about the role of various
organisations in science and engineering policy.
6.2 We propose that UKRC has a more central role
in the analysis, gender impact assessment and monitoring of science
policy at an early stage.
6.3 The UKRC like many other intermediary and
influencing organisations can bring its particular expertise,
perspective and constituency in relation to women's participation
and progression in science and engineering.
6.4 The UKRC is well placed to engage women and
men in thinking about science and science policy. Through the
vision consultation for example, we have found an appetite. Our
links with a wide range of stakeholders, including women in SET
organisations and women's organisations whose remit is not primarily
science related, should be tapped.
7. THE SCRUTINY
OF GOVERNMENT
SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING POLICY
IUSS asks
7.1 IUSS asks how government science and
engineering policy should be scrutinized.
UKRC response on scrutiny
7.2 We propose that UKRC has a role in scrutiny
regarding any gender implications of science policy.
7.3 Women need to be properly represented in
scrutiny. Men and women involved in scrutiny should raise a "gender
lens". The presence of indicators, targets, disaggregated
statistic, gender equality action schemes, positive action relating
to women should be high on the agenda of the scrutineers. Gender
equality experts from the UKRC and other organisations can support
the machinery of scrutiny.
The following two brief case studies illustrate how
a gender lens in scrutiny reveals ways to improve policy.
Case Study 1
7.4 Scrutiny of UK innovation policy reveals
reveals an absence of analysis about its gender dimensions.
7.4.1 Under explored in thinking about innovation
are the links between innovation, research and development (R
and D) and the involvement of women (and other under-represented
groups). Some interesting research from Germany suggests that
companies need to examine their R and D departments for their
effectiveness Schraudner (2006).
"The intensive interaction with partners in
the marketplace, research institutions and customers increases
the efficiency and effectiveness of innovation performance."[151]
7.4.2 This research suggests a number of
ways gender is relevant in the R and D process:
new objectives for technological developments
the context for a new product or service during
development
adaptations of existing products or services
for new uses.
7.4.3 One aspect of their analysis showed
how different specific products and services took account of gender
to different degrees throughout the innovation cycle. This led
to differing success:
Voice recognition systems needed to take account
of higher voices and user tests had been done without women;
new skis were developed with women in mind and in the process;
a care robot needed to be developed for the different care
needs (personal hygiene or cleaning) requested by women and men;
in the exploration phase, attention was not paid to women's
symptoms in heart attack, leading to a lower chance of survival;
water pumps were unsuccessful where design did not take account
of culturally unacceptable behaviour for women.
7.4.4 If women aren't involved in R and
D in sufficient numbers and positions of leadership, if women
as customers with specific gendered needs are invisible because
gender is not disaggregated, if women are not progressing through
our universities into research and other positions of leadership
in industry, it is very likely that we will lose opportunities
for innovation across all its phases and in terms of all stakeholders.
7.4.5 The German work included a programme
of intervention to develop greater gender sensitization in innovation
that merits further consideration in case it is transferable here.
Case Study 2
7.5 Race to the Top
7.5.1 We take Chapter 4 on Knowledge Transfer
from Race to the Top and demonstrate how a gender lens
can indicate additional or modified policy and practice recommendations.
7.5.2 Opportunities to move into industry
are as important to women and men working in SET. A number of
the recommendations of this chapter could have been enhanced by
a gender focus to ensure that women are getting appropriate access
to schemes and programmes. A case could be made for positive
action where women have been under represented.
Rec 4.2 (page 60) Senior Industrial Professionals
should be aware of and charged with taking positive action in
respect of industry facing activities
Rec 4.3 (page 60) The competition which
allocates HEIF4 funding should have gender criteria
Research Councils who are already engaged in
the equality and diversity agenda could be incentivised in relation
to gender (page 61)
Initiatives with SMEs and NfP organisations
present an ideal opportunity to maximise women's participation
(page 61)
Rec 4.5 (page 63-4) The expansion of the
KTPs should build in gender and diversity related requirements.
What is the gender disaggregated breakdown of placements over
the past few years? Analysis could show if women are under-represented
in partnerships and, if so, it would be possible to design positive
action to increase the interest and success of women. However,
without the figures we do not know if there is a problem. UKRC
has some evidence that women are not entering UK SET entrepreneurship
so readily.
The mini KTP programme and the developments
in FE should be gender proofed and the Gender Equality Duty's
guidance applied.
The PSRE Fund's impact and development should
also be looked at from a gender perspective: as a start, gender
disaggregation of the data around leadership/ownership and participation
in projects, spin outs etc. Beneficiaries of the fund should be
able to demonstrate that they have gender proofed their work,
along the lines of the German innovation initiative (in case study
1 above).
January 2009
147 UKRC argues that gender needs to be addressed as
a distinct area of "diversity" and not subsumed into
a vague and therefore ineffective "generic" approach
to equality and diversity. Back
148
UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology
Response to the Consultation on the vision for science and society. Back
149
There are distinctions to be made between quotas and targets.
The UKRC tends to recommend targets. Back
150
Reference here to remarks made by Jim Al-Khalili, Prof. of Physics
and of Public Engagement in Science, University of Surrey, at
UKRC event at Liverpool BA Festival 2008. Back
151
Schraudner, M. (2006) Gender Aspects in Research-A Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
Project sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Research and
Technology (Presentation to 13th Meeting of the Helsinki Group,
Brussels, January 2006) Back
| 
