3 Gender perceptions in STEM careers
18. Gender perceptions and biases may
be present throughout all stages of STEM study and career. Gender
patterns in subject interests have been shown to be socially constructed,
not biologically based.[89]
These social constructs start influencing children at a young
age. The Targeted Initiative on Science and Mathematics Education
stated that "by age 14, most girls have already come to see
science careers as 'interesting but not for me'".[90]
Factors influencing the views of children, parents and teachers
include:
a) stereotypes, for example, "70%
of people around the world associate being a scientist with being
a man"; [91]
b) a lack of knowledge about STEM
careers, often coupled with a lack of female role models.[92]
Both girls and boys are more likely to aspire to STEM when their
families "possess substantial 'science capital', i.e. science-related
qualifications, 'know how' and contacts";[93]
c) a strong popular perception among
students and parents that particular STEM careers, particularly
those in the physical sciences, are masculine;[94]
d) girls reporting lower self-confidence
in their abilities despite no differences in actual abilities
or attainment. This is "exacerbated by the 'brainy' image
of STEM held by the majority of young people";[95]
and
e) Sexism, such as differential
expectations and encouragement for girls to continue with STEM.
There is some evidence of "teachers favouring boys and perceiving
them to be 'better' (and more 'naturally able') at science than
girls, even where attainment data indicate otherwise".[96]
The Government "funds STEMNET to
run the STEM Ambassador programme which raises awareness amongst
children and young people of the range of careers that science
and technical qualifications offer".[97]
Although not a central part of this inquiry, we are aware that
the STEM Ambassador Scheme is very well regarded.[98]
We have also previously recommended that engagement with industry
should be a core requirement of teachers' Continuing Professional
Development as this would improve the provision of STEM careers
advice to students.[99]
We encourage the Government to work with the STEM community
and schools to tackle gender stereotypes in education, particularly
at primary level. In addition, we re-iterate the importance of
engagement with STEM industry being part of teachers' CPD.
19. University College London (UCL)
commented on the continuation of gender stereotypes into academia
whereby "the assumed identity of an academic in STEMM tends
to be linked to masculinity".[100]
Once in a STEM career, women may encounter attitudes that hinder
their progression to senior levels. Plymouth Marine Laboratory
stated that "the 'glass ceiling', a term often used in the
corporate world, can also exist in the scientific environment,
with scientific leadership dominated by males".[101]
The leaky pipeline itself reinforces existing views about women
in science; UCL added that "the decline in female scientists
through the academic pipeline reinforces the assumption and stereotypes
surrounding science and gender" and might "put off young
women and girls from choosing science subjects at school, A level
and University".[102]
Role models and mentoring are further discussed in paragraphs
33-39.
Recruitment to STEM jobs
20. The British Pharmacological Society
highlighted that "many women in STEM suffer bias due to expectation,
in that the potential for a woman to take maternity leave or to
require flexible working in future can impact the judgement of
interviewers".[103]
The British Medical Association stated that "academic appointment
panels [...] are often wholly male due to the lack of women in
senior positions" and that "despite equality training
and guidelines, unconscious bias means that panels frequently
have a tendency to choose appointees like themselves".[104]
This type of bias in an environment dominated at senior
levels by men may mean that "many successful candidates will
be male".[105]
Bias against women in recruitment is not solely perpetrated by
men. Studies have demonstrated that both men and women can be
unconsciously biased towards preferring male candidates in STEM.
A 2012 study led by Yale University, in which 127 science faculties
from research-intensive universities "were asked to rate
the application materials of a studentwho was randomly
assigned either a male or female namefor a laboratory manager
position" showed that "both male and female professors
rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and preferable
to hire than the (identical) female applicant".[106]
The study also found that "they also offered the male applicant
a higher starting salary and additional career mentoring support".[107]
Similar bias exists in the UK, for example, Bournemouth University
highlighted that "in terms of applications for jobs and promotion,
when CVs are judged blindly women fare better on average, but
when names are included, men have the advantage".[108]
21. The effects of gender bias cannot
just be mitigated with simple measures such as ensuring that recruitment
and interview panels include women. Dr June McCombie, representing
the Institute of Physics, acknowledged that this could place "an
extra load" on women scientists because "you cannot
physically have a woman on every single committee and every single
appointments panel in the university because there simply are
not enough".[109]
However she added that "there is no doubt that the majority
of women involved see this as something they should do in order
to [...] make sure that committees [...] are less influenced by
unconscious bias and inaccurate evaluations".[110]
Sarah Dickinson, Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), stated that:
People are coming up with some interesting
initiatives. If you do not have enough females in a department,
they are taking females from other departments or bringing in
female HR representatives to ensure that there is a gender balance.
In terms of committees, it is things like deputising roles or
shadowing roles, so there is a great opportunity for early career
women to get the opportunity to sit on a committee and shadow
so that it adjusts the gender issues.[111]
Another option, suggested by Clem Herman,
Open University, was to "anonymise applications so that you
do not clearly see the gender".[112]
Progress and promotion
22. The Medical Schools Council and
Dental Schools Council stated that "students can be biased
in their perceptions of leadership, with medical school students
of both genders reporting that men generally make better leaders".[113]
UCL stated that "the skills or abilities that people think
they need in a leader or a manager are also connected to a normative
masculine identity, and women who display these skills are often
judged negatively because they are perceived to be presenting
stereotypically masculine traits" yet "conversely, women
who don't display these traits may be viewed as unsuitable for
the role".[114]
In addition, "women suffer because men find it easier to
deal with men as leaders seeing them in their own image and as
potential equals".[115]
Perceptions matter because, as Dr Bryn Jones explained, "there
is a very strong hierarchy within university research structures"
which makes "support from established academics of critical
importance in the career opportunities available to junior researchers".[116]
He provided the following examples:
a) Applications for fellowships
"generally need to be approved by universities, giving university
departments decisive roles in determining which individuals are
able to apply for fellowships";
b) Researchers on fixed-term grant
funded contracts are, "in very many cases", prohibited
from applying for research grants;
c) PhD students and research assistants
"are normally granted access to data and to facilities through
established academics", who decide which individuals are
given access to "the best data, the best facilities and the
best projects";
d) Entry into research collaborations
is often dependent on nomination by established academics who
are already members; and
e) Junior researchers normally require
grant holders (established academics) to release funding for them
to travel to conferences "at which they might get themselves
noticed by potential future employers".[117]
Dr Jones concluded that this could "lead
to a selection in favour of certain individuals, and a selection
against women, ethnic minorities and people from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds".[118]
Highlighting that this issue could hinder men too, he stated "pushy,
loud or articulate individuals are more likely to be noticed by
established academics" and "junior researchers who are
quiet, shy, reticent or polite can be denied opportunities regardless
of their abilities as researchers".[119]
Dr Jones acknowledged that "it is dangerous to generalise
about personality types and gender", but stated that "an
aggressive pushiness may be more common among men than women,
which may help some types of men to get essential career support
from established academics".[120]
The University of Manchester stated that "unconscious bias
also extends to matters including lack of invitations to speak
at seminars or international conferencessuch invitations
are important to promotion".[121]
23. Women scientists may also perceive
promotions as undesirable. The British Medical Association explained
that "men are more likely to put themselves forward for leadership/senior
positions than women" and that "for a complex set of
reasons, women are more hesitant to apply for promotions".[122]
On the basis of internal promotion data, the National Physical
Laboratory (NPL) concluded that "once a female got to the
promotion panel there was a 100% success rate".[123]
NPL added that "this is not the case for male candidates
and might suggest that women wait until they feel completely ready
before applying for promotion".[124]
The Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council also considered
that "women tend to wait until they meet all the criteria
for promotion, whereas men tend to be more speculative in their
applications" and that "consequently, women are less
likely to submit themselves for consideration for promotion without
encouragement or mentoring".[125]
The University of Manchester added that "women often perceive
that aggressive political skills are required at the top of the
career ladder or in positions of authority" and they "may
not want to adopt this style of leadership".[126]
The Athena SWAN Committee at the Institute of Health and Society
(IHS), Newcastle University, stated that it had "discovered
a perception among younger female members of the IHS staff that
a period of maternity leave has to be 'made up' before they can
compete on equal terms with men".[127]
24. Interestingly, the skills that are
normally considered essential to leadership are under-valued in
academia: ScienceGrrl stated that "non-research skills (e.g.
leadership, mentoring, pastoral care, teaching, project/lab management)
appear to be largely ignored" in career advancement.[128]
This can be a gender issue as "anecdotally [...] more women
than men take on so-called 'soft' responsibilities".[129]
The STFC WiSTEM Network stated that:
Evaluation of success in STEM jobs
typically relies heavily on 'quantity' [...], technical ability
and intellectual rigor, but often fails to formally highlight
and recognise facets of ability which have a significant impact
on actual performance. For example, academic scientists spend
a considerable proportion of their time communicating (in articles,
at conferences and seminars), networking, writing grant proposals,
supervising students, managing staff, teaching andincreasinglyperforming
public outreach activities and working on the commercial exploitation
of their findings.[130]
How non-research activities are valued
in academia is further explored in paragraph 51.
Research funding
25. Securing research funding is vital
to academic success. The University of Oxford stated that "grant-awarding
processes themselves may not be free from bias" and that
"even if the allocation process is bias-free, evidence shows
that women are less likely to apply for funding; apply for smaller
amounts of funding for a shorter duration; and wait longer after
rejection before applying again".[131]
Because of this, women tend to "progress more slowly
up the career hierarchy, reducing the number of women in senior
positions".[132]
Portia Ltd similarly stated that "fewer women than men apply
for research grantsin numbers that correlate to how many
women are present at professorial levels" and that "when
women do apply, they are minimally but systematically less successful
than men in being awarded a grant, even in fields where they are
well represented, such as Life Sciences and Social Science".[133]
The Open University (OU) stated that "current research suggests
that women are not put forward or encouraged to put themselves
forward [for European Research Council grants] because the criteria
stipulate excellence and future leadership, and women are less
confident about making those sorts of claims for themselves at
an early career stage".[134]
By applying for smaller grants, women researchers "have less
money to engage additional researchers in their projects (e.g.
to provide statistical or data analysis support)".[135]
Publication
26. The Open University (OU) stated
that "publication is key to successful career development
for women in STEM but evidence shows women are less likely to
get published, to be first author [and] to be on editorial boards".[136]
The Royal Society of Chemistry stated that "generally, women
write more comprehensive and concise journal papers than men,
resulting in fewer publications but ones that are more widely
cited".[137] The
British Medical Association stated that "there is anecdotal
evidence that men are more likely to repeatedly submit their research
for publication, despite initial rejection, and women less likely
to resubmit their research after rejection".[138]
Double-blind peer review, where the identities of authors and
reviewers of articles are anonymised, is intended to reduce bias.[139]
The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) stated that "double-blind
peer review for publications and grant applications may be necessary
to help to minimise discrimination", although it recognised
that "the process of peer review itself makes true "blind"
review difficult to attain".[140]
We investigated measures being taken to reduce publication bias
as part of our 2011 inquiry on Peer review in scientific publications.[141]
Working patterns
27. Women are "more likely than
men to take a career break for parental leave and are more likely
to be working on a part-time basis".[142]
Professor Dame Julia Higgins, who gave evidence on behalf of
the Royal Society, stated that in her experience working at Imperial
College London, "the departments have been quite readily
flexible" around working hours.[143]
She added that "the interesting thing has been persuading
the women to ask for the flexibility, which, of course, is partly
a perception of what the culture will be like".[144]
Sarah Dickinson, Equality Challenge Unit, stated that "quite
often the senior management and the head of department know that
these policies are in place, that there is flexible working, core
hours and things like that, but when they survey the staff there
is a large proportion who are not aware of these policies".[145]
She considered that "it is just a case of making sure that
everyone knows about them".[146]
Not everyone agreed that it was simply a case of increasing awareness
of flexible working options. STEM careers "are often portrayed
to be both all-consuming and overwhelmingly competitive"
with a "strong preconception that one cannot participate
in science on anything other than a completely immersive basis".[147]
The "aggressive" academic environment where there is
"a general belief that individuals are working against one
another" contributes to "a feeling that part time working
and parental leave is frowned upon and will compromise a woman's
career".[148]
The BMA stated that women working part time are "more likely
to encounter perceptions that they are less dedicated and less
productive than full time colleagues, with the result that they
are passed over for promotion".[149]
Improving diversity and equality
DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY TRAINING
28. Evidence submitted to our inquiry
suggested that gender biases in STEM are likely to be largely
unconscious rather than intentional. Referring to the Yale study
(see paragraph 20), the IMarEST stated that "the sexism
exhibited was unconscious, as scientists would give other reasoning
for their decision" and suggested that "we need more
awareness of this, so that a conscious effort can be made to overcome
any such bias; obviously there are academics who would want to
change this, if only they knew they were doing it".[150]
However, there is some denial of the existence of bias amongst
scientists. Professor Jo Handelsman, the lead author of the Yale
study, has stated that whenever she gives "a talk that mentions
past findings of implicit gender bias in hiring, inevitably a
scientist will say that can't happen in our labs because we are
trained to be objective".[151]
Dr Valerie Bevan and Professor Mark Learmonth stated that "most
scientists have little or no background in feminism or qualitative
research; in fact they eschew anything that is not deemed to be
objective, rational or evidence based".[152]
Dr Bevan highlighted her personal experience working for a "major
employer of healthcare scientists" where "the majority
of senior staff did not see equality and diversity issues as part
of their core activities" and therefore "all white male
appointment panels were common and [...] seen to be fair because
the panel was composed of 'objective scientists'".[153]
Portia Ltd explained that "scientists may be rigorously trained
to be objective, but just like the society at large, hold gender
beliefs that tend to valorise men's progress".[154]
There was strong support for diversity bias training. The London
Mathematical Society highlighted that "there are many practicalities
that would make it difficult to ensure that application processes
in academia were gender blind" and suggested that "those
involved in selection panels and grant review panels could, however,
be required to undergo training on unconscious bias".[155]
The Society for General Microbiology similarly suggested that
"all academic staff should receive unconscious bias training
[...] before they can run a research group" because "individual
principal investigators responsible for developing their research
team members' careers may not be" trained.[156]
Many supported the view that "such training can force people
to face up to their prejudices and examine the ways that their
behaviours, intentional or otherwise, can affect others, especially
minorities".[157]
Cardiff University stated that "universities need to mainstream
and make mandatory equality and diversity training, with particular
emphasis on the phenomenon of the potential consequences of unconscious
bias in recruitment and promotion".[158]
Many universities do offer unconscious bias training.[159]
However, the University of Manchester cautioned that while "many
institutions are starting to deliver training" there could
also be "a lack of take-up of this training by those who
need it most".[160]
29. Scientists are susceptible to
the same unconscious gender biases as the rest of the population
and it is unfortunate that some are unwilling to accept this simply
because their professional research requires them to be objective.
It is important to recognise that biases that harm women are held
by both men and women.
30. We recommend that diversity
and equality training, including unconscious bias training, should
be provided to all STEM undergraduate and postgraduate students
by their Higher Education Institution (HEI). In addition, such
training should be mandatory for (i) all members of recruitment
and promotion panels for STEM jobs in HEIs; and (ii) all line
managers and supervisors of staff.
31. All research funders should
also ensure that diversity and equality training is provided to
all members of grant application review panels. This is particularly
important where women are under-represented on those panels and
in the STEM discipline being considered.
32. The University of Manchester also
highlighted an additional recruitment stage where bias could occur:
search committees,[161]
which are "often dominated by men who only access their own
networks (which usually are made up of other men) so potential
female candidates do not get identified or approached early on
in the recruitment process".[162]
This could be only partly excused by the under-representation
of women in the pool of potential candidates. In many cases, "senior
academic roles do not even have search committees".[163]
Positive action may provide some solutions. The Equality and Human
Rights Commission (EHRC) defines positive action as "the
steps that you can take as an employer to encourage people from
groups with different needs or with a past track record of disadvantage
or low participation to apply for jobs".[164]
For example, positive actions included "encouraging applications
from under-represented groups, such as through targeted advertising".[165]
Positive action "is not the same as positive discrimination,
and does not involve treating particular groups more favourably
when recruiting".[166]
Universities should ensure that recruiters and search committees
identifying potential candidates for senior roles give particular
consideration to encouraging suitably qualified female candidates,
in line with the principles of positive action.
ROLE MODELS AND MENTORING
33. Girlguiding UK stated that "it's
hard to consider what career you want to pursue or what you want
to achieve in life if you don't have strong role models to inspire
you".[167] It
explained that:
many older girls (16 plus) are alert
to high-profile figures with interests and ambitions that reflect
their own, male and female, but there are few examples from politics
or male-dominated fields such as engineering, where girls' professed
lack of interest means that they pay little attention. Those who
consider such careers tend to be independent minded and positive
about standing out from their peers.[168]
The University of Oxford stated that
the "lack of women perpetuates the masculine culture of many
science departments, in turn deterring female undergraduates and
graduates from remaining in academia".[169]
The Russell Group Equality Forum stated that the "distinct
lack of successful female role models with families" means
that "graduates see academia as somewhere not to have a successful
career and a family".[170]
The "low numbers of women in senior positions often leads
to a perceived 'invisibility' of successful women in academic
STEM careers".[171]
This is likely to discourage "the anticipation of success
among female scientists who wish to progress further" and
to perpetuate "current cultural norms".[172]
Role models are essential to "evidence the possibility of
success" and to "encourage women to actively advance
their own careers".[173]
Mentors and role models also "have a vital role in setting
cultural norms".[174]
Women who have mentors "publish more, carry out more research
and have greater career satisfaction than those without".[175]
Queens University, Belfast, highlighted how increasing the transparency
of promotion processes and providing mentoring to encourage women
to apply for promotion meant that "over time, we have found
that women's chances of being successfully promoted match, and
even outweigh, those of men".[176]
34. Role models cannot simply be women
in senior positions; the University of Oxford stated that "women
consistently report that they have few 'ordinary' role models
available", that is, "women who are juggling a career
in science with some form of work-life balance and/or having a
family".[177]
There is a perception "that to succeed in a STEM career,
women have to be 'super-human' which deters many from staying".[178]
UCL Engineering considered that "more examples of positive
work-personal life balances and plenty of role models need collecting
- especially across engineering to showcase the 'normal' over
the super women".[179]
It also suggested that "diverse storiesincluding how
dual career couples have managedshould be included".[180]
The Open University (OU) suggested that "role models should
not only include women but also role models of successful men
who work part time and take on caring roles, so that it is not
only women who are always seen as being responsible for childcare".[181]
The OU explained that "women scientist role models are problematic
as they are often intertwined with personal biographies about
their partners and children in a way that men's stories are not,
so parity about how role models are portrayed is needed".[182]
The Royal Academy of Engineering stated that "having high
profile men who take advantage of flexible work contracts or who
have made it to senior positions via non-traditional routes is
really important".[183]
35. Women in senior positions in academia
can experience disproportionate pressure to act as a role model
or to participate in activities designed to improve the visibility
and influence of women. Dr Katherine Sloyan stated that "there
is pressure on high-achieving women to act as role models, which,
while sometimes flattering, can lead to additional unwanted stress:
it is not pleasant feeling like you're representing all women
all of the time".[184]
While greater representation of women in committees provides "more
visible role models for junior staff", it can also "have
the unintended consequence of further burdening talented female
staff with administrative activities".[185]
This can mean that "male counterparts are free to pursue
activities that are perhaps more highly valued by senior managers".[186]
ScienceGrrl considered that "successful mentors and sponsors
can be male or female".[187]
However, Newcastle University stated that while "there is
no reason why a female should not have a male mentor", a
senior male academic "is less likely to fully appreciate
the impact of work and family responsibilities women frequently
have to deal with".[188]
It was also highlighted that there may be "some stigma against
senior men associating with junior women (either real or perceived)".[189]
36. The Equality Challenge Unit (ECU)
highlighted that "quick wins" for universities wanting
to support their staff included "induction, networking and
mentoring".[190]
The ECU report, Mentoring: progressing women's careers in higher
education makes recommendations on how to implement mentoring
in HEIs and highlights the benefits of mentoring schemes.[191]
Athena SWAN "does not have a check-list of objective essential
activities that universities must do to retain women academics",
but it highlights activities such as improving the "visibility
of women" and "induction and training, [for example]
all staff given a comprehensive induction and may be assigned
a mentor".[192]
37. Role models are important for
inspiring males and females to study STEM subjects and pursue
STEM careers. The lack of senior or high-profile women scientists
reduces the availability of female role models, which particularly
affects girls and women.
38. The National Academies, learned
societies and HEIs should emphasise both male and female role
models who have successfully combined a STEM career with family
life. In particular, highlighting male scientists who have combined
career with childcare and family responsibilities could help to
counter perceptions that these are women's issues rather than
matters that concern all parents.
39. There is strong support for
mentoring schemes and evidence that it encourages women to apply
for promotions and other opportunities. We recommend that HEIs
and other STEM employers should implement mentoring schemes for
all staff, with particular attention paid towards mentoring for
women and other groups that are under-represented at senior levels.
89 Archer, L., Osborne, J. & DeWitt, J. (2012).
Ten Science Facts & Fictions: The Case for Early Education
about STEM Careers,
London: The Science Council. Back
90
WSC06 [TISME] para 2.2 Back
91
WSC13 [Portia Ltd] para 12 Back
92
WSC 75 [Girlguiding] para 7 Back
93
WSC06 [TISME] Summary point 7 Back
94
WSC06 [TISME] Summary point 6 Back
95
WSC06 [TISME] Summary point 5 Back
96
WSC06 [TISME]; Archer, L., Osborne, J. & DeWitt, J. (2012: The Case for Early Education about STEM Careers,
p.8, London: The Science Council. See also Institute of Physics,
Closing Doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools,
Dec 2013 Back
97
WSC 79 [Government] para 50 Back
98
For example, written evidence to Engineering inquiry ev 71 (SEMTA),
School Science practicals inquiry, ev 48 (British Science Association) Back
99
Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13,
Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms
on 14-19 education, HC 665, para 86 Back
100
WSC 29 [UCL] para 2 Back
101
WSC 17 [Plymouth Marine Laboratory] para 7 Back
102
WSC 29 [UCL] para 18 Back
103
WSC 50 [British Pharmacological Society] para 5 Back
104
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 8 Back
105
WSC 55 [Newcastle University] para 2.8; see also WSC 64 [Medical
Schools Council and Dental Schools] para 4.5.2 Back
106
WSC 13 [Portia] para 14 Back
107
WSC 13 [Portia] para 14 Back
108
WSC 96 [Bournemouth University] para 2.11 Back
109
Q 79 Back
110
Q 79 Back
111
Q 79 Back
112
Q 114 Back
113
WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para
4.5.3 Back
114
WSC 29 [UCL] para 2 Back
115
WSC 18 [Valerie Bevan and Mark Learmonth] para 15 Back
116
WSC 54 [Dr Bryon Jones] para 2.6 Back
117
WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] paras 2.6-2.7 Back
118
WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 2.9 Back
119
WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 2.10 Back
120
WSC 54 [Dr Bryn Jones] para 3.2 Back
121
WSC 14 [University of Manchester] para 3.7 Back
122
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] Para 20 Back
123
WSC 43 [NPL] para 4 Back
124
WSC 43 [NPL] para 4 Back
125
WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para
4.2.1 Back
126
WSC 14 [University of Manchester] para 3.8 Back
127
WSC 32 [Athena SWAN Committee, Institute of Health and Society
(IHS),Newcastle University] para 1.3.1.3 Back
128
WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 13 Back
129
WSC 49 [ScienceGrrl] para 14 Back
130
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM Network] para 5.6 Back
131
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para14 Back
132
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para14 Back
133
WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 4 Back
134
WSC 102 [Open University] para 9 Back
135
WSC 13 [Portia Ltd] para 5 Back
136
WSC 102 [Open University Supplementary] Para 10 Back
137
WSC 72 [Royal Society of Chemistry] para 24 Back
138
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 21 Back
139
Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2010-12,
Peer review in scientific publications, HC 856 paras 15-20 Back
140
WSC 98 [Campaign for Science and Engineering] Back
141
Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2010-12,
Peer review in scientific publications, HC 856 Back
142
WSC 72 [Royal Society of Chemistry] para 15 Back
143
Q 62 Back
144
Q 62 Back
145
Q 62 Back
146
Q 62 Back
147
WSC 90 [STFC WiSTEM NETWORK] para 5.3 Back
148
WSC 80 [IMarEST] para 3.3 Back
149
WSC 85 [BMA] para 10 Back
150
WSC 80 [The Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology
(IMarEST)] para 3.7 Back
151
Yale News, Scientists not immune from gender bias, Yale study
shows, Press Release, 24 September 2012 Back
152
WSC 18 [Dr Valerie Bevan and Professor Mark Learmonth] para 15 Back
153
WSC 18 [Dr Valerie Bevan and Professor Mark Learmonth ] para
17 Back
154
WSC13 [Portia Ltd] para 14 Back
155
WSC 73 [London Mathematical Society] para 5.7 Back
156
WSC 39 [Society for General Microbiology] para 3 Back
157
WSC41[DrKatherineSloyan]para12 Back
158
WSC19[CardiffUniversitywithcontributionsfromtheCardiffWomeninScienceNetwork]para26 Back
159
Forexample,WSC29[UCL]para22;WSC61[University of Stirling]para11;WSC44
[Imperial College London] para 17 Back
160
WSC14[TheUniversityofManchester]Para3.7 Back
161
Panels of high-level academics who search for good candidates
for available posts Back
162
WSC 14 [The University of Manchester] Para 3.4 Back
163
WSC 14 [The University of Manchester] Para 3.4 Back
164
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Positive Action in Recruitment,
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com Back
165
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Positive Action in Recruitment,
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com Back
166
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Positive Action,
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com Back
167
WSC 75 [Girlguiding] para 15 Back
168
WSC 75 [Girlguiding] para 13 Back
169
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 26 Back
170
WSC 71 [Russell group equality forum] para 3 Back
171
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 14 Back
172
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 14 Back
173
WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 14; WSC 80 [IMarEST] para 6.5 Back
174
WSC 91 [Wellcome Trust] para 23 Back
175
WSC 85 [British Medical Association] para 21 Back
176
WSC 88 [Queens University, Belfast] para 13 Back
177
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 26 Back
178
WSC 42 [University of Oxford] para 26 Back
179
WSC 59 [UCL Engineering] para 22 Back
180
WSC 59 [UCL Engineering] para 22 Back
181
WSC 102 [Open University] para 7 Back
182
WSC 102 [Open University] para 7 Back
183
WSC 95 [Royal Academy of Engineering] para 22 Back
184
WSC 41 [Dr Katherine Sloyan] para 9 Back
185
WSC 61 [University of Stirling] para 10 Back
186
WSC 61 [University of Stirling] para 10 Back
187
WSC49 [ScienceGrrl] para 12 Back
188
WSC 55 [Newcastle University] para 2.4 Back
189
WSC 80 [IMarEST] para 3.4 Back
190
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 9 Back
191
Equality Challenge Unit, Mentoring: progressing women's careers
in higher education, April 2012, p.21 Back
192
WSC 51 [Equality Challenge Unit] para 8 Back
|