Skip to main content
Read page text
page 38
opinion comment Leading the way Julia Higgins discusses gender diversity in the sciences, what has been achieved and what still needs to be done This year, the Royal Society, funded by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, and in parallel with the Royal Academy of Engineering’s diversity scheme, has set out a programme to understand and address diversity in science. The programme will give an authoritative resume of the state and knowledge of diversity in the scientific workforce, and the importance of increasing it, but it will also help to identify and reduce barriers to entry, retention and progression within the workforce. The final report is due in 2015, but the ideas that are already emerging form the basis of this article. For many of us who have been deeply involved in encouraging and supporting women in science and engineering, the word diversity raises, above all, the gender question. Of course, diversity is much broader than gender, in fact there are nine so-called protected characteristics in UK law that represent diversity. However, the sheer number of schemes focused on gender in science suggest that achievements here may be a good starting point for a discussion on diversity problems. On the rise? First one must ask if there is a problem – or, in the case of gender, is there still a problem? Dorothy Hodgkin remains the only female Nobel prize winner in the UK, and only about 4% of current fellows of the Royal Society are women, although the longer term trend has seen women account for around 10% of newly elected fellows since 2000. The ratio of women holding professorships in the sciences in the UK is about the same. One could argue this is the legacy of decades when girls were neither encouraged nor supported in studying science, and that the current rates of election of women to academies (13% to the Royal Academy of Engineering and 21% to ‘ The shortage of teachers and deficiencies in careers advice are crucial factors’ the Royal Society this year) indicate progress. However, the Institute of Physics has recently published statistics showing that in about 50% of mixed state comprehensive schools no girls were studying A-level physics. These girls of the next generation have effectively shut the door to studying and working in many sciences. But does it even matter if women don’t join or don’t stay in the scientific workforce? Of course it does. First, it is a natural injustice if women miss out on an education that provides the widest possible range of careers. Also, we are constantly informed of a serious shortage of technically literate, qualified job applicants, so halving the population that might apply for such jobs is at best wasteful and probably nearer to disastrous. Finally, one only has to cast an eye over the mass media to see the potential for an undereducated, scientifically illiterate population to be swayed or misled – consider the MMR scandal or the opposition to genetically modified crops. An educated electorate is essential to a modern democracy. Thus, education is manifestly the crucial starting point. Those children who do not respond to certain teaching methods, or are deprived of good science teachers, or do not receive appropriate careers advice or have adverse parental pressures will drop out of science. Under the UK’s current education system, this could be at the age of 16. And finding a way back is exceptionally difficult. The shortage of specialist science teachers in primary schools, the acute shortage of physics teachers in secondary schools and the serious deficiencies in relevant and timely careers advice to young people are all crucial factors. Some progress is being made, but too slowly. I believe the aim should be to recruit, train and maintain a high level of specialist science teachers for all schools, starting at primary school, and to provide appropriate and inspirational science education up to the age of 18. Lesson learned However, education itself is not enough. In chemistry, where undergraduate gender parity has existed for at least a few decades, the pipeline is still leaky. The number of women staying in careers in chemistry declines steadily after graduation. The Athena Swan Charter and awards were set up in 2005 to help raise and address this issue. These awards recognise the progress universities and departments make in supporting their female research and academic staff. The first two gold awards went to chemistry departments (at York and Edinburgh), just a decade or so since the first women professors in chemistry were appointed (see p46). Moreover, in obtaining these awards, the departments address issues that benefit all staff, creating a more supportive environment for all. Of course, academia represents only a small fraction of the workforce and so we must learn from this to increase diversity in the wider scientific workforce. A recent report from the Women’s Business Council made two recommendations that are key to our wider diversity definition: to broaden young people’s aspirations and job choices before the start of their working lives by increasing partnership between schools, business and parents; and for businesses to embrace f lexible working and to support working parents. The Royal Society programme includes research into recruitment practices, alternative access to education and careers, and the role of professional institutions such as the Royal Society of Chemistry. This issue of Chemistry World is timely and I hope readers will feel moved to engage with the Royal Society project in any way they consider important. Related link http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/ leading-way-diversity Julia Higgins is professor of polymer science at Imperial College London and chair of the steering group for the Royal Society’s diversity project ‘Leading the way: increasing diversity in the scientific workforce’ 36 | Chemistry World | September 2013 | www.chemistryworld.org
page 39
opinion comment Science unlimited Diversity breeds creativity, says Geri Richmond, but only if everyone feels part of the team Imagine a world where music consists of only the notes A, C and F. Or where the only visible colours are red and yellow, or wood the only building material. Music would still be made, pictures painted and houses built, but those coming from a world like ours would immediately see how these limited choices affect creativity, beauty and innovation. And what if only certain people played, painted or built? Only those with perfect pitch, or only left-handed people, or only men? Would the results suffer if each effort was exclusive? We have already conducted the last experiment several times, and the answer is yes. Men-only engineering teams resulted in airbags that killed and harmed the smaller bodies of children and many women, heart valves that were too big for most smaller female bodies and voice recognition systems that only performed well with male voices. From environmental remediation to assuring clean water resources, to powering the planet, every country in the world is facing serious challenges that require a strong and innovative scientific workforce. And chemistry is no exception. Developing that robust workforce requires talented individuals from all segments of society, with a diversity of views and competencies, skills and insights. Inclusion principle A recent study by Forbes found that of the 321 executives at large global companies with at least $500 million (£326 million) in annual revenue, 85% agreed or strongly agreed that diversity is crucial to fostering innovation in the workplace.1 However, in science and technology, including chemistry, the demographics at all levels, and particularly in the higher decision-making ranks, are a narrow segment of the population; clear evidence that the talent pool is underused and underappreciated. Those minority group members that are courageous enough to enter the workforce in these underrepresented fields, on average, leave their chosen fields at a much higher rate. Efforts to increase the racial, gender and cultural diversity of an institution are pointless if those recruited feel restricted in sharing creative ideas, in expressing their opinions or contributing to the health and vitality of an institution. I was recently invited to speak on the value of inclusiveness to a large and highly respected chemistry department in the US. Afterwards, in the privacy of their offices, several faculty members expressed their resonance with the topic. They felt that their physical and cultural differences from the majority of the departmental members were a factor in their perceived exclusion from departmental decisions and activities. One noted the difference when he lost his eyesight mid-career; lamenting a sharp decline in being asked ‘ Efforts to increase diversity are pointless if those recruited feel restricted’ his opinion on departmental issues and in social interactions. Another, an immigrant from eastern Europe, felt that cultural distance impaired his full participation in the department. At another institution, a woman, the only African American in the chemistry department, reported that over seven years she could count on one hand the number of times her colleagues had asked about her research or her opinion on a departmental issue. Although these are only anecdotes, such stories are symptomatic of a lack of inclusivity at these institutions and many others. Anyone in these situations is bound to be unhappy given that ‘opportunities to use skills and abilities’ ranks at the top of a recent list of job satisfaction drivers.2 If we truly seek diversity in ideas and creativity, and solutions to the problems that we face, we must work to ensure that everyone, at any age, of whatever gender, religion, race, ethnicity, ability or disability, has the opportunity not only to be hired, but to be full contributors. We cannot completely eliminate the inherent biases and stereotypes that we all harbour, but we can work to recognise and reduce them as much as possible. Maketheeffort When hiring, don’t just wait to see who applies. Work diligently in the initial stages of a search process to increase the diversity of the pool. Be proactive in seeking talent from underrepresented groups that are unsure of whether their talents would be fully appreciated in the workplace. Interview strategically. Research shows that interviewing more than one female or minority candidate can disproportionately increase the likelihood that a woman or minority candidate will be hired. Be proactive in mentoring and nurturing all new hires, especially those from underrepresented groups. The ‘sink or swim’ mentality that is pervasive in many chemistry departments works fine for amphibians, but not for ensuring that our emerging scientists have the support and interactions they need to apply their talents and tackle the complex problems we face. Your institution, department or research group must foster inclusivity. Treat all colleagues with respect, solicit their ideas and share your ideas with them. Embrace the ideas that might come from those with quieter voices, those with a different dialect or those outside our perceptions of the norm. For it is only with a full symphony of talents, a broad spectrum of ideas and creativity, and an engine for innovation firing on all cylinders, that we will overcome the challenges ahead. Geri Richmond is the Richard M and Patricia H Noyes professor of chemistry at Oregon University, US References 1 Global diversity and inclusion:fostering innovation through a diverse workforce, 2011, Forbes (http://bit.ly/16N7jNq) 2 Employee job satisfaction and engagement, 2012, Society for Human Resource Management (http://bit.ly/16N7MyZ) www.chemistryworld.org | September 2013 | Chemistry World | 37

Page Text

View plaintext

opinion comment

Leading the way

Julia Higgins discusses gender diversity in the sciences, what has been achieved and what still needs to be done

This year, the Royal Society, funded by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, and in parallel with the Royal Academy of Engineering’s diversity scheme, has set out a programme to understand and address diversity in science. The programme will give an authoritative resume of the state and knowledge of diversity in the scientific workforce, and the importance of increasing it, but it will also help to identify and reduce barriers to entry, retention and progression within the workforce. The final report is due in 2015, but the ideas that are already emerging form the basis of this article.

For many of us who have been deeply involved in encouraging and supporting women in science and engineering, the word diversity raises, above all, the gender question. Of course, diversity is much broader than gender, in fact there are nine so-called protected characteristics in UK law that represent diversity. However, the sheer number of schemes focused on gender in science suggest that achievements here may be a good starting point for a discussion on diversity problems. On the rise? First one must ask if there is a problem – or, in the case of gender, is there still a problem? Dorothy Hodgkin remains the only female Nobel prize winner in the UK, and only about 4% of current fellows of the Royal Society are women, although the longer term trend has seen women account for around 10% of newly elected fellows since 2000. The ratio of women holding professorships in the sciences in the UK is about the same. One could argue this is the legacy of decades when girls were neither encouraged nor supported in studying science, and that the current rates of election of women to academies (13% to the Royal Academy of Engineering and 21% to

‘ The shortage of teachers and deficiencies in careers advice are crucial factors’

the Royal Society this year) indicate progress. However, the Institute of Physics has recently published statistics showing that in about 50% of mixed state comprehensive schools no girls were studying A-level physics. These girls of the next generation have effectively shut the door to studying and working in many sciences.

But does it even matter if women don’t join or don’t stay in the scientific workforce? Of course it does. First, it is a natural injustice if women miss out on an education that provides the widest possible range of careers. Also, we are constantly informed of a serious shortage of technically literate, qualified job applicants, so halving the population that might apply for such jobs is at best wasteful and probably nearer to disastrous. Finally, one only has to cast an eye over the mass media to see the potential for an undereducated, scientifically illiterate population to be swayed or misled – consider the MMR scandal or the opposition to genetically modified crops. An educated electorate is essential to a modern democracy.

Thus, education is manifestly the crucial starting point. Those children who do not respond to certain teaching methods, or are deprived of good science teachers, or do not receive appropriate careers advice or have adverse parental pressures will drop out of science. Under the UK’s current education system, this could be at the age of 16. And finding a way back is exceptionally difficult. The shortage of specialist science teachers in primary schools, the acute shortage of physics teachers in secondary schools and the serious deficiencies in relevant and timely careers advice to young people are all crucial factors. Some progress is being made, but too slowly. I believe the aim should be to recruit, train and maintain a high level of specialist science teachers for all schools, starting at primary school, and to provide appropriate and inspirational science education up to the age of 18. Lesson learned However, education itself is not enough. In chemistry, where undergraduate gender parity has existed for at least a few decades, the pipeline is still leaky. The number of women staying in careers in chemistry declines steadily after graduation.

The Athena Swan Charter and awards were set up in 2005 to help raise and address this issue. These awards recognise the progress universities and departments make in supporting their female research and academic staff. The first two gold awards went to chemistry departments (at York and Edinburgh), just a decade or so since the first women professors in chemistry were appointed (see p46). Moreover, in obtaining these awards, the departments address issues that benefit all staff, creating a more supportive environment for all.

Of course, academia represents only a small fraction of the workforce and so we must learn from this to increase diversity in the wider scientific workforce. A recent report from the Women’s Business Council made two recommendations that are key to our wider diversity definition: to broaden young people’s aspirations and job choices before the start of their working lives by increasing partnership between schools, business and parents; and for businesses to embrace f lexible working and to support working parents.

The Royal Society programme includes research into recruitment practices, alternative access to education and careers, and the role of professional institutions such as the Royal Society of Chemistry. This issue of Chemistry World is timely and I hope readers will feel moved to engage with the Royal Society project in any way they consider important. Related link http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/ leading-way-diversity

Julia Higgins is professor of polymer science at Imperial College London and chair of the steering group for the Royal Society’s diversity project ‘Leading the way: increasing diversity in the scientific workforce’

36 | Chemistry World | September 2013 | www.chemistryworld.org

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content