How far is the target? Measuring the participation of

women scientists from the Enwise countries in the Research Framework

Programmes Dunja Mladenic

J.Stefan Institute, Slovenia

Dora Groo Hungarian STF, Hungary

Maija Bundule Ministry of Higher Education & Science, Latvia

(Enwise experts)

Enwise countries today• Research system restructuring during the

transition period resulted in– lower funding for science– lower number of scientists– no more military/regime influence on science

contentbut.....– keeping rigid patterns of promotion and recognition

• Gender differences in the concentrations across R&D sectors– women are present mainly in low-expenditure part

of R&D and at lower academic positions – women are under-represented at the top positions in

academies of sciences and in universities

• Poor infrastructure and outdated equipment

Enwise countries in EU FP

Enwise countries participate • to some extent in EU research

framework programs since 1992 (FP3 COST, visits, joint projects,...)

• in EU research projects and bodies/panels as full members from 1999 (FP5, FP6)

• but, ....less in monitoring and advisory work (FP5)

Data supporting the related claims of Enwise

report• Data collected via different sources, internal commission, national and publicly available

• We give an approximate idea of the situation and call for systematic data collection and analysis

• Main data sources for FP5 and FP6:– Evaluators database, National Contact

Points, Program Committees, External Advisory Boards, Monitoring and Assessment Panels

Evaluators of EU projects Summary

• Registered <> Invited• Growing proportion of registered

women experts (FP5, FP6)• Larger pools of women researchers

contribute more experts (Poland, Romania, Hungary)– except for Bulgaria where only 6% of

researchers are women but half of them are registered as evaluator making 14% of all Enwise women evaluators

% in Enwise better than EU-15

Database of evaluation experts – Registered experts – Enwise better then

EU-15, both growing % of women• Enwise (women: 26% in FP5 and 34% in

FP6)• EU-15 (women: 17% in FP5 and 23% in FP6)

– Invited experts in FP5 - Enwise proportion better then EU-15• Enwise (34% women), EU-15 (22% women)• remember that in Enwise women represent

38% of researchers, while in EU-15 women represent 27% of researchers

Invited experts (Enwise worse than EU-15)

Database of evaluation experts FP5

• from Enwise 52% of the registered women were invited compared to 67% for EU-15

• from Enwise 41% of the registered researchers were invited compared to 52% for EU-15

• How about FP6?

Proportion of female evaluators growing

Proportion of female researchers among evaluators in Enwise countries

20% 19%15%

35%

45%

24% 25%

35%

24%

30%

43%

30%

56%

21%

36%

25% 26%29%

32%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

[%]

of

tota

l res

earc

her

s

FP5 evaluators

FP6 evaluators

highestjump

lowest

Evaluators relative to Enwise countries

In FP5 database of evaluation experts most of Enwise women (71% of 675) come from – Poland [23%] , Romania [19%], Hungary [15%]

and Bulgaria [14%]

• partially due to the fact that Enwise women researchers (67%) come from– Poland [42%] , Romania [13%] and Hungary

[12%]

Similar in FP6 database of evaluation experts most of Enwise women (FP5: 78% of 1009) come from– Romania [30%], Poland [24%] , Bulgaria [14%]

and Hungary [10%]

Relative to Enwise countries - details

Distribution of female researchers among evaluators over Enwise countries

15%

4%

23%

4%3%

7%

19%

14%

3% 4%

30%

24%

5%

10%

1%3%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

[%]

of

En

wis

e

FP5 evaluators

FP6 evaluators

jumpdrop

Women in FP NCP and PC

Proportion of women appointed as NCP – growing in Enwise countries

• (women: 37% in FP5 and 48% in FP6)

– in FP6 better for Enwise than in EU-15• Enwise (women: 48%) compared to EU-15

(women: 33%)

Proportion of women in PCs– growing in Enwise countries (women:

23% in FP5 and 27% in FP6)

Enwise - growing proportion of women in EU Research bodies: National Contact Points (NCP) and Program Committees

(PC) Enwise in EU Research Programs (head count)

97

208 194

318347

36

100

44

86114

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

FP5-NCP(37%)

FP6-NCP(48%)

FP5-PC(23%)

FP6-PC(27%)

EU-15 FP6-NCP (33%)

Total

Women

Enwise in External Advisory Groups – low

percentage!• in FP5 (similar situation so far in

FP6!) 28 experts from Enwise participated in one of 17 groups representing less than 10% of all invited experts

• only 5 of them (18%) are women• FP6 can still change this!

Enwise women underrepresented in monitoring/advisory

Monitoring and assessment panels – very low number of Enwise researchers

Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST), FP6

• 2 representatives from each Enwise country, in most cases male– exception is Romania (both female) and

Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic 50% female

EU collects/provides relevant data

European Commission in FP6:– collects sex-disaggregated data on

participation in research (projects, bodies, panels,...)

– this should be used for further analysis and monitoring of the situation

For FP6 project participation the gender information is currently not available

FP6 Data on Cordis

only name, no gender!

only organizationno name or gender!

Acronym

Data analysis needs the data

• If the data is made available, different statistical and data mining methods can be used to gain some insides in the situation

• An example is Text/Data mining analysis of IST FP5 and FP6 project descriptions (developed at J.Stefan Institute)– from the limited data publicly available on

Cordis– gender information could be a part of that

Collaboration between countries (top 12 countries, FP5-

IST)

Most active country

Number of collaborations

FP6-IST, funding info. also available

Slovenia – profile (August 2004) based on Cordis data for FP6-IST projects

Concluding remarks I • Expensive to act as a FP expert in Brussels

– for individuals relative to their monthly income – as the expenses are reimbursed several weeks

after the event• FP information available mainly via Internet

– ... but in some Enwise countries IT and Internet connection are limited

• At a decision level proportion of women in FP6 is low (PCs 27%, EAGs 18%, CREST 20%)– in some cases a restricted group of experts

Concluding remarks IINo monitoring at national level of the invited

experts – no organized feedback for the community

• experience in Slovenia – great interest from research and industry:– Ministry and researchers/experts have organized

several seminars on “Successful application for EU projects” sharing experience on

• project proposal writing, FP6 instruments, acting as project evaluators in FP5/FP6 and project management

eg., see one of the Solomon Seminars with video recording and slides (in Slovene) <http://solomon.ijs.si/seminarji/seminar.asp?id=150#>

Recommendations• EC ensure access to data (with gender info.)

– about FP6 panels and other groups/bodies– about funded projects

• EC organize training of NCPs and evaluators on gender issues and gender dimension

• EC report on achievements of projects with– good gender balance, coordinated by women,...

• Wider dissemination on EU funding opportunities and funded projects at national level – daily newspapers, interviews,...

• Actions to encourage women participation in FP– training, mentoring, info. despite IT weaknesses