In the recent a few years alone, we have seen the start of over fifty new universities, and institutes of higher learning and research in various areas of science and technology.
The CSIR alone appointed over a dozen new Directors, MHRD appointed 15 Vice Chancellors and the state of Andhra Pradesh appointed five more. How many of these are women?
My best guess is one, may be two. Despite the increasing number of women in education and research in science, their participation in higher levels of science is pitifully low.
Two papers
Why is this? Two papers in the 10 January 2011 issue of Current Science are relevant to this issue. The first is the one by Kanta Rani and Rajesh Luthra of CSIR's human resources group. They have analysed the number of research grants in biology, given by CSIR during the period 2004-2008, and asked how many of these went to women.
Their paper shows that, surprisingly enough, men and women are equally successful (39 per cent success among men and 41 per cent among women) in winning grants from the CSIR (and likely from other agencies as well).
But there is a pattern here. Where are these women who have won the grants from? They are mostly from universities, and not from R & D centres or institutions of national importance. We need to understand the causes of this trend.
Their analysis also showed that the outreach of research funding to women scientists is limited mainly to Delhi, Karnataka and West Bengal. What is special about these three states, which the other 27 can learn from? Here is a sociological puzzle.
The second paper, “Beyond family and societal attitude to retain women in science,” comes from Drs. Anitha Kurup and R. Maithreyi of the Bangalore-based National Institute of Advanced Studies. They surveyed 568 women scientists. Of these 312 were women engaged in research (WIR); 182 were not in long term research but teaching in schools and colleges, in temporary research positions, consultancy or administration (abbreviated as WNR); and 74 were qualified women scientists not working (WNW).
Most of these 568 were married (86 per cent of WIR, 88 per cent of WNR and 92 per cent of WNW). Yet a small number of women in research (14 per cent) preferred to remain single to keep their career on track (compare this with the 2.5 per cent of men in research, who were single). This suggests that a majority of women scientists are able to balance both their career and family responsibility.
Another fact emerged. Although nuclear family and lack of childcare facilities may have affected WNW from continuing in science, they reported difficulties in finding jobs, institutions or advisors. This difficulty was more with the WNW group than with WIR or WNR.
Thus, it is not just lack of institutional support to balance family and work, but also the lack of opportunities for women to continue in science. “The data question commonly held notions that family factors by themselves affect the chances of women to continue in science” say Kurup and Maithreyi.
Thus, organizational appreciation of this fact, and adopting a suitable policy would be helpful. Besides offering childcare (and elderly care) facilities on campus, they should allow some flexibility in work timings.
Flexible working hours
It should be possible to undertake the mandatory number of hours by allowing for early arrival-early departure (or late start and late leaving). Other factors perceived as responsible for women dropping out of science are: marginalization, harassment, shortage of suitable mentors and role models, and fewer women in decision- making posts.
Thus, rather than assuming that domestic and gender-role status of women as the culprits, this study shows that these factors can be easily addressed through a revision at the organizational and policy level. The authors point out: “Several science institutions have informal policies that prevent the employment of spouses in the same organizations…
“Such policies may be a significant factor for women dropping out of science.”
How true! Indeed, many a WNW and WNR have suffered due to this policy. As one who has run science institutions,
I have found this true, and have been going out (though only now, since I am out of the government) of my way to recruit both spouses, if and when they meet the need and have the required merit.
A refreshing policy feature that the Ministry of Science & Technology has adopted is to offer special research grants and temporary positions for women scientists who had to quit their jobs for domestic reasons.
(In fact, such a scheme was started much earlier by the biologist Professor G.P. Talwar, through his Talwar Foundation). Such re-entry grants, while good, are for short-term in duration; what does a woman scientist do, after her term is over?
A longer term scheme, with periodic renewal (based on performance) would bring back many women back into the WIR mode.
This suggestion of the NIAS duo must be taken up in earnest by the science centres and policy makers. In a country that needs more scientists and researchers, supports of this kind is vital, and would put a stop this totally avoidable brain drain.
After all, the deity for science and knowledge is Goddess Saraswati! And who was the most famous proponent of the queen of science, mathematics? Lilavati. Let us make it possible to have more and more of Lilavati's daughters.
dbala@lvpei.org
