Transcript Dr Dunja Mladenic (SI): How far is the target?

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 content
but.....
– 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• Poor infrastructure and outdated equipment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
FP5 evaluators
Proportion of female researchers among
evaluators in Enwise countries
FP6 evaluators
[%] of total researchers
60%
56%
45%
50%
43%
36%
40%
30%
24%
21%
20%
30%
29% 30%
25% 26%25% 24%
20%
35%
35% 32%
22%
19%
15%
10%
R
Po
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
vi
a
La
t
un
ga
ry
H
Es
Re
pu
bl
ic
to
ni
a
lowest
jump
om
Sl
an
ov
ia
ak
R
ep
ub
l ic
Sl
ov
en
ia
C
highest
ze
ch
B
ul
ga
ria
0%
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
FP5 evaluators
Distribution of female researchers among
evaluators over Enwise countries
FP6 evaluators
30%
30%
19%
20%
15%
14%
10%
10%
7%
5%
6%
3%
4%
4% 3%
1%
4%
3%
jump
om
an
ia
R
ep
ub
lic
Sl
ov
en
ia
R
Po
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
un
ga
ry
H
ni
a
drop
Sl
ov
ak
C
Es
to
ul
ga
ze
ria
ch
Re
pu
bl
ic
0%
B
[%] of Enwise
24%
23%
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)
400
347
350
318
Total
Women
300
250
208
194
200
150
100
97
100
50
86
114
44
36
0
FP5-NCP
(37%)
FP6-NCP
(48%)
FP5-PC
(23%)
FP6-PC
(27%)
EU-15 FP6NCP (33%)
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
organization
no 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 II
No 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