Final Report Summary - KNOWING (Knowledge, Institutions and Gender: an East-West comparative study)
Building on scholarship in social studies of science and feminist research, the project examined transformations in contemporary science with special focus on gendering and gender consequences of these processes of change. It conceived of gender as implicated in the fabric of science itself, not as an added-on social characteristic or political concern. The study encompassed two comparative perspectives: it was carried out in two scientific fields (within social sciences and biosciences) and in five partner countries. This diversity of research sites allowed for questioning and analysing of a number of features of epistemic practices and cultures and national research systems which are normally taken for granted both by science policies and also social students of science. The study applied a multi-method approach. It encompassed the analysis of existing policy data and documents; and later, in the two institutions under study in each partner country, collecting and analysing a life course questionnaire with research participants; institutional policies and procedures; participant observation of research practices; in-depth interviews and focus groups further exploring and contextualising selected hypotheses.
The research culminated in national reports focusing on the most salient issues in national contexts and in a comparative cross-national analysis. A summary cross-national report is organised along three conceptual lines: boundaries and modes of orderings; togetherness; and times and trajectories. Each line provides unique perspective on gendering practices in knowledge production and on convergences, differences and power relations in transatlantic science. The reports looks into intersection of sciences policies on one hand and epistemic practices and research careers on the other which allows a formulation of policy-related conclusions and recommendations. Findings have been disseminated at national and EU levels to influence science policies, raise consciousness of academic workers, and to establish science studies, including the feminist ones, in the academia in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
In these conclusions and recommendations we want to point to some of the difficulties entailed in the current direction of R&D and higher education transformations, and the negative impact they may have on research careers, especially of women, and research in general. We base our recommendations on the observation that research and research organisations are becoming more competitive and speed has become a central preoccupation; strong boundaries are being erected, and (value) orders implemented which makes research careers uncertain, precarious and stressful, and thus fairly unattractive. And, despite the attention paid to the position of women in science and the attempts at increasing the number of women in research and development, the organisation of research with the attendant values and norms as well as systems of accountability, are re-enforcing the masculine nature of the organisation of research. This is also visible in the divorce of women in science policies from the wider policy concerns in the area of research, development and innovation. Thus, we argue, fundamental re-thinking of the approaches to and treatment of the gender equality agenda is required if any substantive change is to be achieved.
It is evident that although gender mainstreaming has been adopted by the European Union as a tool for fostering gender equality, gender is not adequately mainstreamed to European programmes, including the Framework Programme. After the breakthrough in the Sixth Framework Programme where the gender dimension was included as part of project evaluation both in terms of personnel as well as content of research, this motion was removed from Seventh Framework Programme and does no longer constitute an obligatory assessment criterion. The explanation given, namely that the removal of the gender dimension was motivated by the simplification process of the Framework Programme, suggests that the gender equality agenda does not receive the necessary policy support. Yet the failure to attend to and realise gender equality - a central value of any democratic society - is a major launa of policy, and attests to the continued difficulty of grasping and supporting gender equality measures.
That gender mainstreaming is not streamlined into EC's research policy, including the Framework Programme, signals a separation of the gender agenda from general RDI policy concerns. This is not a problem only in terms of the failure to implement binding regulations of the EU but also with respect to losing a crucial tool for analysing the gendering of the current organisation of research. Furthermore the increasing separation between gender issues and research policy more generally does not concern only policy-making bodies, such as the EC, but also research institutions which have to come to terms and respond to policy imperatives entailed; this means for example, in the priority of mobility, dominant notions and organisations of a research career (concerning linearity and timelines) and organisation of research units. The failure to insist on gender mainstreaming thus sidelines gender equality in the policy and research processes as a whole.
An outcome of such a situation is that public accountability of research organisations and policymaking bodies with regard to gender issues has become limited. One aspect of this is the abovementioned gap in gender mainstreaming; the other is linked to wider policy concern with public accountability of research. It is necessary to insist on the inclusion in the policy process of a wider array of actors and stakeholders - not only powerful research organisations and single prominent (often male) experts, but also actors with gender relevant expertise and from civil society. The inclusion of female publics from various backgrounds and circumstances may point to aspects visible from their particular vantage point and thus highlight research needs and concerns (including the application of knowledge and innovations) that may not be visible to the powers that be. In this, we would like to join the expert group on science and governance in its call for involvement of a wide range of publics in the policy making process, not least to counterbalance the concerns of the EC regarding the public distrust of science and the attractiveness of research for young people (as addressed in the Capacities Work Programme).
Although these general remarks may seem to concern the concept of epistemic living space indirectly and with distance, they have a major impact on research practices, organisation of research, including research teams, engagement of research organisations with wider publics and general regard for the issue of gender equality at policy making and research organisations levels.
The research culminated in national reports focusing on the most salient issues in national contexts and in a comparative cross-national analysis. A summary cross-national report is organised along three conceptual lines: boundaries and modes of orderings; togetherness; and times and trajectories. Each line provides unique perspective on gendering practices in knowledge production and on convergences, differences and power relations in transatlantic science. The reports looks into intersection of sciences policies on one hand and epistemic practices and research careers on the other which allows a formulation of policy-related conclusions and recommendations. Findings have been disseminated at national and EU levels to influence science policies, raise consciousness of academic workers, and to establish science studies, including the feminist ones, in the academia in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
In these conclusions and recommendations we want to point to some of the difficulties entailed in the current direction of R&D and higher education transformations, and the negative impact they may have on research careers, especially of women, and research in general. We base our recommendations on the observation that research and research organisations are becoming more competitive and speed has become a central preoccupation; strong boundaries are being erected, and (value) orders implemented which makes research careers uncertain, precarious and stressful, and thus fairly unattractive. And, despite the attention paid to the position of women in science and the attempts at increasing the number of women in research and development, the organisation of research with the attendant values and norms as well as systems of accountability, are re-enforcing the masculine nature of the organisation of research. This is also visible in the divorce of women in science policies from the wider policy concerns in the area of research, development and innovation. Thus, we argue, fundamental re-thinking of the approaches to and treatment of the gender equality agenda is required if any substantive change is to be achieved.
It is evident that although gender mainstreaming has been adopted by the European Union as a tool for fostering gender equality, gender is not adequately mainstreamed to European programmes, including the Framework Programme. After the breakthrough in the Sixth Framework Programme where the gender dimension was included as part of project evaluation both in terms of personnel as well as content of research, this motion was removed from Seventh Framework Programme and does no longer constitute an obligatory assessment criterion. The explanation given, namely that the removal of the gender dimension was motivated by the simplification process of the Framework Programme, suggests that the gender equality agenda does not receive the necessary policy support. Yet the failure to attend to and realise gender equality - a central value of any democratic society - is a major launa of policy, and attests to the continued difficulty of grasping and supporting gender equality measures.
That gender mainstreaming is not streamlined into EC's research policy, including the Framework Programme, signals a separation of the gender agenda from general RDI policy concerns. This is not a problem only in terms of the failure to implement binding regulations of the EU but also with respect to losing a crucial tool for analysing the gendering of the current organisation of research. Furthermore the increasing separation between gender issues and research policy more generally does not concern only policy-making bodies, such as the EC, but also research institutions which have to come to terms and respond to policy imperatives entailed; this means for example, in the priority of mobility, dominant notions and organisations of a research career (concerning linearity and timelines) and organisation of research units. The failure to insist on gender mainstreaming thus sidelines gender equality in the policy and research processes as a whole.
An outcome of such a situation is that public accountability of research organisations and policymaking bodies with regard to gender issues has become limited. One aspect of this is the abovementioned gap in gender mainstreaming; the other is linked to wider policy concern with public accountability of research. It is necessary to insist on the inclusion in the policy process of a wider array of actors and stakeholders - not only powerful research organisations and single prominent (often male) experts, but also actors with gender relevant expertise and from civil society. The inclusion of female publics from various backgrounds and circumstances may point to aspects visible from their particular vantage point and thus highlight research needs and concerns (including the application of knowledge and innovations) that may not be visible to the powers that be. In this, we would like to join the expert group on science and governance in its call for involvement of a wide range of publics in the policy making process, not least to counterbalance the concerns of the EC regarding the public distrust of science and the attractiveness of research for young people (as addressed in the Capacities Work Programme).
Although these general remarks may seem to concern the concept of epistemic living space indirectly and with distance, they have a major impact on research practices, organisation of research, including research teams, engagement of research organisations with wider publics and general regard for the issue of gender equality at policy making and research organisations levels.
