Last week, the Trinity Global Room was abuzz with students of all disciplines. It was pertinent that the Gender Issues in Research and Academia panel, co-hosted by DU Psychological Society (Psychsoc) and DU Gender Equality Society (DUGES), was held in a science building on campus, given the familiar struggles for women in STEM. The focus of the evening, however, was on the difficulties of women across all fields in academia and research.
The panel quickly came to address the many issues which affect the academic careers of women. Indeed, Dr Pablo Gracia, an assistant professor of sociology at Trinity, pointed out that the audience was predominantly female and later emphasised the necessary role of male academics in facilitating female participation at every turn. As the only man on the panel, Gracia very appropriately demonstrated his own point by mostly listening to the female-led conversation, even cracking a joke about “mansplaining” his own contributions.
It was Dr Emilie Pine, an associate professor in modern drama at University College Dublin (UCD), who presented the idea that would carry through the rest of the conversation: that the issues of gender bias are cultural as well as structural. It was generally agreed that “structural issues” – the rules and administrations by which academic institutions are run – are easier to address through measures like gender blinding in grant selections and by facilitating maternity leave.
Though much work remains to be done in this area, it is the “cultural issues” facing women that the panelists were most concerned about. Internalised misogyny was discussed as the main factor accountable for the old argument that women “put themselves forward” less than their male colleagues. Women are conditioned to aim for perfection before submitting work, to be less outspoken in classroom settings, and to fear the criticism often levelled against them far more harshly than against their male counterparts. Women themselves, Pine suggested, can perpetuate these difficulties by failing to see them, drawing an example from her own work in which a lecture series of dramatic works featured only one female author.
Pine’s fellow panellist, Shubhangi Karmakar, a student activist and a Trinity medical postgraduate, made the compelling point that, though barriers are increasingly removed from women’s path into many careers, the progression that is available to men is often not there.
Karmakar made an important contribution to the conversation by bringing in intersectionality, and the discriminations based on factors other than gender. Speaking from her position of being, in her own words, “otherwise marginalised as a person of colour with a disability”, Karmaker very astutely pointed out that discussing “men” and “women” itself disregards the transgender community, and all identities that are outside the gender binary.
Maternity leave and family life were highlighted as barriers affecting women in academia. Vallierés gave prime examples of the ways in which structural issues can impact women, referring to her “failed maternity leave” in which she found herself at work as her PhD supervisions had not been taken over. Worse than this, her position as a new mother was not taken into account when she was called to interview for a higher level position just ten days postpartum.
Vallierés and Kelly rigorously explored this question of motherhood and its relationship with academia. Kelly admitted that she had never felt any disadvantage in academia until recent years, and attributed this, at least in part, to becoming a mother. Though some organisations have attempted to deal with this issue, such as the European Research Council adding 18 months of grant eligibility for every child a woman has, the difficulties remain. Kelly highlighted the near impossibility of “being a good mum, a good scientist, and good teacher” all at once, without letting any single responsibility fall by the wayside. Facilitating family life, the panel agreed, would resolve many issues facing women, while also improving quality of life for academics in general.
Many measures universities could take to address these concerns, including paternity leave, and accessible campus childcare, were discussed. A point of contention, however, was the idea of introducing female-only professorships, with some believing this would combat “unofficial male professorships” and provide role models for young women. It was also argued, however, that tokenism and a “lazy, fast-track” solution does not provide long-term viability. The heated debate that emerged indicates the contentious nature of any radical change, highlighting the difficulty of combating the cultural barriers faced by female academics.
Though short on time and accepting only three audience questions, the panel provided insightful and varied opinions from their first-hand experience. A final emphasis on mentors and the importance of women supporting other women brought the panel to a close, with Pine profferring that successful women must throw the ladder down for others, that “a rising tide raises all boats”.
Karmakar quite aptly closed the evening with indispensable advice for aspirational young women. “Don’t let it get in your way that a woman hasn’t done it”, she said with vehemence. “Someone’s done it. So can you.”
