This month EPWS gives the floor to Associate Professor and Research Director Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt. She is a researcher with full professor qualification at the Department of Political Science, the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Denmark. She mainly specializes in European research and innovation policy, higher education studies, and gender in knowledge production and research organizations.
Contact: eks@ps.au.dk
pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/evanthia-kalpazidou-schmidt
EPWS: What made you want to go to science? How did you decide to choose your discipline and your particular field of research? Did you have an inspiring model (parent, relative, teacher, literature, etc.)?
I was always excited by science. From a young age, I had a great interest in reading and learning about the universe – something that I still find fascinating. Later, I developed a deep curiosity about complex issues in our society – that is why I chose to become a social scientist. As a master and PhD student, I was fortunate to be part of a very dynamic research environment at Uppsala University, which further stimulated my interest in science.
EPWS: What do you work on? How important is your research topic for science development or society?
As my main research area is research policy, the topic is important both in a scientific and societal perspective. Part of my activities consists of communicating research results to the political and administrative system, delivering research-based advice and contributing to studies commissioned by parliaments, ministries, research councils, universities, private companies, and EU institutions.
I am delighted that the research that I – and the teams I participate in – conduct usually has an impact on research policy, and management and organization of research at national and European level. I think it is important that research articles and reports, guidelines and evaluation work, produced within large European projects as the ones I am involved in, support societal actors in evidence-based policy-making, and in designing, implementing and assessing policy interventions, such as gender equality action plans. To mention a couple of examples, based on the guidelines for gender equality produced in the PRAGES project, the subsequent STAGES project had an impact on the gender equality policy of a number of universities and research organisations in Europe. Continuing this work, the EFFORTI project provided a conceptual evaluation framework and indicators to be used by European research organisations and policy-makers to design, implement and evaluate gender equality interventions. Likewise, I hope that my current work on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), which aims at promoting gender equality, public engagement, science education, open access and ethics in science, will contribute to increasing scientific and public responsibility in European research and innovation.
My appointment by the European Commission and the Danish Ministry of Science as the Danish expert member of the European RTD Evaluation Network has for many years provided me the opportunity to exchange experiences and learn from colleagues across Europe, and share information and best practice on issues related to evaluation methodology, use of research indicators and measurement of research impact. It is exciting to be part of the network, because its activities have enhanced the cooperation between national agencies, academics and experts, and the European Commission services working in research and innovation and has thus had tangible scientific and societal effects.
Similarly, I hope that my participation as an expert member in the H2020 Advisory Group for Gender has contributed to promoting gender equality at the EU level. Other activities linked to scientific and societal contribution are my involvement as expert in the evaluation of the FP6 (6th Framework Programme), FP7 and Horizon 2020 project proposals, membership of expert groups providing input to structure the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation in the area of climate change and international cooperation, and as adviser to national bodies and research councils in different countries.
Finally, I strive to use my research, public outreach and engagement in the public debate, to keep the issue of gender equality in science on the agenda at national and European level.
EPWS: What is your greatest success as a researcher (and as a teacher if you teach), the one you are most proud of?
Could you share the memory of a great personal satisfaction during your research career with us?
In science, it is difficult to talk about personal success as we build on existing knowledge, whereby each single contribution to the pool of knowledge is, as a rule, only limited. If I have to choose a few moments that gave me personal satisfaction in my career, I would first mention my PhD thesis, a study of the relationship between the organization and processes of research and research productivity. The assessment committee called the thesis a pioneering piece of research in a time that this research field was in an embryonic stage, which greatly inspired me to further contribute to our understanding of the topic.
The other work that I would like to mention is the EU funded projects, many with a direct gender equality promoting and responsible research and innovation implementing purpose. Collaborating with excellent researchers across Europe and beyond has always been a source of inspiration and satisfaction. This is particularly true when the outcomes of our collaboration are used by colleagues and decision makers. I would like to highlight one of the European projects, the PRAGES project and its impact on European gender equality policy. Based on more than 100 gender equality interventions worldwide, the project generated data and knowledge, and proposed concrete strategies, on how to achieve structural changes in research organisations. The project contributed thus to the formulation of a new EU gender equality policy, targeted at structural and cultural changes in research organisations.
Finally, I get very proud seeing younger researchers, whom I have mentored or cooperated with in research projects, publish articles in good journals or advance in academia.
EPWS:In which country/countries have you been doing research?
I have been doing research in a number of European countries. I started in Sweden, receiving a master and a PhD degree from Uppsala University. Currently, I am currying out research at Aarhus University in Denmark, I am a visiting researcher at the Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway (20 percent position), and I have been a visiting professor at Oxford University in the UK. Prior to that, I was a visiting scholar at the University of Leuven in Belgium, and the International Christian University – the EU Institute in Japan, and the Centre for National University Finance and Management, the National Centre of Sciences of Japan, and Tokyo University.
As European research and gender equality policy has been central to my research activities, I have been involved in a number of projects focusing on gender issues (EFFORTI, STAGES, PRAGES, WHIST), and RRI (RESBIOS, STEP-CHANGE, STARBIOS,) funded by the EU. As a result, I have established an extensive network in the frame of FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 and a close collaboration with brilliant and inspiring colleagues all over Europe.
EPWS: What is your agenda for the coming months?
I am currently involved in two H2020 projects, one focusing on RRI in biosciences (RESBIOS) and a second on citizens science (STEP-CHANGE), which will start this year, while a third project, funded by the Norwegian Research Council, focuses on gender, citizenship and academic power (GAP). I will dedicate most of my time to these projects during the coming months.
I am also co-organizing a workshop and a conference in the first two months of the year. In the frame of RESBIOS, a workshop on science communication in biosciences with a gender perspective will be held end of January. In my capacity as a member of a taskforce under DANWISE (Danish Society for Women in Science), I am involved in the organization of a countrywide conference in February on the theme, “A National model for Gender Equality across Higher Education in Denmark: exploring needs and possibilities”, with the participation of all higher education institutions and research funding organisations in Denmark. I will also participate in a series of workshops planned in the frame of the CASPER project, which explores certification-award systems to promote gender equality in European research.
Finally, I have some really exciting papers to finalise on responsible research and innovation, and gender equality, and I look forward to my second visit to Oxford University, hopefully sometime soon.
Did you meet any barriers (personal/social/structural) during your career as a scientific researcher? Did you benefit from mentoring?
There are many structural and cultural barriers for women in science, most of them are subtle and not easy to pinpoint. However, as this is one of my research areas, I work to shed light on the systemic and structural nature of gender inequalities and how to address them, empowering people. My own career has been very fragmented, as I have moved a lot, following my family to postings abroad. At times, it was hard to keep work and life balance and to progress my career in rigid academic structures. Although I tried to reap the opportunities in the countries I moved to, I had to struggle with many obstacles having a fragmented career and missing a university position to fall back to, every time I came back to Denmark. I have thus had a non-traditional academic career. For almost 20 years, I have been commuting between Copenhagen, where I live, and Aarhus, where my university is situated, working from home a couple of days a week. Obviously, this would not have been possible without the trust and understanding of my centre leadership – and a flexibility to accommodate a different working mode.
What is the situation of gender equality in your working field? In the countries where you have been working, were there gender equalities policies and did you experience their effects?
What do you suggest for a better implementation of gender equality in science?
The lack of female professors and women in leadership positions in academia in general, and within my working field in particular, is striking. Yet, the number of female PhD students is rather high.
Attention to the issue of gender equality varies among the countries where I have been working. For instance, the UK has a comprehensive policy measure, the Athena SWAN scheme for the advancement of women in science, which has been instrumental in raising awareness of gender inequalities and motivating higher education and research institutions to address inequalities by implementing action plans.
In the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, often described as European leaders within equal opportunity, gender equality in academia has been on the policy agenda since the mid-1970s and beginning of 1980s. In all these countries, higher education institutions are required to establish action plans for gender equality and report regularly about their achieved results.
However, the three countries differ regarding public and political attention on the issue and hence on policies, intensity of implementation and management of gender equality policies. Norway and Sweden have been practicing a proactive policy with gender quotas or earmarking of positions to the underrepresented gender in academia, while in Denmark numerous governments have been reluctant to employ these types of policies, and adopted softer approaches, i.e. establishing think-tanks and commissions to promote gender equality work.
In Denmark, shifting degrees of attention and the fragmentation of gender equality initiatives, driven primarily by ministers with various degrees of interest in the issue, have not led to expected results. Danish policy has thus been characterized by irregular political commitment, mainly due to a widespread belief in the Danish society that academia already provides equal opportunities, and a blind trust on the system as being meritocratic. As a result, gender imbalances in Danish academia have for a long time been denied – or addressed at the individual “talent” level – and their impact in science and society underestimated.
The assumption that gender imbalances can be fixed at the individual level have proven far from sufficient in counterbalancing the disadvantages of gender inequality and have failed to address the roots of gender inequality at the structural level. Studies show that individual-meritocratic explanations about women’s advancement in academia determine whether decision-makers and institutional leaders engage in real change or stick with the meritocratic explanations that neglect gender bias. We know that institutions and organizations that perceive themselves as meritocratic and ‘gender-blind’ often end up neglecting the structural gender biases that obstruct the careers of women.
Research shows that promoting gender equality in science implies working towards increasing the share of women in science and in decision-making positions in science, addressing structural and cultural obstacles. However, in order to enact effective sustainable structural and cultural change, it is necessary to acknowledge and operationalize complexity as a frame of reference in gender equality interventions. This means using multiple actions and areas of intervention with a focus on the local dynamics (contextual factors), the non-linearity of the interventions (an input does not always lead directly to the anticipated outcome and impact), as there are constantly new conditions that pop-up in the process. Accordingly, we must consider the impact of gender equality efforts in terms of contribution to change and improved conditions to foster change.
Finally, we need to work towards the incorporation of sex and gender in research content and curricula, as sex and gender analysis enhances the scientific quality and societal relevance of research. Including sex and gender analysis in the curricula of university courses helps students improve study design, analysis and reporting. Equally important are gender-sensitive curricula, which portray gender in a non-stereotypical way, as this can make academic and research careers more attractive to all, irrespective of gender.
Did you experience networking between women scientists? Can you comment your answer and explain why yes or not?
I have an extensive network in Europe consisting of both male and female scientists. I have been an EPWS individual member for a long time. Networking with other women scientists is an excellent instrument in the effort to break the structural and cultural barriers in academia and research organisations. Similarly, I would encourage networking with male scientists, as the power in science is still tilted towards men. If we aim at promoting gender equality in research organisations, we need to work together with all actors and most importantly with the leadership of the scientific organisations, and they are – with a few exceptions – men.
If you could start again your life, would you choose again to be a scientist? What would you change?
Yes, I would choose to be a scientist again – and a social scientist in particular, as the need for social sciences has never been more urgent as it is at present – and in the future – in an increasingly complex world. It is widely acknowledged by now that only multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches will enable us to effectively address the persistent challenges of our time – climate change, environmental pollution and clean energy, health and security issues, etc.
Could you leave a message to young European women scientists?
Strategic thinking and planning of career
Many factors concur in leading to unequal career outcomes in scientific organizations. It is very important to think strategically in planning your career as a young scientist because it is difficult to navigate in academia, avoiding structural and cultural obstacles. Although changing structures to embrace all scientists is primarily a task for the decision-makers and the leadership of scientific organisations, raising awareness and visibility of the issue among all actors – researchers, leaders, and administrative and other personnel in the organization – is crucial in order to keep the issue on the agenda.
Another key issue in career development is networking and mentoring. A lack of networking opportunities and access to informal networks may mean missed opportunities to receive advice and information on research grant applications, stays abroad, conferences, opening of positions, promotion procedures etc., which may impede the careers of women. Mentoring can support young female researchers in strategic career planning by offering individual advice to formulate concrete goals, and support to establish formal and informal networks. Mentoring can also provide visible career paths, insights to understand the norms, code of conduct and science culture, and tools to navigate the scientific world. We know from studies that female researchers more often experience a lack of culture-fit in academia and a higher degree of social and intellectual isolation than their male colleagues. The lack of support and limited integration in academic networking are elements in a disintegration process that starts at an early career stage and may lead to a “voluntary” pulling out from pursuing a scientific career.
A third issue is related to what is known as the “research productivity cycle” and the fact that as a rule, female researchers have fewer publications and therefore obtain less funding to finance their research. The lack of funding leads to fewer publications and citations, and thus slower career advancement. Academia is becoming more and more competitive. Therefore, my recommendation to young researchers would be not to hesitate to seek institutional support (for example through mentoring) to apply for funding and publish as early as possible.
Favourite LINKS:
www.retepariopportunita.it/Rete_Pari_Opportunita/UserFiles/Progetti/prages/pragesguidelines.pdf
euagenda.eu/upload/publications/untitled-57395-ea.pdf
genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/