When planning any science conference, an organising committee feels compelled to include at least one session on ‘women in science’. However, that they are unlikely to reserve a large conference room for it (as the topic is no crowd-puller) paints a much larger, and rather grim story.
The most common narrative encountered while discussing women in science is that of ‘celebrating’ historic and current women scientists. This effort can be, at best, inspirational for those already in science, but at worst, it can come off as condescending. Take this recent event in Kolkata titled ‘Women in Quantum Science & Technology’, where Abhay Karandikar, Secretary, Department of Science and Technology (DST), declared that it was time “to recognise and honour the contribution of women in the field.”
As a friend of mine, who works as a grants manager at an institute, put it: “It’s like these discussions are saying: ‘Oh well done, at being a scientist AND a woman.’ That is so patronising!” Perhaps this annoyance is also what Anna Mani meant to convey when she famously said, “What is the hoopla over women in science?”
Every year, come International Women’s Day on 8th March, institutes across the country mark ‘Women in STEM’ events where themes of discussion will be mentorship and work-life balance along with celebrating their women scientists. In response, women in science everywhere are asking with indignation: why are men exempt from such discussions?
After being part of several such discussions, one realises that while we all agree that we need more women in science, we are not sure what we can do about it. Or how to go about doing it. Despite various initiatives and policy interventions, there is noticeable stagnation in progress, with women’s presence hovering around 20 percent of people of science. The solutions to close the gap are blowing in the wind. Something about the discourse seems stuck.
Instead of falling into the same rabbit holes then, how about we flip the script? Instead of saying ‘we need more women in science,’ couldn’t we say: Science needs diversity?
…the current discourse on women in science is not anti-caste or anti-class enough to tackle oppressive structures specific to social realities in India.
Allow me to elaborate…
First, simply having more women in science will not be enough to bring in an inclusive culture, which is what we really want. With tokenism and patriarchal women justifying the status quo, we will just have more of the same. Besides, the current discourse on women in science is not anti-caste or anti-class enough to tackle oppressive structures specific to social realities in India. It is also often too heteronormative to address the systemic barriers faced by other marginalised genders, identities, and communities.
Second, better representation of specific groups does not meet our ideals for science. When we choose a science career, for most of us the main motivation is the problem-solving capacities of our science, the impact it can have on wider society. Yet currently, what amounts to successful science is not linked to the problem-solving impact but to how much profit (and patents) can eventually come from it. This success can take the form of successful startups offering products and services in the free market or just more grant-worthy proposals for further research. As a result, broadly speaking, certain technological domains have skyrocketed in advancement while our immediate environmental ecosystems and social structures are embroiled in collapse. Wherever science can help: for example in dealing with climate change, preserving habitats, and sustainable development, progress is elusive.
Social gaps in science run much deeper than just the underrepresentation of groups. Asking for true diversity and inclusion also means asking for a change in the what, how and why of the science we do. A remarkable example is the recent speech given by an awardee of the Governor’s Prize for 37 all-rounder student at IIT Madras. Dhananjay Balakrishna condemned STEM applications of ‘technology to kill’ by putting it into the context of large technology companies implicit in fueling ongoing military aggressions and wars. Dhananjay called on his STEM community to “interrogate our own position in these complex systems of power imbalance” and called for efforts “to understand what we can do to liberate the oppressed on the lines of caste, class, creed, and gender.” With the current demographic dominated by upper-caste heterosexual cis-men, this is unachievable. Along with including people from different backgrounds, we need our institutes, conferences, and internal meetings to be enriched with the diversity of ideas.
If we recognise that diversity in all forms is what we seek, we can focus on creating an environment where it is not just welcomed but seen as essential to scientific progress. This diversity is not just about being more ‘fair’ but advocates for our shared ideal of science and technology benefiting society.
Who will call out the discrimination?
Social gaps in science run much deeper than just the underrepresentation of groups. Asking for true diversity and inclusion also means asking for a change in the what, how and why of the science we do.
When science is truly accessible to currently marginalised groups, there is the hope that they will (together) make science an inclusive space that can match ideals for science. On the way to true inclusivity, we are met with the systemic barriers that we rely on our affiliated institutions to remove. The biggest barrier has been shown to be toxic workplaces replete with discrimination.
Therefore, coming back to the start of this piece, it is all too common for sessions on women in science to overlook discrimination. Even policies often ignore it. A recent study found that re-entry programs for women who take a break from work for childcare need to be reevaluated, as they do not address the subsequent discrimination faced by the beneficiaries.
Taken together, we do not see equal representation of men and women in STEM in India because: a) not enough women are being hired for scientific positions, and b) women already in STEM are more likely to drop out than men due to what boils down to discrimination.
We seem to be waiting for organic growth in diversity while being hesitant to address the problems. DEI negotiations involve interactions between individuals, organisations (departments, institutes, academies, universities), and society. While society feeds the stereotypes that create systemic barriers, these barriers exist within our organisations and are influenced by individuals. While societal transformation is a much larger goal, in the meantime, we expect our organisations to adopt transparent policies that welcome diversity and rely on established scientists who are not afraid to call out all kinds of discrimination.
Notes:
This article was originally published in Vividh: Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity and Accessibility in Science in India, a compendium by IndiaBioScience.org. It is republished here with minor edits.
Featured image by Siddhesh Gautam, with modifications by Sayantan Datta.
