Awhile ago I was hiring, and wanted to help address gender inequity. To do so I converted 1 full time role into 2 part time roles. The idea being that full time roles aren’t suitable for primary care givers and as women tend to take on these family roles it was a way to address one of the underlying structural reasons for gender inequality. It also taught me something unexpected. One of the hires was male (the other female) – which meant that as he was part time it also helped his partner go back to work part time. So although his hire didn’t directly address gender inequalities in my workforce, it did assist at a more global societal level. In other words, it’s not always about me!

Having gender based participation quotas seems like an attempt to address the symptom, not the underlying causes? So if quotas are going to be used then Teresa’s previous comments about the need for a suitable tracking metric to assess whether their remedy has worked seems like a very good idea. Perhaps one of its properties should be to tell them what would happen if the quota wasn’t being applied? Since this shows if the underlying inequities are being addressed. If so, then maybe the selection committee could first judge and rank applications, then apply the quota afterwards. This would tell them what the gender split is before the quota is applied, and could be used as a tracking metric to assess the underlying structural inequity.

In addition to participation quotas, perhaps approaches that address the structural reasons for inequity might be more effective, fairer and also encourage gender equity reforms in wider society. As well as avoiding the pitfall of thinking that just because we now have 50:50 participation that all is good and nothing else needs to be done, thus entrenching the structural inequalities that caused the problem in the first place.

For instance, if they don’t have this already, what about what about having a new class of grant which is for people returning to work after an absence, possibly even only for those who have been the primary care giver? At the moment it would clearly favour women, and as society changes it would continue to naturally favour women for as long as needed to address this type of inequity.

Selection panel quotas to ensure equal gender representation might also have an important part to play in accounting for unconscious bias (and conscious bias where it exists). (Also not sure if they already do this though).

I’m sure there are plenty of other such policies as well!

Hi James,

I think you've misunderstood Matthew's considered response. He was referring to correcting past gender inequities. In contrast, you refer to gender inequality. I didn't have any input into the NHMRC decision, but I assume that their interest is in addressing gender inequity. 

The question in that case is whether their proposed remedy will achieve their goal of gender equity. I think we can potentially contribute as statisticians by asking how they will assess whether their remedy has worked. For example, we could discuss what they could measure as part of this assessment. Gender ratios at different academic levels might be a superficial measure. One could also imagine measuring job satisfaction, perception of gender bias, workplace bullying, etc.  

Labels such as "radical" vs "liberal" don't seem interesting or relevant to me.

Hi everyone,

First up, let me say that the following are my personal views. The discussion around gender-based grants is not something that is happening in New Zealand as far as I know, nor has the NZSA been talking about this at the association-level.

For me the overarching issue is whether our research communities mirror the countries they purport to serve. I also believe that diversity only makes our research communities stronger.

I don’t think it is controversial that inequity of outcomes at the highest levels reflects the accumulation of inequities and discrimination over a lifetime. Or to put it another way — and more bluntly — being a white male automatically confers significant advantages in our current system.

To achieve a truly representative research community, therefore, there have to be solutions from pre-school, through school, to the university/research institute level. 

I see gender-based grants as one such solution. 

I would not for a minute think a recipient of such a grant was undeserving or somehow a lesser researcher — in fact, quite the opposite. And if we can retain more women in research, think how much richer our research and our research communities will be.

Apart from Theresa, we don't seem to have other female views on this thread. (Apologies if I've incorrectly assumed gender from people's names). 

Allen

James and Chris -

The SSA was not invited to make a submission to the NHMRC on this issue, and did not do so.

Regards,

Ian