Marketing digital

A general overview of statistics on women’s participation in FP6, and across the different Framework Programmes can be found in the European Commission’s Gender Equality Report - Sixth Framework Programme, published in October 2008 (European Commission, 2008c). In this report, the European Commission points out the positive impact of setting a quantitative target on women’s participation. While little data is available for FP4, an overview of statistics over the years (as graphically represented in figure 4.3) shows clearly that setting the 40% target in 1999 correlates with an increase in the number of women involved in FP5 and in FP6: the percentage of women in groups, panels and committees has steadily increased since 1999. Women’s average participation rate in FP-related committees and panels, approximately 26% in 2006 (European Commission 2008:5) is however lower than the overall percentage of women researchers recorded in Europe in 2006 (30%), as revealed in She Figures 2009 (Etzkowitz & Kemelgor, 2001).

Figure 4.2: Success rates of female and male participants in Priority 7 (base = contracts signed)

Figure 4.3: Distribution of women in groups, panels and committees (FP4, 5, 6)

Source: European Commission, Gender Equality Report – the Sixth Framework Programme, October 2008, page 6.

The positive trend set off by putting forward a target was already recognised by the EC in its Commission Staff Working Paper of 2001 (SEC(2001-771): “Although women do not represent

40% of the committees and panels associated with FP5, the number of women represented is higher than at any stage during FP4, as far as data on FP4 are available. It is recognised that setting the target has had an impact on increasing the number of women involved in FP5.”

(European Commission, 2001d)

Looking at the figures breaking down the above averages for FP6 over the different fields reveals that women’s participation has been significantly above the average for the fields that were analysed in the present case study. It is also worth noting that Science and Society, the part in FP6 where the ‘gender in research’ area responsibility is located, scores highest and is setting the example. This positive result is a sign of specific attention and efforts for encouraging women’s participation in this directorate in the DG RTD that is in charge of managing Science and Society, which indicates favourable attitudes towards gender change in this particular locus of the organisation. Indeed, as suggested in section 2.6., explicit efforts can be regarded as indirect evidence of favourable local attitudes towards gender equality as a policy goal.

A comparison between FP6 and FP5 on women’s participation as coordinators or participants in FP5 projects is hampered by the fact that firm data on FP5 are not available because the system to collect and codify this data was only set in place after the 1999 Communication and was not fully functional. This is also confirmed in the synthesis report of the gender impact assessments performed under FP5 (European Commission, 2001). However, the tentative figures provided for 1999 indicate that no progress has been made in this respect in FP6. In 2001, the Commission writes “The Commission services undertook to develop a system for ascertaining

and compiling statistics on the sex of project promoters, contractors and persons recruited under contracts. This system is being developed. Initial results suggest that of the proposals received in 1999, 16% of the co-ordinators were women, and of the contracts signed, 18% were from women. The estimations of the equivalent numbers during FP4 were below 10 %. The establishment of this system has encountered unforeseen difficulties. Initial application forms for funding did not

Table 4.12: Key figures on the participation of women

Science & Priority 7 FP6

Society (in 2006)

Evaluation panels 51 % 42 % 34 %

Programme Committee 49 % 39 % 30 %

Co-ordinators of evaluated proposals 40 % 27 % 17 %*

Participants in evaluated proposals 38 % female 28 % female 16 %* Co-ordinators in financed projects 41 % female 29 % female 17 % * Coordinators (respectively participants) of ‘submitted’ proposals versus of ‘evaluated’ proposals, the difference being the proposals submitted but not evaluated (mainly for eligibility reasons).

insist on the gender box being completed and consequently it was frequently ignored. There were problems encoding the gender in the computer system. These problems have now been rectified. However, it is not compulsory for firms submitting proposals or establishing contracts to submit details of the sex of the persons carrying out the work and frequently this valuable information is omitted. The gender data for project partners is incomplete. It is recognised that this is a problem, and solutions are currently being discussed.” (European Commission, 2001d)

The Gender Equality Report furthermore shows that success rates for female and male scientific coordinators have been similar across FP6, confirming the findings from the present analysis on the Science in Society and SSH fields. However, women are far more present as scientific coordinators of smaller FP6 funding instruments (like Specific Support Actions or Coordination Actions), but coordinated only 10% of Integrated Projects (IP) and 8% of Networks of Excellence (NoE), as pointed out by the panel of external experts who evaluated FP6 (Rietschel et al., 2009). An equal success rate does therefore not indicate a similar funding distribution over female and male scientific coordinators. And neither does it rule out a gender bias in the evaluation, as wrongly concluded by the expert panel that performed the ex-post evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme (Rietschel et al., 2009) – as is shown in the next chapter (see notably section 5.2.).

4.5. Women’s participation in European research: findings from the ERA