Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, writing from Lund, Sweden.

I have been travelling quite a bit in recent months; I attended several conferences and met many new and interesting people. While many of the discussions in the presentation halls have been on the official topics of the conferences; the “unconferences,” the meetings during the coffee breaks and official receptions, have brought up other topics, and more often than not the question of being a women and an academic came up in the discussion.

From Austria to Sweden, from Poland to the UK, from Australia to the US; it emerged from my conversations that women working in higher education face many of the same kind of problems. Examples are plenty: at one institute there are a majority of women researchers but their boss is a man and, in face of the threat of funding cuts, he is the only one who has the security of further employment. At another university, the female professors are “known” to have a special social competence, so whenever a difficult case with a student comes up, their male colleagues delegate the difficult conversations to the women, because “they are so much better at it.” In yet another case women administrators working at the university complaints bureau have received comments from the male students that they are not trusted to be competent enough to deal with the students’ problems – since the administrators are women “they won’ t be able to understand.”

I don’t know how many of you, dear readers, both male and female, can identify similar cases at your own workplace, but from my sample of stories it appears that these instances are not unique. On the contrary, they are encountered, with local variations, across several continents and institution types. These are all shared problems, common occurrences. So, shouldn’t there be some shared solutions, good examples that we can borrow from each other? Are there some that we can highlight as best practices and pressure our institutions to adopt?

In Europe, such an attempt at finding joint solutions to similar problems has been drafted by the research group “Gender in Science,” among others. Their focus is to combine gender equality with research excellence, and to that purpose, they organize several conferences and meetings (There are two coming up now: one in Belfast on Women in Leadership , the other, the European Gender Summit, in Brussels). Moreover, they have published a report about the situation of women in research in Europe that included thirteen recommendations, some of which are reproduced in brief below. My point is that these concrete recommendations can be examples of such common measures that can be adapted to fit many institutions and that address the same gender imbalance that we observe everywhere.

• In all assessments – paper selection for journals, appointments and promotions of individuals, grant reviews, etc. – the use and knowledge of methods for sex and gender analysis in research must be an explicit topic for consideration. Granting agencies, journal editors, policy makers at all levels, leaders of scientific institutions, and agencies responsible for curricula accreditation, should be among those responsible for incorporating these methods into their assessment procedure.

• Research teams should be gender diverse. Institutions should promote gender diversity of research teams through a variety of incentives (e.g. quality recognition and allocation of resources) and through transparency in hiring. Key decision-making committees should also be gender diverse.

• Institutions should seek to improve the quality of their leadership by creating awareness, understanding, and appreciation of different management styles. This can be achieved through training, self-reflection, and various feedback mechanisms. Diversity training, specifically, is essential in this process.

• Assessment procedures must be redefined to focus on the quality, rather than quantity, of an individual’s publications and research output. This must be consistently applied in individual, departmental, and other levels of assessment.

• Persons with disproportionate committee and administrative duties should be provided with additional support staff or reduced teaching assignments to ensure that their research does not suffer.

• Explicit targets to improve gender balance and action plans to reach them must be included in the overarching gender strategy of scientific institutions. Gender issues must be an integral part of internal and external evaluation of institutions.

Do you know of positive cases where recommendations in the same spirit as the ones above have actually been implemented? Are there success stories you want to share? Do you think that these recommendations could work if implemented? Having a dialogue about our common problems gives us the hope of finding common solutions.

This post was also published at Inside Higher Ed and The Guardian (UK).

Anamaria Ducteac, writing from Iceland.

I am writing this short text from a computer whose keyboard settings are not English but Icelandic, a language with slightly more characters than English. As my fingers have learnt to seek blindly for the O’s and the U’s and the W’s, I keep spelling words wrongly, until of course I switch the keyboard to English. Then the issue becomes NOT to look, and let the fingers do their job on their own, since what the eyes see is not what the fingers meet when they try to type.

This small detail about writing on a foreign (to me) keyboard is significant for the larger topic of English as the lingua franca of academics world over. I am currently attending the annual conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, one of the largest (if not the largest) political science gatherings in Europe. Of the hundreds of presentations that will take place here in Reykjavik, the program does not list a single one in a language other than English. The presentations will certainly bear the mark of their creator; Swenglish, and Spanglish, and Finglish, and Frenglish will make appearances in the various conference rooms throughout the week. But give it what prefix you may, it is still English that dominates our meetings, our publications, our grant applications.

This being the situation, is it a good or a bad thing? Many non-English speakers deplore the devaluation of their native language as a research communication tool. In Sweden, it has become increasingly common that not only regular publications (articles, books) but also doctoral dissertations are written in English. This worries some that soon those scholars who work at Swedish universities will not be able to communicate the results of their research to the national public that indirectly supports their work (since universities in Sweden are all public, money comes indirectly from the taxpayers). This would lead to a disconnect between the academic elite and the rest of the population.

Moreover, the critics of the anglification argue that the use of English as preferred language of research worldwide works against all those who do not have English as their mother tongue, while at the same time giving an unfair advantage to the native speakers of the language of Shakespeare. Especially in language-heavy subjects, but valid even for natural sciences, very good fluency in both writing and speaking are a must for all, becoming thus an extra burden for the non Anglo-Saxon scholars.

On the other hand, English is seen a providing many advantages, one of the most important being precisely its almost universal circulation. This increases the possibility of making one’s findings available to the entire scientific community. With this comes an increase in the verification of the data (more people can critically assess the research results), as well as an increase in the number and type of potential beneficiaries of the information revealed in these findings.

Moreover, no one prohibits the publication of articles in languages other than English, or the writing of popular science books and reports for the domestic public. If one can master several languages, then it is a merit to put them all to use. A scholar active in a non Anglo-Saxon environment can work both in English and in the local language, and can engage in the public debates in the place of residence. The use of English is not exclusionary to the use of other languages.

The quality of the research is increased by internationalization. Mobile, open and transparent academic communities foster a good research atmosphere, where hypotheses are tested, propositions analyzed, new angles suggested from a variety of points of view. A common language does not necessarily imply uniform thinking, and this is clearly illustrated at my conference. We disagree vigorously, in our common language: English.

This post also appeared in Inside Higher Ed.

Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, writing from Lund, Sweden

Lately, I have given the concept of fear a lot of thought. Take the mutilation of the Bangladeshi student by her husband, so well discussed and problematized here at University of Venus. When I read that story, I was filled with lots of strong emotions: anger, revolt, pity, even helplessness. And a little part of me, the one that involuntarily identified with the attacked woman, also felt fear. Fear that this may happen again, to more people, even to people like me. Fear of brutality, of violence, of absurdity, of social conventions that are embraced entirely uncritically.

Fear is a very powerful sentiment, a very uncomfortable one, admittedly, but one that gets hold of us as individuals and, maybe, also as communities. Perhaps because it is so painful to touch, there is not a lot of public discussion about fear. We always prefer to think positively and start new things in the name of hope. The semester begins by listing our positive expectations, our wishes for the time ahead. We do not talk about our fears at the beginning of the next school year, or next project; we do not mention our insecurities and those areas that are at risk of endangering our dearly-held plans. This is not just superstition (“do not talk about the bad things, because they will be more likely to happen then”) or cheap psychology (“always think positively and then everything will be alright”). I think we are afraid of fear itself, or afraid of the image of ourselves that appears in the mirror held by fear. These apprehensions do not show us in the best light; we may be afraid to look silly, to look stupid, insecure, lying, unloved, unloving, dominating or superficial.

But facing our fears may not be as dangerous as it sounds. Most certainly, it takes a lot of self-insight and a lot of courage to do so, but naming those fears to oneself and perhaps sharing them with others may prove to be liberating. If the worries about what can go wrong are spelled out, they tend to prove less intimidating, their proportions normalize and they appear not as insurmountable obstacles but as practical problems that are likely to have pragmatic solutions. Sharing one’s fears with others, either friends or colleagues, may also have a positive effect. By allowing a glimpse of the less secure part of ourselves, we offer a more true-to-self picture of who we are and become more human to others, as they, in reciprocity, will become to us. In this way, we can strengthen the ties of friendship or build stronger work teams. Moreover, shared problems have a higher likelihood to have shared solutions. Brainstorming with others about possible ways of avoiding our worst fears will open possibilities that we alone could not foresee.

At the societal level, fear is also a strong motivator. I remember watching Michael Moore’s documentary on the Columbine shootings, and thinking about his argument that the US was a civilization of fear. The claim, as ungrounded as it remained in the documentary, that there are societies governed by fear is not so easy to throw aside. As International Relations scholars have written so convincingly about, threat, or the perception thereof, is a major part of shaping the foreign policies of many states. And threats do not function if we have nothing to fear.

Another example of how fear affects us as social animals is xenophobia, homophobia or what I would like to call the fear of the different. Be it skin color, or skin decorations, or language, or clothing, we meet the Other first with suspicion. If we allow our fears to take over, we build societies where subcultures or minorities are ostracized, unheard, oppressed. Fear gives birth to more fear, and these marginalized groups will also learn to treat the majorities that dominated them with apprehension. These societies cannot be sustainable in the long run, as they lack equality, social trust and ultimately social justice.

So is there anything to be done to break free from the prison of fear? One of the ways out may be through courage and confidence that any alternative to fear is better than the current state. To identify the fear is the necessary first step. Once these appear more clearly, their immediate and root causes can be identified, thus transferring fears into regular, solvable problems. Even when this is not possible, and certainly there will be situations when fears will remain fears, or will stay unarticulated, I think taking the courage to contemplate them will be beneficial. Fears can be transformed into forces for positive transformation, if only we dare to face them!

Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, writing from Lund, Sweden

Summer is here, and for many academics, this is not just the season for relaxation but also the time for conference presentations. I know many colleagues who tremble at the thought of standing in front of an unknown and critically-minded audience who would potentially tear apart one’s every argument.

I do not fear the presentation moment, on the contrary I always look forward to it as the time when my ideas, concocted in the solitude of my academic life get to breathe fresh air and receive the feedback that will refine them.

A good conference presentation is key to one’s relaxed and productive participation at a conference. Advice on how to present papers is plentiful and perhaps one of my favorites is Presentation Advisors. In the space below I will share some of my personal strategies on of what makes for a good presentation.

1. Get in the mood

Observing great public speakers at work is a terrific source of inspiration. Before preparing my presentation, I watch people who inspire me to speak out and share my thoughts. One of the best sites to find such motivational speakers is TED.com. Even if the topics are totally outside the realm of my academic interests (anything goes, from dinosaurs to the future of medicine), I feel energized just by listening to these great presenters and feel I get something worth emulating in my own talk.

2. Go visual

Even if your topic does not necessarily include film clips, diagrams of molecules or statistical curves, it still makes sense to include some form of visual support for your presentation. Reading the paper out loud is not enough to capture and maintain the interest of an audience who already has viewed several other panelists. Using visuals will make your words stick in the mind of your public, which is the main point at conferences (besides networking, of course).

Again, there are many tips out there on how to make very good PowerPoint presentations, but here I would like to focus on two aspects: originality and structure.

Originality Avoid the pre-fixed templates that everyone has seen (and used) a hundred million times. One could play around with the color schemes, the types of font and perhaps go beyond the bullet points that are so overused. Moreover, there are an increasing number of net-based resources that help your presentation look good and different; the most discussed being of course Prezi. Using visuals is easy, fun, and it will get you the attention you deserve – give it a try next time!

Structure A well-thought out paper should easily translate into a well-designed presentation. Some rules of thumb are: start with the outline of what you will discuss in the paper, and then use the same headings (including numbers) for the titles of your slides. People will know how far you have come and what to expect next, and will have an easier time following your thoughts. I also include a short summary after each major section of my presentation (normally I would have circa 3 sections); in style with “So far we have looked at the three major theories in the field of European integration. Each of these has pluses and minuses. Now let us turn to…”

3. Relax

I find that I am a far better communicator when I am not stressed. How to relax is a very individual matter. Some people are more at ease when they have practiced the presentation until the very last minute and know it by heart. Others prefer to put the paper away the evening before the big day and think about something else. Personally, I relax only when I am in front of the public, only when I look around in the room and see the faces of people. I imagine them all to be my friends and talk to them as if I tried to convince some of my best colleagues and friends from work not some strangers I never met before. This trick of the imagination usually works fine!

I hope you will find some of my suggestions useful for yourselves. Good luck with those conference presentations!

This post was also published in Inside Higher Ed.

Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, writing from Lund, Sweden

A short while ago, I had the pleasure and privilege of taking part in an online discussion about women’s leadership in higher education hosted by The Guardian Higher Education. Three hours and more than 270 comments later, I had the feeling that we touched on some very important points but that the surface of the topic was barely scratched, and that there is so much more to think about. This is my attempt to put some order in my own thoughts provoked by that intensive exchange of ideas.

One of the questions launched by our energetic and enthusiastic host, Eliza Anyangwe, challenged the panelists to name the barriers women face when dealing with promotion in higher education. There have been so many studies conducted that provide supporting data to what most women experience as a general situation or feeling that it is difficult to relate to just one. In addition to several national studies, like the British or the Swedish, the European-wide research done in 2009 by the European Commission also identifies reasons why women are at risk of dropping out of the academia, known figuratively as the leaky pipeline.

The most obvious problem is the difficulty women have with putting together the life puzzle: how to balance an active professional life with a rich family life, including quality time with one’s partner and children. Personal experience often supports the general statistics. As it became clear in The Guardian conversation, women, especially in the United States university environment, have to face an impossible choice: “to either have a child or get tenure – to make a relationship work (which requires time and effort) or to get tenure”, as Mary Churchill put it then. Men holding high positions in the academic or administrative hierarchy of universities usually do not have the same dilemma, as they are often supported by partners who do not focus as much on their career (e.g. opting for part-time jobs).

So what is the solution? We are looking here at structural problems that embrace not just the academic world but society at large. The gender constructions and the stereotypes that usually accompany them place women in the traditional sphere of home, and allow a larger playing field in the public arena for men, who less often face the choice between a private life and a public career. The solutions therefore are seldom restricted to the university world and encompass, for example, governmental policies such as guarantees for parental leave that reserve time for the father. However, universities can make things better for their female employees by introducing some form of flexible time, perhaps in combination with child care facilities on site.

Another problem that appears in the figure above is related to the work environment. It is no secret that university structures have been fashioned so long ago that it is inevitable they carry the marks of paternalism. How can they shake off this negative heritage, and transform the work milieu so that it is more open and accommodating to women?

One of the solutions is networking. This much was obvious in our chat: integrating oneself into larger circles of like-minded people is key to the creation of better work environments. One can participate in female academic networks, but not exclusively. Being embedded in collegial networks where both men and women from the profession meet and collaborate, supporting each other and giving feedback is another strategy one can successfully follow. In this way, senior colleagues (most often men, as we know) can get to know their female colleagues and support their endeavours. Having a positive attitude, talking about one’s achievements in the open and without false modesty, and being self-confident are other ingredients that make networking function as a tool of leveling the academic playing field.

Finally, one other solution to improving women’s presence in higher education leadership is making university governance more democratic. As in other walks of life, democracy ensures higher participation and representation of all groups, and since women make up the majority of students, including at the PhD level, they will not have to fight against existing hierarchies but make their way through democratic means to the top of the echelons. Democracy brings also more accountability for the university leaders, who would have to explain for example why so few women reach the top of hierarchy.

More democracy, more flexible time, more inclusion in networks, these are the way forward.

Anamaria writes from Lund, Sweden. She is one of the founding members of the editorial collective at University of Venus.

Some interesting books on women, leadership and academia:

Jocey T Quinn (2003) Powerful Subjects: Are Women Really Taking over the University?.Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books

Claire Shipman and Katty Kay (2009) Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success.HarperBusiness

Diane R. Dean, Susan J. Bracken and Jeanie K. Allen (2009) Women in Academic Leadership: Professional Strategies, Personal Choices. Stylus Publishing

This post was also published in Inside Higher Ed.