1 / 18

Session 3: Building ERA through Framework Programmes: creating synergies for women scientists

Session 3: Building ERA through Framework Programmes: creating synergies for women scientists. Chair: Ms. Jocelyne Gaudin , (EC) Rapporteur: Dr. Ur s a Opara Kra s ovec (SI).

maxime
Download Presentation

Session 3: Building ERA through Framework Programmes: creating synergies for women scientists

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session 3: Building ERA through Framework Programmes: creating synergies for women scientists Chair: Ms. Jocelyne Gaudin, (EC) Rapporteur: Dr. Ursa Opara Krasovec (SI)

  2. Dr. Dunja MladenicMeasuring the participation of women scientists from the ENWISE countries in the Research Framework Programs • Evaluators (registered and invited) • External Advisory Group (EAG) • Monitoring and assessment panels • National Contact Points (NCP) • Program Committees (PC) Data were taken from different databases: National and EU level

  3. EAG EU level National level % % Remark: expensive to work as an evaluator (late reimbursements)

  4. More decision making positions  less women

  5. Remark and recomendation:Data analysis needs the data • Insufficient (or access to) data on gender information for projects: • at EU level (FP5 and FP6) • at national level • EC and national authorities should understand importance of data for the developmnet of research

  6. Collaboration between countries(top 12 countries, FP5-IST) Most active country Number of collaborations Data: Cordis

  7. Prof. Miora Tripsa (RO)Role of the Helsinki group as a strategic framework and its feedback • Purpose: To exchange views, experience and best practices on policies encouraging the participation of women in science on national level.  To advise government how to promote women in science.

  8. Recommendation • EC To continue to support the Helsinki Group to enable monitoring of the gender issues on national level. • R&D National Policy makers The representations of the ENWISE countries in the Helsinki Group should be revisited in order to maximize the added value of the Helsinki Group activities.

  9. Remarks and questions • To put more attention who is nominated as a delegate of Helsinki group. • Can other countries be included (from USSR, Serbia and Montenegro)? • Can the role of the Helsinki group be extended?

  10. Ms. Jurgita Petrauskina (LT)FP6 for women in science in Lithuania • A need for clear National policies on gender issues. • To make the gender issue visible to the whole society(use of media,…). • More good examples, best practice. • Better monitoring and coordination of activities on national and regional level.

  11. Debate • Women should move from public funding to industry (to start up SME’s). • Multinational companies entering into the ENWISE countries are not interested in R&D to be done there.

  12. Dr. Bodil Holst (DK)My first EU-project • Being involved in a EU Programm helps to get permanent position. • To get involved as evaluator is a key to understand and EC and FP. • To share the experience with the others.

  13. Ms. Veronique Degraef (EC)Mainstreaming and monitoring gender equality in FP6: “who does what?” • Why gender plans? • To increase women participation. • To allow a better understanding of the gender dimension in research. • A target of 40% women’s participation in all groups, panels, committees and Marie Curie scholarships!  We are far away from the 40% target.

  14. Actions undertaken • Gender issues taken into account at each state of proposal life cycle (proposal, evaluation, contact negotiations, reporting). • Action plans for promoting gender equality as requirement in Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects.  less women as coordinators in “more important” instruments • It is launched a call for proposals to promote women scientists (deadline in October).

  15. Facts from the debate Why is discrepancy? Not only gender discrimination. Difficulties for women to be 1 week absent (child care), man put more general keywords….

  16. gender equality • Science needs diversity and women might have a different point of view on the subject  it is an added value for all research/society to get more women on top position. • Get more women into the industry is becoming more important in research. • Putting science on the 1st placeshould be made compatible with social/citizens responsibilities.

  17. visibility • Gender blindnessis still present although the scientifically based evidence exists that gender issue is a problem! • To promote best practice! • To discuss the role of the women in society!  media

  18. data • Gender information should be included in databases to enable data analysis and monitoring and identify the position of women in science today and tomorrow!

More Related