Seite 105 [105]
WOMEN IN THE SCIENTIFIC ELITE
Most of the subjects were grouped into the “progressive identifier” type, the
second largest group was that of “essentialist identifiers”, as well as the “dual
attachment” type, each group counting the same number of female scholars.
The “classical equality” type was the second to last, followed by the “alternative”
type having the fewest representatives. The categories did not show any sig¬
nificant difference in terms of age, though there were notable disparities with
regards to the scientific fields: while the members of the “classical equality”
group were almost exclusively scholars in natural sciences, the “essentialist
identifiers” group consisted mostly of women from social studies or the hu¬
manities.
By summarising the results, we can conclude that the “dual identifiers” and
“progressive identifiers” (they were the most numerous groups) find the issue
regarding the proportion of female academicians imperative, and that they
have also started the attempts to reshape the previously closed, “masculine”
system. Members of the 2nd group (the “essentialist identifiers”) find the
question of academicians less important, while members of the 4th group
(“classical equality”) do not find it important at all; neither group has ever
addressed the issue of the proportion of women. The 5th (“alternative”) group
has a neutral attitude toward the topic. The female academicians and the DScs
are in complete disagreement regarding the woman quota and positive dis¬
crimination, except for a select few members of the 3rd (“progressive identifi¬
ers”) group. We can therefore conclude that the stance of female scholars
differs vastly with regards to the issue of academicians, but it does primarily
correlate with the female identity.
We can also observe the parameter touched on in previous surveys to be
true, namely that a strong identification with feminists has not excluded the
sense of womanhood (see the “progressive identifiers” group), and that a strong
identification with women has not automatically enhanced politicised attitudes
(see “dual attachment” and “essentialist identifiers”). It also has become ap¬
parent that a critical attitude towards gender stereotypes was present among
those who found the issue of gender at the Academy to be important, which
could also be interpreted as identification with feminists.
GIM?* has also allowed to show clearly how gender stereotypes appear in
the groups studied, as well as how these are accepted by the female scholars.
This means — as Becker and Wagner have stated — that there is a clear relation
between gender role preferences and the existing “sexist myths”.”*° We could
observe that those who have a strong identification with femininity (“dual
attachment” and “essentialist identifier” groups) are typically more prone to
consider themselves in a stereotypical manner as well (partially reinforcing
2°4 Becker—Wagner: Doing Gender Differently.
295 Ibidem, 490.
* 103 ¬