Seite 105 [105]
OCR
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 significant 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 humanities. 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 discrimination, except for a select few members of the 3rd (“progressive identifiers”) 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 apparent 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
