In research and academia, the ‘personal is (still!) political’ | Maria Brown

Picture a Scientist (2020), a film by Sharon Shattuck & Ian Cheney, documents the upsurge of researchers advocating for women scientists. In this film, biologist Nancy Hopkins, chemist Raychelle Burks, and geologist Jane Willenbring guide viewers through their own life stories and experiences in research and academia. Their narratives range from harassment to more or less subtle slights; from cramped laboratories to fieldwork with jaw-dropping Antarctica backdrops tainted by (equally jaw-dropping, for different reasons, of course) sexist behaviour. In a nutshell, the film is a critical encounter with social scientists, neuroscientists, and psychologists, illuminating how research and academia can fall short of being equitable and meritocratic.

Back in 1969, feminist Carol Hanisch inspired second-wave, radical feminism and women’s studies with her published essay The Personal is Political (1). Hanisch rebutted that sex, appearance, abortion, childcare, or division of labour in domestic settings were merely personal issues without political importance. She urged women to overcome self-blame, discuss their situations amongst each other, and organise collectively against patriarchy and sexism. Half a century later, feminist advocacy groups have made admirable and effective inroads. Yet Picture a Scientist candidly reminds us of the extent to which perpetrators, decision-makers – and even victims – can be apologetic, secretive and confessional about gender-based discrimination and gender-based violence.

Academic titles are often seen as a sign of having achieved a certain level of expertise in a field of study that invariably leads to upward socio-economic mobility, prestige, opportunity and work-life balance. However, such titles and assumptions often gloss over precarious work conditions and hardships; particularly at the intersections between the professional and the personal aspects of some scholars’ lives. Research shows young or early career and women academics are expected to take on additional responsibilities outside of their professional roles in order to prove their worth; whilst juggling family-motivated career breaks, reduced hours, casualised work, low remunerations, long working hours, increasing and taxing mobility requirements, intense academic competition, overwhelming administrative and organisational tasks, lack of recognition by research organisations and a series of definite employment contracts that can inhibit specialisation, publication, and career progression. (2,3)

It is therefore unsurprising that gender equality has been on the European political agenda for research and innovation over the last decades. Many European Union (EU) funded projects focus on gender mainstreaming in research institutions through the implementation of Gender Equality Plans, certification and award schemes. The ongoing EU-funded COST Action VOICES (2021-2025) is working towards increasing the visibility of inequalities faced by young researchers, using a gender and intersectional perspective to factor in also the experiences of scholars with disability, ethnic or other minority backgrounds, and those hailing from socio-politically and economically challenged regions. 

Initiatives of Malta’s National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE), such as the online Directory of Professional Women and the Equality Mark – a certification awarded to organisations that show evidence of gender equality values and management practices – are more encouraging. As to the time of writing, the University of Malta (UM) is working its way towards being awarded the Equality Mark, whilst work done by the UM’s Gender Equality and Sexual Diversity Committee, Health and Wellness Centre and the latest Gender Equality Plans are remarkable.

On another note, in the EU 2022 Innovation Scoreboard, Malta is rated as a “Moderate Innovator” with performance at 84.7% of the EU average and increasing at a rate lower (6.7%-points) than that of the EU (9.9%-points). (4)

This means Malta’s country’s performance gap to the EU is becoming larger. However, perhaps more worrying, is the negligible evidence on how the EU 2022 Innovation Scoreboard itself measures equitable and equal participation in research.

So, what’s the way forward?

There are latent and nuanced dimensions of precarity in research and academia that we know little about; in some cases, they are still taboos. These can include intersections with researchers’ relations with intimate partners, particularly in contexts that are heteronormative, patriarchal or grappling with ‘threatened masculinities’. Similarly, intersections with rare, terminal or chronic physical or mental health threats affecting researchers, or their dependants, or intersections with class and cultural capital which, for first-generation PhDs and academics, often translate into a hard-to-overcome ‘imposter’s syndrome’. Participatory, longitudinal and mixed-methods action research that maps researchers’ biographies and creates authentic and emancipatory opportunities is key.

This is expensive research, challenging institutions and authorities to put their money where their mouth is. This is research that calls for a commitment that outlives electoral cycles - and tenures. This is research that is not partisan; but it is certainly political and, unashamedly, public.

References

1. Hanisch, C. (1969). The personal is political. https://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.html

2. European Science Foundation (2017). 2017 Career tracking survey of doctorate. Holders: Project report

3.  Murgia, A. & Poggio, B. (2019). Gender and precarious research careers: A comparative analysis. Routledge

4. European Commission (2022). European Innovation Scoreboard 2022: Malta