Actes du Colloque international du RESUP : Les inégalités

Actes du Colloque international du RESUP :
Les inégalités dans l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche
Université de Lausanne,
18 au 20 Juin 2009
Tome 5: Inégalités de genre / Gender inequalitie
Inequalities and knowledge production
Different patterns of inequality

Gender Inequalities in senior management:
A comparative study from Portugal and Turkey
Teresa Carvalho, Özlem Özkanl and Maria de Lourdes Machado
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the inequalities in women’s position in senior management in higher
education in Portugal and Turkey and also examines the potential role Rectors/VCs may have
in institutional policies developed to eliminate these inequalities. While Portugal and Turkey
have different HE systems, it found that women now comprised the majority of undergraduates
in both countries, but inequalities persist with women underrepresented in senior academia
especially as full professors and senior academic managers.
A qualitative study was developed with 22 interviews made in Portugal and 24 in Turkey with
senior academic managers. The results are based on the content analysis of these interviews in
both countries. The paper then explores the reasons for gender inequalities in top positions in
academia and the link between the low proportions of women in the professoriate and their
representations as senior managers in Portugal and Turkey. It focuses on the role of Rectors
and Vice Chancellors in HE and the impact of female Rectors/VCs on both senior management
teams and the organisational culture.
It concludes that different obstacles for women ascending to top positions persist in both
countries and that female Rectors/VCs both influence and are influenced by the institutional
contexts in which they perform these roles.
Introduction
Despite the ideal of universities, where the equality and merit are endorsed as the main
values, gender inequality still persists as a ubiquitous and omnipresent problem within it
(Pritchard, 2007) as revealed by studies developed in different contexts (Bagilhole,
2000; Rees, 2001; Sagaria and Agans, 2006; Krais, 2002; Leathwood and Read, 2009).
Even if the persistence of gender inequality in universities has been gradually assumed
as an important research topic within Higher Education studies, the literature in the field
of gender and higher education is, as Morley noticed (2005), mainly concentrated on the
west and, more precisely, on the Anglo-Saxon world. The exclusion of other national
realities is an important gap that needs to be overtaken in order to develop more


knowledge on the way gender and gender relations are also politically and socially
constructed.
Following this logic, it is our conviction that the potential barriers to gender equality in
South European countries have not been scientifically mapped, with an absence of
comparative studies. As so, the main objective of this paper is to contribute to fill a gap
on this research field by studying two South European countries: Portugal and Turkey.
The results of this study proceed from a multi-country research project (Australia,
Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
Kingdom) aiming at analysing cross cultural perspectives on gender and management
in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
The rationale of the comparison between Portugal and Turkey is based on the fact that
even without similar academic structures, both countries have higher levels of women
participation in senior leadership positions when compared with other developed
countries (Özlem et al, 2008). Both countries have been assisting to the expansion of
HE translated in the increasing number of students and of public and private
institutions. At the same time, increasing participation of women – along with the
presence of horizontal and vertical segregation – has also been reported in the two
countries in spite of none has developed affirmative actions policies at the
organisational level. More recently, both countries have also been submitted to the same
market, or market-like pressures, connected with globalisation, internationalisation,
financial constrains and pressures to produce research outcomes valuable for the
knowledge economy.
This paper starts with a contextual analysis presenting the social and economic
general profile of the two countries and the analysis of the HE systems in each one. The
analysis of HE system includes issues related with their structure and management and a
brief description of the career pattern within them. Then, a brief explanation of the
empirical work is exposed. Finally, the results are discussed and the main conclusions
are presented.
Overview of the Two Countries
The two countries vary in population and in GDP rate. Turkey had 73,888 and Portugal
10,608 thousands of persons in 2007 with a GDP rate of 657,091 in Turkey and 220,241
in Portugal (millions of US dollars) (WB, 2009).


The historical route for equality development in society is also different. In Portugal it
was with the 1974 democratic revolution that political efforts started to be developed
towards the promotion of gender equality in society. The situation improved especially
in what concerns the legal rights with women obtaining the same social and political
status as men. Women have received the right to vote without any condition in 1976. In
Turkey attempts to promote gender equality started earlier. In 1923 Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk started a series of reforms aimed at giving women equal status with men. His
reforms enabled Turkish women to participate in the first municipality elections in 1930
and gain the right of representation in the parliament in the 1934 elections.
As a result of this political effort to promote equality but also due to other factors (as the
social, cultural and economic development, and, in the Portuguese case, its integration
in the EU in 1986) the situation of women in society changed, being their growing
participation in the labour force an important precedent of the new gender dynamics
crossing the two societies. In Portugal women’s participation has increased steadily
since the mid-1980s, rising from 32.5 per cent in 1985 to almost 40 per cent ten years
later (Cardoso, 2004). In 2006 the employment rate was 62% for women (superior to
the medium of the EU25 – 57,3% ) and 73,9% for men, nevertheless the unemployment
rate is always higher for women than for men. In 2006, 6,5% of men and 9% of women
were unemployed (MTSS, 2009). However, even with a greater participation in the
labour market women’s presence in top positions is still low. For instance, the
proportion of women on boards of the top 50 enterprises in Portugal was just 6% and
Turkey 4% (Eurostat, 2008).
In Turkey the representation of women in management in public companies is low. In
Turkey women comprise just 3.9% of general managers, 6.6% of assistant general
managers, 14.1% of head of departments, 16% of managers and 27.3% of assistant
managers in public sector (Tusiad-Kagider, 2008).
In our days the different situation of women in society in the two countries can be
analysed based on data from the World Economic Forum. The global gender gap index
(Table 1) shows some differences between the two countries, with relatively large
gender gap in Turkey. Large variations between the two countries are found in labour
force participation by gender, as well as, it is observed in the political representation of
women’s in parliament. Fertility rates are also distinct with Portugal closer to the EU
average. Among other factors national work life balance policies can be an important
variable to understand this difference. In Portugal, female workers are entitled to 120


days paid maternity leave or up to five months on partial pay, that can be shared with a
partner. In Turkey the length of paid maternity leave is 16 weeks with recent changes in
labour laws introducing paternity leave for workers. However the ratio of wage equality
for similar work is similar between the two countries. The percentage of women in
parliament in Turkey had increased to 9% in 2008.
Table 1
Gender Profiles of Portugal and Turkey
Labour Force Participation Ratio
Wage Equality for the same work
Women in parliament
Fertility rates
Global Gender Gap Index
Portugal
0.86
0.65
0.39
1.50
39
Turkey
0.36
0.61
0.10
2.20
123
Source: World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report 2008
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2008.pdf
After this brief description of women’s participation in the two societies, it is important
now to reflect upon women’s presence in the HE system of each country under analysis.
Women Participation in Higher Education
In Portuguese HE system 1974 is an unavoidable data. It was with the democratic
revolution, at this time, that a binary system was created and new public universities
and polytechnics emerged in the Portuguese HE, opening the pathways to a mass
system. From the mid-1980s, Portuguese HE experienced a rapid expansion with the
growing number of numerus clausus in public institutions and with the proliferation of
private institutions (Amaral and Teixeira, 2000). At the present time there are 118
higher education institutions: 47 universities (14 public; 31 private and cooperative
universities; 1 non integrated university institution; the Catholic university); 65
polytechnics (15 public; 46 private and 4 non-integrated schools of polytechnic
institutions) and 6 military and police higher education institutions (4 military and
police university institutions and 2 military and police polytechnic institutions)
(MSTHE, 2009).
Turkey, like Portugal, has experienced rapid growth in higher education, with the
number of universities increasing from 29 to 77 between 1990 and 2006 (YOK, 2006).
Approximately three quarters of these are public universities with the remainder mostly


private foundation universities. In Turkey there are currently 132 universities (94 public
universities and 38 foundation universities).
In both countries the massification of the system has been accompanied be its
feminisation. In Portugal, the substantive increase of students’ enrolments includes high
rates of women participation. In fact, the extraordinary increase in the number of
students is mainly due to women. Out of the 269,989 students enrolled in 1993, 53.4%,
were women and in 2003/2004 this percentage raised to 56.2% (OCES, 2004) and, even
if in 2007/2008 it decreases to 54%, they are still the majority of enrolled students in
HE (GPEARI, 2009). In Turkish universities women comprised, in 2006, 45% of
students in undergraduate and graduate programmes. This phenomenon is also a trend
identified in Europe as well as in other developed countries (Bagilhole, 2000; Rees,
2001; Sagaria and Agans, 2006; Krais, 2002; Leathwood and Read, 2009).
HE in both countries has also been changing under the influence of the introduction of
market and managerialism devices at the system and institutional levels: system steering
from distance; evaluation and quality assurance; competition pressures to increase
teaching and research productivity and to link it to the entrepreneurial world.
The presence of market and managerialism has been noticed in Portuguese higher
education since the 1990s (Amaral, Magalhães and Santiago, 2003). In a first phase its
presence was mitigated and mainly translated at a rhetorical level (Santiago and
Carvalho, 2004; Santiago, Carvalho, Amaral and Meek, 2006). However, in the last
years legal changes in the system (Law 62/2007) express clearly its election as the main
frame of reference driven HE policies and imposing narrow and coercive practices that
induce the substitution of HEIs from academic communities to managerial
organisations.
Women have increased their presence not only as students but also in the academic
staff. However, before we can reflect upon the presence of women in the professorate
differences between the career structures in the two countries must be highlighted.
In Portugal, in accordance with the existence of a binary system, there are also two
different careers: one for the university and other for the polytechnic sector. The
academic career is highly hierarchical, with five categories, both in the universities –
trainee assistant, assistant, auxiliary professor, associated professor and full professor
(“catedrático”); and in the polytechnics – assistant (1st triennial), assistant (2nd triennial),
adjunct professor, coordinator professor, coordinator professor with “agregação”i. There
are two career paths – with the existence of the legal figure of invited professor – with


only one carrying security of tenure. The system is collegial and based on a
Humboldtian perspective, meaning that public HEIs are dependent on the state but have
institutional autonomy and that academic roles comprise, at all levels, the development
of teaching, research and administrative/managerial roles.
Promotion is dependent on credentialism (in the university sector and on a tenure track,
promotion is automatic by obtaining a master or a PhD) but also on academic merit
(assessed mainly by the number of publications). To be a full professor it is necessary to
have a post-doctoral degree (agregação) and to wait for vacancies determined by the
state (in each step up to the next rank) and to apply in a national concurs where the
Curriculum Vitae is evaluated. The rector is elected, from the full professors, by all
academic staff with a PhD and by students’ and administrative staff representants. In
this sense, being a full professor is a prerequisite for the typical academic career path
into senior management. In public HEIs the payment categories are equal for each level.
Based on this, and contrarily to what happens in other countries (Sagaria and Agans,
2006; Bagilhole, 2000; Saunderson, 2002), there are no differences in academic criteria
for promotion or even in the salaries of women and of men in the same career position
in the public HEIs.
In Turkey both academic and administrative staff in state universities has civil servant
status and, except for research assistants and assistant professors, have tenure. The
numbers of academic and administrative staff posts allocated to each state university are
determined by YOK (Turkish Council of Higher Education). Staff appointments at all
levels are made exclusively by the universities themselves. The Higher Education Law
No: 2547 only sets forth the minimum requirements for academic promotions and
procedures to be followed in making appointments. For example, the average number of
articles published in prominent academic journals recognized by an evaluation
committee appointed by the Turkish Council of Higher Education (YOK, 2007). In
Turkey YOK regulations on professional appointments are similar for both women and
men academics, for that reason there is no formal gender discrimination at academic
promotion (Ozkanli and Korkmaz, 2000b, 2000c). Candidates are asked to provide a
portfolio including their curriculum vitas, details of their scientific publications, their
educational and training activities, supervision of research degrees and their overall
contribution to their current institution.
In Portugal, in 2007 the total number of academics in public higher education
institutions was 24,831. From these, 14,220 were men and 10,621 were women meaning


that the majority of academics in public HEIs in Portugal were men (57,3%). The
presence of women is higher in the polytechnic sector when compared with the
university (39% in universities and 48% in polytechnics) (GPEARI, 2009). This is due
to the fact that polytechnics have lower status being concentrated in low cost and more
vocational and professional oriented degrees and doing very little or no research. This
data is in line with the tendency, detected also in other contexts, for women having
more difficulties to access the most prestigious and oldest higher education institutions
(Machado-Taylor et.al., 2007; Rees, 2001; Stromquist et al, 2007; Bagilhole and White,
2005; Morley, 2005).
In higher education in Turkey, there has been also a relatively high participation of
women. According to the 2006-2007 data of the Center for Student Selection and
Placement (OSYM) in Turkey, approximately 40% of all professionals working in the
higher education are women. Nowadays, in Turkey 41.24% of all academics, 28% of all
professors, 10% of all Rectors and 23% of all Vice Rectors are women (T.C. Prime
Ministry of Turkey, 2009; YOK,2009).
Even if these data show that the presence of women in HE is greater in these countries
than in other European countries (Rees, 2001), it has to be read in light of the high
participation of women in the labour market (referred above) and of their high
participation as students. In fact, in Portugal, when we look to other educational levels,
the presence of women as teachers seems less relevant in higher education. According
with the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report (2008) the percentage of
female teachers in primary education is of 81; in secondary 66 and in the tertiary 43.
Like in almost all HE systems all over the world (Machado-Taylor et.al., 2007;
Leathwood and Read, 2009; Morley, 2005) the analysis of the women situation in HE in
Portugal and Turkey also reveal the persistence of both horizontal and vertical
segregation. Women are mainly concentrated on soft areas as humanities and arts and
least present in hard sciences or engineering.
In Portugal, women were, in 2005, 62.9% in education; 54.1% in arts and humanities
and only 23% in engineering (Carvalho and Santiago, 2008). In Turkey women are best
represented in language based studies at almost every grade and least represented in
engineering and technology. For example, in medical sciences and literature women are
over 40% of academics, but in engineering and architecture they are only 30%
(Salamer, 2005). In Portugal, the percentage of women in early and middle careers is
between 39% (trainee assistant) and 45% (assistant). But at the top this percentage


decreases to 32% (associate professor) and 22% (full professor) (Carvalho and Santiago,
2008). In Turkey the representation of women in professoriate is significantly higher
than Portugal (28 % for full professors and 32% for associate professors) (YOK, 2009).
Despite the fact that women have increased their participation as students and also in the
academic staff, the top management positions are mostly taken by men. However the
percentage of women in top position in both countries is higher than in the majority of
the other European countries (Rees, 2001; Özlem et al, 2008; Machado-Taylor et al,
2007).
Taking this general context as background this paper intends to contribute to the
development of knowledge on women in higher education management by taking the
case of two South European countries that have considerable rates of women
participation in higher education staff.
Methodology
This paper is part of a cross cultural project being undertaken by the Women in Higher
Education Management Network of women in senior higher education management
(WHEM) in Australia, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden,
Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The aim of this research project is to analyse
gendered organisational cultures and their impact on the representation of women in
university senior management. In a more precise way, one can describe the research
objectives as: to gain an understanding of women’s representation in and experience of
senior management in the nine countries in this study.
The first phase of this research analysed women’s representation in senior management
in HEIs in the participating countries (see Table 3). The research found that
representation
was
consistently
low
across
most
countries,
especially
at
Rector/VC/President level. Sweden was exceptional in having higher percentages of
women at all levels in senior Management (Özhlem et al, 2008).










































































When comparing data from Portugal and Turkey it is relevant to notice that even if
these countries have a considerable presence of women in higher education staff, they
are also amongst the group of those who have lower women participation in
management positions. Comparative analysis between the two countries make possible
to verify that the percentage of women in HEIs management is lower in Turkey than in
Portugal in all categories expect for Rector/VC/President. In order to turn these
differences more comprehensive a qualitative study was also developed.
Open-ended interviews were conducted with a sample of rectors and vice-rectors in
public universities (in Portugal private universities and all the polytechnics were
excluded). The interview schedule, that was the same for the two countries, was divided
into three parts. The first cluster of questions were about getting into and on in senior
management. The second cluster focussed on “doing” senior management and explored
perceptions of how colleagues regarded them, how they worked with men and women
in their management team, and if women had a different management style. The final
cluster focussed on the broader management culture. In Portugal, 22 interviews were
made (9 men and 13 women) and 24 in Turkey (16 men and 8 women) with rectors and
vice-rectors (Table 3). Eight of the 24 Turkish senior managers were women. Turkish
interviewees comprised 6 Rectors, 9 Vice-Rectors and 9 former Vice-Rectors. Eleven of
the Turkish senior managers were from regional universities and thirteen of the Turkish
senior managers were from metropolitan universities. Twenty-two Turkish senior
managers were from public universities, only two rectors (one female and one male)
were from foundation universities. All interviews in Portugal were tape recorded with
notes being made by the interviewers during the meeting. The interviews in Turkey
were mostly face to face and ranged from one hour to two hours in length. There was
only one phone interview. All interviews, except the phone interview, were tape
recorded and summaries were made of each interview.




Men
Women
TOTAL
PORTUGAL
Rector
Vice-Rector
8
5
1
8
9
13
TURKEY
Rector
Vice-Rector
4
12
2
6
6
18
The interviews ranged from 30 minutes to over two hours and provided a wealth of indepth data which were submitted to content analysis based on which major findings
were extracted and will be presented next.
Findings
Focusing on the Portuguese and Turkish rectors and vice chancellors the content
analysis of their discourses on gender differences in academic senior management were
structured around two main issues: the reasons for gender inequalities in top positions
and the impact of female Rectors/VCs on both senior management teams and the
organisational culture.
Institutional role of rectors and vice-rectors
By interviewing women and men in higher education governance and management top
positions in the two countries, we were able to detect and analyse in their discourses a
set of beliefs, assumptions and perceptions about their institutional roles. When asked
about the role as rectors, the major tendencies on the Portuguese discourses were to
identify skills related with the accomplishment of a specific project designed for their
university, the coordination of activities and the management of resources. Vice-rectors
identified mainly the capacity to coadjutant the rector or to coordinate specific activities
like, for instance, building up and supervise global projects on universities
teaching/learning activities and students supports.
In this context, influencing the strategic direction of the university, to set the direction
for the institution and making a significant contribution to its development were
frequently cited by Portuguese interviewees as one of the advantages of their tasks. In
addition to these ‘institutional’ advantages others, more linked with personal rewards,
were also referred as the increase in learning opportunities and the improvement of
individual networking.


In Turkey, however, emphasise was more on individual rewards. The most cited
advantages were: prestige, financial rewards, being respected and being first among
equals. It seems that rectors and VC self-perceptions are still in line with the tradition of
assuming rectors as ‘primus inter pares’.
It seems also relevant to reflect upon the perception senior managers have over the
characteristics needed to develop these roles. Senior managers’ discourses identify as
indispensable to develop their roles, characteristics that can be classified as gender
neutral.
The broad consensus from interviewees in both countries was that a rector or vice rector
had to have a strong academic research record and provide strong leadership both
internally and externally. These data reveal that in spite of recent changes in HEIs,
academics seem to sustain their attitudes based on a traditional Humboldtian notion of
the academy and of their work (Santiago, Carvalho, Amaral and Meek, 2006).
In Portugal as vice rectors are appointed by rectors, most women referred the
importance of having worked previously in managerial duties with the rector. In sum, to
have developed previously managerial roles, to be respectable in research domain by
their peers and to be ‘inside’ the right networks are all factors mentioned as important to
get into the top by women and men. Like a male rector expressed:
“During my academic life-time I have performed many managerial roles. I was president of
diverse national institutions with regulation responsibilities in research. Previously, I was a
vice-rector and to be a rector is the natural consequence of this. Nevertheless, I usually say
that it is fundamental to work hard to ascend into top positions but, it is also true that it is
essential to have the support of the right person when is needed and I also had that.” (Int.
n.15)
These analyses reveal the importance of distinct factors to ascend to senior positions
that have been identified in the literature as disadvantageous for women. To have a
valuable research career is not a neutral concept. It is recognised by different authors
that what is valuable in knowledge production is also identifiable with hegemonic
masculinity (O’ Connor, 2007; Bagilhole and Goode, 2001). The relevance of
engagement in research and managerial activities is also a discussed issue in gender in
higher education studies even if without consensual results. Some classical studies
emphasise gender differences in professional roles and academic work with women
giving priority to teaching and men to management and research (Poole and LanganFox, 1997; Poole, Bornholt and Summers, 1997; Sax, Hagerdon, Arredondo and Dicrisi,
2002; Nakhaie, 2002). More recent ones, however, (Carvalho and Santiago, 2008)


confirm that there are no significant differences in time women and men allocate to
these activities. Nevertheless to be a prestigious researcher and to have full
professorship is, in our interviewees’ opinion, indispensable to ascend to senior
positions. In this context, a great number of women in academia are kept away from it.
Beside these two factors, to take part in networking emerged also as equally relevant.
Taking the words of a Portuguese vice-rector:
“To be in senior positions you need two different things: the merit, or personal
value, and being recognised by your colleagues. You can have merit but if you are
not able to make it visible (…) you are never seen by the others. However, I think
this is the same for women and men.” (Int. n.22).
The problem for women to enter into ‘old boys network’ has been recognised as an
obstacle for women in management in general (Oakley, 2000). It seems that higher
education is not different and, in this context, women also have more difficulties in
entering the circles of academic power (Kyvick and Teigen, 1996; Webster, 2001;
Vázquez-Cupeiro and Elston, 2006; Perna, 2005; Conley, 2005).
After identifying these obstacles the analysis proceed with senior managers’ perceptions
over it.
Reasons for gender inequalities in top positions
Under the same logic as the majority did not identify gender differences on the
necessary personal traits to develop academic senior management roles, the dominant
discourse is also one of a lack of barriers for women to ascend to the top. The dominant
discourses emphasise the gender-neutral nature of procedures for recruitment and
promotion and the importance of HEIs being ruled by the meritocratic culture. Most
senior managers in Turkey and in Portugal stated that they had no difficulty in moving
into leadership roles and had been encouraged to apply by their Rector/Vice-Chancellor.
When explicitly asked to identify potential barriers keeping women away from top
positions in HEIs, the majority put the emphasise on external factors related with the
dominant stereotypes on society and the need women have to develop a multi-focus on
career and family responsibilities. The obstacles most frequently cited for women to
ascend to the top in HE careers are identified, in both countries, outside academia, such
as marriage, domestic responsibilities, role conflict, and the country culture.
I think discrimination does not exist in universities. I think the problems are
related with women dual roles: the familiar and the professional. The familiar


roles withdraw opportunities for women to advance in career when compared
with their male colleagues. (Int. nº.21).
The work-family relation has been strongly developed in the literature as a reason that
keep women in low grades in organisations (Kossek et al., 1999; Acker and Armenti,
2004; Jacobs and Winslow, 2004; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Empirical studies
previously made in Turkey and in Portugal emphasise the importance of it in academia.
Özkanli and Korkmaz (2000a) argue that the reason for low participation in academic
management in Turkey is mostly the increased family responsibilities of academic
women. In their studies, some academic women pointed out gender discrimination,
while others said that they were not willing to take administrative responsibility because
they accepted, internalized and reproduced the traditional social roles of women and
therefore prioritized housewife and mother roles. Moreover, other researchers confirm
these findings, sustaining that women avoid responsibilities that involve business trips
and increased work load due to fear of unfulfilling their traditional roles (Acar, 1986;
Köker, 1988; Ersöz 1998).
Santos and Cardoso (2008) found in an empirical study developed within Portuguese
universities that both men and women faced difficulties in reconciling work and family.
Nevertheless, these were primarily felt by women, particularly mothers of dependent
children due to distinct factors as the preservation of traditional gender roles in the
family, an ineffective legislation, and a work-family culture classified as familyunfriendly.
However if it is true that a work-family conflict exists, felted particularly by women,
one can not ignore that there are other studies emphasizing that family variables
contribute little or nothing to the prediction of women research productivity (Toren,
1993; Perna, 2005; Sax et al., 2002) based on which promotion is made on both
countries. The political and social construction of a discourse highlighting the
differences in family roles can also be interpreted as a way to deny, or turn more
invisible, the importance of organisational variables (Asmar, 1999; Ruth, 2005; Lafferty
and Fleming, 2000).
Authors as Toren (1993); Perna, (2005); Conley, (2005) or
Webster, (2001) identified such professional variables as academic rank, salary, access
to economic resources, orientation to research, research assistants’ availability and
desire for recognition as more important and influential over women research
productivity. Harley (2003) emphasise, in the new higher education market and


managerialism context, the institutional insecurity, which concentrates women on the
HE organizational ‘periphery’ and in the less secure lower grades.
In fact, some of these organisational variables have also been highlighted in the
interviews, even if in minority discourses, with a special emphasise given to informal
processes.
Knowing what I known today and thinking back, I must say that in deed there was
some gender discrimination translated in some envy and discomfort from male
colleagues. Obviously these are not reflected positions, and sometimes even not
perceived by themselves, but there is no doubt that it exists. I think that in situations
with competition between us, it is not the same if you are a woman or a man. And it
is worst as you go further in career; our male colleagues turn more unwilling,
jealousy and discomforted (Int. nº8).
These discourses seem to confirm Morley analysis that there are a “myriad ways in
which women are undermined and excluded from access to resources, influence, career
opportunities and academic authority” (1999, p.4).
The impact of women on senior management teams and organisational culture
A key research focus in this paper was how Rectors/VCs influenced or shaped
organisational culture and their impact on women in senior academic management. In
line with previous results, most interviewees considered also that gender had no impact
on senior management. Expressions like: “for me it is completely different being a man
or a woman in top positions” were very frequent in Portuguese senior managers
discourses.
In both countries when respondents talked about gender differences in the management
style they argued that differences related to personality rather than gender, however it
was possible to find different opinions. In Portugal it was possible to identify, in some
discourses, the persistence and reproduction of the traditional stereotypes identifying
women with a more transformational style of leadership and men with a more
transactional one (Manfredi and Doherty, 2006; Barker and Monks, 2003). Women
were identified as stronger on collaboration, consultation and people skills:
“Some time ago a colleague of mine told me: ‘your office is like a confessional’.
And I said: ‘no. what happens is that we, women, have a different
understanding, we are more sensitive’ ” (Int. nº10).
However, there were also some references (although less frequent) to the fact that they
were firm, obstinate and aggressive.


“I think women and men are different in management. Women are more
persistent and determined. They always accomplish their tasks” (Int.nº22)
On the contrary, men were identified as more political and less firm on their
ideas with a lack of single-mindedness and not working out the details of how things
should be done. In Turkey, one female respondent argued that women were more task
oriented, while men communicated poorly and were more interested in asserting power.
At the same time, in Portugal, they also didn’t acknowledge any difference on
the way male and female colleagues perceived them as in Turkey even if a few female
respondents argued that female colleagues judged them more harshly.
Different opinions concerning rectors and vice-rectors power inside institutions
were also revealed. While Turkish interviewees considered that Rectors were very
powerful, almost ‘omnipotent’, often comparing their status to that of kings with only
the Board of Trustees in foundation universities mitigating this power, in Portugal
discourses emphasise that rectors have a limited power (although consider as adequate)
highlighting, instead the symbolic power dependent on communication and persuasion
skills. The rectors’ power is more frequently compared with politicians than with
managers’ power.
“The rectors’ power is based on what can be classified as the ‘magistracy of
influences’. I mean is more or like the power of the President of the Republic”
(Int. nº.15).
When explicitly asked about the way a person in top positions could help to improve
women presence in senior HEIs management rectors and vice-rectors, in Portugal, were
reluctant and absolutely against the introduction of effective formal gender equality
programmes or even to any initiative in this domain. The reasons for rejecting
affirmative actions have to do with a set of social beliefs: the pipeline theory; the gender
neutral processes of promotion in academic career and the meritocratic ideology.
The first set of beliefs is related with dominant views emerging in the actors
discourses that it is just a question of time for women to get into senior management in
HEIs. And, as it was not necessary to develop these initiatives for women being in
majority in universities it wouldn’t also be for ascending in the career;
“We do not need quotas system or something like that. Women are capable of
getting there on their own” (Int.nº.11). “(…) is just to be patient and to wait 5, 10
or 15 more years ahead and we will assist to a inverse situation” (Int. nº.12).


The second set of beliefs translate the conviction that discrimination does not exist in
academia and, thus, affirmative actions could mean, in the opinion of some of the
interviewed that some women would take advantage of it;
Finally, the third set of beliefs encloses ascending to senior positions in a kind of ‘social
Darwinism’ logic. To get into senior management is interpreted as the finish line in
academic competition and introduction other mechanisms could mean that selection
would not be made based on meritocratic principles;
“Ascending to the top is like the evolution of species – only the best can get
there, and this could interfere with this principle” (Int. nº.14)
Generally Portuguese rectors and vice rectors considered that they could influence
the gender profile of senior management only by taking symbolic measures. Among
them the most cited was to appoint women to their teams. However it is important to
highlight that one rector referred more pragmatic reasons to have women in his team: it
was a way to conquer more votes from academic women in his institution.
With the exception of one woman, who was in favour of affirmative actions policies
in their institution, all the other referred only to symbolic initiatives like serving as role
models or talk about the importance of gender issues in public discourses. The woman
vice rector who manifest a positive attitude to affirmative actions putted a special
emphasise on women’ presence on committees for promotion, because she believed that
having only men could damage for women. In fact, recruitment and selection
procedures were already identified in previous studies as important obstacles to women
progression in academic career (Benshop and Brouns, 2003; Carvalho and Santiago,
2006; Husu, 2000; Rees, 2005).
These empirical results are in line with the tradition of south countries “where
traditional attitudes and reluctance to introduce effective formal gender equality
programmes have often prevailed” (Vázquez-Cupeiro and Elston, 2006) in contrast with
those from the north of Europe.
Conclusion
Despite the improvements in the last years women participation in higher
education in Portugal and Turkey can not be defined as equal. Women increased their
participation in academic staff but are underrepresented in same areas (as technology
and engineering) and in top management positions. The analysis of these two countries


is particularly relevant since in these HE systems women have almost reached the parity
in teaching but, at the same time, they belong to the group of countries where women
are more under-represented in higher education management.
Since there is no formal discrimination in career progress one can expect that
discrimination against women is taking relatively sophisticated, “veiled” forms
(Bagilhole and Goode, 2001; Husu, 2001).
The dominant perception of universities is one that considers these institutions as
gender neutrals and based on meritocratic principles. Universities are conceived as
neutral organisations where men and women can succeed on their merits. The majority
stated that the obstacles for women to ascend in the academic career are only related
with external factors. The dominance of neutral assumptions on gender along with the
presence of a meritocratic ideology turns the ‘veiled’ forms of discrimination even more
invisible.
This may demonstrate that “many people working in universities are in a state of
denial about how women are treated in most universities in the world” (Currie, Thiele
and Harris, 2002, p. 4) and also that actor with managerial responsibilities still look at
universities as ivory tower (Benschop and Brouns, 2003).
Bibliography
Acar, F. (1986), “Working Women in a Changing Society: The Case of Jordanian Academics”,
METU Studies in Development, V.10, p.p. 307-324.
Acker, S., Armenti, C. (2004), "Sleepless in academia", Gender and Education, Vol. 16 No.1,
pp.3-24
Amaral, A. and Teixeira, P. (2000), “The rise and fall of the private sector in Portuguese higher
education?” Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13, nº 3, 245-266.
Amaral, A., Magalhães, A. and Santiago, R. (2003). The rise of academic managerialism in
Portugal. In Amaral, A., Meek, L. and Larsen, I.M. (eds.), The Hihger Education
Managerial Revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 101-123.
Asmar, C. (1999). Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of female
and male PhD graduates in Australian universities. Higher Education, 38, 255-273.
Bagilhole, B. (2000), The myth of superman: A feminist investigation of academic careers.,
Paper presented to the 2th. European Conference on Gender Equality in HE, Zurich.
Bagilhole, B. and Goode, J. (2001), “The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the
reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers; a feminist investigation”,
The European Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol.8, Nº2, pp.161-80.
Bagilhole, B. and White, K. (2005), Benign Burden: Gender and senior management in the UK
and Australia. Paper presented to the 4th. European Conference on Gender Equality in
HE, Zurich.
Barker, P. and Monks, K. (2003), Women in senior academic positions: Two case studies, Paper
presented to the 3th. European Conference on Gender Equality in HE, Genoa.
Benschop, Y. and Brows, M. (2003) Cumbling ivory tower: Academic organizing and its gender
effects. Gender, Work and Organisation, 10,2 194-212.,


Cabral-Cardoso, Carlos, (2004) Women in Management in Portugal, in Davidson, M. and
Burke, R. (Eds) Women in Management Worldwide, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Carvalho, T. and Santiago, R. (2006). “Academics in a new work environment: The impact of
New Public Management on work conditions”, Society for Research into Higher
Education Annual Conference 2006, 12-14 December, Brighton, Sussex.
Carvalho, T. and Santiago, R. (2008) Gender differences on research: Perceptions and use of
academic time, Tertiary Education and Management, 14(4), pp. 317-330.
Conley, V. (2005). Career paths for women faculty: Evidence from NSOPF: 99. New Direction
for Higher Education, 130, 25-39.
Currie, J. Thiele, B. and Harris, P. (2002), Gendered universities in globalised economies:
power, careers and sacrifices, Lexington Books.
Ersoz, A., (1998), “Kamu Yönetiminde Yönetici Olarak Çalıan Kadınların Geleneksel ve
Çalıan Kadın Rollerine likin Beklentileri”, in Oya Çitçi (Ed), 20. Yüzyılın
Sonunda Kadınlar ve Gelecek, TODAIE Publication, Ankara, pp. 255-264.
GPEARI, (2009) Gabinete de Planeamento, Estratégia, Avaliação e Relações Internacionais,
Retrieved on 10.5.2009 at: http://www.gpeari.mctes.pt/index.php
Greenhaus, J., and Beutell, N. (1985), "Sources of conflict between work and family roles",
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No.1, pp.76-88.
Harley, S. (2003). Research selectivity and female academics in UK universities: From
gentleman’s club and barrack yard to smart macho? Gender and Education, 15(4),
377-392.
Husu, L. (2001), Sexism, support and survival in academia: Academic women and hidden
discrimination in Finland. Helsinki. University of Helsinqui.
Husu, L. (2000). Gender Discrimination in the Promised Land of Gender Equality, Higher
Education in Europe, XXV:2, 221-228.
Jacobs, J., and Winslow, S. (2004), "Overworked faculty: job stress and family demands",
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 596 No.1,
pp.104-29.
Köker, E. (1988), ‘Turkiye’de Kadın, Eitim ve Siyaset: Yüksek Örenim Kurumlarında
Kadının Durumu Üzerine Bir nceleme’, Ph.D Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.
Kossek, E, Noe, R, and DeMarr, B. (1999), "Work-family role synthesis: individual and
organizational determinants", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10
No.2, pp.102-29.
Krais, B. (2002) Academia as a profession and the hierarchy of the sexes: Paths out of research
in German universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 56,4, 407-418.
Kyvik, S. and Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration and gender differences in
scientific productivity. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(1), 54-71
Lafferty, G. and Fleming, J. (2000). The restructuring of academic work in Australia: Power,
management and gender. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2), 257-267.
Leathwood, C. and Read, B. (2009), Gender and the changing face of higher education. A
feminized future?, Berkshire, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Machado-Taylor, M., Özkanlı, Ö. White, K. and Bagilhole, B. (2007). Breaking the Barriers to
women achieving seniority in Universities, paper presented to EAIR Forum,
Innsbruck.
Manfredi, L. and Doherty, S. (2006). Women’s progression to senior positions in English
universities, Employee Relations, Vol. 28, Nº 6, pp. 553-572.
Morley, L. (2005) Gender equity in commonwealth higher education. Women's Studies
International Forum, 28 (2-3). pp. 209-221.
Morley, L. (1999), Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.


MSTHE, (2009), Ministry of Work and Social Security, Retrieved on 10.5.2009 at:
http://www.mtss.gov.pt/
Nakhaie, (2002), Gender differences in publication among university professors in Canada.
Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 39(2), 151-179.
O’ Connor, P. (2007), The elephant in the corner. Gender and policies related to higher
education, paper presented at the conference on Women in Higher Education,
Queen’s University, Belfast, 19-20 April.
Oakley, J. (2000), Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the
sacrcity off emale CEO’s, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27, nº 4, pp. 321-334.
OCES – Observatório da Ciência e do Ensino Superior (2004), O Sistema de Ensino Superior
em Portugal. 1993-2003.
OSYM (Center for Student Selection and Placement) (2008), Data of the Center for 2006-2007,
Ankara.
Özkanli and Korkmaz (2000a) Academic women in Turkey: The structure of attitudes towards
role conflict. In the Global Awareness Society International Ninth Annual
International Conference Proceedings Book. New York. USA, pp.26-28 May (pp.
314-322). New York: Bloomsburg University.
Özkanli and Korkmaz, (2000b), Kodin Akademisyenter [Academic Women], Nº 586. Ankara:
Ankara University.
Özkanli and Korkmaz, (2000c), Turkish women in academic life: Attitude measurement
towards gender discrimination in academic promotion and administration. In
Emerging economies: Academy of Business Administrative Sciences International
Proceedings Book. Prague. St. Bonaventure University.
Özkanli, O.; Machado, M.; White, K.; O’Connor, P.; Roirdan, S. and Neale, J. (2008). Gender
and management in HEIs: changing organisational and management structures, EAIR
Conference, Helsínquia.
Perna, L. (2005). Sex differences in faculty tenure and promotion: The contribution of family
ties. Research in Higher Education, 46 (3), 277-307.
Poole, M. and Langan-Fox, J. (1997). Australian women and careers: Psychological and
contextual influences over the life course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poole, M.; Bronholt, L. and Summers, F. (1997). An international study of the gendered nature
of academic work: Some cross-cultural explorations. Higher Education, 34, 373-396.
Pritchard, R. (2007). Gender inequality in British and German universities, Compare, vol. 37
(5), pp. 651-669.
Rees, T. (2001) Mainstreaming gender equality in science in the European union: The ‘ETAN
report’. Gender and Education, 13,3, 243-260.
Rees, T. (2005). Keynote address to 4th European Conference on Gender Equality in Higher
Ruth, D. (2005). Gender and perceptions of academic work in South Africa. Journal of Higher
Education in Africa, 3(3), 57-85.
Sagaria, M. and Agans, L. (2006). Gender equality in US higher education: International
framing and institutional realities. Research Institute for Higher Education. Japan:
Hiroshima University.
Salamer, G 2005 ‘Enhancing Access of Women in Higher Education’, IAUP XIV Triennial
Conference the Challenge of Globalisation and the Role of Higher Education,
Bangkok
Santiago, R. and Carvalho, T. (2004) “Effects of Managerialism on the perceptions of Higher
Education in Portugal”, Higher Education Policy, 17(4): 427-444.
Santiago, R. and Carvalho, T. (2008) Academics in a new work environment: The impact of
New Public Management on work conditions. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3),
pp.204-223.


Santiago, R.; Carvalho, T; Amaral, A. and Meek, L. (2006) Changing patterns in the middle
management of higher education institutions: the case of Portugal. Higher Education,
52(2), pp. 215-250.
Santos, G. and Cardoso, C. (2008) Work-family culture in academia: a gendered view of workfamily conflict and coping strategies, Gender in Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 26, nº 6, 442-457.
Saunderson, W. (2002) Women, academia and identity: Constructions of equal opportunities in
the ‘New Managerialism’ – A case of lipstick on the gorilla?. Higher Education
Quarterly, 56,4, 376-406.
Sax, L, Hagerdon, L.; Arredondo, M. and Dicrisi III, F. (2002). Faculty research productivity:
Exploring the role of gender and family related factors. Research in Higher
Education, 43(4), 423-632.
Stromquist, N.; Gil-Antón, M; Balbachevsky, E; Mabokela, R; Smolentseva, A.; and Colatrella,
C. (2007) The academic profession in the globalisation age: Key trends, challenges,
and possibilities, In Altbach, P. and Peterson, P. (eds) Higher Education In the New
Century. Global Challenges and Innovative Ideas, Massachusetts: Center for
International Higher Education: Boston College.
T.C. (2009) Prime Ministry of Turkey, Directorate General (DG) for the Women Status
(Kadının Statüsü Genel Müdürlüü), Reports: Turkish Women Case (Türkiye’de
Kadının Durumu), Mayıs 2009 ANKARA
Toren, N. (1993). The temporal dimension of gender inequality in academia. Higher Education,
25, 439-455.
Tusiad-Kagider (2008). Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eitsizlii: Sorunlar, Öncelikler ve
Çözüm Önerileri, TUSAD Publications, Graphis Publication Company, stanbul.
Vázquez-Cupeiro and Elston, (2006), Gender and academic career trajectories in Spain,
Employee Relations, Vol. 28, Nº6, pp. 588-603.
World
Bank,
(WB)
(2009).
Economy
Report.
Accessed
on:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/wdi09introch4.
pdf
Webster, B. (2001). Polish women in science: A bibliometric analysis of Polish science and its
publications, 1980-1999. Research Evaluation, 10(3), 185-194.
YOK, (2007) (Turkish Council of Higher Education), Retrieved on 15.5.2009 at: http://
www.yok.gov.tr
YOK, (2006), Higher Education Statistics. Retrieved August 29 2006 from:
http://www.yok.gov.tr

i

The “agregação” refers to an academic degree similar to the German habitur.

INEQUALITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
2nd International RESUP Conference
Lausanne 18-20 June 2009
Patterns of gender discrimination in the S&T European countries
1
Luísa Oliveira & Helena Carvalho
1. Introduction
In the first part of this paper we examine the relationship between Science and
Technology (S&T) development and gender discrimination patterns in the EU, using statistical
data.2 The aim is to explore EU heterogeneity both in S&T development and gender
discrimination3 in order to obtain a greater understanding of the differences between European
countries in these fields.
In the second part, we focus on analysing the gender gaps in education (ISCED 6) and
access to research and academic professions, as well as the gender discrimination in academic
careers in EU.
Historically, differences are found both in countries’ S&T development and in their
technological trajectories (Dosi, 1982, 1983; Perez, 1988). The development level of European
countries and their technological dependence relations sustain the presupposition of a stratified
European S&T space4 (Oliveira and Carvalho, 2002). Our hypothesis is that European regions
with the most developed S&T systems should be distinct from others by having a more
equalitarian gender situation.
This may occur in spite of the changes that are taking place to mitigate differences, such
as the attempt to build a European higher education system in the Bologna Declaration. Other
1
2
Professors at the Lisbon University Institute and researchers in CIES/ISCTE.
For a discussion on the problems of cross-national comparisons see, among others, M. Maurice et al. (1986) and
M.L. Kohn (1989).
3
In this text, we use the BIT definition for gender discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on
the basis … of sex…, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity of treatment in employment
or occupation…” (BIT, 2007: 9).
4
The European Science and Technology (S&T) space is firstly a knowledge-embedded and occupational space that
is constructed in interaction with the actors who constitute it, including its institutions, culture, rules and policies. Thus
the S&T space is not synonymous with the S&T system, because it is a “social construct” that emerges out of the
subtlest interactions between collective actors (men and women) and their professional activities, interactions which
are then structured and diffused within organisations and institutions (Oliveira, 2008).
structural change factors are being implemented in the European S&T space, inspired by the
well-known triple-helix formula (Etzkowitz and Leysdorf, 1997), largely due to budgeting
pressures and the financial crises of the welfare state. With companies co-financing research,
academia has opened up to the business world, which will contribute in time to change in both
the academic and business cultures in each country. As this is a relatively recent process in
Europe, and the conditions of implementation vary from country to country, the inheritance of
the culture of the Humboldt University model (Oliveira, 2000) and career procedures postulated
by Merton’s (1973) regulation of science may continue to be present and to a certain extent may
explain the possible gender differences in S&T nowadays. This is particularly relevant if we
consider that even universities in the oldest European democracies are extremely closed
institutions, metaphorically comparable to an ivory tower, thus contributing to the maintenance
of a certain conservatism (Caplan, 1994; Rhode, 2006). Given that gender discrimination is
found across Europe in the most varied areas (Cockburn, 1983; Charles, 1993; Maruani, 2005;
McGrayne, 2001), and that there are multiple explanations for this phenomenon, our starting
point is that the nature of the political regimes governing post-war Europe and their more or less
conservative approach to science has affected the development of their Science and
Technology (S&T) systems. As these effects are long-lasting, they have produced a culture that
tends to neutralise the effects of social policies against gender discrimination (CCE, 2007;
Ruest-Archambault, 2008). In addition, the timing of countries’ integration into the EU
construction process contributes also to the European heterogeneity.
Our first analysis explored the hypothesis of EU S&T space stratification, identifying the
configuration of each of these strata and the countries associated with each of them. The
second analysis evaluated to what extent these strata are distinct from each other in relation to
gender discrimination indicators, including academic careers. In addition, European S&T
patterns of gender discrimination were identified and described. Finally, the articulation between
the S&T strata and these gender discrimination patterns were mapped.
2. Method
2.1. Data
For cross-country comparison at the EU level, we examined statistical information
derived from data in Eurostat science and technology (S&T) statistics and in the She figures
2006 report: Women and science statistics and indicators. The data relate to the active
population, aged between 15 and 64 for 2003 and 2004.
2.2. Measurement
2
Three main indictors were used to analyse the segmentation of the S&T European
space (EU 27) from a cross-national perspective:
−
the proportion of researchers per thousand labour force (2003);5
−
the proportion of scientists and engineers in the total labour force (2004);
−
the proportion of R&D expenditure in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) per capita
researcher (2003).6
The following indicators were used to analyse gender discrimination:
−
the proportion of PhD (ISCED 6) graduates by sex (2003);
−
the proportion of researchers by sex (2003);
−
the proportion of academic staff total by sex (2004);
−
the proportion of women in grade A7 positions among all women in academic staff
(2004);
−
the proportion of men in grade A positions among all men in academic staff (2004);
−
the difference in research funding success rates between women and men (2004);
−
the proportion of women and men on scientific boards (2004);
−
the Glass Ceiling Index (2004).8
For four indicators (the proportion of PhD (ISCED 6) graduates, the proportion of
researchers, the proportion of the academic staff total, and the proportion on scientific boards),
we constructed a new measure – the gap – by computing the difference between the
male/female proportions. Using gaps we are able to include simultaneously both female and
male rates and solve the problem of multicollinearity.
2.3. Analytical approach
The first stage of our examination of the indicators systematised above involved a
vertical analysis within each set of indicators: S&T segmentation and gender discrimination.
This then led to the mapping of countries.
The other vector of analysis was centred on identifying pattern types among the
countries for S&T segmentation and then for gender discrimination. Assuming the
5
The labour force includes both employed and unemployed people.
Purchasing Power Standard (PPS) is the artificial common currency into which national currencies are converted
(Eurostat, 2004).
7
Grade A is “the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted” (EC, 2006: 100).
8
The Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) is a ratio between the proportion of women in grade A+B+C and the proportion of
women in grade A. The GCI is an indicator that measures “the relative chance for women compared to men of
reaching a top position” (EC, 2006: 52). Grade B includes “researchers working in positions not as a senior as top
position[s] (A) but more senior than newly qualified PhD holders”, and Grade C includes “the first grade/post into
which a newly qualified PhD (ISCED 6) graduate would normally be recruited” (EC, 2006: 100).
6
3
multidimensionality of these pattern types, we explored the relationships within each set of
indicators using a multivariate method of data analysis: Principal Components Analysis for
Categorical Data (CATPCA). This is a non-linear analysis of principal components that allows
quantitative variables (S&T segmentation indicators and gender discrimination indicators) to be
combined with qualitative variables, in this case, the country (Van de Geer, 1993a; Van de
Geer, 1993b; Gifi 1996; Meulman et al., 2004). By applying CATPCA, profile types were
identified that distinguish groups of countries from each other, revealing the existence of
different situations among EU countries.
A clustering analysis was also performed using a hierarchical algorithm (Hair et al.,
2006) in order to validate the configuration of the European S&T space exhibited by CATPCA.
Finally, a Correspondence Analysis (CA) (Greenacre and Blasius, 2006; Greenacre, 2008) was
implemented to graphically show the contours between S&T segments and gender
discrimination patterns.
3. Results
3.1. S&T European space segmentation
Historically, differences are found both in the countries’ S&T systems and in their
technological trajectories (Dosi, 1982; Perez, 1988). The development level of European
countries and their technological dependence relations sustain the hypothesis of a stratified
European S&T space (Oliveira and Carvalho, 2002; Oliveira, 2008). Using the above-mentioned
indicators as development indicators in this field (the proportion of researchers per thousand
labour force, the proportion of scientists and engineers in the total labour force, and the
proportion of R&D expenditure in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) per capita researcher),
the data show (Figures 1, 2 and 3) an extremely unequal distribution of human resources and
materials in S&T across the different countries.
Using the EU average as a reference, European countries can be divided into at least
two groups: countries below the overall mean and countries above this mean. This shows that
the S&T European space is a dualised space of rich (Central and Northern European countries)
and less developed S&T countries (Eastern and Southern European countries, namely Portugal
and Greece). Spain, Italy and Estonia are special cases. Spain is closer to the Northern
European countries with a high level of researchers, scientists and engineers, but low S&T
research expenditure per capita. Italy, on the other hand, has low levels of human resources
working in S&T but high S&T expenditure. Estonia is above the overall mean for research per
thousand labour force, but presents very low rates in the two other indicators.
4
Figure 1. Proportion of researchers per thousand labour force by country (2003)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
 10.0
8.0
Mean = 7.77
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Figure 2. Proportion of scientists and engineers in the total labour force by country (2004)
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0

Mean = 4.72
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
5
Figure 3. Proportion of R&D expenditure in purchasing power standards (PPS) per capita researcher by
country (2003)
200.0
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
Mean = 74.75
40.0
20.0
0.0
In order to identify stratification segments in the European S&T space, a Principal
Components Analysis for Categorical Data (CATPCA) was carried out, exploring the
relationships between the three indicators and matching the countries through their position.
This analysis confirms the dualisation of the S&T space (Figure 4). Countries with lower
rates, i.e. Eastern and Southern European countries (Dimension 1 < 0), contrast with those
which have higher rates in every indicator, i.e. Central and Northern European countries
(Dimension 1 > 0).
6
Figure 4. The segmentation of the European S&T space
Netherlands
Italy
2
Luxembourg
[+] R&D expenditure in PPS
per capita researcher
France
[-] % of researchers per
thousand labour force
Austria
[-] % of scientists and engineers Cyprus Slovenia
in the total labour force
Romania
Czech Republic
0
Bulgaria
Greece
Poland
Spain
Latvia Portugal
Hungary
Slovakia
[-] R&D expenditure in PPS
per capita researcher
Lithuania
Germany
Belgium
Ireland
Dimension 1
[+] % of scientists and engineers
in the total labour force
Denmark
Sweden
Estonia
[+] % of researchers per
thousand labour force
-2
Finland
-2
0
2
Dimension 2
However, another feature of Central and Northern European countries is that they have
a greater spread than the other group of countries due to the fact that this group is divided into
two different segments:
−
one is characterised by having both a larger number of scientists and engineers in the
total labour force and also researchers per thousand labour force. This segment is a
development pattern based on the extent of the high level of qualifications in the labour
force, which is typical of northern countries, Ireland and Belgium;9
9
The United Kingdom and Malta are not included in this multivariate analysis because data is missing for them in at
least one indicator.
7
−
the other stands out for its higher rates of R&D expenditure in PPS per capita
researcher, which is typical of Central European countries (Luxembourg, France, Austria
and Germany). The Netherlands and Italy also belong to this group.
Despite this segmentation of the European S&T space, the three strata cannot be
definitively ranked (Figure 5) because the two segments with the best performance in S&T
development (Northern and Central European countries) exchange their top positions in S&T
indicators.
Figure 5. Hierarchy of European countries according to S&T development indicators
Finland
Finland
Sweden
2
Denmark
Belgium
Ireland
Germany
Luxembourg
France
Sweden
Luxembourg
Belgium
Denmark
Ireland
Luxembourg
Germany
Italy
Belgium
France
Germany
Sweden
France
Netherlands
Austria
Spain
Austria
0
Hungary
Estonia Lithuania
Slovenia Greece
Portugal Czech Republic
Slovakia Latvia
Poland
Cyprus
Italy
Bulgaria
Romania
Netherlands
Spain
Hungary Italy
Lithuania Greece
Czech Republic
Estonia Cyprus
Latvia
Slovakia Poland
Malta
Bulgaria
Romania
Austria Ireland
Denmark
Finland
Spain
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Hungary Greece
Lithuania
Poland Portugal
Bulgaria
Latvia Romania
Estonia
-2
% of researchers per
thousand labour force
% of scientists and engineers
in the total labour force
R&D expenditure in PPS
per capita researcher
8
The results of a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis fit well with the threefold nature of
European S&T space segmentation. In accordance with this classification, we have redrawn the
segments linking the countries to their cluster (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Segmentation of the European S&T space: clustering the countries
Italy (B)
Netherlands (B )
2
Luxembourg (B)
France (B)
Austria (B)
Germany (B)
Slovenia (A)
Cyrus (A)
Bulgaria (A)
Czech Republic (A)
Greece (A)
Spain (A)
Poland (A)
Portugal (A)
Latvia (A)
Slovakia (A)
Hungary (A)
Belgium (C)
Romania (A)
0
Dimension 1
Ireland (C)
Denmark (C)
Sweden (C)
Lithuania (A)
Estonia (A)
-2
Finland (C)
-2
0
2
Dimension 2
Table 1 shows that the average of S&T development measures by segment reproduces
the profiles found by multivariate analysis. Segment A has the lowest mean in every indicator.
Segment B presents the highest mean for R&D expenditure in PPS per capita researcher and
Segment C has the highest mean for indicators concerning the high level of S&T qualifications
of the labour force. It is precisely because of the above-mentioned inversion of the mean in
segments B and C that a hierarchy between them is out of the question.
Table 1. Measures of S&T segments
S&T segment
% of researchers per
thousand labour force
Segment A
Mean
6.07
Segment B
8.27
% of scientists and engineers
in the total labour force
R&D expenditure in PPS
per capita researcher
Mean
3.73
Mean
36.54
5.02
144.68
9
Segment C
Overall mean
13.25
7.16
100.86
8.12
4.77
76.98
A hierarchy exists when the S&T space is approached as a dual space, and therefore
the performance of segments B and C is better, but when these two are compared it is found
that despite being included in the group of countries with more developed S&T systems, they
have different profiles and their most important S&T indicators are inverted.
3.2. Trends in gender discrimination by S&T segment
According to the profiles of the three segments in the S&T European space, and if our
main hypothesis holds true, most gender discrimination would be found in segment A
(eastern/southern countries) and there would also be some differences in segments B and C, as
their S&T development models are based on different principles: higher rates in R&D
expenditure and scientific professions. The question that must be answered is whether and how
these different development models are associated with gender discrimination in Science and
Technology.
Two analytical dimensions were defined (Table 2) based on gender discrimination
indicators. The first refers to the preconditions needed to improve equal gender opportunities in
S&T, and the second refers to the academic conditions for men’s/women’s career pathways.
Table 2. S&T systems and organisational academic culture in gender discrimination
Dimensions
Preconditions for improving equal
gender opportunities in S&T
Academic conditions to promote
women’s career pathways
Indicators
Variables
Education
Gap %M-%W PhD (ISCED 6)
Equal access to research and
academic professions
Gap %M-%W researchers
Gap %M-%W academic staff
Access to control and power
positions
Percentage of women in grade A
Percentage of men in grade A
Gap %M-%W on scientific boards
Research funding success rate
Glass Ceiling Index
10
These dimensions were defined in accordance with the above observations on the
closed and conservative academic culture, which is an ideal environment in which to analyse
gender equality in S&T. Will there be relevant differences in men’s/women’s career pathways
among S&T segments or, despite S&T segmentation, does academia continue to have basically
the same cultural gender pattern all over Europe? Despite the differences between countries
regarding the level of university autonomy from the State and also recruitment rules and career
management, as Musselin (2005) concludes in a comparison of France, Germany and the
United States, this question makes sense in that gender discrimination appears to be
transversal across organisational models and other national specificities in different fields.
In fact, a vertical analysis per indicator shows gender discrimination throughout EU
countries, detailing differences in the distribution of indicators (Annex 1).
In order to find out how far S&T segmentation could explain the range in the rates, a
cross-relation between the segments (A, B and C) and gender discrimination indicators was
performed (Figure 710).
The major differences between segments (Figure 7) are found in the male/female
researcher gap, in the male/female academic staff gap, and in the gap on scientific boards. But
despite these differences, and with the exception of PhD degrees, for which the gap has a
negative mean in segment A,11 the three groups of countries on average have common
features, as all the gender gaps have positive values, which means women are discriminated
against in all of them. In fact, more women have a PhD than men in these countries (Annex 1).
There is no proportional expression of this feature of women’s emancipation (EspingAndersen, 2002 and 2008), which some authors call the women’s silent revolution (Ferreira,
1988), in terms of access to scientific professions. Further research would be necessary to
determine whether this is due to a discriminative attitude from these institutions or to other
professional strategies taken by women who do not wish to enter the academic world or who
even leave it because they are dissatisfied (Preston, 1994; Ledin et al., 2007; West, 2007).
On the basis of this data, it appears that women have difficulty in accessing academic
and research professions even in countries where there are more women than men with a PhD.
Access to these scientific professions seems to be a powerful gender discrimination factor all
over Europe, with segment B (predominantly Central European countries) presenting the
highest figures.
10
For this analysis, comparisons are made using the mean of the variables (indicators of gender discrimination)
within each segment, because the exploratory analysis reveals a symmetrical distribution for each of them, which
means that the representativeness of this statistical measure is guaranteed.
11
The gap in this indicator is negative in almost all Eastern European countries, except for the Czech Republic and
Poland, and Portugal.
11
Figure 7. Indicators of gender discrimination by S&T segment
70.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0


40.0
35.0

30.0
25.0

20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
Gap M-W Phd
(ISCED 6)
Gap M-W
Researchers
Gap M-W
Academic Staff
% of women in
Grade A
% of men in
Grade A
Gap M-W in
Scientific
Boards
Research
funding
success rate
Glass Ceiling
Index
As far as academic careers are concerned, the results show the percentage of women in
grade A is on average lower than the percentage of men in the same position. This gender
discrimination feature is particularly high in segment B. As Side and Robbins (2007) point out
with regard to the American case, women faculty members continue to encounter a glass ceiling
when it comes to achieving the position of full professor.12 For EU countries, the Glass Ceiling
Index has a narrow range, with Malta as an outlier (Annex 2).
On average, the gap on scientific boards is also very high in each segment, above all in
segments A and B. Moreover, segment C (almost all northern countries) is the least
discriminative in the dimension of academic conditions to promote women’s career pathways.
We can also conclude that the widest gap in the dimension of preconditions for improving equal
gender opportunities in S&T is found in segment B, in contrast to segment A.
This analysis leads to the conclusion that only a part of the total variation of these
indicators could be explained by intersegment differences. In order to reinforce this conclusion,
12
For the Canadian case, see Side and Robbins (2007).
12
a measurement of association using the eta coefficient and derived effect size13 was applied
(Table 3).
As already emphasised, only three indicators (the male/female researcher gap, the
male/female academic staff gap, and the scientific board gap) exhibited at least medium
coefficients of association (an approximate eta of over 0.5) with S&T segmentation. All the
others have lower association coefficients and consequently a weak effect size which ranges
from 5.5% to 21.3% (Table 3). Hence, with the exception of the research funding rate and the
Glass Ceiling Index, which have essentially equal means for all three segments (Figure 7), we
have differences in intragender discrimination indicators that cannot be explained by S&T
segmentation alone.
Table 3. Associations between S&T segmentation and gender
discrimination indicators
Gender discrimination indicators
S&T segmentation

2
Gap M-W PhD (ISCED 6)
0.462
0.213
Gap M-W researchers
0.796
0.633
Gap M-W academic staff
0.494
0.244
% of women in grade A
0.303
0.092
% of men in grade A
0.247
0.061
Gap M-W on scientific boards
0.597
0.357
Research funding success rate
0.236
0.055
Glass Ceiling Index
0.358
0.128
In short, it can be said that there is an overall coherence in the most marked features
defining EU S&T segmentation, which gives rise to a certain geographic logic for the
configuration of segments A, B and C. There is, however, a certain heterogeneity within these
segments/geographic areas in terms of gender discrimination.
Going a step further in this explorative approach, and in order to analyse the
heterogeneity within S&T segments, a new analytical strategy was developed consisting of: 1)
13
Eta measures the association between S&T segmentation and gender discrimination indicators, and eta squared –
the effect size – quantifies the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (gender discrimination indicators)
explained by differences among groups (each S&T segment).
13
the identification of gender discrimination patterns in the EU; 2) an interaction analysis between
these gender discrimination patterns and the S&T segments previously identified.
14
3.3. Patterns of S&T gender discrimination in the European Union
To identify and describe gender discrimination patterns in the EU, a Principal
Components Analysis for Categorical Data (CATPCA) was applied to the gender discrimination
indicators, as described above.
Three main patterns were found concerning gender discrimination (Figure 8).14 The first
(1) includes some of the countries which have a less developed S&T system, which
corresponds with segment A (Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania15), and
which is differentiated from the others because the countries are less gender discriminative in
terms of the preconditions for improving gender equality in S&T systems. That is, they present
the smallest gap for the level of PhDs, undertaking research, and entering academic
professions. It should be noted that PhD gaps in these countries are all negative, which means
that women advance further and successfully obtain their PhDs, as mentioned above. These
countries also have the smallest gaps for researchers and academic staff.
But while these countries record this configuration in these indicators, with the exception
of Portugal and Bulgaria, their proportions in the Glass Ceiling Index are high (even though this
indicator has the narrowest range) and the proportion of women in grade A and of men in grade
A is low.
It is important to stress that a high proportion of women is always accompanied by a high
proportion of men with a huge and positive correlation coefficient (R=0.942). This means that,
generally speaking, these countries have a lower proportion of people in grade A, which is
explained by the career constraints that men and women are both subject to as a result of
national human resource management policies in S&T. However, within these constraints, there
are differences in every country between men and women that demonstrate women’s
segregation from grade A.
14
15
Luxemburg, Malta and Romania are not included in this multivariate analysis because of missing data.
The letter in brackets on the right of the label is the cluster (segment) identification.
15
Figure 8. Patterns of gender discrimination in the European S&T space
[+] % of women in Grade A
[+] % of men in Grade A
Italy (B)
2
France (B)
Finland (C)
[-] Gap M-W Phd (ISCED 6)
[-] Gap M-W Researchers
[-] Research
funding success
[-] Gap M-W
Scientific board
Estonia (A)
[-] Gap M-W
Academic Staff
0
Latvia (A)
Slovenia (A)
[-] Glass Ceiling Index
Poland (A)
Ireland (C)
Greece (A)
Hungary (A)
Portugal (A)
Slovakia (A)
Dimension 1
Bulgaria(A)
[+] Gap M-W Academic Staff
Lithuania (A)
Sweden (C)
Belgium (C)
Denmark(C)
[+] Gap M-W Researchers
Spain(A)
[+] Gap M-W Phd (ISCED 6)
United
[-] % of men in Grade A
Netherlands(B)
Kingdom
[-] % of women in Grade A
[+] Research funding success
[+] Glass Ceiling Index
Germany (B)
Czech Republic (A)
Cyprus (A)
-2
-2
Austria (B)
0
2
Dimension 2
The main problem in these countries seems to be women’s career pathways (high
proportions for the Glass Ceiling Index16) within S&T professions, as Caplan (1994) noted when
he stated that academia is traditionally elitist, male and patriarchal in its workplace culture,
structure and values. This is also seen, for example, in the astonishing disparity in the number
of Nobel Prizes awarded to women (McGrayne, 2001).
The organisational culture and rules of academia is the dimension in this discriminative
pattern that has the greatest influence on gender discrimination.
A second pattern (2) associates countries like Hungary, Poland, Greece and Slovenia
(also with less developed S&T systems) which join some countries in segment B (the Central
16
There is an association between the Glass Ceiling Index and the proportion of women in grade A and the
proportion of men in grade A indicators. As expected, it is a negative correlation: the higher figures for the Glass
Ceiling Index (women are underrepresented in Grade A positions) are close to the lowest values for the proportion of
women and men in grade A.
Another strong association occurs between Gap M-W in PhD (ISCED 6) graduates, Gap M-W in researchers and
Gap M-W in academic staff. In this case, they are positively correlated.
16
European segment) like France and Italy, and also others from the northern model (Finland and
Ireland) in forming a group of countries which is distinct because they display relatively little
discriminative behaviour towards women’s career pathways. However, they tend to be more
discriminative in terms of the preconditions for improving equal gender opportunities in S&T
because they exhibit a trend towards higher values for PhD, researcher and academic staff
gaps.
The results indicate that this group is extremely heterogeneous in relation to S&T
development, as it includes countries from the three S&T segments.
A third pattern (3), in which most of the countries are concentrated, is differentiated from
the others because these countries are simultaneously the most discriminative in relation to the
preconditions for improving gender equality in S&T (like pattern 2) and women’s career
pathways. That is, there are lower percentages of women with PhDs in these countries and
wider gaps within the researcher and academic professions. These are what could be called
barriers to entering S&T professions. If women are able to overcome these barriers to entry in
these countries, they will encounter the worst conditions for career development, particularly
reaching higher positions within organisations. Despite the smaller range of the research
funding success indicator, some of the higher rates approach this pattern.
This group (Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, the Czech
Republic, the United Kingdom, Spain and Cyprus) is also extremely heterogeneous in terms of
S&T development. This is another pattern that covers countries from the three S&T segments.
3.4. Segmentation of the S&T space and gender discrimination patterns in the EU
Having concluded the segmentation of the European S&T space with the identification
and description of its three main constitutive segments and also three S&T gender
discrimination patterns, we move to the question of how far these segments are related to the
identified gender discrimination patterns. In addition, how do they relate to each other?
A Correspondence Analysis was carried out to answer these questions. The results
show (Figure 9) a close relationship between segment A (less developed S&T countries) and
gender discrimination pattern (1), which shows a polarised situation for less segregation in
preconditions for improving equal gender opportunities in S&T and greater segregation for
academic conditions to promote women’s career pathways. For the two other groups, we find a
mix between countries belonging to different segments. Though starting with a situation of
generalised S&T development, segments B and C acquire different patterns for gender
discrimination indicators, which means our main hypothesis has only been partially confirmed.
17
Figure 9. Correspondence Analysis Map for S&T segments and patterns of gender
discrimination in the European Space
However the dualisation feature of S&T space still remains across countries, as Eastern
and Southern European countries are still on the less developed side of the S&T divide space
(Dimension >1) and Central and Northern European countries are on the opposite side
(Dimension <1), irrespective of the women’s discrimination pattern with which they are
associated.
This graph demonstrates clearly that all S&T segments, including segment A, have links
with patterns 2 and 3. However, no rich countries are linked to pattern 1. When this is combined
with the middle-low degree of association (Cramer’s V = 0.382) between the S&T segmentation
and patterns of gender discrimination, the need to include other qualitative factors (historical,
organisational and cultural) to explain the specificities of these patterns becomes evident.
4. Discussion and conclusions
18
The first conclusion is that the European S&T space is dualised into two opposing strata:
S&T poor (Eastern and Southern European countries) and S&T rich countries (Central and
Northern ones).
Further analysis reveals, however, that the group of S&T rich countries is also marked by
a certain heterogeneity, suggesting there is also a division within these countries. This
differentiation expresses two different models of S&T development. One favours the
qualifications of S&T human resources (northern countries, Ireland and Belgium) while the other
is based on high rates of S&T expenditure (Central European countries – Luxembourg, France,
Austria and Germany – and also the Netherlands and Italy).
Given this differentiation, it is preferable to talk of the segmentation of the EU S&T space
rather than its stratification.
These three different segments are associated with specific kinds of gender
discrimination in S&T. Thus, the major differences between segments occur in the proportion of
male/female researchers, proportion of male/female with PhD and academic staff.
Nevertheless, there are common features to the three segments, as women are
discriminated against in all analysed indicators with the exception of PhDs, where there are
more women than men in certain countries. This is found in the poor segment (A), namely in
Portugal and Eastern European countries, with the exception of the Czech Republic and
Poland. This does not mean that this segment is less gender discriminative than a first reading
of data might suggest. In fact, women’s access to the top levels of education may be explained
by very different factors ranging from a more democratic and culturally open society, women’s
will and determination, to labour market needs, i.e. there are not enough highly-qualified men.
Only further extensive analysis, at least in some EU countries, can clarify this issue.
The fact that there are more women with PhDs than men in these countries does not
mean that men and women enter academic careers in equal proportions. However, it could be
interpreted as a discriminative factor in recruitment for these professions, as pointed out by
West in the case of California University (West, 2007) or be indicative of women’s rejection of
such a discriminatory career, as noted by Preston (1994) and Shiffbenker (2008). While these
are both situations of gender discrimination, their sociological meaning is quite different.
Although our main hypothesis was not completely confirmed, since the data show that
there is a relationship between developed S&T regions and gender discrimination patterns, it
also reveals a much more complex situation as intragender discrimination indicators were
detected that cannot be explained simply by S&T segmentation in the EU space.
Three patterns of gender discrimination in the European S&T space were found. The first
includes Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and coincides with segment
19
A, described above. In spite of fewer discriminative conditions in the preconditions for improving
gender equality in the S&T professions in this segment, it is very discriminative in relation to
women’s academic careers (a high Glass Ceiling Index and segregation of women from Grade
A).
A second pattern (2) is a mix of rich and poor countries from the three S&T segments:
Hungary, Poland, Greece, Slovenia, France, Italy, Finland and Ireland. This group of countries
is differentiated from other groups because it has relatively less discriminative behaviour
towards women’s career pathways and, simultaneously, is more discriminative in relation to the
preconditions for improving gender equality in S&T.
A third pattern (3) is formed by a concentration of the majority of countries: Belgium, the
Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom,
Spain and Cyprus. It is differentiated from the others because it is the most discriminative in
relation both to the preconditions for improving gender equality in S&T systems and women’s
career pathways.
inally, we can conclude that there is in fact a relationship between gender discrimination
and the differentiated development of S&T regions in Europe, and that to some extent this
differentiation has a geographic coherence in which countries in the south and east of Europe
contrast with those of Central and Northern Europe.
Meanwhile, the three patterns identified for female discrimination in S&T professions are
more complex when it comes to the typical behaviour of the countries, suggesting the inclusion
of other explanatory factors in the analytical model that require further comparative research,
including historical and qualitative data, for a deeper understanding of gender discrimination
factors in the European S&T space.
References
ANERUD, Rebeca, MORRISON, Emory, HOMER, Lori, RUDD, Elizabeth, NERAD, Maresi, & CERNY,
Joseph (2007). Widening the lens on gender and tenure: Looking beyond the academic labour market.
NWSA Journal, 19(3), 105-122.
AMÂNCIO, Lígia (2005). Reflections on science as a gendered endeavour: Changes and continuities.
Social Science Information, 44(1), 65-83.
20
BROWNE, Jude (2006). Sex, segregation and inequality in the modern labor market. Policy Press:
University of Bristol.
CAPLAN, Paula (1993). Lifting a ton of feathers: A women’s guide to surviving in the academic world.
Toronto: Toronto University Press.
CASACA, Sara Falcão (2005). Flexibilidades de emprego, novas temporalidades e relações de género,
PhD. dissertation. Lisbon: School of Economics and Management Administration (ISEG).
CCE (2007). Relatório da Comissão ao Conselho, ao Parlamento Europeu, ao Comité Económico e
Social Europeu e ao Comité das Regiões, sobre a Igualdade entre Homens e Mulheres, Bruxelas.
CHARLES, Nickie (1993). Gender divisions and social change. Hemel Hempstead: Harvest Wheatsheaf.
COCKBURN, Cynthia (1983). Brothers: Male dominance and technological change. London: Pluto Press.
DOSI, Giovanni (1983). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. In C. Freeman (Ed.),
Long waves in the world economy (pp. 78-101). London: Pinter Publishers.
EC (2006). She figures 2006. Retrieved March 2008 from <http://www.kif.nbi.dk/She_Figures_2006.pdf.>
ESPING-ANDERSEN, Gosta (2002). A new gender contract. In G. Esping-Andersen & G. Duncan (Eds.),
Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 124-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ESPING-ANDERSEN, Gosta (2008). Famille et révolution du rôle des femmes. In G. Esping-Andersen &
B. Palier (Eds.), Trois leçons sur l’État-providence (pp. 19-58). Paris: Ed. Seuil.
ETZKOWITZ, Henri, & LEYDESDORF, Leit (Eds.) (1997). Universities and the global knowledge
economy, a triple-helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Pinter Publishers.
EUROSTAT (2004). Science & technology. Retrieved March 2008 from
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/>
FERNÉ, Georges (1993). Science, pouvoir et argent, la recherche entre marché et politique. Paris: Ed.
Autrement.
FERREIRA, Virgínia (1988). O feminismo na pós-modernidade. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 24,
93-106.
GEISLER, Cheryl, KANINSKI, Debbie, & BERKLEY, Robyn (2007). The 13+ club: An index for
understanding, documenting and resisting patterns of non promotion to full professor. NWSA Journal,
19(3), 145-162.
GIFI, Albert (1996). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. London: John Wiley & Sons.
GREENACRE, Michael, & BLASIUS, Jörgen (Eds.) (2006). Multiple correspondence analysis and related
methods. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
GREENACRE, Michael (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). London: Chapman &
Hall/CRC.
21
HAIR, Joseph, ANDERSON, Rolph, TATHAM, Ronald, & BLACK, William (2006). Multivariate data
analysis with readings (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
KOHN, Melvin (Ed.) (1989). Cross-national research in sociology. Newbury Park: Sage.
LEDIN, Anna, BORNMANN, Lutz, GANNON, Frank, & WALLON, Gerlind (2007). A persistent problem.
Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO report 8. Retrieved 1 March 2008 from
<www.emboreports.org>
MARUANI, Margaret (Ed.) (2005). Femmes, genre et sociétés, l’état des savoirs. Paris: La Découverte.
MAURICE, Marc, SELLIER, François, & SILVESTRE, Jean-Jacques (1986). The social foundations of
industrial power. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
MERTON, Robert (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigation. Chicago:
University Press.
McGRAYNE, Sharon Bertsch (2001). Nobel prize women in science: Their lives, struggles and
momentous discoveries. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
MEULMAN, Jacqueline, KOOIJ, Anita, & HEISER, Willem (2004). Principal components analysis with
nonlinear optimal scaling transformations for ordinal and nominal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage
handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 49-70). London: Sage Publications.
MUSSELIN, Christine (2005). Les marchés des universitaires, France, Allemagne, États-Unis. Paris:
Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
OLIVEIRA, Luísa (2008). Sociologia da inovação. Lisboa: Celta Editora.
OLIVEIRA, Luísa (2000). Commoditization of science and paradoxes in universities. Science Studies,
13(2), 23-36.
OLIVEIRA, Luísa, & CARVALHO, Helena (2002). A Segmentação do espaço de inovação na indústria
Portuguesa. Sociologia Problemas e Práticas, 39, 39-56.
PALERMO, Simona, GIUFFRA, Elisabetta, ARZENTON, Valeria, & BUCCHI, Massimilano (2008).
Gender and science. EMBO report 9. Science & Society. Retrieved 1 March 2008 from
<www.emboreports.org.>
PEREZ, Carlota (1988). New technologies and development. In C. Freeman & B. Lundvall (Eds.), Small
countries facing the Technological Revolution (pp. 85-97). London: Pinter publishers.
PERISTA, Heloisa, & SILVA, Alexandra (2004). Science careers in Portugal. Working paper 13. Centre
for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, University of Leeds, 27-42.
PRESTON, A. E. (1994). Why have all the women gone? A study of exit of women from science and
engineering professions. America Economic Review, 85, 1146-1462.
RENAUT, Alain (1995). Les révolutions de l’université: Essai sur la modernisation de la culture. CalmannLévy: Paris.
22
RUEST-ARCHAMBAULT, Elyse (2008). Benchmarking policy measures for gender equality in science.
European Commission Report. Brussels.
RHODE, Deborah (1989). Justice and gender. Harvard: University Press.
RHODE, Deborah (2006). In pursuit of knowledge: Scholars, status and academic culture. Stanford:
University Press.
SALOMON, Jean Jacques, SAGASTI, Francisco, & SACHS-JEANTET, Céline (Eds.) (1994). La quête
incertaine, science, technologie, développement. United Nations: University Press.
SIDE, Katherine, & ROBBINS, Wendy (2007). Institutionalizing inequalities in Canadian universities: The
Canada Research Chairs Program. In NWSA Journal, 19(3), 163-181.
STARK, David, & BRUSZT, László (1998). Postsocialist pathways: Transforming politics and property in
East Central Europe. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STOUT, Patricia, STAIGER, Janet, & JENNINGS, Nancy (2007). Affective stories: Understanding the lack
of progress of women faculty. NWSA Journal, 19 (3), 124-144.
VAN DE GEER, John (1993a). Multivariate analysis of categorical data: Theory. USA: Sage.
VAN DE GEER, John (1993b). Multivariate analysis of categorical data: Applications. USA: Sage.
VERNET, Jean Pierre, & BUTERA, Fabrizio (2004). Emancipation féminine et discrimination des
féministes: Quelques paradoxes dans les pays démocratiques. In A. Dorna & P. Georget (Eds.), La
démocratie peut-elle survivre au XXI siècle? (pp. 269-285). Paris: Editions Minuit.
WEST, Martha (2007). Unprecedented urgency: Gender discrimination in faculty hiring at the University of
California. NWSA Journal, 19(3), 199-211.
23
Annex 1 – Countries within gender discrimination indicators
24
25
26
27
!"#$%"&'(")&%*")+$(',-./*,.,$0*"1'('"0'$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+)-,)""'$!223$
$
4'"#'($ %"$ ,*0%*+*456$ )")+57%"4$ 4'"#'($ %"'8-)+%&%',$ )"#$ 4'"#'($ ,&-#%',$ %"$ )$
,*-&9'("$'-(*.')"$0*-"&(5$
$
$
$
!"#$%&'(')*+,-#./'$)012!342315!62789)
:%.,%);#<+)012!342315!62789)
:%-.%-#,%)=%--+$+)012!342315!62789)
$
$
$
%"&(*#-0&%*"$
$
5>#$)?%?'-),#$</$$'$).'@,'-)#@'A/%"#(#'$)#@)(>')%<%,'B#<)C#'",)+C)$+<#+"+.#<%")-'$'%-<>D)$(-'$$#@.)
.'@,'-)@+()+@"E)%$)%)$+<#+"+.#<%")$/&F'<()(>%()>%$)&''@)>#.>"E),'G'"+?',)#@)-'<'@()E'%-$D)&/()%"$+)%$)
%@)'"'B'@()(>%()$(-/<(/-'$)(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)$+<#%")%<(+-$)#@)(>')C#'",H)
I+-)(>#$),#$</$$#+@)%@,)%$)%)$(%-(#@.)?+#@()C+-)(>'),'&%('D)(>')<%$')+C)3+<#+"+.E)#@)J+-(/.%")K#"")&')
?/()#@)?'-$?'<(#G'H)5>#$)<+/@(-E)#$)B%-L',)&E)$(-/<(/-%")$?'<#C#<#(#'$)(>%(),#CC'-)C-+B)+(>'-$)$+/(>'-@)
!/-+?'%@)<+/@(-#'$)K#(>)K>#<>)(>')<+B?%-#$+@$)%-')/$/%""E)B%,'D)?-'$'@(#@.)+@')+C)(>')>#.>'$()C/""4
(#B') C'B%"') %<(#G#(E) -%('$) #@) !/-+?') %@,) +@') +C) (>') >#.>'$() ,#CC'-'@<'$) &'(K''@) B%"') %@,) C'B%"')
>#.>'-) ',/<%(#+@H) ;+@'(>'"'$$D) J+-(/.%") #$) $(#"") ?'-?'(/%(#@.) .'@,'-) ,#CC'-'@<'$) <+@<'-@#@.) .'@,'-)
?%E).%?)%@,)<%-''-$M)?-+.-'$$#+@H)
J+-(/./'$') "%&+/-) B%-L'() >%$) &''@) <>%-%<('-#N',) $#@<') '%-"E) OPM$) &E) %) >#.>) ?%-(#<#?%(#+@) +C)
K+B'@H) 2@) QPPRD) (>') (+(%") 'B?"+EB'@() -%(') C+-) J+-(/.%") K%$) OSDTUD) %&+G') (>') 8#$&+@) (%-.'(D) %@,)
>#.>'-)(>%@)(>')!/-+?'%@)%G'-%.')%@,)(>%@)+(>'-)$+/(>'-@)!/-+?'%@)<+/@(-#'$H)2()#$)#B?+-(%@()(+)$%E)
(>%()B+$()+C)(>'$')K+B'@) %-') 'B?"+E',) #@) %) C/""4(#B') &%$#$H) V>'@) %@%"EN#@.) C'B%"') 'B?"+EB'@(D)
J+-(/.%")?-'$'@($)+@')+C)(>')"+K'$()?%-(4(#B')-%('$)0SQDSU9)0I#./-')S)%@,)Q9H)
)
)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1:;<=>$?@$1>ABC>$>ADCEFA>GH$=BH>$:G$'<=ED>I$!22J$
)
3+/-<'W)!/-+$(%()
)
1:;<=>$!@$1>ABC>$DB=H/H:A>$>ADCEFA>GH$=BH>$:G$'<=ED>I$!22J$
)3+/-<'W)!/-+$(%()
)
1+@<'-@#@.)',/<%(#+@D)'$?'<#%""E)K>'@)%@%"EN#@.)(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)?+?/"%(#+@)(>%()>%$)%((%#@',)
(>')('-(#%-E)',/<%(#+@D)J+-(/.%")?-'$'@($)#@)%"")%.').-+/?$)%)$#.@#C#<%@()?-+?+-(#+@)+C)K+B'@)>#.>'-)
',/<%(',)(>%@)B'@H))5>#$),#CC'-'@<')&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@)#$)%.%#@)"%-.'-)(>%@)#@)+(>'-)$+/(>'-@)
!/-+?'%@)<+/@(-#'$)%@,)>#.>'-)(>%@)(>')X!1Y)%@,)!7)%G'-%.')0I#./-')Z9H)
)
)
Q)
1:;<=>$K@$.>=L>GHB;>$EM$DED<CBH:EG$N:HO$H>=H:B=F$>P<LBH:EGI$QF$R>S$BGP$B;>$;=E<DI$!22T$
)
)
3+/-<'W)!/-+$(%()
![%B#@#@.)(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)K+B'@)%@,)B'@)#@)(>')"%&+/-)B%-L'(D)#()<%@)&')G'-#C#',)(>%()(>')
.'@,'-) ?%E) .%?) ('@,$) (+) &') '"'G%(',) #@) >#.>4A/%"#C#',) +<</?%(#+@$) %@,) %B+@.) (>') ?+?/"%(#+@) K#(>)
>#.>'-)',/<%(#+@)0QPDZU9)02;!D)QPP\9H)X@)(>')+(>'-)>%@,D)K>'@)'[?"+-#@.).'@,'-)?%E).%?),#CC'-'@<'$)
#@) .'@'-%"D) C+-) %"") ',/<%(#+@%") "'G'"$) %@,) %B+@.) (>') !/-+?'%@) <+/@(-#'$D) J+-(/./'$') .%?) #$)
<+B?%-%(#G'"E) "+K) 0]DZU9) 0!/-+$(%(D) QPPR9H) 5>#$) <%@) #""/$(-%(') J+-(/./'$') "%&+/-) B%-L'() .'@,'-)
$'.-'.%(#+@D)K#(>)K+B'@)'[?'-#'@<#@.)+&$(%<"'$)K>'@)(-E#@.)(+)-'%<>)(+?)+-)>#.>4A/%"#C#',)?+$#(#+@$H)
I+</$#@.D)C+-)'[%B?"'D)+@)>#.>'-)',/<%(#+@)?-+C'$$#+@%"$D)K')<%@)+&$'-G')(>%(),'$?#(')(>')&-+%,'-)
,#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)A/%"#C#<%(#+@$)#@)J+-(/.%"D)%B+@.)?-+C'$$+-$D)B'@)%-')$(#"")(>')+@'$)K>+)>%G')>#.>'-)
"'G'"$) +C) A/%"#C#<%(#+@$) %@,) <+@$'A/'@("E) (>'E) >+",) (>') B+$() A/%"#C#',) ?+$#(#+@$) #@) (>') %<%,'B#<)
<%-''-)0C#./-')^)%@,)\9H)
$
)
Z)
1:;<=>$U@$.=EM>RRE=R$EM$H>=H:B=F$>P<LBH:EGI$QF$BLBP>A:L$P>;=>>I$!22J$
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@)
)
1:;<=>$V@$.=EM>RRE=R$EM$H>=H:B=F$>P<LBH:EGI$QF$D=EM>RR:EGBC$LBH>;E=FI$!22J$$
)
$
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@)
5>#$) ?%?'-) K#"") C+</$) (>') ,#$</$$#+@) +C) .'@,'-) #@'A/%"#(#'$) #@) $+<#+"+.EH) ='#@.) %) $'"C4-'C"'[#G')
$<#'@<'D)(>')@/B&'-)+C)$+<#+"+.#<%").'@,'-)$(/,#'$)>%$)#@<-'%$',)$#.@#C#<%@("E)#@)-'<'@()E'%-$H)2()#$)+/-)
%#B) (+) ,#$</$$) (>#$) 'G+"/(#+@) #@) %$$+<#%(#+@) K#(>) (>') ,'G'"+?B'@() +C) (>#$) +<</?%(#+@%") C#'",H)
)
^)
3+<#+"+.#<%") -'$'%-<>) -'C"'<($) $+B') .'@,'-) $(-/<(/-%") ,#CC'-'@<'$) #@) K>%() <+@<'-@$) $?'<#C#<%""E) (>')
?-+.-'$$#+@)+C)<%-''-$D)(>'),'G'"+?B'@()+C)%$$+<#%(#G')+<</?%(#+@%")%<(#G#(#'$D)(>')C#'",$)+C)$(/,E)%@,)
(>')?/&"#<)G#$#&#"#(ED)%$)(>')<+""'<(',)%@,)%@%"EN',),%(%)K#"")%""+K$)/$)(+)%-./'H)
5>') C+""+K#@.) %@%"E$#$) K#"") &') $(-/<(/-',) #@) (>-'') $?'<#C#<) ,#B'@$#+@$W) .'@,'-) %$) %) $+<#+"+.#<%")
$/&F'<()0'G+"/(#+@)%@,)<>%-%<('-#$(#<$)+C)(>'$')$(/,#'$)#@)J+-(/.%"9`).'@,'-)%$)%)$(-/<(/-#@.)'"'B'@()
+C)(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)$+<#+"+.#<%")%<(+-$)#@)(>')C#'",)0%<<+-,#@.)(+)C#'",$)+C)$(/,ED)%.'D)>#.>)',/<%(#+@)
#@$(#(/(#+@$D) B'B&'-$>#?) ?-%<(#<'$) %@,) ?/&"#<) G#$#&#"#(E9`) %@,) C#@%""ED) (>') <+B&#@%(#+@) +C) (>'$') (K+)
?-'G#+/$) $?>'-'$D) K#(>) (>-'') ?-+C'$$#+@%") &#+.-%?>#'$) +C) K+B'@) $+<#+"+.#$($) #@) (>') 3+<#+"+.E) +C)
a'@,'-H)
)
#)&)$)"#$W'&9*#*+*45$
)
5>') ?-+?+$',) %@%"E$#$) K%$) $/??+-(',) &E) (>-'') ,#CC'-'@() B'(>+,+"+.#<%") %??-+%<>'$) %@,) ,%(%)
$+/-<'$H)
I#-$("ED) (>') <+@<"/,',) %@,) +@.+#@.) J>Y) 3+<#+"+.E) ?-+F'<($) K'-') (%L'@) %$) #""/$(-%(#G') +C) (>')
-'$'%-<>)%@,)%,G%@<',)(-%#@#@.)&'#@.),'G'"+?',)#@)J+-(/.%"H)5>#$),%(%)K%$)<+""'<(',)(>-+/.>)!"#$%"&#
%@,)+CC#<#%")#@C+-B%(#+@)C-+B)(>')J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@)%@,)K%$)
+-.%@#N',)#@)%)$(%(#$(#<%"),%(%&%$'H)5>#$)+CC#<#%")$#(')<+@(%#@',)#@C+-B%(#+@)+@)(>')#@,#G#,/%")"'G'")0$'[)
%@,) %.') +C) (>') ,+<(+-) +C) ?>#"+$+?>E) +-) ,+<(+-%(') $(/,'@(9) %@,) +@) (>') ?-+F'<() "'G'") 0(#("') b) "%('-)
-'<+,',) &E) B%#@) %@,) $'<+@,%-E) $/&) C#'",) #@) 3+<#+"+.E`) #@$(#(/(#+@`) $/?'-G#$+-) b) "%('-) <+,',) &E) $'[`)
%@,),%('$)+C)&'.#@@#@.)%@,)('-B#@/$)+C)(>')J>Y9)C+-)%"")J>Y)?-+F'<($D)<+@<"/,',)%@,)+@.+#@.D)$#@<')
STR\) (+) QPP\H) 5>') %@%"E$#$) K%$) B%,') $+"'"E) <+@<'-@#@.) 3+<#+"+.EM$) J>Y) ?-+F'<($) %@,) K%$) B%#@"E)
&%$',)+@),'$<-#?(#G')%@%"E$#$H))
5>#$),%(%)%""+K',)/$D)+@)+@')>%@,D)(+)%@%"E$')(>')-'"%(#G')?"%<')+C).'@,'-)%$)%)$+<#+"+.#<%")$/&)
C#'",) (+?#<D) #($) 'G+"/(#+@) %@,) #@$(#(/(#+@%") (-%,#(#+@$) %@,) C#"#%(#+@$) %@,D) +@) (>') +(>'-D) (+) %@%"E$') (>')
-'"%(#G') A/%@(#(%(#G') '[?-'$$#+@) +C) K+B'@) %@,) B'@) 0J>Y$D) ,+<(+-%(') $(/,'@($D) %@,) $/?'-G#$+-$9) #@)
$+<#+"+.E)#@).'@'-%")%@,)#@)$+<#+"+.E)+C).'@,'-)#@)?%-(#</"%-"EH))
3'<+@,"ED) #() K%$) <+@$#,'-',) (>') %@%"E$#$) +C) (>') 1+@.-'$$'$) +C) (>') J+-(/./'$') c$$+<#%(#+@) +C)
3+<#+"+.EH) ) 5>#$) @%(#+@%") 'G'@() K%$) >'-') /@,'-$(++,) %$) %) ?-#G#"'.',) 'B?#-#<%") $/&F'<() @+() +@"E) (+)
%@%"E$')(>')$<#'@(#C#<)'G+"/(#+@)+C)(>')$+<#+"+.#<%")C#'",D)&/()%"$+)(+)#""/$(-%(')>+K)?/&"#<)G#$#&#"#(E)#@)
$+<#+"+.E)#$),#$(-#&/(',)%B+@.)B'@)%@,)K+B'@H))
c()%)C#-$()$(%.'D)(+)B%L')(>')?+-(-%#()+C)$+<#+"+.E)+C).'@,'-)%$)%@)%/(+@+B+/$)C#'",)+@)@%(#+@%")
$<#'@(#C#<) ?-+,/<(#+@D) (>') 'G+"/(#+@) +C) (>') (>'B'$) -'"%(',) (+) .'@,'-) (>%() K'-') ?-'$'@(',) %() (>')
)
\)
<+@.-'$$'$)C-+B)STT])(+)QPP])K%$)%@%"EN',H)5>#$)'G+"/(#+@)K%$)C+</$',)@+()+@"E)+@)(>')<+@('@($)+C)
(>')?%?'-$D)&/()%"$+)+@)(>')@/B&'-)+C)?%?'-$)+CC'-',)#@)'%<>)<+@.-'$$)K#(>)-'C'-'@<')(+).'@,'-H))
cC('-K%-,$D)(+)/@,'-$(%@,)>+K).'@,'-)#$)%)$(-/<(/-#@.)'"'B'@()C+-)(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)(>')%.'@($)
#@) (>') C#'",D) #() K%$) %@%"EN',) (>') ,#CC'-'@() -+"'$) (>%() K+B'@) %@,) B'@) >%G') %$$/B',) '#(>'-) #@) (>')
<+@.-'$$'$M)+-.%@#N%(#+@D)%$)#@)(>')%$$+<#%(#G')%<(#G#(#'$)+C)(>')J+-(/./'$')c$$+<#%(#+@)+C)3+<#+"+.E)4)
%@)#@$(#(/(#+@)(>%()<+B?-#$'$)B+$()+C)(>')$+<#+"+.#$($)%@,)$+<#+"+.E)$(/,'@($)#@)J+-(/.%"D)%@,)(>%()#$)
%"$+)(>')+-.%@#N%(#+@)(>%()?-+B+('$)(>')<+@.-'$$'$)%@,)+(>'-)-'"'G%@()B''(#@.$)K#(>)?/&"#<)G#$#&#"#(EH)
_'-'D) $+<#%") #@,#<%(+-$) $/<>) %$) (>') $'[/%") <+B?+$#(#+@) +C) (>') <+BB/@#<%(#+@$M) %/(>+-$D) (>') $'[/%")
<+B?+$#(#+@) +C) (>') %$$+<#%('$) %@,) B'B&'-$) +C) (>') +-.%@#N%(#+@%") &+%-,$) +C) (>') %$$+<#%(#+@)
0Y#-'<(#+@D) c$$'B&"ED) I#$<%") &+%-,D) Y'+@(+"+.E) &+%-,) %@,) 1+@$/"(#G') &+%-,9) %@,) %"$+) (>') $'[/%")
<+B?+$#(#+@)+C)(>')J%@'")=+%-,$)(>%()$/??+-(',)'%<>)<+@.-'$$SD)K'-')<+@$#,'-',)C+-)(>')-'C"'<(#+@H)
I#@%""ED) %#B#@.) (+) #""/$(-%(') (>#$) &-+%,'-) $(/,E) %() %) B#<-+) "'G'"D) (>') '[#$(#@.) ,%(%) K%$)
<+B?"'B'@(',)&E)(>-'')?-+C'$$#+@%")&#+.-%?>#'$)+C)J+-(/./'$')K+B'@)$+<#+"+.#$($)K#(>)-'<+.@#N',)
$<#'@(#C#<) ?-+,/<(#+@) #@) (>') C#'",) +C) .'@,'-H) 2@) (>') +@') >%@,D) #() K%$) %@%"EN',) (>') </--#</"/B) +C) (>')
%/(>+-$D) K#(>) -'C'-'@<') (+) (>') B%#@) ?-+,/<($) +C) (>') $+<#+"+.#<%") -'$'%-<>) +@) (>') (>'B'D) #@<"/,#@.)
?/&"#<%(#+@$D) ?%-(#<#?%(#+@) #@) .'@,'-) -'$'%-<>) ?-+F'<($) %@,) @'(K+-L$D) %@,) <#G#<) ?%-(#<#?%(#+@)
<+@<'-@#@.).'@,'-)#@'A/%"#(#'$H)5>#$),+</B'@(%")'[%B#@%(#+@)K%$)$/??+-(',)&E)K#(>)%@)#@('-G#'K)(+)
'%<>) $+<#+"+.#$() -'.%-,#@.) >#$) +-) >'-) %<%,'B#<D) ?-+C'$$#+@%") %@,) $<#'@(#C#<) "#C'H) 5>'$') #@('-G#'K$)
-'G'"',)(+)&')'$$'@(#%")(+)'G#@<')(>')$(/,E)+C).'@,'-)#@)J+-(/./'$')$+<#+"+.ED)&E)?-+B+(#@.)B/"(#?"')
-'C"'<(#+@$)+@).'@,'-)#@'A/%"#(#'$D)'#(>'-)&E)%)$+<#+"+.#$()?+#@()+C)G#'KD)%@,)%"$+)<+@$#,'-#@.)(>'#-)-'%")
"#G'$)('$(#B+@#'$)%$)L'E)%.'@($)#@)(>')C#'",H))
)
4'"#'($),$(',')(09$,-XY'0&$%"$,*0%*+*45$
$
c$) K%$) %"-'%,E) B'@(#+@',) %&+G'D) .'@,'-D) %$) %) $/&) -'$'%-<>) C#'",) #@) 3+<#+"+.E) #@) J+-(/.%"D) >%$)
#($'"C) $/CC'-',) %@) 'G+"/(#+@D) K>#<>) <%@) &') +&$'-G',) $?'<#%""E) (>-+/.>) <+B?%-%(#G') 0K#(>) +(>'-) $/&)
C#'",$)K#(>#@)$+<#+"+.E9)%@,),#%<>-+@#<)%@%"E$#$H))
5>'$') (K+) L#@,$) +C) %@%"E$#$) K#"") &') B%,') (>-+/.>) (>') $+/-<'$) %"-'%,E) B'@(#+@',W) C#-$("ED) (>')
<+@<"/,',)%@,)+@.+#@.)J>Y$D)K>#<>)-'?-'$'@()(>')(+?#<$)#@)K>#<>)#@,#G#,/%")$?'<#%"#N%(#+@)#@)(>')C#'",)
+C) $+<#+"+.E) #$) ,'G'"+?',D) %@,) $'<+@,"ED) (>') $/&F'<() (+?#<$) +C) (>') +-%") <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) #@) ;%(#+@%")
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
S
) 5>') J%@'") =+%-,$) +C) '%<>) <+@.-'$$) %-') <+@$(#(/(',) &E) (>') B'B&'-$) +C) (>') 1+@$/"(#G') =+%-,) +C) (>') %$$+<#%(#+@D) &E) (>')
?-'$#,'@($)+C)%"")(>')+(>'-)+-.%@#N%(#+@%")&+%-,$)%@,)&E)-'"'G%@()$+<#+"+.#$($)#@)(>')@%(#+@%")<+@('[(H)5>')C/@<(#+@)+C)(>')
?%@'")#$)(+)<>++$')(>')L'E)(>'B')+C)(>')<+@.-'$$D)%$)K'"")%$)#($)"+<%(#+@)%@,)>+$(#@.)#@$(#(/(#+@)%@,)(>'),'C#@#(#+@)+C)(>')
(>'B%(#<)?%@'"$)(+)#@<"/,')#@)(>')?-+.-%BH))
)
O)
3+<#+"+.E)1+@.-'$$'$D)K>#<>)-'?-'$'@()(>')#@,#G#,/%")+-)<+""'<(#G')?-+F'<($)K#(>)G#$#&#"#(E)K#(>#@)(>')
?''-$H))
)
BZ$XBL[RHB;>$EM$REL:ECE;F$EM$;>GP>=6$HO>$.O#$HO>R:R$
)
5>') -'$'%-<>) ,+@') %$) %@) %,G%@<',) (-%#@#@.D) (>%() #$D) (>') J>Y) (>'$#$D) -'?-'$'@($) %@) #""/$(-%(#G')
%-'@%) (+) %@%"EN') (>#$) ,#%<>-+@#<) %@,) <+B?'(#(#+@) ,E@%B#<$) #@) (>') $<#'@(#C#<) C#'",) +C) 3+<#+"+.EH)
5>-+/.>) (>') ,%(%) %@,) B'(>+,+"+.E) ?-'$'@(',D) #() #$) (>/$) ?+$$#&"') (+) %@%"EN') (>') -'"%(#G') ?"%<') +C)
.'@,'-)#@)K>%()<%@)&')<%""',)(>')&%<L$(%.')+C)$+<#+"+.ED)(>%()#$D)(>')$+"+)K+-L)+C)(>')J>Y)</--'@()%@,)
C+-B'-)-'$'%-<>'-$H))
3+<#+"+.E) +<</?#'$D) #@) (>#$) B%(('-D) %) $?'<#C#<) ?"%<') K#(>#@) (>') K>+"') ?%@+-%B%) +C) $<#'@<'$) #@)
J+-(/.%"H) c@%"E$#@.) (>') @/B&'-) +C) J>Y$) 0<+@<"/,',) %@,) +@.+#@.9D) K') <+/",) $(%(') (>%() 3+<#+"+.E) #$)
$(#"")%@)'G+"G#@.)$<#'@<'D)C+-)#()>%$)%@)#@('-B',#%(')?"%<'B'@()&'(K''@D)+@)(>')+@')>%@,D)(>')<+-')+C)
'[%<()$<#'@<'$)0"#L')_'%"(>)$<#'@<'$D)!"'<(-+@#<)%@,)#@C+-B%(#<$M)!@.#@''-#@.D)1>'B#$(-ED)J>E$#<$)%@,)
:%(>'B%(#<$9) %@,D) +@) (>') +(>'-D) B+$() +C) (>') -'$() +C) (>') $+<#%") $<#'@<'$) %@,) >/B%@#(#'$) 0"#L')
Y'B+.-%?>ED)J+"#(#<%")$<#'@<'$D)1+BB/@#<%(#+@)$<#'@<'$D)c-(#$(#<)$(/,#'$D)c-<>#('<(/-')%@,)/-&%@#$BD)
a'+.-%?>E)%@,)%"$+)c@(>-+?+"+.E9H)5>%()#$)(+)$%E)(>%()3+<#+"+.E)>%$)%)?-#G#"'.',)?+$#(#+@D)-'.%-,#@.)
(>') ?-+,/<(#+@) +C) %<%,'B#<) (>'$#$) $/<>) %$) (>') J>Y$D) K#(>#@) +(>'-) $+<#%") $<#'@<'$) &/() (>') (E?#<%")
/@?-#G#"'.',)?+$#(#+@)K>'@)<+B?%-#@.)K#(>)(>')'[%<()$<#'@<'$H))
)
1:;<=>$T@$"<AQ>=$EM$0EGLC<P>P$BGP$*G;E:G;$.O#$&O>R:RI$QF$RL:>GH:M:L$B=>B$
3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@)
)
)
R)
I+-) %) G'-E) A/#<L) ."%@<') %() (>') <+B?+$#(#+@) +C) (>') /@#G'-$') +C) (>') 3+<#+"+.E) J>Y) (>'$#$) %@,)
?-+F'<($D) %@,) &'C+-') ?-'$'@(#@.) (>') ,%(%) '&(# .'@,'-) #($'"CD) (>') C+""+K#@.) ,%(%) $>+/",) &') (%L'@) #@(+)
%<<+/@(W))
• 5>'-') %-') ORR) J>Y) 5>'$#$) %((-#&/(',) +-) -'<+.@#N',) &E) (>') J+-(/./'$') _#.>'-) !,/<%(#+@)
2@$(#(/(#+@$D)C-+B)K>#<>)ZZT)%-')$(#"")+@.+#@.)%@,)ZZ])%-')%"-'%,E)<+B?"'(',`))
• \PD^U)+C)(>'),+<(+-$)%@,),+<(+-%(')$(/,'@($)%-')B'@D)%@,)^TDOU)%-')K+B'@`))
• 5>') B+$() C-'A/'@() $/&F'<() (+?#<$) #@) J+-(/./'$') 3+<#+"+.E) %-'W) V+-LD) +-.%@#N%(#+@$) %@,)
J-+C'$$#+@$)0SQD\U9D)3(%(')%@,)?+"#(#<$)0TDRU9D)!,/<%(#+@)0]D]U9D)I%B#"E)0ODSU9D).'@,'-)0^D]U9D)_'%"(>)
0^D]U9H))
c$)#()K#"")&')#""/$(-%(',)#@)(>')@'[()?+#@(D)%@,)#@)(>')?-'$'@(%(#+@)+C)(>')?-+C'$$#+@%")&#+.-%?>#'$)
+C)K+B'@)$+<#+"+.#$($)#@)J+-(/.%")0?%.')Q\9D).'@,'-)%$)%)-'$'%-<>)(+?#<)>%$)&''@)-'"%(',)#@#(#%""E)K#(>)
K+B'@)$(/,#'$)%@,)K#(>)(>').'@,'-',),#$?%-#(#'$)#@)(>')C%B#"E)%@,6+-)(>')"%&+/-)B%-L'(D)&'#@.)+@"E)
-'<'@("E) -'"%(',) K#(>) (>') $(/,E) +C) B%$</"#@#(EH) I+-) (>%() -'%$+@D) .'@,'-) %@,) K+B'@) $(/,#'$) K'-')
<+,',)#@)(>')$%B')<%('.+-EH)2C)K')%@%"EN')?-#B%-E)%@,)$'<+@,%-E)$/&F'<()(+?#<)$'?%-%('"ED)K')-'%"#N')
(>%())&"*&(#+"*#,!-&"#./0*%&.)#$)(>')+@'D)(+.'(>'-)K#(>)1!2%+$#./(+/%3%2+/%!"D)(>%()#$)G'-E)C-'A/'@()%$)
%)$'<+@,%-E)$/&F'<()(+?#<)&/()@+()%$)%)?-#B%-E)+@'H)5>%()#$)(+)$%E)(>%())&"*&()%$)%)-'$'%-<>)(+?#<)#$)
B+-')+C)%@)%@%"E(#<%")?'-$?'<(#G')-%(>'-)(>%@)%)$/&F'<()(+?#<D)&'<%/$')+C)(>'#-)(-%@$G'-$%")<>%-%<('-H))
='#@.)$+D)4!(56#!(7+"%8+/%!".#+"*#'(!3&..%!".D)1/+/&#+"*#'!$%/%2.D)9*02+/%!"D):+-%$;D)<&+$/=D)>&((%/!(;#
+"*#0(?+"%.-D)1'!(/.#.!2%!$!7;D)@!--0"%2+/%!"#+"*#-&*%+)%-')(>')B+$()C-'A/'@()?-#B%-E)$/&)C#'",$)
+C)$+<#+"+.E),'G'"+?',)#@)(>')J>Y)(>'$#$D)K>#"')%$)%)$'<+@,%-E)$/&)C#'",)0B+$()+C)(>')<%$'$)%@%"E(#<%")
?'-$?'<(#G')+-)#@$(-/B'@(9)(>')B+$()C-'A/'@()-'C'-'@<'$)%-'W)V+-LD)+-.%@#N%(#+@$)%@,)J-+C'$$#+@$`)
)&"*&(A# 4!-&"# ./0*%&.D) 1/+/&# +"*# '!$%/%2.D) 9*02+/%!"6) :+-%$;D) 1!2%+$# 1/(+/%3%2+/%!"H) a'@,'-) #$)
(>'-'C+-'),#$$'B#@%(',)(+)+(>'-)-'$'%-<>)C#'",$D)%$)%@)#B?+-(%@()%@%"E(#<%")?'-$?'<(#G')(-%@$G'-$%")(+)
%"")C#'",$)+C)3+<#+"+.ED)$?'<#%""E)(>')+@'$)B'@(#+@',)%&+G'H))
X@)+(>'-)?'-$?'<(#G'D)#C)K')+&$'-G')(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)(>')?-#B%-E)$/&)C#'",$)+C)(>')(>'$#$)&E)#($)
$(%.') +C) ,'G'"+?B'@() 0<+B?"'(',) +-) +@.+#@.9D) K') <%@) .-%$?) (>%() K#(>#@) (>') 'B'-.'@() $/&) C#'",$D)
7&"*&()%@,)K+B'@)$(/,#'$)#$@M()+@')+C)(>'BD)/@"#L')B--%7(+/%!"#+"*#9/="%2%/;D)C!0/=)+-)12%&"2&H)5>')
-'"%(#G') ?-+?+-(#+@) +C) %"") +(>'-) $/&) C#'",$) 0%"-'%,E) B'@(#+@',9) %-') %??-+[#B%('"E) <+@$(%@() #@) (>')
$+<#+"+.E) -'$'%-<>'$) ,'G'"+?',) %() (>') J>Y) "'G'"H) 5>'$') (K+) <+@<"/$#+@$) %""+K$) /$) (+) <+@C#-B) (>%()
.'@,'-D) #@) $+<#+"+.E) J>Y$) (>'$#$) #@) J+-(/.%"D) #$) B+-') C-'A/'@("E) %@) +?'-%(#+@%") <%('.+-E) 0+-)
#@,'?'@,'@()G%-#%&"'9)-%(>'-)(>%@)%)(>'+-'(#<%")<+@<'?(H)
)
])
&BQC>$?@$$0EGLC<P>P$BGP$*G;E:G;$.O#$&O>R:RI$QF$D=:AB=F$REL:ECE;F$M:>CP$\D>=L>GHB;>Z$
$
c.#@.))
1>#",>++,)
1+BB/@#<%(#+@)%@,):',#%))
1+@$/B?(#+@)
1-#B#@%"#(E))
1/"(/-')?/&"#<$)%@,)?+"#<#'$))
0EGLC<P>P$
QD^)
SDQ)
QDS)
PDZ)
PDP)
ZDO)
*G;E:G;$
QDS)
PDZ)
\DT)
PDO)
PDT)
ODQ)
Y'B+.-%?>E)
PDZ)
PDP)
Y-/.$)/$')
SD\)
PDO)
!<+@+B#<)3+<#+"+.E))
PDO)
PDZ)
!,/<%(#+@)
RDQ)
SPDP)
!B#.-%(#+@)
SD\)
SDQ)
!@G#-+@B'@()
PDT)
QDS)
!?#$('B+"+.#<%")-'C"'<(#+@)
QD^)
PDP)
I%B#"E)
\DR)
\DO)
a'@,'-6K+B'@)$(/,#'$)
ZDP)
QDT)
_'%"(>))
ZDZ)
\DT)
_#$(+-#<%")3+<#+"+.E))
QDR)
QDS)
2""#('-%<E)
PDP)
PDO)
2BB#.-%(#+@)%@,)!(>@#<#(E))
SD])
^D^)
8%K)%@,)d/$(#<'))
PDO)
SD\)
J+?/"%-)</"(/-'))
^D\)
QD^)
*'"#.#+@)
QD^)
SD\)
3<#'@<')
PDT)
ZDQ)
3+<#%")'[<"/$#+@)%@,)?+G'-(E))
SDQ)
SD\)
3+<#%")1"%$$'$)
ZDO)
PDO)
3?+-($)3+<#+"+.E)
^DQ)
^DS)
3(%(')%@,)?+"#(#<$)
SPD^)
]DO)
3(-/<(/-')%@,)3+<#%")1>%@.'))
ZDZ)
SD\)
5'--#(+-E)%@,)7-&%@#$B)
ZDO)
\DP)
e%"/'$)
PDZ)
SDQ)
V+-LDD)+-.%@#N%(#+@$)%@,)?-+C'$$#+@$)
SZD^)
SPDT)
f+/(>)
QDS)
ZD])
5+(%")
SPPDP)
SPPDP)
)))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W))J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@))
)
V')<%@)$'')#@)(>')@'[().-%?>)(>%()7&"*&(D)&'(K''@)(>')-'"%(#G')#@<-'%$'$)%@,),'<-'%$'$)+C)+(>'-)
0?-#B%-E9)$/&)C#'",$)+C),+<(+-%(')-'$'%-<>)#@)$+<#+"+.ED)>%$)B%#@(%#@',)#($)#--'"'G%@(D)A/%@(#(%(#G'"E)
$?'%L#@.D)?+$#(#+@H)5>')-'"%(#G')#@<-'%$'$)K'-')B+$()@+(#<'%&"')#@)(>')<%$'$)+C)@!--0"%2+/%!"#+"*#
D&*%+D) 9*02+/%!"D) B--%7(+/%!"# +"*# 9/="%2%/;D) <&+$/=D) @0$/0(&D) 12%&"2&) %@,) C!0/=H) X@) (>') <+@(-%-ED)
(>') B+$() -'"'G%@() ,'<-'%$'$) %-') 1!2%+$# 1/(+/%3%2+/%!"D) 4!(56# !(7+"%8+/%!".# +"*# '(!3&..%!".D)
9'%./&-!$!7%2+$# (&3$&2/%!"D) @0$/0(&D) 1/+/&# +"*# E!$%/%2.D) 1/(02/0(&# +"*# 1!2%+$# @=+"7&D) F(07# G.&) %@,)
H&$%7%!"H))
)
)
T)
1:;<=>$J@$$.>=L>GH<BC$:GL=>BR>$Q>HN>>G$0EGLC<P>P$BGP$*G;E:G;$.O#$&O>R:RI$QF$D=:AB=F$REL:ECE;F$M:>CP$
)
))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@))
)
V>#"')3+<#+"+.E)+C).'@,'-)#$)%),+B#@%(',)C#'",)K#(>#@)+(>'-)$/&C#'",$)#@)J+-(/./'$')3+<#+"+.ED)#()
#$) %"$+D) #@) (>') <+B?+$#(#+@) +C) #($) B'B&'-$D) .'@,'-',H) ) 3+B') $/&C#'",$) +C) $+<#+"+.E) %-') (>'-'C+-')
.'@,'-',)#@)(>'#-)%<%,'B#<)<+B?+$#(#+@D)#@<"/,#@.)7&"*&(H)='#@.)$+D)7&"*&()#$)+@')+C)(>')$/&)C#'",$)
(>%() %-') +G'-4-'?-'$'@(',) &E) K+B'@D) (+.'(>'-) K#(>) !B#.-%(#+@D) I%B#"ED) _'%"(>) %@,) V+-LD)
+-.%@#N%(#+@$) %@,) ?-+C'$$#+@$H) X@) (>') <+@(-%-ED) $/&C#'",$) (-%,#(#+@%""E) %((-#&/(',) (+) B%$</"#@')
$?>'-'$D)"#L')3+<#%")3(-%(#C#<%(#+@D)3(%(')%@,)J+"#(#<$D)_#$(+-#<%")3+<#+"+.ED)3(-/<(/-')%@,)3+<#%")1>%@.'D)
%-') +G'-4-'?-'$'@(',) &E) B'@H) XG'-%""D) (>'$') %-') (>') $/&) C#'",$) (>%(D) +@) +@') B'%@$) +-) %@+(>'-D)
-'?-'$'@()(>')$'[/%"),#G#$#+@)+C)$+<#+"+.#<%")-'$'%-<>H))
)
SP)
2()B/$()&')/@,'-"#@',D)>+K'G'-D)(>%()-'.%-,"'$$)+C)(>')#,'@(#<%")?-+?+-(#+@)+C)B'@)%@,)K+B'@)
#@)(>')?-'$'@("E)%@%"EN',)/@#G'-$'D)(>'-')%-')B+-')%-'%$)K>'-')B'@)%-')+G'-4-'?-'$'@(',)(>%@)%-'%$)
K>'-')K+B'@)%-'H);+@'(>'"'$$D)(>')$/&)C#'",$)(>%()('@,)(+)&')"'$$).'@,'-',)%-')f+/(>D)Y'B+.-%?>ED)
e%"/'$D)J+G'-(ED)c.#@.D)1/"(/-')?/&"#<$D)2BB#.-%(#+@D)1>#",>++,)%@,)!<+@+B#<)3+<#+"+.EH)
$
1:;<=>$]@$$.>=L>GH<BC$:GL=>BR>$Q>HN>>G$0EGLC<P>P$BGP$*G;E:G;$.O#$&O>R:R$QF$A>G$BGP$0EGLC<P>P$BGP$
*G;E:G;$.O#$&O>R:R$QF$NEA>GI$QF$D=:AB=F$REL:ECE;F$M:>CP$
$
))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@))
$
QZ$&O>$D<QC:L$^:R:Q:C:HF$EM$!"#$"%$:G$HO>$RL:>GH:M:L$D=EP<LH:EG$$
)
cC('-) '[?"+-#@.) (>') #$$/'$) <+@<'-@#@.) (>') #@,#G#,/%") -'$'%-<>) ?-+F'<($) #@) (>') C#'",) +C) $+<#+"+.E)
0$/<>)%$)(>')J>Y)(>'$#$9D)@+K)K')%-').+#@.)(+)gN++BM)(+)%)B+-'),'(%#"',)%@%"E$#$)+C)(>')<+@C#./-%(#+@$)
)
SS)
+C) $+<#+"+.E) +C) .'@,'-H) c$) K%$) %"-'%,E) B'@(#+@',D) (>#$) ?+-(-%#() K%$) .#G'@) &E) (>') <+BB/@#<%(#+@$)
?-'$'@(',)+@)(>')J+-(/./'$')1+@.-'$$'$)+C)3+<#+"+.EH)5>')?-+.-%B$)+C)(>')<+@.-'$$'$)0<+@('@($)%@,)
?-+(%.+@#$($9) K#"") &') B+&#"#N',) %$) #""/$(-%(#+@$) +C) (>') $<#'@(#C#<) @%(#+@%") ?-+,/<(#+@H) 5>'-'C+-'D) K')
$>+/",)<+@$#,'-)(>%()B+$()+C)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)%-')%$$+<#%(',)&+(>)(+)#@,#G#,/%")-'$'%-<>)?-+F'<($)
%@,)(+)#@$(#(/(#+@%")?-+F'<($D)K>#<>)<+/",)>%G')#@G+"G',)$'G'-%")-'$'%-<>'-$)%@,)$'G'-%")/@#G'-$#(#'$)
%@,6+-)-'$'%-<>)<'@('-$H))
='(K''@) ST]]) %@,) QPP]D) %@,) K#(>) %) A/%,-'@@#%") -'./"%-#(ED) (>'-') K'-') <%--#',) +/() $#[)
J+-(/./'$') <+@.-'$$'$) +C) $+<#+"+.ED) ?-+B+(',) &E) (>') J+-(/./'$') c$$+<#%(#+@) +C) 3+<#+"+.E) 0cJ39H)
Y%(%)-'.%-,#@.)(>')@/B&'-)+C)<+BB/@#<%(#+@$D)%/(>+-$)%@,)@/B&'-)+C)?%-(#<#?%@($)#@G+"G',)#@)'%<>)
<+@.-'$$) 05%&"') Q9) $>+K$) (>') '[?+@'@(#%") %@,) $+"#,) .-+K(>) +C) (>') ,#$<#?"#@') #@) J+-(/.%"H) 5>') @'[()
(%&"')$>+K$)(>')#@<-'%$')+C)?-+C'$$#+@%"$)K#(>)$+<#+"+.#<%")%<%,'B#<)',/<%(#+@D)(>'),'G'"+?B'@()+C)
(>')-'$'%-<>)%<(#G#(E)%@,)(>'),#G'-$#C#<%(#+@)+C)(>')-'$'%-<>)(+?#<$H)5>')B/"(#?"#<%(#+@)+C)(>')(>'B%(#<)
?%@'"$D)R)#@)2)1+@.-'$$D)(+)QQ)#@)e)1+@.-'$$D)+-)QS)#@)e2)1+@.-'$$D)<+@C#-B$)#(H))
)
&BQC>$!@$"<AQ>=$EM$DB=H:L:DBGHRI$LEAA<G:LBH:EGR!$BGP$B<HOE=R_LE/B<HOE=R$D>=$0EG;=>RR$
0EG;=>RR$
.B=H:L:DBGHR$
0EAA<G:LBH:EGR$
)<HOE=R_$0E/B<HOE=RK$
2)0ST]]9)
OPP)
RZ)
]\)
22)0STTQ9)
ROO)
SQT)
SZ])
222)0STTO9)
RTT)
QPQ)
Q^O)
2e)0QPPP9)
SPOP)
QQ^)
Q^Q)
e)0QPP^9)
SQZ^)
ZTQ)
^\R)
e2)0QPP]9)
SS]])
\RO)
]^R)
)))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')c$$+<#%(#+@)+C)3+<#+"+.E)
)
V') %-') @+K) .+#@.) (+) '[%B#@') (>') <+@.-'$$'$D) +@') &E) +@'D) -'.%-,#@.) (>') 7&"*&() C#'",)
<+@C#./-%(#+@$)%@,)(>')$'[)+C)(>')%/(>+-$)+C)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$H))
5>') C#-$() J+-(/./'$') 1+@.-'$$) +C) 3+<#+"+.E) 08#$&+@D) ST]]9D) h5>') 3+<#+"+.E) %@,) (>') J+-(/./'$')
3+<#'(E)#@)(>')5/-@)+C)(>')1'@(/-EiD),#,@M()#@<"/,')%@E)?%@'"),'G+(',)(+)7&"*&(H)_+K'G'-D)(>#$)#$)@+()
%@)#@,#<%(#G')+C)#($)%&$'@<')%B+@.)(>')?-'$'@(',)K+-L$H)5>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)(>%()'[?"+-')(>')(>'B')
K'-')#@<"/,',)#@)(>')?%@'"),'G+(',)(+)h3+<#+"+.E)+C)I%B#"EiD)-'G'%"#@.)(>')/@,'-,'G'"+?',)?>%$')+C)
(>#$)C#'",)+C)$(/,#'$)#@)<+B?%-#$+@)(+)+(>'-$)$/<>)%$)3+<#+"+.E)+C)L@+K"',.')%@,)</"(/-'D)*/-%")%@,)
/-&%@)$+<#+"+.E)+-)3+<#+"+.E)+C)K+-L)%@,)+-.%@#N%(#+@$H)5>#$)<+@.-'$$)%"$+)#""/$(-%('$)(>')'B'-.'@<')
+C) (>#$) C#'",) #@) (>') #@('-#+-) +C) (>') 3+<#+"+.E) +C) C%B#"E`) %@,) (>') 'B'-.'@<') +C) V+B'@M$) $(/,#'$)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Q
Z
)5>'-')K'-')<+/@(',)<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)#@<"/,',)#@)(>')(>'B%(#<)?%@'"$H)J"'@%-E)$'$$#+@$)K'-')'[<"/,',)+C)(>')%@%"E$#$H)
) c"")(>')%/(>+-$)0+-)<+4%/(>+-$9)+C)(>')?-'$'@(',)<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)K'-')(%L'@)#@(+)%<<+/@()K>'@)+@')?'-$+@)#$)%$$+<#%(',)
(+)B+-')(>%@)+@')<+BB/@#<%(#+@D)%"")>#$)?%-(#<#?%(#+@$)K'-')<+@$#,'-',H)))
)
)
SQ)
%??-+%<>'$H);'G'-(>'"'$$D)#@)(>')@%(#+@%")<+@('[(D)(>#$)$/&4C#'",)+C)K+B'@M$)$(/,#'$),#,)@+()%<A/#-')
(>')G#$#&#"#(E)-'%<>',)#@)<+/@(-#'$)"#L')I-%@<'D)K>%()K%$)<'-(%#@"E)%$$+<#%(',)K#(>)(>')"+K)B%.@#(/,')
+C)(>')C'B#@#$()B+G'B'@($)#@)J+-(/.%"H)1+@$#,'-#@.)(>')$'[)+C)(>')%/(>+-$)+C)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)+C)
(>#$)?%@'"D)#(M$)'G#,'@()%)&%"%@<',),#$(-#&/(#+@)&'(K''@)$'['$)0\P)U)K+B'@D)5%&"')Z9H))_+K'G'-D)(>#$)
%"-'%,E)<>%-.'$)#(M$)+G'-4-'?-'$'@(%(#+@)#@)(>#$)C#'",)+C)$(/,#'$D)+@<')K+B'@j$)?-+?+-(#+@)%B+@.)(>')
%/(>+-$)+C)%"")<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)#$)"'$$)$#.@#C#<%@()0^^)U9H))
5>') 22) J+-(/./'$') 1+@.-'$$) +C) 3+<#+"+.E) 08#$&+@D) STTQ9D) h3+<#%") 3(-/<(/-'$) %@,) Y'G'"+?B'@(iD)
$/<>)%$)(>')C#-$()+@'D),#,@M()>%G')%@E)?%@'"),'G+(',)(+)7&"*&(D)%@,)+@<')B+-'D)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)
+@)(>#$)(>'B')K'-')#@<"/,',)#@)(>')?%@'"),'G+(',)(+)(>')hI%B#"E)%@,)L#@$>#?iD)K#(>)%&+/()R])U)+C)
K+B'@)%/(>+-#@.)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$H)2C)K')(%L')#@(+)%<<+/@()(>')-'"%(#+@)+C)(>#$)?-+?+-(#+@)K#(>)
(>')K+B'@j$)?'-<'@(%.')%B+@.)(>')(+(%")+C)(>')%/(>+-$)0+@"E)^QUD)5%&"')\9D)(>#$)G%"/')-'.#$('-$D)#@)
(>#$) <+@.-'$$D) (>') &#..'$() ,#$?-+?+-(#+@) &'(K''@) $'['$) 0k) ZOU9H) ='$#,'$) (>') -'</--'@() +G'-4)
-'?-'$'@(%(#+@) %B+@.) %/(>+-$D) K+B'@) <+@(#@/') (+) &') (>') '[<"/$#G') 'B?#-#<%") +&F'<() +C) (>') K+-L$)
(>%() ,#$</$$) 7&"*&(H) *'.%-,#@.) <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) (>'B'$D) (>#$) <+@.-'$$) #""/$(-%('$) (>') 'B'-.'@<') +C)
(>') -'$'%-<>'$) +@) 7&"*&() #@'A/%"#(#'$) #@) K+-L) <+@('[(D) K>#<>) <'-(%#@"E) -'C"'<($) (>') $+<#+4'<+@+B#<)
C-%B#@.) #@) K>#<>) (>#$) C#'",) %??'%-',W) (>') ?-+.-'$$#G') %@,) B%$$#G') '@(-E) +C) K+B'@) #@) (>') "%&+/-)
B%-L'(D)#@)%)<+/@(-E)K#(>)+@')+C)(>')>#.>'$()C'B%"')%<(#G#(E)-%(')#@)!/-+?'H)
5>')222)J+-(/./'$')1+@.-'$$)+C)3+<#+"+.E)08#$&+@D)STTO9D)hJ-%<(#<'$)%@,)3+<#%")1>%@.')J-+<'$$'$iD)
-'?-'$'@($) %) <>%@.') -'.%-,#@.) $+<#+"+.E) +C) 7&"*&(H) 5>#$) C#'",) %??'%-$) C+-) (>') C#-$() (#B') >'%,#@.) %)
<+BB/@#<%(#+@$M) ?%@'") @'[() (+) (>') 3+<#+"+.E) +C) C%B#"E) 05%&"') Z9H) 5>') <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) %-') B%#@"E)
C+</$',)+@)C%B#"ED)#($),E@%B#<$)%@,)<>%@.'$D)&/()%"$+)+@).'@,'-)#@'A/%"#(#'$D).'@,'-)#,'@(#(#'$)%@,)
(>') C'B#@#$() B+G'B'@(H) 8#L') (>') ?-'G#+/$) <+@.-'$$'$D) (>') @/B'-#<) $/?'-#+-#(E) +C) K+B'@) %$)
?-+(%.+@#$($)+C)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)%@,)%$)B%#@)-'$'%-<>)(+?#<)#$)+&G#+/$)0]SUD)5%&"')l9H))
2@)(>')2e)J+-(/./'$')1+@.-'$$)+C)3+<#+"+.E)01+#B&-%D)QPPP9D)hJ+-(/./'$')3+<#'(EW)*'<'@()J%$$',D)
;'%-) I/(/-'iD) "#L') (>') ?-'G#+/$) +@'D) 7&"*&() %??'%-$) @'%-&E) hC%B#"Ei) #@) %) (>'B%(#<) ?%@'") '@(#("',)
hI%B#"ED).'@,'-)%@,)"#C')<+/-$'$iD)K#(>)QO)<+BB/@#<%(#+@$D)#@)#($)B%F+-#(E)K-#(('@)&E)K+B'@)0R^U)4)
5%&"')Z9H)2@)$?#(')+C)(>')A/%@(#(%(#G')#@<-'%$')+C)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$D)%@,),#G'-$#C#<%(#+@)+C)(>'B'$D)
(>')<+@$(%@()%-(#</"%(#+@)+C)7&"*&()K#(>)$+<#+"+.E)+C)C%B#"E)0#@)$/&F'<($)(>%()(+/<>)(>')-','C#@#(#+@)+C)
.'@,'-) -+"'$) (>%() (++L) ?"%<') #@$#,') (>') C%B#"ED) +-) K+-L4C%B#"E) -'<+@<#"#%(#+@9) K#(>) (>') %??-+%<>) +@)
.'@,'-) #@'A/%"#(#'$) 0$?'<#%""E) (>%() +@'M$) +&$'-G',) #@) "%&+/-) <+@('[(9) %@,) K#(>) ,+B'$(#<) G#+"'@<') #$)
$(#"")'G#,'@(H)X@<')B+-'D)B'@)%@,)B%$</"#@#(#'$)%-')%&$'@()%$)-'$'%-<>)(+?#<$H)
8++L#@.) (+) (>') e) J+-(/./'$') 1+@.-'$$) +C) 3+<#+"+.E) 0=-%.%D) QPP^9D) h1+@('B?+-%-E) 3+<#'(#'$) b)
*'C"'[#G#(E) %@,) c<(#+@iD) K') $'') (>%() 7&"*&() %??'%-$D) C+-) (>') C#-$() (#B'D) >'%,#@.) %) (>'B%(#<) ?%@'")
#@,'?'@,'@()+C)$+<#+"+.E)+C)C%B#"ED)K>%()?+#@()+/()(>')-'<'@()%(('@(#+@)&'#@.),',#<%(',)(+)(>#$)C#'",)
+C) $(/,EH) c"(>+/.>D) (>') B+$() C-'A/'@() -'$'%-<>) $/&F'<($) -'B%#@) -'"%(#G'"E) <+@$(%@(W) .'@,'-)
)
SZ)
#@'A/%"#(#'$)0?%-(#</"%-"E)#@)K+-L#@.)<+@('[(9D),+B'$(#<)G#+"'@<')%@,).'@,'-)#,'@(#(#'$)#@)(>')<>%@.#@.)
C%B#"ED) %@) '[<'?(#+@%") <>%-%<('-#$(#<) +C) (>#$) <+@.-'$$) #$) (>') C%<() (>%() (>#$) ?%@'") #@<"/,',) %) (%&"')
,'G+(',) (+) hB%$</"#@#(EiH) 5>#$) #$) %@) #@,#<%(#+@) +C) (>') -'<'@() #@('-'$() #@) (>#$) (>'B') &E) (>') @%(#+@%")
$+<#+"+.ED) %@,) +C) (>') 'B'-.'@<') +C) B'@) %$) %) -'$'%-<>) (+?#<H) ) ;'G'-(>'"'$$D) %$) ?-+(%.+@#$($) +C) (>')
?-'$'@(',)K+-L$D)B'@)%-')$(#"")$E$('B%(#<%""E)$/&4-'?-'$'@(',H)I-+B)QQ)<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)(>%()K'-')
#@('.-%(#@.)(>')?%@'"),'G+(',)(+)7&"*&(D)%-+/@,)RPU)>%$)K+B'@)%/(>+-$>#?$)05%&"')Z9H))
c() (>') e2) J+-(/./'$') 1+@.-'$$) +C) 3+<#+"+.E) 08#$&+@D) QPP]9D) h3+<#%") V+-",$W) L@+K"',.') %@,)
?-%<(#<'$iD)7&"*&()%??'%-',)+@<')%.%#@)%$$+<#%(',)K#(>)C%B#"ED)#@)(>')$%B')(>'B%(#<)?%@'")hI%B#"E)
%@,) a'@,'-iH) 2@) $?#(') +C) (>') -'(/-@) (+) (>') h?-+B#$</#(Ei) #@) (>') +-.%@#N%(#+@) +C) (>') (>'B'$D) (>')
@/B&'-) +C) <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) #@<-'%$',) $/&$(%@(#%""E) 0C-+B) ^R) b) ,',#<%(',) (+) 7&"*&() %@,) C%B#"E) 4) #@)
QPP^D) (+) \T) <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) #@) QPP]9D) <+@C#-B#@.) (>') #@<-'%$') +C) (>') K+-L$) ,',#<%(',) (+) (>')
-'$?'<(#G')+&F'<($)+C)%@%"E$#$H)X@<')%.%#@D)%"-'%,E)K#(>+/()$/-?-#$'D)K+B'@)%-')#@)<>%-.')C+-)B+$()+C)
(>') %/(>+-$>#?) +C) (>') ?-'$'@(',) <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) 0%-+/@,) ]QUD) 5%&"') Z9D) ?-+G#@.) (>') .'@,'-',)
+-.%@#N%(#+@)+C)(>')$(/,E)+&F'<($)'"'<(',)&E)(>')J+-(/./'$')-'$'%-<>)?-+C'$$#+@%"$)01/@>%D)QPP]9H)
5>') +&F'<($) +C) $(/,E) %-') ,#G'-$#C#',D) &/() (>') #@<#,'@<') +@) $/&F'<($) "#L') G#+"'@<') K#(>#@) .'@,'-)
-'"%(#+@$>#?$)%@,)#@'A/%"#(#'$)#@)(>')"%&+-)B%-L'(D)#$)B%#@(%#@',H)5>')+-#.#@%"#(E)+C)(>#$)<+@.-'$$)#$)(>')
%-(#</"%(#+@)&'(K''@)7&"*&()%@,)%.#@.D)+-D)7&"*&(D)C%B#"E)%@,)>'%"(>)4)(>'B'$)(>%()$(%@,)+/()&E)(>')
B%$$#G') @/B&'-) +C) <+BB/@#<%(#+@$H) 5>'$') @'K) +&F'<($) C+</$) +@) (>') ,'B+.-%?>#<) <>%@.'$) #@) (>')
,'G'"+?',)<+/@(-#'$D)"#L')(>')?+?/"%(#+@)%.#@.D)(>')#@<-'%$')+C)"+@.'G#(E)%@,)-'"%(',)$+<#%")?+"#<#'$H))
)
&BQC>$K@$&EHBC$EM$LEAA<G:LBH:EGR$:GLC<P>P$:G$HO>ABH:L$DBG>CR$MEL<R>P$EG$!"#$"%$BGP_E=$MBA:CFU$
0EG;=>RR$$
0EAA<G:LBH:EGR$$\GZ$
`EA>G$a$
.BG>C$GBA>$
2)0STT]9)
SQ)
\PDP)
I%B#"E))
22)0STTQ9)
R)
RRD])
I%B#"E)%@,)L#@$>#?)))
222)0STTO9)
SO)
]PD])
I%B#"ED).'@,'-)%@,)%CC'<(#+@$)
2e)0QPPP9)
QO)
R^D^)
I%B#"ED).'@,'-)%@,)"#C')<+/-$'$)
e)0QPP^9)
QQ))
OTDR))
a'@,'-)
Q\)
R\DR)
I%B#"E)
\T)
]QDS)
I%B#"E)%@,).'@,'-)
e2)0QPP]9)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')c$$+<#%(#+@)+C)3+<#+"+.E)
)
1+@<"/,#@.D) K') G'-#CE) #@) (>') 2) %@,) 22) <+@.-'$$'$D) (>%() (>') K+-L$) (>%() <%@) &') .-+/?',) /@,'-)
7&"*&(),'@+B#@%(#+@D)&'<+B')G#$#&"')C-+B)?%@'"$),'G+(',)(+)(>')$+<#+"+.E)+C)C%B#"ED),'@+/@<#@.)+@)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
4
a#G'@) (>') m?-+B#$</#(Em) #@) (>') +-.%@#N%(#+@) +C) (>') (>'B'$D) K') +?(',) (+) <+/@() <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) #@<"/,',) #@) ?%@'"$) (>%()
K'-'),',#<%(',)(+)$+<#+"+.E)+C).'@,'-D)%@,)%"$+)?%@'"$)(>%()K'-'),',#<%(',)(+)(>')$+<#+"+.E)+C)C%B#"EH))V')(%L')(>#$)+?(#+@)
&'<%/$'D)G'-E)+C('@D)#$)#@)(>#$)"%$()?%@'")(>%()(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)+@).'@,'-)#$$/'$)%-')#@<"/,',H
)
S^)
+@') $#,') (>') -'</--'@("E) %-(#</"%(#+@) (>%() #$) ,+@') &'(K''@) (>') (>'B'$D) %@,) +@) (>') +(>'-) $#,') (>')
'B&-E+@#<)$(%(')#@)K>#<>)(>#$)C#'",)+C)$(/,#'$)K%$H)
X@"E)#@)STTO)(>')$+<#+"+.E)+C).'@,'-)%<>#'G',)G#$#&#"#(E)0#@)(>')eM$)%@,)e2M$)<+@.-'$$'$)#$)+@')+C)
(>') B+$() -'C'--',9) %@,) $+B') %@%"E(#<%") %/(+@+BED) %??'%-#@.) %"-'%,E) %@@+/@<',) #@) (>') (>'B%(#<)
?%@'"$D)'G'@)#CD)%$)>%??'@',)G'-E)+C('@D)$(#"")$>%-#@.)(>')$?%<')K#(>)$+<#+"+.E)+C)C%B#"EH)1+#@<#,'@("ED)
#()#$)%"$+)$#@<')(>#$)E'%-)(>%()K+B'@j$)?-'$'@(%(#+@$)'[<'',)B'@j$H))5>#$)?+#@($)+/()(>')%$$+<#%(#+@)
&'(K''@)(>').-+K#@.)+C)K+B'@M$)@/B&'-)%B+@.)(>')$<#'@(#C#<)<+BB/@#(E)%@,)(>')#@('@$#C#<%(#+@)+C)
(>'),#$</$$#+@)%&+/()(>'),#CC'-'@<'$)%@,)#@'A/%"#(#'$)&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@H)2@)%,,#(#+@D)B+$()+C)
(>') <+BB/@#<%(#+@$) (>%() <+@$(#(/(') (>'$') ?%@'"$) 0(>'B'$) (-%,#(#+@%""E) %$$+<#%(',) (+) (>') C'B#@#@')
#B%.#@%-E9)<+/@()B%#@"E)K#(>)K+B'@)%$)%/(>+-$)%@,D)$#B/"(%@'+/$"ED)%$)$(/,E)+&F'<(H)2()$>+K$)/?)%)
,#CC'-'@(#%(#+@)&'(K''@)(>')(>'B'$)K>#<>)/@,'-)(>')%(('@(#+@)&E)K+B'@)%@,)B'@)$+<#+"+.#$($H))
3/BB%-#N#@.D) (>') L'E) (>'B'$) '[?"+-',) #@) (>#$) <+BB/@#<%(#+@$D) %"+@.) (K+) ,'<%,'$) +C)
<+@.-'$$'$D)%-'W)%9)-'</--'@()%-(#</"%(#+@)&'(K''@) 7&"*&()%@,)C%B#"ED)L'E)?"%<')+C)-','C#@#(#+@)%@,)
@'.+(#%(#+@)+C).'@,'-)-+"'$`)&9).'@,'-)#@'A/%"#(#'$D)?%-(#</"%-"E)(>+$')(>%()%-')?-+,/<',)#@)(>')K+-L)
<+@('[(D)-'C"'[)+C)(>')B%$$#G')'@(-E)+C)K+B'@)#@)(>')"%&+-)B%-L'()%@,)<+@$'A/'@()#@(-#<%<E)+C)(>')
-'"%(#+@$)&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@)#@)(>'$')<+@('[($`)<9)G#+"'@<')?-+,/<(#+@)#@).'@,'-)-'"%(#+@$>#?$H)
V>'@)(>')B'@)%-')(%L'@)+@)%$)$(/,E)+&F'<(D)(>')%@%"E$#$)K%$)C+</$',)+@)(>')?-+,/<(#+@)+C).'@,'-)
#,'@(#(#'$)%@,)?%-'@(>++,W)+@"E)#@)e)1+@.-'$$)0QPP^9)-'$'%-<>'$)+@)B%$</"#@#(E)K'-')C#-$()?-'$'@(',H)
5>')-'<+.@#(#+@)%@,)$+<#%")<>%""'@.')+C)(>')-#.>($)#@'A/%"#(#'$)&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@D)%$)K'"")%$)
(>')%??'%-%@<')+C)?/&"#<)#@$(#(/(#+@$)(+)%@$K'-)(>#$)$+<#%")?-+&"'B)%-')<'-(%#@"E)<+@@'<(',)K#(>D)+@)
(>')+@')>%@,D)(>')(>'B'$)B+-')C-'A/'@("E),'G'"+?',)#@)(>')$<+?')+C)$+<#+"+.E)+C).'@,'-D)%@,)+@)(>')
+(>'-D)(>'),/-%&"')%&$'@<')+C)B'@)%@,)B%$</"#@#(E)%$)$(/,E)+&F'<(H))
)
,*0%*+*456$)$4'"#'('#$(',')(09$1%'+#$$
)
2@)(>#$)$'<(+-)+C)(>')('[()K')K#""),'B+@$(-%('D)C#-$("ED)>+K).'@,'-)#$)%)-'"'G%@()%$?'<()#@)$(-/<(/-#@.)
(>') ,#$(-#&/(#+@) +C) (>') J>Y) $(/,'@($) #@) (>') $+<#+"+.#<%") %<%,'B#<) C#"',D) #@) K>%() <+@<'-@$) (>')
#@$(#(/(#+@%")C#"#%(#+@$D)(>')$/&F'<()(+?#<$)%@,)(>')<+G'-%.')+C)(>')$(/,EH)3'<+@,"ED)K')K#"")?-+G')>+KD)
$#B/"(%@'+/$"ED)G#$#&#"#(E)%@,)%<L@+K"',.B'@()%-')%"$+)$(-/<(/-',)&E).'@,'-D)&E)(%L#@.)#@(+)%<<+/@()
(>')+-%")<+BB/@#<%(#+@)#@)(>')J+-(/./'$')1+@.-'$$'$D)C+-B%")B'B&'-$>#?D)%@,)?%-(#<#?%(#+@)#@)(>')
G%-#+/$)#@$(#(/(#+@$)+C)(>')J+-(/./'$')+C)3+<#+"+.EH))
)
BZ$4>GP>=>P$B<HOE=RO:D$:G$,EL:ECE;F$.O#R6$:G^:R:Q:C:HFb$
)
)
S\)
5+)$(%-()K#(>D)K')+&$'-G')(>%()(>'),#$(-#&/(#+@)+C)(>')<+@<"/,',)%@,)+@.+#@.)J>Y$)&'(K''@)B'@)
%@,) K+B'@) #$) G'-E) 'G'@H) 5>/$D) \PD^U) +C) (>') /@#G'-$') #$) B%"') %@,) ^TDOU) #$) C'B%"'H) ;+@'(>'"'$$D)
K>'@)K'),#CC'-'@(#%(')<+@<"/,',)C-+B)+@.+#@.)J>Y$)K')$'')(>%()K>#"')(>'-')%-')-'"%(#G'"E)B+-')B'@)
#@) (>') %"-'%,E) <+@<"/,',) J>Y$D) (>') ('@,'@<E) #$) $>#C(#@.) &'<%/$') (>'-') %-') -'"%(#G'"E) B+-') K+B'@)
,'G'"+?#@.)J>Y$)#@)3+<#+"+.E)@+K%,%E$)(>%@)B'@H)5>#$)B%E)&')%)-'$/"()+C)(>')<+@$(%@()#@<-'%$')+C)
K+B'@)#@)>#.>'-)',/<%(#+@)$E$('BH))
)
$&BQC>$U@$.O#$L<==>GH$E=$ME=A>=$RH<P>GHR$\D>=L>GHB;>Z$
$
0EGLC<P>P$
*G;E:G;$$$
:%"'))
\\DT)
^^D])
I'B%"'))
^^DS)
\\DQ)
5+(%")
SPPDP)
SPPDP)
3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@))
$
5>'-'C+-'D)%"(>+/.>)(>#$)('@,'@<E)$''B$)(+)#""/$(-%(')%@)%??%-'@()A/%@(#(%(#G')'A/#(E)&'(K''@)
B'@)%@,)K+B'@)#@)(>')%,G%@<',)C+-B%(#+@),'.-''D)(>')C%<()#$)(>%(D)C%<#@.)(>')B%F+-#(E)?'-<'@(%.')
+C) K+B'@) #@) (>') >#.>'-) ',/<%(#+@%") $E$('B) #@) .'@'-%") 0$'') (>') @'[() C#./-'9) %@,) $+<#%") $<#'@<'$) #@)
$?'<#C#<D)(>')?'-<'@(%.')+C)K+B'@)K#(>)<+@<"/,',)+-)+@.+#@.)J>Y$)#$)-'"%(#G'"E)$B%""D)(>%()#$D)(>'E)
%-') $(#"") /@,'-4-'?-'$'@(',) #@) (>#$) %,G%@<',) C+-B%(#+@) ,'.-''H) 5>') ,#$(-#&/(#+@) +C) (>') J>YM$)
$/?'-G#$+-)&E)$'[)K#"")#""/$(-%(')#(H))
)
1:;<=>$3@$"<AQ>=$EM$4=BP<BH>P$:GP:^:P<BCR$:G$.E=H<;BCI$QF$R>S$
)
)))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@)
))
2@)C%<(D)%"(>+/.>)(>'),#$<-'?%@<E)&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@),'G'"+?#@.)+-)>%G#@.),'G'"+?',)J>Y)
(>'$#$) #$) @+() "%-.'D) (>#$) %??%-'@() 'A/#(E) -'G'%"$) %) -'%") /@,'-4-'?-'$'@(%(#+@) +C) K+B'@) #@) >#.>'-)
',/<%(#+@) $E$('B) 0%$) ?-+C'$$+-$) %@,) $/?'-G#$+-$) +C) ,+<(+-%(') -'$'%-<>) ?-+F'<($9H) 2@) (>%() $'@$'D)
K+B'@) ?-+C'$$+-$) $/?'-G#$') +@"E) QZU) +C) (>') J>Y) (>'$#$) #@) (>') $%B?"'H) 5>'-'C+-'D) (>') 'A/#(E)
&'(K''@) B'@) %@,) K+B'@) ,+<(+-$) +-) J>Y) $(/,'@($) ,+'$@M() (-%@$"%(') #@(+) %) <"'%-) 'G+"/(#+@) #@) (>')
%<%,'B#<)%@,)('%<>#@.)<%-''-$)#@)(>#$)C#'",H)5>').-+K(>)#@)(>')-'?-'$'@(%(#+@)+C)K+B'@)K#(>)+-)$++@)
)
SO)
K#(>)J>Y$)#$)@+()%()%"")<+>'-'@()K#(>)K+B'@M$)-'?-'$'@(%(#+@)#@)$/?'-G#$#@.)J>Y$)(>'$#$)0#@,#<%(+-)+C)
%)K'"")'$(%&"#$>',)('%<>#@.)<%-''-$9H))
)
1:;<=>$?2@$"<AQ>=$EM$.O#$,<D>=^:RE=RI$QF$R>S$EM$HO>$R<D>=^:RE=R$
)
)))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@))
)
5>') @'[() ,%(%) -'?-'$'@($) +@"E) \PU) +C) (>') /@#G'-$'D) C+-) #() K%$@M() ?+$$#&"') (+) <+,') %"") (>') J>Y)
(>'$#$)&E)<+G'-%.')+C)(>')-'$'%-<>)0+@"E)(>-+/.>)(>')(#("'M$)#@C+-B%(#+@9H)V#(>#@)(>'$')-'<+,',)J>Y$D)
K') +&$'-G',) (>%() C+-) >%"C) +C) (>') $%B?"'D) (>') <+G'-%.') +C) (>') $(/,E) K%$) @%(#+@%"D) K>#"') C+-) %-+/@,)
QZU) (>') <+G'-%.') K%$) %) $?'<#C#<) -'.#+@) +C) J+-(/.%"D) %@,) #@) SZU) +C) (>') <%$'$) (>') <+G'-%.') K%$)
#@('-@%(#+@%"H) 5>') B+$() #B?+-(%@() C%<(+-) #@) ,#$(#@./#$>#@.) (>') %"-'%,E) <+@<"/,',) J>Y$) %@,) (>')
+@.+#@.)+@'$)#$)(>')C%<()(>%()(>')?'-<'@(%.')K'#.>()+C)(>')<+B?%-%(#G')$(/,#'$)%"B+$()(-#?"#<%('$)#@)
(>')+@.+#@.)J>Y)?-+F'<($)0#@)-'"%(#+@)(+)(>')%"-'%,E)<+@<"/,',)+@'$9)%@,)(>')'B'-.'@()#B?+-(%@<')
+C) (>') !/-+?'%@) $(/,#'$H) =/() (>'$') ('@,'@<#'$) %-') .'@,'-',H) :'@D) B+-') (>%@) K+B'@D) >%G') (>')
('@,'@<E) (+) ,'G'"+?) -'$'%-<>'$) %() %@) !/-+?'%@) $<%"') K>#"') K+B'@D) B+-') (>%@) B'@D) >%G') (>')
('@,'@<E) (+) ,'G'"+?) -'$'%-<>'$) %() %) @%(#+@%") $<%"'H) :'@) %"$+) $>+K) (>') ('@,'@<E) (+D) K#(>) (#B'D)
%&%@,+@)-'$'%-<>'$)K#(>)%)@%(#+@%")<+G'-%.'H)
)
)
SR)
1:;<=>$??@$"<AQ>=$EM$.O#$&O>R>RI$QF$RHB;>$EM$P>^>CEDA>GH$BGP$R>S$EM$HO>$.O#$RH<P>GH$E=$OECP>=$
)
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@))
$
QZ$#:MM>=>GH:BH>P$=EC>R$ME=$A>G$BGP$NEA>G6$A>AQ>=RO:D$BGP$D<QC:L$^:R:Q:C:HF$
)
J'-$#$(#@.) (>') %#B) +C) /@,'-$(%@,#@.) >+K) .'@,'-) #$) %) $(-/<(/-%") '"'B'@() #@) (>') ,#$(-#&/(#+@) +C)
%<(+-$)K#(>#@) (>') ,#$<#?"#@%-E) C#'",D) K') %-') @+K) .+#@.) (+) C+</$) +/-) %(('@(#+@) +@) (>') -+"'$) (>%() B'@)
%@,) K+B'@) -'?-'$'@() #@$#,') (>') $(-/<(/-') +C) (>') J+-(/./'$') c$$+<#%(#+@) +C) 3+<#+"+.E) 0cJ3)
+-.%@#$B$D) J%@'") =+%-,$) %@,) B'B&'-$>#?$9`) %@,) +@) (>') ;%(#+@%") 1+@.-'$$'$) 'G'@($)
0<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)%/(>+-$>#?9H))
8++L#@.)(+)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)%/(>+-$>#?$)%@,)(%L#@.)#@(+)%<<+/@()(>')$'[)+C)(>')#@('-G'@#'@($D)
K')<%@)G'-#CE)(>%()K+B'@)#@)(>')"%$()<+@.-'$$)0OQDOU9)%@,)C-+B)STTO)0\\DZ)U9)-'?-'$'@()(>')B%F+-#(E)
+C) (>') ?-+C'$$#+@%"$) #@G+"G',) #@) (>') '['</(#+@) +C) (>') 'G'@() 05%&"') \9H) 5>'$') G%"/'$) '<>+',) (>')
?-+?+-(#+@) +C) cJ3) B'B&'-$>#?$D) K>'-') (>') @/B'-#<) $/?'-#+-#(E) +C) (>') K+B'@) #$) 'G#,'@() %@,)
<+@$(%@() $#@<') STTQ) 0\O) U) #@) STTQ) %@,) O]) U) #@) QPP^9H) _+K'G'-D) %<(#G#(#'$) "#L') (>') ?-'$'@(%(#+@) +C)
<+BB/@#<%(#+@$) 0(>%() .#G'$) B+-') ?/&"#<) G#$#&#"#(E) (+) $+<#+"+.E) ?-+C'$$#+@%"$9) $''B) (+) '@<"+$') B+-')
-'$#$(%@<'),E@%B#<$)(+)C'B#@#@')?-+(%.+@#$B)(>%@)(>')B'B&'-$>#?)C#'",H)Y%(%)$>+K$)(>%()(>')+G'-)
-'?-'$'@(%(#+@) +C) K+B'@) %B+@.) (>') cJ3) B'B&'-$>#?$) #$) +@"E) G#$#&"') ^) E'%-$) "%('-) +@) (>')
<+BB/@#<%(#+@$D) %@,) (>#$) ?-+?+-(#+@) #$) $E$('B%(#<%""E) "'$$) (>%@) (>') +@') C+/@,',) %B+@.) (>') cJ3)
%$$+<#%('$H)
)
)
)
S])
&BQC>$V@$"<AQ>=$EM$).,$)RREL:BH>RI$LEAA<G:LBH:EGR$BGP$.BG>C$XEB=PR$LEADER:H:EGI$D>=$LEG;=>RR$BGP$R>SV$
0EG;=>RR$
)RREL:BH>R$).,T$
0EAA<G:LBH:EGR$
.BG>C$XEB=PR$
@)
U)V+B'@)
@)
U)V+B'@)
@)
U)V+B'@)
2)0ST]]9)
STR)
^^)
RZ)
^ZD\)
SO)
ODZ)
22)0STTQ9)
\P\)
\O)
SQT)
^QDP)
QR)
QODT)
222)0STTO9)
TSO)
OZ)
QPQ)
\\DZ)
QS)
STDP)
2e)0QPPP9)
SOOP)
OR)
QQ^)
OZDO)
QZ)
QODS)
e)0QPP^9)
STOO)
O])
ZTQ)
O^D])
ZP)
ZPDP)
4)
4)
\RO)
OQDO)
ZO)
Q\DP)
e2)0QPP]9)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')c$$+<#%(#+@)+C)3+<#+"+.E)
)
2C)K')C+</$)+/-)%(('@(#+@)+@)(>')cJ3)+-.%@#N%(#+@D)$?'<#%""ED)+@)(>')J%@'")=+%-,$D)(>')?-'G#+/$)
-'./"%-#(#'$) ,+@M() -'4'B'-.'`) +@) (>') <+@(-%-ED) (>') ,#-'<(#+@) +C) (>') ?%(('-@) #@G'-($H) ) 7@(#") @+KD) cJ3)
K%$) ?-'$#,',) &E) $#[) $+<#+"+.#$($) K#(>) (K+) K+B'@) %B+@.) (>'B) 05%&"') O9H) 2C) K') %@%"EN') (>')
<+@$(#(/(#+@)+C)(>')cJ3)+-.%@#$B$D)K')$'')(>%()(>')?-+?+-(#+@)+C)K+B'@)#$)#@G%-#%&"E)$B%""'-)(>%@)
B'@M$)0ZOU)#@)QPPO4QPP]9H)1+B?%-#@.)(>%()K#(>)(>')@/B&'-)+C)K+B'@)%$$+<#%('$)0O]U)#@)QPP^9D)+-)
<+BB/@#<%(#+@) $?'%L'-$) 0OZU) #@) QPP]9D) K') %-') C%<#@.) %) $'-#+/$) "%<L) +C) K+B'@) -'?-'$'@(%(#+@)
%B+@.$()%<(#G#(#'$)(>%()#B?"#'$)B%@%.'B'@()%@,),'<#$#+@)-'$?+@$#&#"#(#'$)#@)cJ3H))
2@)-'"%(#+@)(+)(>')J%@'")=+%-,$)<+B?+$#(#+@)05%&"')O9D)(>'),#$<-'?%@<E)&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@)
#$)'G'@)&#..'-H)2@)$?#(')+C)(>')$B%"")#@<-'%$'D)(>+/.>)@+()"#@'%-D)+C)(>')K+B'@j$)?%-(#<#?%(#+@)#@)(>#$)
&+%-,D)(>#$)?-+?+-(#+@)0Q\)U)#@)QPP]9)<+@(#@/'$)<"'%-"E)#@$#.@#C#<%@()#@)-'"%(#+@)(+)(>'#-)<+@(-#&/(#+@)
%$)%/(>+-$)+C)(>')<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)0K>#<>)<+@$(#(/(')(>')?-+.-%B$)+C)(>')<+@.-'$$'$9H)
)
&BQC>$T@$#>RL=:DH:EG$EM$HO>$).,$E=;BG:RAR6$D=>R:P>GHI$HEHBC$EM$A>AQ>=R$BGP$D>=L>GHB;>$EM$NEA>G$
.>=:EP$$
.=>R:P>GH$$
&EHBC$$
a$`EA>G$
ST]O4ST]])
d+n+)I'--'#-%),')c"B'#,%))
\)
QPDP)
ST]]4STTP)
d+n+)I'--'#-%),')c"B'#,%)
QS)
QZD])
STTP4STTQ)
d+$o):%,/-'#-%)J#@(+))
QZ)
QSDR)
STTQ4STT^)
d+$o):%,/-'#-%)J#@(+)
Q\)
Q]DP)
STT^4STTO)
c@%);/@'$),')c"B'#,%p)
QT)
Q^DS)
STTO4STT])
c@%);/@'$),')c"B'#,%p)
ZS)
QTDP)
STT]4QPPP)
1%-"+$)I+-(/@%)
QR)
ZRDP)
QPPP4QPPQ)
1%-"+$)I+-(/@%)
Q])
ZQDS)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\
)5>'),%(%)-'"%(',)(+)(>')@/B&'-)+C)%/(>+-$)%@,)<+BB/@#<%(#+@$)+C)(>')2D)22)%@,)222)1+@.-'$$'$)(%L'$)1-#$(#@%)
8+&+)K+-L$)0STTO9)%$)%)&%$'`)+(>'-),%(%)K%$)<+""'<(',)C-+B)(>')-'$?'<(#G')%G%#"%&"')+@"#@')%<<()%G%#"%&"')+@)(>')
cJ3)$#(')0(>')'[<'?(#+@)<+@<'-@$)(+),%(%)+C)(>')e2)1+@.-'$$D)+&(%#@',)C-+B)(>')cJ3)?/&"#<%(#+@D).#G'@)(+)(>')
?%-(#<#?%@($)#@)(>')-'$?'<(#G')'G'@(9H)5>'),%(%)%&+/()J%@'")=+%-,)%@,)@/B&'-)+C)?%-(#<#?%@($)'&()1+@.-'$$)K%$)
%G%#"%&"')(>-+/.>)cJ3H)
O
)5>')B'B&'-$>#?M$),%(%)K%$)-'.#$('-',)%()(>')(#B')+C)(>')-'$?'<(#G')<+@.-'$$'$),%('H)3+/-<'W)cJ3H)cG%#"%&"')
%(W)>((?W)66)KKKH%?$H?(6q)c-'%rPPSpB%-'%rPPSp$%-'%rPP^)0ST6PS6QPPR9H)
)
)
ST)
QPPQ4QPP^)
c@s"#%)5+--'$p)
Z\)
^PDP)
QPP^4QPPO)
c@s"#%)5+--'$p)
Z\)
Z^DZ)
QPPO4QPP])
8/t$)=%?(#$(%)
ZT)
Z\DT)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3+/-<'W)J+-(/./'$')c$$+<#%(#+@)+C)3+<#+"+.E`)p)V+B'@)
)
5>') ,%(%) ?-'$'@(',) #@) (>') ?-'G#+/$) $'<(#+@) ?+#@(',) +/() $+B') ,#$?%-#(#'$D) $?'<#%""E) %) >#.>)
,#$<-'?%@<E)&'(K''@)B'@)%@,)K+B'@)#@)cJ3)$(-/<(/-'H)='$#,'$)(>%(D)#C)K')"++L)(+)(>')?-+C#"')+C)(>')
.-%,/%('$) +@) $+<#%") $<#'@<') %@,) &'>%G#+-) %-'%$D) #(M$) (>') @/B'-#<) $/?'-#+-#(E) +C) K+B'@) %B+@.) (>')
<+@C'-'@<')$?'%L'-$)%@,)%B+@.)(>')cJ3)%$$+<#%('$)(>%()K+/",)B%L')B+-')$'@$'H)_+K'G'-D),'$?#(')
K+B'@)+G'-4-'?-'$'@(%(#+@)%B+@.)(>')C+-B'-)$(/,'@($)0O]DTU)#@)QPP\R9D)#C)K')-'.%-,)(>')?-'$'@(',)
,%(%)%&+/()<+@<"/,',)%@,)+@.+#@.)J>Y$)(>'$#$D)+-)J_Y)$/?'-G#$+-$D)(>#$)?'-<'@(%.')#$)A/#(')#@C'-#+-H))
5>#$),%(%)$''B$)(+)-'G'%")(>')'[#$('@<')+C)B'<>%@#$B$)(>%(),#CC#</"()(>')?-+$'</(#+@)+C)>#.>'-)
"'G'"$)+C)',/<%(#+@)&E)K+B'@H)2@)$?#(')+C)(>')&#..'$()K+B'@j$)?-+?+-(#+@)K#(>)$+<#+"+.E).-%,/%(#+@D)
B'@)%-')$(#""D)@+K%,%E$D)(>')?-+(%.+@#$($)+C)(>')B+-')A/%"#C#',)$(%(/$)%@,)B+-')?-+B#@'@()<%-''-$)
0*/#G+D)ST]O`)cBu@<#+D)vG#"%D)STT\`)3%@(+$D)QPPP`)c-%wF+D)QPP]9H)
_+K'G'-D) &'$#,'$) (>') /(('-',) <+@$(-%#@$D) K') B/$(@M() @'."#.'@<') C%<(+-$) -'"%(',) K#(>) (>')
-'A/#-',) (#B#@.$) (+) (>') ?-+C'$$#+@%") ?-+.-'$$#+@H) 5>') ,'"%E) +C) K+B'@) K>'@) '@('-#@.) #@) (>#$) C#'",)
<'-(%#@"E) <+@(-#&/('$) (+) '[?"%#@) #($) </--'@() /@,'-) -'?-'$'@(%(#+@) #@) (>') B+$() ?-'$(#.#+/$) ?+$#(#+@$)
0"#L') (>') J%@'") =+%-,9H) ) 5>') #@,#G#,/%") (-%F'<(+-#'$) +C) (>'$') K+B'@) #@) $+<#+"+.#<%") -'$'%-<>) %-') @+()
"+@.)'@+/.>)(+)%""+K)(>'B)(+)%<>#'G')(>'),+B#@%@()?+$#(#+@$)#@)(>')C#'",)+C)(>')$+<#+"+.E)#@)J+-(/.%"H)
X@)(>')+(>'-)$#,'D)K>#"')(>')K+B'@)$+<#+"+.#$($)-'%<>)(>')B+$()'"'G%(',)?+$#(#+@$)+C)>#$)?-+C'$$#+@%")
<%-''-$D)(>'E)%-')<+@C-+@(',)K#(>)(>')C/""@'$$)+C)%).++,)@/B&'-)+C)(>'$')?"%<'$D)K>#<>).#G'$)$(%(/$)
%@,)@+(+-#'(EH):%"')-'$'%-<>'-$)K>+)?-'<',',)K+B'@)%"-'%,E)(++L)%"B+$()%"")+C)(>'$')?"%<'$H)
)
,*0%*+*45$)"#$4'"#'(6$+%c%"4$)"#$&'++%"4$
$
3+) C%-D) K') >%G') '[%B#@',) $+B') B%<-+) (-'@,$) <+@<'-@#@.) .'@,'-) #@) $+<#+"+.EH) 2() #$) @+K)
#B?+-(%@()(+)$'')>+K)(>'$')(-'@,$D)@%B'"E)(>')C%<()(>%()7&"*&()%$)%)-'$'%-<>)C#'",)#$)B+-')?-'C'--',)
&E)K+B'@)(>%@)&E)B'@D)%@,)(>')C%<()(>%()7&"*&()>%$)&'<+B')%)(-%@$G'-$%")?'-$?'<(#G')#@)$+<#+"+.E)
-'$'%-<>'$D) <%@) -'C"'<() #@,#G#,/%") <%-''-$H) 2@) (>#$) ?%-() +C) +/-) %@%"E$#$) K') K#"") &-#'C"E) ,'$<-#&') (>')
%<%,'B#<)(-%F'<(+-#'$)+C)(>-'')J+-(/./'$')K+B'@)$+<#+"+.#$($D)L@+K@)&E)(>'#-)$E$('B%(#<)-'$'%-<>)
+@) 7&"*&(D) '$?'<#%""E) #@) K>%() <+@<'-@$) (>') ?+$#(#+@) +C) K+B'@) #@) (>') "%&+/-) B%-L'(H) 5>'$') (>-'')
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
R
)cG%#"%&"')%(W)
>((?W66KKKH#@'H?(6[?+-(%"6[B%#@q[?#,r2;!x[?.#,r#@'y#@,#<%,+-'$x#@,X<+--1+,rPPPSSPPx1+@('[(+r&,x$'"
5%&r(%&Q)0ST6PS6QPPR9
)
QP)
(-%F'<(+-#'$) %-') (>/$) #""/$(-%(#G') +C) (>') ,#G'-$#(E) +C) K>%() K') #,'@(#C#',) %$) %@) +G'-4-'?-'$'@(',) &/()
#@('-@%""E) >'('-+.'@'+/$) <+B&#@%(#+@W) K+B'@) $(/,#'$) B%,') &E) K+B'@H) I+-) ,'$#.@#@.) (>')
?-+C'$$#+@%")(-%F'<(+-#'$D)#()K%$),+@')%@)%@%"E$#$)+C)(>')</--#</"/B)+C)%"")(>')$+<#+"+.#$($D)%$)K'"")%$)%)
<+""'<(#+@) +C) (>'#-) B+$() #B?+-(%@() ?/&"#<%(#+@$H) 5>#$) ,%(%) K%$) (>+/.>) <+B?"'B'@(',) K#(>) %@)
#@('-G#'K)(+)'%<>)+@')+C)(>')%/(>+-$)K#(>)-'C'-'@<')(+)(>'#-)<%-''-$)%@,)<+@(-#&/('$)(+)(>')$(/,E)+C)
7&"*&(H) 5>'$') #@('-G#'K$) '@,',) /?) >%G#@.) %) <'@(-%") -+"'D) %$) (>'E) %""+K',) /$) (+) <+@('[(/%"#N') (>')
%??-+%<>'$)%@,)#,'@(#CE)(>')B%#@)<+@G'-.'@()%@,),#G'-.'@()'"'B'@($)#@)(>')(>-'')<%$'$H)
2() K#"") &') $>+K@) >+K) ,#G'-$') %@,) <+B?"'B'@(%-E) <%@) 7&"*&() %??-+%<>'$) &') %@,) >+K) (>#$) #$)
-'C"'<(',) #@) (>') ?-+C'$$#+@%") (-%F'<(+-#'$) (>%() K') %-') >'-') ?-'$'@(#@.H) V') K#"") C+</$) %(('@(#+@) +@)
:%-#%) a+@z%"G'$D) c@%) 5'#['#-%) ') e#({-#%) I+@$'<%) 0C#<(#(#+/$) @%B'$9D) $>+K#@.) (>'#-) ,#CC'-'@() K%E$) +C)
#@.+#@.) +@) (>') $+<#+"+.#<%") %@%"E$#$) +C) 7&"*&(D) %@,) (>'#-) %<(/%") #@('-'$($) %@,) C#'",$) +C) $(/,EH) :%-#%)
a+@z%"G'$)%@,)c@%)5'#['#-%)%-')&+(>)?-+C'$$+-$)%()(>')8#$&+@)7@#G'-$#(E)2@$(#(/(')%@,)-'$'%-<>'-$)%()
12!3H) e#({-#%) I+@$'<%) #$) %) ?-+C'$$+-) %() (>') 1+#B&-%) 7@#G'-$#(E) %@,) -'$'%-<>'-) %() 1!3D) %) -'$'%-<>)
<'@(-')C-+B)(>')$%B')#@$(#(/(#+@H)
V>'@) K') %@%"EN') (>') ?-+C'$$#+@%") <+/-$'$) +C) (>') (>-'') ?-+(%.+@#$($) +C) (>') J+-(/./'$')
$+<#+"+.#<%") $(/,#'$) +@) (>') ?+$#(#+@) +C) K+B'@) %@,) B'@) #@) (>') "%&+/-) B%-L'(D) K') <%@) #,'@(#CE)
,#CC'-'@()(>'B%(#<)$(%-(#@.)?+#@($)%@,),#CC'-'@()C#'",$)+C)$(/,EH))
I+</$#@.)+@)',/<%(#+@D)#()#$)#B?+-(%@()(+)%$$'-()(>%()$+<#+"+.E)%-#$'$)#@)J+-(/.%")#@)STR^D)%C('-)%)
,#<(%(+-#%") ?'-#+,) K>'@) (>#$) ,#$<#?"#@') K%$) C+-&#,,'@D) %$) K'"") %$) B+$() +C) #($) C+/@,#@.) %/(>+-$) %@,)
&++L$H))
c"(>+/.>)e#({-#%)I+@$'<%)K%$)(>')C#-$()+@')+C)(>'$')$+<#+"+.#$($)(+)+&(%#@)(>')C+-B%")=c),#?"+B%D)
:%-#%)a+@z%"G'$)K%$)(>')C#-$()+@')(+)%<>#'G')%@)+CC#<#%")',/<%(#+@)#@)$+<#+"+.ED)'@('-#@.)(>')C#-$()=c)
?-+.-%B)#@)$+<#+"+.E)#@)(>')<+/@(-EH)3>')K%$)%"$+)(>')C#-$()+@')(+),+<(+-%('D)#@)STT\D)K#(>)%)(>'$#$)+@)
C%B#"E) &/$#@'$$D) &'#@.) C+""+K',) &E) c@%) 5'#['#-%) #@) QPPSD) K#(>) %) (>'$#$) +@) ,#G+-<'D) %@,) &E) e#({-#%)
I+@$'<%)#@)QPP^D)K#(>)%)(>'$#$)+@)(>')#@<-'%$')?-'$'@<')+C)K+B'@)#@)(>')$'-G#<')$'<(+-)#@)J+-(/.%"H)
5>') C#-$() $+<#+"+.#<%") %??-+[#B%(#+@) (+) (>') $(/,E) +C) .'@,'-) K%$D) #@) (>') (>-'') (-%F'<(+-#'$D) G'-E)
?%-(#</"%-H)
:%-#%)a+@z%"G'$)$(%-(',)>'-)-'$'%-<>)%&+/()(>')-'"%(#+@)+C)K+-L)%@,)7&"*&()+@)>'-)J>Y)K+-LD)
%"(>+/.>) $>') >%,) %"-'%,E) ,+@') #(D) %/(+@+B+/$"ED) #@) >'-) ?-#B%-#"E) -'$'%-<>) K+-L$) %$) %) .-%,/%(')
$(/,'@() K>'-') $>') $(/,#',D) &+(>D) K+-L'-$) #,'@(#(#'$D) %@,) K+B'@) #,'@(#(#'$H) 5>') $(/,E) +@) C%B#"E)
&/$#@'$$) #@(-+,/<',) 7&"*&() +@) (>') %@%"E$#$) +C) K+-L) -'"%(#+@$) #@) %) B+-') $?'<#C#<) ,#B'@$#+@D) &E)
C+</$#@.)(>')<'@(-%"#(E)+C)7&"*&()+@)(>')$(-/<(/-')+C)C%B#"E)%@,)&/$#@'$$H)
c@%) 5'#['#-%) %"$+) $(%-(',) >'-) $(/,#'$) +@) K+-L) %@,) 7&"*&() +@) >'-) C#-$() -'$'%-<>) K+-L$) %$) %)
$(/,'@(H) I-+B) (>') %@%"E$#$) +C) ,#G+-<') %@,) B%--#%.'D) $>') $(-'$$',) (>') #B?+-(%@<') +C) K+-L) #@) C%B#"E)
)
QS)
"#C'D) .#G#@.) $?'<#%") %(('@(#+@) (+) (>') #@('.-%(#+@) +C) K+B'@) #@) (>') "%&+/-) B%-L'() %@,) #($) #B?%<($) +@)
C%B#"E),E@%B#<$H)
e#({-#%) I+@$'<%) %"$+) #@#(#%(',) >'-) K+-L) +@) 7&"*&() %() (>') &'.#@@#@.) +C) >'-) %<%,'B#<) (-%F'<(+-EH)
5>')%@%"E$#$)+C)(>')?+$#(#+@)+C)K+B'@)%@,)B'@)#@)(>')"%&+/-)B%-L'()+<</--',)#@)>'-)#@#(#%")$(/,#'$)+@)
K+B'@D) ?-'<#$'"ED) (>') +<</?%(#+@%") #@('.-%(#+@) +C) K+B'@) %@,) .'@,'-) $'.-'.%(#+@) ?%(('-@$) #@) (>')
'B?"+EB'@()$E$('BH)
V')<%@)#,'@(#CE)(>-''),#$(#@<(#G')K%E$)+C)'@('-#@.)(>')%@%"E$#$)+C)K+B'@)%@,)B'@)?+$#(#+@)#@)(>')
"%&+/-)B%-L'()%$)%)$+<#+"+.#<%")$/&F'<()#@)(>'$')%<%,'B#<)<%-''-$W)V+-LD)I%B#"E)%@,)V+B'@H)c"")(>')
(-%F'<(+-#'$)?-#G#"'.',)V+-L)%@,)V+B'@D)&/()(>')>#'-%-<>E)+C)(>')(>'B'$)-'G'%"',)(+)&')%),#$(#@<(#G')
'"'B'@(H)
)
1:;<=>$?!@$.=:^:C>;>P$RHB=H:G;$DE:GHR$ME=$HO>$RH<PF$EM$!"#$"%$$
))
) :a)
c5)
eI)
`E=[$
1BA:CF$
`EA>G$
1+B?%@#'$)
V+B'@)
V+-L)
V+B'@)
V+-L)
!B?"+EB'@()
)
)
)
)
)
)
4>GP>=$:G$HO>$CBQE<=$AB=[>H$
)
V>'@) K') %@%"E$') (>') 'G+"/(#+@) +C) (>') -'$'%-<>) (>'B'$) +C) (>'$') $+<#+"+.#$($D) K') <%@) %"$+) $'')
,#CC'-'@()K%E$)+C)C+</$#@.)%)&-+%,'-)<+BB+@)?-+&"'B%(#<H)
2@) e#({-#%) I+@$'<%) (-%F'<(+-ED) K') <%@) #,'@(#CE) +@') C#-$() .-+/?) +C) $(/,#'$) B%-L',) &E) %) I-'@<>)
(>'+-'(#<%")#@C"/'@<')(>%()C+</$'$)(>')'$$'@<')+C)(>')$'[/%"),#G#$#+@)+C)"%&+/-H)2@)%$$+<#%(#+@)K#(>)(>#$)
(>'B'D)K')C#@,)%@+(>'-).-+/?)+C)$+<#+"+.#<%")%@%"E$#$)(>%()$?'<#C#<%""E)<+@<'-@)K+B'@)$'.-'.%(#+@)#@)
(>')"%&+/-)B%-L'(D).+#@.)&'E+@,)(>')$(/,E)+C)(>')$'[/%"),#G#$#+@)+C)"%&+/-D)%@,)%,,-'$$#@.)(>')$(/,E)
+C)(>')'B?"+EB'@()$E$('B)+-.%@#N%(#+@)%@,).'@,'-)$'.-'.%(#+@H)2()#$)#@)(>#$).-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)(>%()K')
<%@)#@('.-%(')>'-)J>Y)(>'$#$H)V+B'@)$(/,#'$)%-')%"$+)%@)#B?+-(%@()-'$'%-<>)(>'B')#@)(>#$)(-%F'<(+-ED)
&'#@.)%),#$(#@<(#G')B%-L)#@)>'-)<%-''-D)'$?'<#%""E)#B?+-(%@()%()(>')&'.#@@#@.)+C)>'-)%<%,'B#<)"#C'H)X@')
+C)(>')<>%-%<('-#$(#<$)+C)(>')e#({-#%)I+@$'<%)%??-+%<>)#$)(>')$+"#,#C#<%(#+@)+C)K+B'@)%$)%)$+<#%")/@#(E)
%@,)(>')>%-B+@#N%(#+@)+C)</"(/-%")%@,)$+<#%")'"'B'@($)#@)(>')<+@$(-/<(#+@)+C)K+B'@)#,'@(#(#'$H)5>#$)
%??-+%<>)%""+K',)(>'),'G'"+?B'@()+C)%)(>#-,).-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)&%$',)+@)(>')&#+"+.#<%")<>%-%<('-#$(#<$)
+C)K+B'@D)$+)#()#$)?+$$#&"')(+)#,'@(#CE)#@)>'-)K+-L)%)C-'A/'@()-'C'-'@<')(+)C'B%"')&+,ED)(+)?-'.@%@<ED)
B%('-@#(ED) B'@$(-/%(#+@H) X@') "%$() .-+/?) <%@) &') C+/@,) #@) >'-) $(/,#'$) +@) ."+&%"#N%(#+@) %@,) (>')
)
QQ)
#@('.-%(#+@) +C) J+-(/./'$') -'%"#(E) #@) %) ."+&%") <+@('[(D) %@,) (>') #B?%<() +C) ."+&%"#N%(#+@) +@) 'A/%"#(E)
?+"#<#'$H)
V>'@) K') %@%"E$') :%-#%) a+@z%"G'$) %<%,'B#<) <%-''-D) K') C#@,) <+@$#,'-%&"E) ,#CC'-'@() K%E$) +C)
$(/,E#@.) 7&"*&() %@,) ,#$(#@<() -'$'%-<>) +-#'@(%(#+@$H) X@') C#-$() (>'B%(#<) .-+/?) +C) $(/,#'$) %@%"E$'$)
7&"*&()(>-+/.>)(>')$(/,E)+C)K+-L4"#C')#@('.-%(#+@H)_'-'D)K')<%@)"+<%(')$(/,#'$)+@)(>')-'<+@<#"#%(#+@)
+C) K+-L) %@,) C%B#"ED) (>') -+"') +C) K+B'@) %@,) B'@) #@) (>'$') (K+) $?>'-'$D) %@,) #($) $+<#%") #B?%<($) %() %)
B%<-+)%@,)B#<-+)"'G'"H)5>')$'<+@,)(>'B%(#<).-+/?)$(-'$$'$)7&"*&()C-+B)(>')$?'<#C#<)?'-$?'<(#G')+C)
K+-L) +-.%@#N%(#+@D) C+</$#@.) +@) +-.%@#N%(#+@%") ?+"#<#'$) %@,) ?-%<(#<'$) %@,) #@) <+-?+-%(') $+<#%")
-'$?+@$#&#"#(EH)X(>'-).-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)<+B?-#$'$)E+/(>)%@,)(>')(-%@$#(#+@)(+)?%-'@(>++,D)C+</$#@.)+@)
>+K)K+B'@)%@,)B'@)'CC'<(/%(')(>'#-)<+/-$'$H)I#@%""ED)(>'-')#$)%)C+/-(>).-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)(>%()C+</$)
A/%"#(E)+C)"#C')%@,)A/%"#(E)+C)K+-L)%@,)>+K)(>'$')%-')%CC'<(',)&E).'@,'-),#CC'-'@<'$H)
I#@%""ED)#@)c@%)5'#['#-%)%<%,'B#<)<%-''-D)(>'-')%-')%"$+),#CC'-'@().-+/?$)+C)$(/,#'$)%@,)$?'<#C#<)
K%E$)+C)%,,-'$$#@.)7&"*&()$+<#+"+.#<%")-'$'%-<>H)X@')C#-$().-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)%@%"E$'$)(>')<+@<'?()+C)
$'[/%")%@,)C%B#"#%-),#G#$#+@)+C)"%&+/-D)C+</$#@.)+@)?%#,)%@,)/@?%#,)K+-L)%@,)#($)%$$+<#%(#+@)@+()+@"E)
(+).'@,'-),#CC'-'@<'$D)&/()%"$+)(+)$+<#%")<"%$$D)A/%"#C#<%(#+@$)%@,)G%"/'$H)2@)<+@@'<(#+@)(+)(>#$)-'$'%-<>)
+-#'@(%(#+@D)K')C#@,)%)$'<+@,).-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)-'"%(',)(+)(>')'[%B#@%(#+@)+C)>+K)K+B'@)%@,)B'@)
#@('.-%(') K+-L) %@,) C%B#"ED) '$?'<#%""E) #@) K>%() <+@<'-@$) <>#",<%-'D) %@,) %) (>#-,) .-+/?) +C) $(/,#'$) (>%()
C+</$) K+-L4"#C') #@('.-%(#+@) C-+B) (>') ?'-$?'<(#G') +C) <+@F/.%") ,E@%B#<$H) _'-'D) K') C#@,) $+B')
<+@G'-.'@<')K#(>)(>')K+-L)+C):%-#%)a+@z%"G'$D)%"(>+/.>)K#(>),#CC'-'@()C+</$H)I#@%""ED)(>'-')#$)%)"%$()
.-+/?)+C)$(/,#'$)(>%()<'@('-)$+<#%")?+"#<E)C-+B)%)!/-+?'%@)<+B?%-%(#G')?'-$?'<(#G'H)
2()#$)(-/')(>%()(>'-')#$)%)C%#@()"#@')(>%()$'?%-%('$)%"")(>'$')C#'",$)+C)$(/,E)&'<%/$')(>'E)-'$/"()C-+B)
%)<+BB+@)(>'B')%@,)$/&F'<()+C)$+<#+"+.#<%")%@%"E$#$H)2()#$)#B?+-(%@(D)(>+/.>D)(+)$%E)(>%()&'$#,'$)(>#$)
/@#CE#@.) .'@,'-) "'@$D) K') <%@) C#@,) <+@$#,'-%&"') (>'B%(#<) ,#G'-$#(EH) )&"*&() >%$) &'<+B') B+-') %)
B%@,%(+-E)%@%"E(#<%")?'-$?'<(#G')#@)(>')$(/,E)+C)G%-#+/$)%$?'<($)%@,)B+B'@($)+C)"#C')0K+-LD)C%B#"ED)
E+/(>D)'(<H9)(>%@)%@)%/(+@+B+/$)C#'",)#($'"CH))5>%(),#$$'B#@%(#+@)(+)+(>'-)$/&F'<()C#'",$)#$)%"$+)G#$#&"')
#@(+)-'$'%-<>)C#'",)(-%,#(#+@%""E)+<</?#',)&E)B'@H))
5>'$')?-+<'$$'$D)#@)+/-)+?#@#+@D)>%$)+@"E)'B?+K'-',)7&"*&()%$)%)-'$'%-<>)C#'",)%@,)"'.#(#B%(',)
(>')$(/,E)+C).'@,'-).%?$)#@)(>')<+@('B?+-%-E)$+<#'(EH)
)
1:;<=>$?K@$$)LH<BC$HO>ABH:L$:GH>=>RHR$$$
)
)
)
a'@,'-)#@)(>')"%&+/-)B%-L'()
)
)
QZ)
)
)
eI)
:a)
c5)
3'[/%"),#G#$#+@)+C)"%&+/-)
V+-L4"#C')-'<+@<#"#%(#+@)
3'[/%")%@,)C%B#"#%-),#G#$#+@)+C)
"%&+/-)
)
)
V+B'@)$(/,#'$D)B%('-@#(ED)
)-'?-+,/<(#+@)
)
a"+&%"#N%(#+@D)3+<#%")?+"#<E)
$ !B?"+EB'@(D)a'@,'-)
$
$'.-'.%(#+@)
V+-LD)+-.%@#N%(#+@$D)<+-?+-%(')
-'$?+@$#&#"#(E))
f+/(>D)a'@'-%(#+@$D)5-%@$#(#+@$)
(+)%,/"(>++,)
}/%"#(E)+C)"#C'D)}/%"#(E)+C)K+-L)
V+-L4"#C')-'<+@<#"#%(#+@)%@,)
<>#",<%-')))
V+-L4"#C')-'<+@<#"#%(#+@)%@,)
<+@F/.%"#(E))
3+<#%")?+"#<ED)!/-+?')
$
0*"0+-,%*",$
)
I-+B)(>')%@%"E$#$)+C)(>#$),%(%)#()#$)?+$$#&"')(+)-'(%#@)$+B')<+@<"/,#@.)@+('$H)2@)K>%()<+@<'-@$)(>')
'G+"/(#+@)+C).'@,'-)$(/,#'$)#@)J+-(/.%"D)K')<%@)$%E)(>%()#()>%$)%<<+B?%@#',)(>')#@<-'%$#@.)?-'$'@<')
+C).'@,'-)#@)(>')?+"#(#<%")%@,)?/&"#<)%.'@,%H)V')>%G')%$$#$(',)#@)"%$()E'%-$)(+)(>')#@<-'%$')+C)-'$'%-<>)
?-+F'<($)K>#<>)B%#@)$/&F'<()#$).'@,'-D)&/()%"$+)(+)(>')$?-'%,)+C)$(/,#'$)(>%(D)@+()>%G#@.).'@,'-)%$)%)
<'@(-%") (+?#<D) #@<"/,') .'@,'-) %$) %@) %@%"E(#<%") ,#B'@$#+@D) #@) %@) 'CC'<(#G') .'@,'-) B%#@$(-'%B) #@)
$+<#+"+.#<%")-'$'%-<>H)
5>-+/.>)(>')E'%-$)#()K%$)%"$+)?+$$#&"')(+)%$$#$()(+)(>')-'<+@C#./-%(#+@)+C)(>#$)C#'",)+C)$(/,EH):'@M$)
$(/,#'$) >%G') .%#@',) B+-') $?%<') %@,) .'@,'-) #$) @+) "+@.'-) %$$/B',) (+) &') '[<"/$#G') (+) K+B'@) +-) (+)
C%B#"E),E@%B#<$H)
V>'@) K') +&$'-G') (>') $'[/%") <+B?+$#(#+@) +C) (>'$') -'$'%-<>'-$D) #() #$) @+(',) %) ?-+B#@'@<') +C)
K+B'@) $(/,E#@.) .'@,'-D) (>%() <+@C#-B$) (>%() $+<#+"+.#<%") -'$'%-<>D) %$) +(>'-) +<</?%(#+@%") %-'%$D) #$)
$(-/<(/-%""E)B%-L',)&E).'@,'-H)c"$+D)K')<%@)$%E)(>%()(>')?+$#(#+@)+C)K+B'@)$+<#+"+.#$($)#@)(>')"%&+/-)
B%-L'()$+B'>+K)%<<+B?%@#'$)(>').'@'-%")(-'@,$)+&$'-G',)#@)+(>'-)%-'%$)K#(>)B+-')B'@)+<</?E#@.)
-'$?+@$#&#"#(E)?+$#(#+@$)(>%@)K+B'@H)2@)(>#$)$?'<#C#<)<%$'D)K+B'@M$)?+$#(#+@)#@)%<%,'B#%)K%$)"%('"E)
<+@$+"#,%(',D)K>#<>)>'"?$)(+)'[?"%#@)K>E)B+-')B'@)>+",)(+?)?+$#(#+@$)(>%@)K+B'@H)='#@.)%)-'<'@()
,#$<#?"#@')#@)J+-(/.%"D)%@,)>%G#@.)K+B'@)%)$#.@#C#<%@()K'#.>()#@)$+<#+"+.E)$(/,'@($)%@,)-'$'%-<>'-$D)
#()#$)'[?'<(',)$+B')$(-/<(/-%")<>%@.'$)C+-)(>')C/(/-'D)%"(>+/.>)#B?+$$#&"')(+),'C#@')(>')-%@.')+C)(#B')
@'',',H))
$
('1'('"0',$$$$$$
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
cBu@<#+D) 8t.#%D) ') J%(-t<#%) vG#"%) 0STT\9D) hX) .o@'-+) @%) <#|@<#%iD) #@) d+-.') 1+--'#%) d'$/t@+) 0<++-,H9D) I#
@!-0"%*+*&#@%&"/J3%2+#E!(/070&.+#"!.#:%"+%.#*!#1K20$!#LLD)X'#-%$D)1'"(%)!,#(+-%H)
)
Q^)
cJ3) 0STTP9D) I# 1!2%!$!7%+# &# +# 1!2%&*+*&# E!(/070&.+# "+# M%(+7&-# *!# 1K20$!N# I2/+.# *!# B# @!"7(&..!#
E!(/070O.#*&#1!2%!$!7%+#PQ!$R#STD)8#$&+@D)!,#(+-#%")I-%.B'@(+$H)
cJ3)0STTZ9D)9./(0/0(+.#1!2%+%.#&#F&.&"Q!$Q%-&"/!N#I2/+.#*!#BB#@!"7(&..!#E!(/070O.#*&#1!2%!$!7%+#PQ!$R#
UTD)8#$&+@D)!,#(+-#%")I-%.B'@(+$H)
cJ3)0STTO9D)E(V/%2+.#&#E(!2&..!.#*+#D0*+"W+#1!2%+$N#I2/+.#*!#BBB#@!"7(&..!#E!(/070O.#*&#1!2%!$!7%+D)
X'#-%$D)1'"(%)!,#(+-%)01Y4*X:9H)
cJ3) 0QPPP9D) 1!2%&*+*&# E!(/070&.+# X# E+..+*!.# H&2&"/&.# :0/0(!.# E(YZ%-!.N# I2/+.# *!# BM# @!"7(&..!#
E!(/070O.#
*&#
1!2%!$!7%+D)
7@#G'-$#(E)
+C)
1+#B&-%D)
cJ3H)
cG%#"%&"')
%(W)
>((?W66KKKH%?$H?(6#@,'[H?>?q%-'%rPPSxB%-'%rPPZx#,y?/&rJ7=^OP%\P&SO]C,S)
cJ3)0QPP^9D)1!2%&*+*&.#@!"/&-'!(["&+.#X#H&3$&Z%Q%*+*&#&#I2W\!N#I2/+.#*!#M#@!"7(&..!#E!(/070O.#*&#
1!2%!$!7%+D)
=-%.%D)
7@#G'-$#(E)
+C)
:#@>+D)
cJ3H)
cG%#"%&"')
%(W)
>((?W66KKKH%?$H?(6#@,'[H?>?q%-'%rPPSxB%-'%rPPZx#,y?/&rJ7=^OP,^QPOSC,R%)
cJ3)0QPP]9D)MB#@!"7(&..!#E!(/070O.#*&#1!2%!$!7%+N#D0"*!.#1!2%+%.#X#1+?&(&.#&#E(V/%2+.D)8#$&+@D)cJ3H)
c-%wF+D)!Bt"#%)0QPP]9D)h:'$(-%,+$)'B)J+-(/.%"W)('@,|@<#%$)')B+,'"+$)+-.%@#N%(#G+$iD)#@)e2)@!"7(&..!#
E!(/070O.#*&#1!2%!$!7%+N#D0"*!.#1!2%+%.#X#1+?&(&.#&#E(V/%2+.D)8#$&+@D)cJ3H)
1/@>%D) 3%@,-%) 0QPP]9D) h}/'B) '$(/,%) +) A/|) 'B) J+-(/.%"W) /B%) %@s"#$') ,%) ?-+,/zn+) $+<#+"{.#<%)
?+-(/./'$%) @/B%) ?'-$?'<(#G%) ,') .o@'-+iD) 12!3) '4V+-L#@.) J%?'-) @~) \S6QPP]H) cG%#"%&"') %(W)
>((?W66<#'$H#$<('H?(6,'$(%A/'$6,+</B'@($612!34VJ\Sy1/@>%H?,C)
*/#G+D) ='%(-#N) 0ST]O9D) hc) B/">'-) ') +) ?+,'-) ?-+C#$$#+@%"W) %) B/">'-) 'B) %<(#G#,%,'$) ,') #@G'$(#.%zn+)
<#'@(tC#<%) 'B) J+-(/.%"iD) I"V$%.&# 1!2%+$D) G+"H) ll22D) @H~) TQ4TZD) ??H) OOT4O]PH) cG%#"%&"') %(W)
>((?W66%@%"#$'$+<#%"H#<$H/"H?(6,+</B'@(+$6SQQZ\\ZPTO1^%52S$"OIBQ^2I\H?,C)
3%@(+$D)a#@%)a%#+),+$)0QPPP9D)hX).o@'-+)@%)<#|@<#%W)+)<%$+)?%-(#</"%-),%)7@#G'-$#,%,'),+):#@>+iD)#@)
cJ3D)1!2%&*+*&#E!(/070&.+#X#E+..+*!.#H&2&"/&.#:0/0(!.#E(YZ%-!.N#I2/+.#*!#BM#@!"7(&..!#E!(/070O.#
*&#
1!2%!$!7%+D)
7@#G'-$#(E)
+C)
1+#B&-%D)
cJ3H)
cG%#"%&"')
%(W)
>((?W66KKKH%?$H?(6#@,'[H?>?q%-'%rPPSxB%-'%rPPZx#,y?/&rJ7=^OP%\P&SO]C,S)
)
&"'()*+",(
(
J+-(/./'$')X&$'-G%(+-E)+C)3<#'@<')%@,)_#.>'-)!,/<%(#+@D)>((?W66KKKH.?'%-#HB<('$H?()0QPPT6P^6SS9
3(%(#$(#<%")XCC#<')+C)(>')!/-+?'%@)1+BB/@#(#'$D)
>((?W66'??H'/-+$(%(H'<H'/-+?%H'/)0QPPT6P^6PO9)
2;!)3(%(#$(#<$)+C)J+-(/.%"D)
KKKH#@'H?()0QPPT6P^6S\9)
)
)
)
)
)
Q\)
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DOCTORATES?
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCES IN SWITZERLAND
2nd International RESUP Conference, Inequalities in Higher Education and Research,
Lausanne, 18-20 June 2009
Carole Probst, Centre for Organisational Research CORe, Faculty of Economics, Università
della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland, carole.probst@lu.unisi.ch
1
Introduction and framework for analysis
As other parts of higher education systems, the doctorate is currently confronted with
changing and increasing requirements of a wide range of stakeholders. While it is generally
still considered a conditio sine qua non for a researcher’s career, academia is by far no
longer the only possible employer for a doctoral degree holder. The importance of knowledge
for society at large, and thus also of the construction of knowledge through research
processes, has been clearly recognized, as is underlined in many national and international
policy documents, and manifest in initiatives as the European Research Area.
There is thus an increased awareness of the importance of the doctoral degree both inside
and outside academia, and there is a tendency towards more detailed regulation regarding
this degree, visible for example in the increasing number of doctoral schools and other
structured training offers in the field of the doctorate.
But even though the doctorate is more and more under observation by its different
stakeholders, and even though it is more and more organised, there are still many areas in it
that are not defined by a framework set through organisational structures, rules and
legislations. The doctorate varies among different national and disciplinary settings (see for
example Neave 1993; Kivinen et al. 1999; Sadlak 2004; Parry 2007), but generally a certain
part of the doctorate is still open to interpretation. To some extent, the doctorate can be
considered as a construct that emerges through and is shaped by social interaction (Blumer
1986), and thus results as a common construct of the actors involved in the process. This
process is to a large extent a process of multiple secondary socialisation (Berger and
Luckmann 1977; Austin 2002), of what Lave and Wenger call legitimate peripheral
participation to a community of practice (1991). In this socialisation process, not only
knowledge, but also social identities are transferred and specific perspectives are acquired
(Parry et al. 1994; Austin 2002; Campbell 2003; Parry 2007).
In this paper, I address the topic of the doctorate in a specific field with a focus on the
differences between the experiences of female and male doctoral students. In many
countries and disciplines, the share of women in academia still decreases with the degree
and employment levels. This is also true for the case looked at in my contribution:
Communication sciences in Switzerland. As many fields of social sciences, in this field
typically the majority of students are women. In Switzerland in 2007/08, 63.8% of all
Bachelor, 69.9% of all Master and 57.7% of all doctoral students were female. When looking
at the academic profession, however, men dominate. In social sciences and humanities in
Switzerland, the share of women (2007) at the level of assistants is at 55.5%, the share of
female professors is 24.5%, and among other teachers 41.6% are women (source: Swiss
Statistics1). In Communication sciences, 14 out of the 67 professors listed on the universities’
websites in spring 2006 were women (see also Probst and Lepori 2007; Lepori and Probst
2009).
In this study, I look thus at the process and degree that can be considered as the bridge
between the role of a student and the role of a member of the academic profession, thus at
the latest stage in an academic career in which, in Communication sciences, but alos in
many other fields, women dominate in terms of numbers. I am interested in the way in which
the construction of meaning attributed to the doctorate occurs, mainly from the point of view
of the doctoral students, and to what extent gender differences are visible in this construction
of meaning and the resulting doctoral process.
For this contribution, I deepen the analysis of interviews with doctoral students and
supervisors that I conducted in 2007/2008 for an in-depth study on the doctorate in
communication sciences in Switzerland (Probst 2008 / 2009; Probst and Lepori 2008). The
following analysis is illustrated by extracts from the interviews2 as well as by some data from
the sample3.
2
The sample: differences between male and female doctoral students
For the study on whose results this paper is based, 41 doctoral students and 14 supervisors
from all three linguistic regions of Switzerland (German, French, Italian) have been
interviewed regarding their experiences with and ideas about the doctorate. All eight Swiss
universities in which, at the moment of the interviews, it was possible to do a doctorate in
communication sciences are represented in the sample.
The sample is composed of 23 female and 18 male doctoral students. This distribution
among male and female doctoral students represents quite exactly the distribution in the
whole population, as measured through a survey done by the Swiss Association of
1
www.statistik.admin.ch (10.12.2008)
Interview extracts have been translated by the author.
3
These data refer to a sample of 41 doctoral students. While it can be considered as quite representative for the
situation in Swiss communication sciences (covering around one third to half of the population), these data do not
allow for generalisation beyond this context, but might indicate some tendencies that could also be found in other
fields and countries.
2
Communication and Media Research in Winter 2007/08: the total population (123 doctoral
students) is composed by 73 female and 49 male doctoral students4.
Most of the doctoral students in the sample are employed by the university where they are
enrolled for the doctorate and often report directly to their supervisor also regarding their
employment duties. The age of doctoral students in the sample varies between 26 and 45
years, with an average of 31 years (female doctoral students: 32.2 years, male doctoral
students: 29.3 years). The sampling reflects the linguistic diversity of Switzerland: it covers
doctoral students from all three linguistic regions as well as doctoral students from foreign
countries, who came to Switzerland for the doctorate.
Doctoral students in the sample are in different years and stages of their doctorates: At the
moment of the interview, 3 were in their first year, 11 in the second, 4 in the third, 12 in the
fourth, 9 in the fifth, and 2 in the sixth year. 23 out of the 41 doctoral students in the sample
have their main academic background (major of graduate degree) in communication
sciences, while 8 have a minor in a field connected with communication and/or media. The
remaining 10 doctoral students do not have any previous academic background in
communication sciences, reflecting thus the broad disciplinary variety within the field of
communication sciences. Diversity within the field of communication sciences is also
reflected when looking at the research topics of doctoral students: the area with the highest
number of doctoral students in the sample working on it, organisational communication, is
covered by less than one third of the sample.
3
The process of the doctorate
The original study was interested in understanding differentiation in the doctorate in Swiss
Communication sciences, but was not particularly interested in gender differences. A closer
analysis of the data, however, reveals some interesting differences, which will be presented
in the following paragraphs. It is clear that these differences appear within a selected sample,
and therefore can not be generalised, but they nevertheless show some interesting food for
thought regarding differences between male and female doctoral students.
As Switzerland is a federal country in which quite some authority on higher education is
located at the cantonal level, laws and regulations regarding universities differ at the cantonal
level. This includes also regulations on the doctorate – there is no common regulation at the
national level. The influence of the discussions at the European level in the context of the
Bologna process is visible: There seems to be a recent tendency towards the inclusion of
more formal elements in the doctorate – for example the request to collect a certain amount
of ECTS credit points by attending courses or actively participating in the knowledge
discourse of the scientific community through publications and conference presentations, or
the implementation of organised training courses covering the whole period of the doctorate.
4
As this information was not contained in the survey by the Swiss Association of Communication and Media
Research, gender was deducted from the names of the doctoral students. In one case, it was not possible to
identify gender.
Besides a few exceptions, however, the doctorate seems to be rather under-regulated.
During the interviews, a certain leeway for interpretation of the regulations emerged. Overall,
it seems that the organisational setting of the doctorate, defined mostly through the
regulations, does have only a limited influence on the doctoral process, while individual
interpretation and expectations seem to be more important factors shaping the doctoral
experience.
In the following paragraphs, some aspects of the doctorate in which gender differences
appear or could be expected are presented.
3.1
Starting the doctorate
There are different reasons for taking the decision to start a doctorate, and different actors
can influence on this decision. Reasons mentioned by doctoral students in the sample can
be grouped in the following categories:
•
Previous experience and contacts: An employment as student assistant or previous
research experience can be an entry to a doctorate. Instead of a conscious decision
for doing something new, in this case the decision to take a doctorate is rather a
decision to continue with previous experiences. In many cases the influence of a
professor during the end of undergraduate studies is visible, as shows the following
extract from an interview:
Some professors told me that they could imagine me in an academic environment,
because they saw that I like it to do presentations, that I am good in explaining things,
and interested in scientific work, statistics, and so on. I was aware of this, but I never
considered doing a doctorate as an option.
•
Doctoral student (f)
A cognitive challenge and opportunity to learn: Several doctoral students consider the
doctorate as a possibility to continue cognitive work, to deepen a topic they have
discovered during their studies, or to specialise in an area they are particularly
interested in.
I felt that there was something missing. After my studies, I realised that there were
certain things that were in suspense, things to understand. I felt like I wanted to
understand more. There was something specific I always felt attracted to, I didn’t
succeed to do it before, I wanted to do it.
•
Doctoral student (m)
Possibility for reflection: Another type of cognitive reasons for doing a doctorate is the
possibility to reflect previous (mainly professional) experience. Doctoral students
starting a doctorate for this reason usually have already some years of professional
experience and often also plan to go back to their previous activities after finishing the
doctorate.
My job was quite exhausting, and I somehow thought now let’s do it from the other
side, I have a look at what exists, at the scientific context – well, what does it mean… I
do this doctoral thesis.
Doctoral student (f)
•
Attractiveness of the academic profession and other future career possibilities:
Interestingly, career possibilities through the doctoral degree do not emerge as very
important reasons for doing a doctorate. Some doctoral students mention the
doctorate as a step in their professional career, and some see the possibility to
become an academic as a reason for doing a doctorate, as this example shows:
I always liked it to read, to learn, to do intellectual work. To think that some day they
will pay me for doing it – that’s not a too bad idea.
•
Doctoral student (m)
Emotional reasons: There are also more emotional reasons for doing a doctorate –
for example the fact that one’s partner is also doing a doctorate, or the challenge
provided by the doctorate (“I want to show myself that I am able to do this”).
I want to have this doctoral degree. Not to write it on my doorbell panel, but I want to
have it. It also allows me to prove something – if you have a doctoral degree, then
they have to believe that you’re able to do something.
Doctoral student (f)
Several doctoral students in the sample started their doctorate rather by coincidence: at the
end of their studies, they were offered the possibility of an assistant position (connected with
the request to do a doctorate) without searching for it, and decided to start with it – “why
not?” is often mentioned as “reason” for doing a doctorate.
Another point in which the decision of doing a doctorate differs consists in the moment in
which one starts a doctorate: More than half of the sample (24 doctoral students) have
started their doctorate within one year from their first graduation, six more within two years.
Only in six cases, the time that elapsed between the first degree and the start of the
doctorate was longer than five years.
Regarding these points, rather clear gender differences appear within the sample: while 8 out
of the 23 female doctoral students have started their doctorate only at least four years after
their first degree, all but one of the 18 male doctoral students began a doctorate within three
years after graduation. As it seems that an early decision for a doctorate increases the
likelihood that an individual becomes professor (Lind 2004), this might also have an influence
on the future career of female and male doctoral degree holders.
In fact, this is visible in the sample: Female doctoral students starting their doctorate several
years after their first degree often indicate the wish to deepen a topic or to reflect their
practical work as the reason for doing a doctorate – and thus often also say that after the
doctorate, they plan to go back to their previous work after the doctorate or at least to wish to
combine elements of their previous work with part-time work in academia.
3.2
Integration into a scientific community
The doctorate as a degree is a condition for a scientific career. Also, the doctoral process is
often seen as preparing for an academic career, as a socialisation process to the role of an
academic. Academic work also includes participation in a scientific community, in the
knowledge discourse. To what extent does this participation occur already during the
doctorate?
Doctoral students in the sample were asked to provide their publication list, and to indicate
contacts they have with researchers within their own higher education institution, but also
elsewhere. Additionally, they were asked to indicate whether they feel like belonging to a
scientific community.
These three dimensions showed to be linked: doctoral students with a higher publication
activity often reported also intensive contacts with researchers at foreign research institutions
as well as a rather high feeling of belonging to a scientific community.
To be an active participant in the scientific community seems to be a very positive
experience of doctoral students:
[At international conferences] there are researchers in your panel that address things
where you have a say in the matter, they know what you are talking about, you can
discuss with them.
Doctoral student (m)
Supervisors, however, differ in their ideas about active participation in the scientific
community. Some supervisors encourage it:
I encourage them to write out things. I encourage them to develop their research in a
kind of value chain, to think in a managerial, product-oriented way. First, one does a
research note, then probably a working paper, a conference submission, a journal
article, a book chapter and then probably even a book, or the dissertation.
Supervisor (m)
Others see this kind of activities as not compatible with writing a doctorate. In the following
citation, it comes clear that this supervisor does not consider a doctorate as something
emerging in dialogue with the scientific community, but as something that has to be finished
before presenting it.
Peer-reviewed articles presuppose that one has done research. Thus they cannot do
it, if they don’t have another project besides their dissertation, except if they publish
from their master thesis. This means that at the moment [of the doctorate], it is not
possible that many publications emerge.
Supervisor (m)
Overall, both doctoral students and supervisors see challenges regarding publication and
presentation activities during the doctorate (mainly due to time or financial constraints), but
the majority of the interviewed persons consider exposure to the scientific community as
beneficial, for example to get qualified feedback by other researchers than the supervisor, to
get used to the ways in which the scientific community evaluates, but also to establish
oneself in the field, to define one’s identity, and to connect one’s work with the field. Thus
participation is not only seen as positive in order to enhance the quality of the doctoral
dissertation, but also to prepare the grounds for a future career in the academic and scientific
environment.
However, there are also doctoral students who clearly state that they do not wish to pursue
an academic career, and that therefore they prefer to invest in other things than participation
in the community:
I’ve made only a few publications, not connected to my doctorate. This is also
connected to the fact that I always thought that I would leave the academic system. I
would not even have had time.
Doctoral student (m)
When looking at publication activity of male and female doctoral students, clear differences
appear. While among those doctoral students with a scientific output of more than two
publications and/or conference presentations per year of their doctorate (“very active” in
Figure 0), differences are rather small (5 out of the 23 female doctoral students and 7 out of
the 18 male doctoral students belong to this group), they become more intensive when
looking at less active doctoral students. 7 out of the remaining 11 male doctoral students
have on average between one and two outputs per year (“active”), 2 have less than one
output (“slightly active”), and 2 do not have any output at all (“inactive”). For the female
doctoral students, the inverse holds true: 3 out of the remaining 18 doctoral students have on
average between one and two outputs per year, 6 less than one and 9 do not have any
output at all. Even though the numbers are small, some tendency can be observed (see
Figure 0)
Figure 0: Gender differences in publication activity
Generally, more than half of all doctoral students state that they feel at least partially like
being part of an international scientific community. Among male doctoral students, this share
is, however, higher than among female doctoral students. Male doctoral students also seem
to be more proactive when it comes to contributing to the scientific community: Female
doctoral students most often write their publications and conference papers with one coauthor, while among male doctoral students single-authorship is more frequent. In multi-
authored publications and presentations, male doctoral students appear more often as first
author than female doctoral students, even though here the difference is less salient.
Doctoral students without publications often state that they do not have time to publish,
because they are so much immersed in local activities, mainly in teaching, administration and
local research and service projects. Overall, it seems that the environment does have a
certain influence on the publication activity: doctoral students who are highly active in the
scientific community are often encouraged by their supervisor to do so, and often publish
also together with their supervisor. Some supervisors also establish a local culture in favour
of active participation in the scientific community:
There is an internal pressure, a competition, in the culture of the institute to outdo
each other. We publish this [publications, conference presentations] in our newsletter.
If someone has written a paper that has received particularly positive evaluation, we
mention it at the institutes’ s aperitif.
Supervisor (m)
3.3
Future career plans
At the moment of the interviews, 15 out of the 41 doctoral students were undecided about
their plans for the future after the doctorate (8 female and 7 male doctoral students). Most of
them, however, were in a rather early stage of their doctorate. The other 26 doctoral students
had quite clear ideas about their future. 12 (6 female, 6 male) stated to prefer an academic
career, 9 (4 female, 5 male) rather saw their future outside academia. The remaining five
doctoral students – all female – stated that they wish to combine elements of an academic
career with professional activity outside academia.
Career plans seem, at least to a certain extent, also to be linked with the degree of active
participation in a scientific community: while 9 out of the 12 doctoral students planning a
career in the academic environment are very active or active participants in a scientific
community and 2 more have at least some publication activity, doctoral students without
active participation in the scientific community rather tend to aim at a non-academic career,
or at least to combine both.
When looking only at those doctoral students with a very active participation in the scientific
community, thus those who at first sight seem to be most likely to pursue an academic
career, an interesting gender difference appears: out of the 12 very active doctoral students,
5 are female. 4 out of them state that they plan an academic career, or wish to combine
academic and non-academic elements. Out of the 7 male doctoral students in this group,
only 3 state that they plan an academic career, while the remaining 4 are undecided. Thus,
one could say that, in this sample, those female doctoral students who experience a
doctorate that involves them strongly in a scientific community are more likely to plan an
academic career than their male counterparts.
An additional interesting difference appears when looking at those doctoral students wishing
to combine elements of an academic and a non-academic career: there are five doctoral
students in the sample with this idea about their future, and they are all female. Out of them,
three already had several years of professional activity before starting the doctorate, while
the other two engaged in non-academic activities during their doctorate, one of them writing
her doctorate in the context of this activity:
I would like… I like the work at university; if possible I would like to continue. I would like to
spend some time at another university, probably not right now, non necessarily abroad, I
would like to go to [the other university in Switzerland with which I collaborate] […] I would
also like to keep in touch with the professional world, but I would not want to have a 50%
there, but to have it rather as a complement. If tomorrow morning they would ask me whether I
would like to change work… I would say no. […] But I would like to practice a little bit, yes.
Doctoral student (f)
The interviews show that the period of the doctorate is also a period of orientation regarding
future career possibilities. Most of the doctoral students that stated to be undecided about
their future career are still rather at the beginning of their doctorate. In their answers, it
comes clear that they also have doubts and perplexities about a possible academic career,
both about their own capacity and willingness to fulfil the requirements of an academic career
as well as about the availability of jobs:
What perplexes me is the path to follow after the doctorate, for doing an academic career. I
don’t see it as a stable thing, I see a period full of incertitude after the doctorate, you have to
be ready to abandon everything, to departure, to search for a position everywhere. It doesn’t
seem to me that the offer is big enough to allow for choices, and I ask myself whether this is
really what I want or not. I like academic work, it’s flexible, interesting, an ongoing
improvement, nice, you do research, what I like doing, but on the other hand I don’t know
whether I will be ready to go through five or six years travelling around the world, looking for a
job.
Doctoral student (f)
Even though this is an example of a female doctoral student, similar considerations are made
also by male doctoral students. Besides the rootless life of a young academic, also financial
restrictions are mentioned. But also the academic profession as such is assessed critically:
If you think what a professor is doing, he is not doing research himself, probably he still writes
books, but that’s textbooks, not something that is really about new stuff. Thus, a professoriate
is rather research management than research. (...) for me it’s not about staying at the
university, it’s about doing research. In this respect, a professoriate is the thing that is
associated with the highest reputation, the highest salary, but, occasionally, in terms of
content, it could be more interesting to be a research associate.
Doctoral student (m)
From the interviews with doctoral students, it comes clear that the academic career is not the
only possible future they consider. This is also reflected in the point of view of most
supervisors, who often allude to the fact that jobs in academia are distributed in a pyramidlike form. Many supervisors underline that a doctorate should also train competencies that
are applicable outside the academic context.
My aim is that people getting out from here (...) are able to organise themselves in a manifold
way and to do a variety of things. It’s not necessary that people automatically go into science.
The aim is obviously to train people who potentially are able to do this. But if somebody says I
now want to leave for three, five years, probably I will come back later, at a university of
applied sciences – this would be my ideal, a big success. I think that evaluation that measures
only who becomes a professor afterwards is truncated, also economically. The aim cannot be
to produce offspring. It must be something that enhances reflexivity, with people who are able
to apply their reflexive competence also elsewhere, for example in public administration.
Supervisor (m)
4
Constructing the doctorate
The doctorate can be considered as a situation where an actor – the doctoral student, with
his own beliefs and experiences – interacts with an environment – an institutional, academic
and scientific context, of which also the supervisor is part. In this environment, certain beliefs
about the doctorate are manifest, for example made explicit in regulations or organisational
structures. Other beliefs of the environment remain implicit, including for example the
supervisor’s ideas about what a doctorate is.
In the interaction between the doctoral student and the environment, the doctoral process is
shaped. Beliefs of actor and environment have their influence on the process. While the
environment is usually rather stable (regulations rarely change substantially within the period
of a doctorate), the actor often changes during the process. In interaction with the
environment, be it at the local level or beyond, the doctoral student makes experiences that
shape his or her own beliefs about the doctorate, but also about the academic profession
and other possible future pathways once obtained the doctoral degree.
This iterative shaping of the doctorate is clearly visible in the interviews. Doctoral students
often start a doctorate without clear ideas, neither about the process nor about what they
want to do afterwards. It is for the first time that they embark for such an experience, and the
situation is usually characterised by bounded rationality (Simon 1991). During the process,
ideas get clearer, influenced by experiences and observations made during the doctorate,
but also shaped by the beliefs that are encountered in the environment. Also supervisors
influence – consciously or not – on the doctoral process. Even though a few doctoral
students in the sample state that they prefer doing their doctorate without supervision, in
most cases the crucial function of the supervision process is visible. While some supervisors
expect the doctoral students to be active and contact them, others consciously co-construct
the process of the doctorate, considering the needs and also plans for the future of the
doctoral students.
When beliefs between the actor and the environment are not compatible, conflicts both
regarding content and process of the doctorate can emerge. The investment in a doctorate,
however, is high both for the doctoral student and the environment (particularly the
supervisor), and usually solutions to conflicts are arranged within the existing setting. Only
rarely drastic changes are made in order to resolve conflicts – for example, in the whole
sample of 41 doctoral students, only one reported to have changed the supervisor because
of a conflict.
But do the construction of beliefs and meaning and the resulting process of the doctorate
differ between male and female doctoral students? The above presented extract of the
analysis shows that within the sample at hand some gender differences appear. While these
differences are limited, at least at first sight, regarding the declared plans for future careers,
they are rather striking when looking at integration to the scientific community. However, the
sample also offers a possible explanation of the differences:
In the sample, male doctoral students form a more homogeneous group than female doctoral
students. From the point of view of their age, they are less diverse than their female
counterparts: the youngest male doctoral student in the sample had 26 years at the moment
of the interview, while the oldest one was 33 years old. Among female doctoral students, age
ranged between 26 and 45. This is also reflected in previous professional experiences: while
several female doctoral students have had considerable professional experience before
starting the doctorate, this holds true for only two male doctoral students, to a lesser extent.
This indicates that, within the sample analysed for this study, male and female doctoral
students have diverging starting points into their doctorate, and correspondingly have
diverging ideas and expectations about their doctorate. Even though the general number of
male and female doctoral students is quite equal, the number of “classical” doctoral students,
starting their doctorate immediately after their first degree and without much professional
background, is not equally distributed.
Doctoral students with considerable previous professional experience are clearly in a
different situation than their colleagues who started the doctorate immediately or soon after
graduation. While the decision to start a doctorate is often connected to external factors in
the case of the latter – for example a professor proposing an assistant position with the
possibility to do a doctorate – this decision seems to be taken much more consciously in the
case of the former. Doctoral students with professional experience often have very clear and
pragmatic reasons for which they do a doctorate, they are rather targeted and also try to
shape their doctorate in order to suit their needs. This does not necessarily mean that it
takes them less time – they often also have (private and professional) activities outside their
doctorate that are important to them, and therefore they accept that their doctorate might
take longer than in the case of their younger colleagues. Also the role within the
organisational unit can be different: doctoral student with previous professional experience
often also perform tasks directly linked to their experience, for example a doctoral student
with a professional background in public relations who takes over the responsibility for the
institute’s PR, or a doctoral student with practical experience in a field that is taught by the
institute taking over the responsibility for lectures or seminars.
5
Conclusions
Overall, it seems indeed that there are different types of doctorates, even though officially in
the Swiss context no differentiation in this degree exists. The doctorate as it is presented by
this study allows for different types of outputs, and seems to be tailored to fit the needs of
both doctoral students and their environments. Socialisation processes do occur, but not
necessarily only to the international scientific community. Also a doctorate without many
contacts to other researchers can be considered as a successful experience – most doctoral
students in the sample state that they would again decide for a doctorate, even though many
of them do not aim at an academic career.
Even though this is a small-scale study, some differences between female and male doctoral
students are visible. The results seem to confirm findings of other studies (see for example
Krais and Krumpeter 1997; Leonard 1997; Fox 2001; Lind 2004): female doctoral students
tend to take the decision for doing a doctorate rather because of their personal interest than
because of academic aspirations, and they often experience lower levels of integration into
academic and scientific contexts – as the sample shows, this varying integration might also
be connected to the aims the doctoral students pursue with this degree.
On the other hand, the sample shows that there are younger female doctoral students who
are very active participants in the scientific community and who clearly aim at an academic
career5. The main observed difference between male and female doctoral students in the
study at hand is probably the fact that female doctoral students differ more among
themselves than their male counterparts, thus the variety of female doctoral pathways seems
broader.
It is clear, however, that the presented study has its limitations. As the aim of the original
study was not to look at gender differences, this aspect was not considered during the
sampling procedure, and no specific questions regarding gender experiences were asked. It
is also possible that the broader variety of female doctoral pathways is due to a bias in the
sample, for example a lower availability of male doctoral students with previous professional
experience to answer interview requests. Overall, however, the sample covers around one
third of the population of doctoral students in communication sciences in Switzerland at the
moment of the interviews, and represents the gender distribution of the population quite
correctly.
References
Austin, A. E. 2002. "Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate School as Socialization to the
Academic Career." The Journal of Higher Education 73(1): 94-122.
Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. 1977. Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie
der Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
Blumer, H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Campbell, R. A. 2003. "Preparing the Next Generation of Scientists: The Social Process of Managing
Students." Social Studies of Science 33(6): 897-927.
Fox, M. F. 2001. "Women, Science, and Academia: Graduate Education and Careers." Gender and
Society:654-666.
5
Some of them already have finished their doctorate by now and still are on this track
Kivinen, O., Ahola, S. and Kaipainen, P., editors. 1999. Towards the European Model of Postgraduate
Training. Turku: Painosalama Oy: Research Unit for the Sociology of Education (RUSE),
Research Report 50. University of Turku.
Krais, B. and Krumpeter, T. 1997. Wissenschaftskultur und weibliche Karrieren. MPG-Spiegel 3/97,
available at http://www.planck.de/pdf/frauen/beruflicheWerdegaengeMpi.pdf (11.12.2008).
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, D. 1997. "Gender Issues in Doctoral Studies." Pp. 152-183 in Working for a Doctorate: A
Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences, edited by Graves, N. and Varma, V. London:
Routledge.
Lepori, B. and Probst, C. 2009. "Using Curriculum Vitae for Mapping Scientific Fields. A small-scale
experience for Swiss Communication Sciences." Research Evaluation forthcoming.
Lind,
I. 2004. Aufstieg oder Ausstieg? Karrierewege
Forschungsüberblick. Bielefeld: Kleine Verlag.
von
Wissenschaftlerinnen.
Ein
Neave, G. 1993. "Séparation de Corps: The Training of Advanced Students and the Organization of
Research in France." Pp. 159-191 in The Research Foundations of Graduate Education, edited
by Clark, B. R. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.
Parry, O., Atkinson, P. and Delamont, S. 1994. "Disciplinary Identities and Doctoral Work." Pp. 34-52
in Postgraduate Education and Training in the Social Sciences, edited by Burgess, R. G. London,
Bristol, Pennsylvania: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Parry, S. 2007. Disciplines and Doctorates. Dordrecht: Springer.
Probst, C. 2008. "Der Vielfalt und den verschiedenen Bedürfnissen angepasst - das
kommunikationswissenschaftliche Doktorat in der Schweiz." Studies in Communication Sciences
8(1): 133-159.
Probst, C. 2009. "Serving Different Masters. The Communication Doctorate in the Knowledge
Society." Doctoral dissertation at the Faculty of Communication Sciences, Università della
Svizzera italiana, Lugano.
Probst,
C.
and
Lepori,
B.
2007.
"Für
eine
Kartographie
der
Schweizer
Kommunikationswissenschaften. Methodologische Ueberlegungen und ausgewählte Resultate."
Studies in Communication Sciences 7(1): 253-270.
Probst, C. and Lepori, B. 2008. "What is a Doctorate? Changing Meanings and Practices in
Communication Sciences in Switzerland." European Journal of Education 43(4): 477-494.
Sadlak, J. 2004. Doctoral Studies and Qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and
Prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Simon, H. A. 1991. "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning." Organization Science
2(1):125-134.
Construire l’égalité
The ‘Leaky Pipeline’ in Switzerland: What is causing women to
drop out of academic research and careers at senior levels?
Regula Julia Leemann*, Stefan Boes** and Sandra Da Rin*
Paper to present at the 2nd International RESUP-OSPS Conference Lausanne
Inequalities in Higher Education and Research
2nd International RESUP Conference
Lausanne, 18th-20th of June 2009
Conference organised by the Study Network on Higher Education (RESUP)
in partnership with the Observatory for Science, Policy and Society (OSPS)
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (SSP)
University of Lausanne (UNIL)
* Prof. Dr. Regula Julia Leemann
* lic. phil. Sandra Da Rin
University of Teacher Education Zurich
email: regulaleemann@bluewin.ch, sdarin@bluewin.ch
** Dr. Stefan Boes
University of Zurich, Socioeconomic Institute, email: boes@sts.uzh.ch, and
Harvard University, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, email: sboes@iq.harvard.edu
-1-
Abstract
The disproportional loss of qualified women out of research and academic work is a wellknown phenomenon and metaphorically termed ‘The Leaky Pipeline’. In this study,
commissioned by the Swiss National Science Foundation, we analyze three potential
factors that may lead to the gender-specific drop out rates, namely research funding,
aspects of integration into the scientific community, and domestic factors. Using a
supplementary module included in the second 2007 wave of the Swiss Graduate Survey,
as well as in-depth interviews with a selected group of young researchers, we identify two
core problems leading to the disproportional loss of women: First, female post-docs
experience poorer integration into the scientific community. Second, women following
academic and research career paths typically encounter more difficulties in combining
scientific work and family. Our results do not indicate, however, gender-specific
differences in research funding that may relate to the leaky pipeline.
-2-
1 Introduction
A loss of qualified people at each stage of an academic career is intended and part of an
elite recruitment process. The respective losses are socially legitimate if they are based on
achievement and not on ascription criteria (Merton 1973 [1942]). Contrary to this
universalistic norm in modern societies, cross-sectional analyses of academic career paths
indicate for all countries in Europe a disproportional loss of women on their way to a full
professorship, a phenomenon that is metaphorically termed as “The Leaky Pipeline”
(European Commission 2008, 16ff.).
Despite having achieved a significant improvement in the equality of men and women
in professional and social life over the last decades (Hausmann, Tyson, Zahidi 2008),
Switzerland is still characterized by a substantial amount of gender inequality in working
life in general, and in academic career trajectories in particular. The aim of this paper is to
shed light on the major reasons behind the leaky pipeline as observed in Switzerland. We
focus on the interrelated contexts of research funding, aspects of integration into the
scientific community, as well as domestic factors in order to better understand the causes
of high gender-specific drop out rates for women in academic careers.
The paper is based on our study “Gender and Research Funding”, commissioned by
the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).1 The analysis is based, on the one hand,
on records about individual educational career paths, drawn from the Swiss Higher
Education Information System of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, to obtain a clearer
picture of the leaky pipeline inside the Swiss university system. On the other hand, we
investigate possible reasons behind the leaky pipeline – in particular the question of
access to research funding, the likelihood to get approved funding by the SNSF, the role
of academic integration, and the dimension of reconciling family and research all in the
perspective of gender inequalities. For this purpose, we questioned in 2007 a number of
university graduates who were awarded their PhD in 2002 about the course of their
academic career paths – as part of the Swiss Graduate Survey in cooperation with the
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. Furthermore, the research group evaluated the first-time
applications submitted to the SNSF in the researcher’s own name between 2002 and 2006
1
See
http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/wom_ber_gefo_synthesis_report_e.pdf
for a more detailed description of the research project and an overview of the results. Project
leaders: Regula Julia Leemann and Heidi Stutz. Project participants: Regula Julia Leemann,
Andrea Keck, Sandra Da Rin, Susan Gürber (University of Teacher Education Zurich); Heidi
Stutz, Philipp Dubach, Jürg Guggisberg, Gesine Fuchs, Silvia Strub (Centre for Labour and Social
Policy Studies (BASS), Berne); Katrin Schönfisch, Sabina Schmidlin (Federal Statistical Office ),
Neuchâtel); Irène Schwob, Shams Ahrenbeck, Karin Müller (Service de la recherche en éducation,
(SRED), Geneva); Stefan Boes (Socioeconomic Institute, University of Zurich)
-3-
for project funding or an SNSF professorship, based on data from the application
administration system of the SNSF. Additionally, we conducted in-depth interviews with
a selected group of young researchers from various disciplines.
The paper is structured as follows. After a theoretical framing and description of the
empirical design and the two datasets (Sections 2 and 3), we will draw a rough sketch of
the leaky pipeline inside the Swiss university system and give a brief summary of the
results for research funding by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Sections 4 and 5).
We then consider the two core problems leading to a disproportional loss of women in
academic careers: The worse support of young female researchers by mentors (Section 6),
and their greater difficulties in combining research and family duties (Section 7). The
paper ends with some concluding remarks and provides an outlook for further research
required in this area (Section 8).
2 The academic field and the exclusion of women: Theoretical positions
In recent years, a number of studies have been carried out which usefully apply
Bourdieu’s concepts of (academic) field and habitus, doxa and illusio, symbolic power
and different forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986, 1990; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992;
Bourdieu, Passeron, de Saint Martin 1994) to the unequal integration of women and men
into the scientific community (Krais 2000, Engler 2001, Beaufaÿs 2003). This theoretical
perspective is guiding our own research and empirical analysis.
Krais (2000, 2002) posits that, within the "agonal structure" in academia, which is
about competition and rivalry, women are never the first to be included in the "game", the
"arena of contest", or the symbolic struggles for university power and academic
recognition. Since academic reputation can only be developed through social engagement
with "the same" and through recognition and appreciation by "the same", women are
excluded from competition (symbolic power). As a result, they withdraw from the game,
in which they have never been taken seriously as players.
Furthermore, the norms and values of the academic field (doxa) require and demand of
academics the adherence of their whole life to academic work (academia as a form of
life). As a result, all other parts, especially family life and children with their not always
predictable demands, are set apart and the support of an academic career by the partner
and/or the family is just taken for granted (Hochschild 1975, Krais 2008). As most of the
women are still responsible for childcare duties and cannot rely on a partner who is
willing to cut back on his own career in favour of her career, female academics are in a
disadvantage.
In order to conceptualise the dimension of reconciling family and academic career we
draw on the analytic framework of linked or coupled lives by Krüger and Levy (2000,
-4-
2001), which is linked to partnership and marked by gender inequalities through various
connections to family and career. The authors point out that different dimensions have to
be taken into account to capture the full complexity of life courses: (a) life courses are not
individual projects but projects of family members and partners, (b) aspects of
simultaneous social participation of the partners in different social fields are important
characteristics, (c) institutionalisation has, beneath its cultural dimensions, also structural
roots or organizational forms (e.g., opening hours of day-nurseries), (d) gender as a
master status structures the life course unequally for men and women.
3 The data
3.1 The survey of 2002 university PhD graduates (panel 2003/2007)
With the data from the Swiss Graduates Survey regularly carried out by the Swiss Federal
Statistical Office we are able to examine and to explain various factors for the higher
exclusion rates of female academics in the postdoctoral period. All university graduates
awarded a PhD in 20022 were questioned in 2003 and 2007 on their career developments,
professional training, family situation, social background and other socio-economic
factors. In the wave of 2003, there was an additional module inserted in the context of
evaluating the Swiss Federal Equal Opportunity at Universities Programme with
questions on support at universities and on participation in different promotion
programmes during the doctoral period. A supplementary module was also included in
the 2007 wave in the context of our study on topics of academic career. In particular, we
have collected data on academic integration (networks, mentors) and achievement
(applications to research funding institutions, publications).3
Compared to the initial population of PhD graduates in 2002 (N=1689), there were
538 people in the second wave with valid entries for both surveys, which yields a total
return rate of 31.9%. Since not all of the people who were surveyed filled out the
2
With the exception of a) the University of St. Gallen and the University of Basel, which
did not supply the addresses of doctoral graduates to the Federal Statistical Office and b) the areas
of “medicine and pharmacy”, which contributed only a few isolated subjects to the study, as the
doctoral graduates from 2002 were only included if they passed the state examination at the same
time (due to the different significance attributed to the doctorate in medicine). The results from
this disciplinary field are therefore invalid and will not receive further comment.
3
Inserted by the authors in the context of the study “Geschlecht und Forschungsförderung
(GEFO)” (Gender and Research Funding). The questionnaires of both waves are available online
under:
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/infothek/erhebungen__quellen/blank/blank/bha/02.ht
ml (Panel of the University Graduates in 2002).
-5-
particular supplementary module, however, the available number of observations for the
analyses comes down to 470 people (total return rate: 27.8%).4
The analyses are weighted. The weighting factor provided by the Swiss Federal
Statistical Office indicates the inverse probability that a particular observation based on
the sampling design will be contained in the sample. Since scientific careers take different
institutional forms according to discipline and language region, the multivariate analyses
control for subject areas and the German as opposed to the French speaking part of
Switzerland. All calculations are carried out in Stata (Version 10).
3.2 Interviews with young researchers from different disciplines
In addition, we conducted 45 in-depth interviews with a selected group of researchers
who either had graduated with a PhD in 2002 or had submitted their first application for a
research funding to the SNF between 2002 and 2006. The aim of the interviews was to
evaluate subjective experiences, motivations, and reasons for undertaking academic
career paths, or for leaving the academic/university sector.
The interviews were carried out across Switzerland (via personal interviews) and
abroad (via telephone interviews). The interviewees were chosen to reflect as broad and
comprehensive an image as possible of the various career and private life (family)
realities in the different disciplines. At the current stage of our analysis, 15 interviews are
subjected to more in-depth analysis using Strauss and Corbin’s Grounded Theory model.
We explored the meanings of different topics in an academic career (research funding,
mentoring, geographical mobility, etc.) for the self-conception of the upcoming
researchers, for the process of becoming an academically recognised personality, for the
formation of their own academic career trajectory, for their positioning in the academic
field, or for their withdrawal from academia.
4 The leaky pipeline inside the Swiss university system
An analysis of the leaky pipeline in Switzerland shows that at the relevant transition
points of doctorate and habilitation, a disproportionately large number of women drops
out of the academic system in comparison to men.5 Furthermore, the results indicate that
we have to consider discipline-specific differences while referring to the picture of the
4
A comparative analysis of the two samples shows no significant differences in the
distribution of gender, region, and disciplines. Therefore, we deem it reasonable to assume a
random drop out of PhD Graduates from the survey.
5
These analyses are based on statistical data about individuals in the Swiss university
system, the “Swiss Higher Education Information System”.
-6-
leaky pipeline. Without the academic inflow of women from abroad at the doctoral level
and later, the potential pool of young female researchers in the Swiss higher education
system would turn out to be even smaller, especially in those disciplines with a low
proportion of women.
In general, over the study period of about twenty years, a convergence can be seen in
gender-specific doctoral completion rates. This, however, can predominantly be ascribed
to the fact that the number of men who complete a doctorate has been decreasing over the
long term, especially in law, humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.
We only provide a very brief sketch of the results here, focusing on the most relevant
details for our analysis below. For more details about the leaky pipeline in Switzerland,
we refer to Dubach (2009).
5 Applications for research funding to the Swiss National Science Foundation
Funding for an academic career path is provided by universities and third-party sources,
with the latter becoming increasingly important (Enders 1996, 105f.). In Switzerland,
unlike other countries, there are relatively few alternatives to supporting one’s research
through the SNSF. In our study we investigate two questions: do female upcoming
researchers apply for research funding at the SNSF and at other funding institutions as
often as male researchers? Do they have equal chances to get a funding approved?
The analyses reveal that in the phase between the PhD graduates’ Master’s Degree up
to five years after the doctorate, women submit applications for individual and project
funding to the SNSF just as frequently as men do. Moreover, they participate as junior
researchers in a research project funded by the SNSF as often as men do.6 Among those
researchers between 2002 and 2006 who submitted applications for project funding by the
SNSF or an SNSF professorship for the first time, women did not submit fewer
applications than men, and they received equal amounts of money and had the same
chances of success.7 Therefore, on the bases of the quantitative data, we find no
indications that women have to overcome greater hurdles in order to submit a funding
application, to gain access to research projects funded by the SNSF, or to get approved
project funding or a SNSF professorship.8 Nevertheless, as the interviews show, women
encounter subtle dimensions of gender specific exclusions and barriers in relation to
6
For more details, see Leemann, Keck and Boes (2009).
7
For more details, see Stutz, Guggisberg, Strub and Fuchs (2009).
8
For further results on the effect of research funding on academic career paths see
Leemann, Keck and Boes (2009), Boes and Leemann (2009a).
-7-
research funding, e.g. they do have more problems to be geographically mobile and to
stay abroad with a fellowship from the SNSF.9
6 Mentoring and support for emerging researchers
One of the crucial factors of integration in the academic field is the support by mentors.
For that reason, we explore in this chapter the topic of mentoring. First, we illustrate the
importance of having a mentor for a successful academic career and show the different
dimensions that constitute mentoring by referring to our interviews. Second, on the
databases of the survey of PhDs we investigate if there are gender differences in the
probability of being mentored in the postdoctoral phase.
6.1 Subjective importance of mentoring
The in-depth interviews with emerging researchers reveal that mentoring by an
established academic has a decisive influence on the academic career trajectory and
serves as a kind of safety net. In numerous conversations, the extreme importance of
support and promotion was emphasised, often starting with supervisors in the doctoral
phase and continuing beyond that.
“It’s still my good fortune to have Professor *Name* behind me,
he’s a bit like my safety net, really ... My safety net. My life
preserver”. (Hard and Natural Sciences, Woman)
This support and promotion can take various forms, such as the offer of an assistant or
senior assistant position, good working conditions that allow one to concentrate on
completing a qualification, co-publications and publishing support, or concrete help with
compiling applications for a fellowship or research project. In addition, other forms of
support were mentioned, such as the willingness to write recommendations or to make a
phone call in order to establish an important contact.
Female mentors who themselves have been able to reconcile an academic career and a
family can be important role models and orientation points for young female researchers.
Ideally, they are also people whom emerging researchers can talk to and who can offer
pointers and advice.
“I primarily wanted . . . here in the hospital I have a young and
dynamic mentor, but precisely what I didn’t have was a woman,
9
In detail, see Leemann and Da Rin (2009).
-8-
someone who could say what happens when you have a family,
when you can’t work 150% of the time. And I was pregnant just
then, and because of that I was interested in the topic. And there
aren’t that many positive role models yet. But I had a female
professor [as a mentor; authors’ note] who had just retired, but
still, she had had four children at a time when it was a lot harder.
That was very important to me. She looked at it from a certain
distance, not in the rush of her own career anymore. She could
look back a bit and she told me: ‘You have to figure out what’s
more important to you. Take some time for the child, too’.”
(Medicine, Woman)
Mentors know the academic field, the rules of the game, its demands and practices,
and they can pass this knowledge on. Support for emerging researchers takes place in
daily and informal ways, and often consists of small pointers, tips and advice. The
following quotation nicely shows that academic employment as a long-term career is
something that has to be learned, and that it takes a long time to become professionally
socialised, since “so many small things that you come across” must first be practised,
refined, emulated and incorporated as part of a career-specific habitus. We can assume
that in this socialisation process the complex interaction of personal dispositions, the
processes of representation, attribution and recognition, as well as the circumstances
specific to the situation, all have a decisive influence on an academic career.
“That one can fall back on the experiences of someone who really
understands how to support young researchers. And who passes
all this knowledge on. Because I find it difficult, there are so many
things that he provided me with over the course of these five years
of working with him, which can’t be taught in a lecture or
seminar. And which you can’t learn from a publication. (...) I
think, it can’t happen in any other way. Because there are just so
many, there are these fine points which are so hard, there are so
many small things that you come across which are difficult to
impart in any simple way. I would have never known how. Style
issues in part, too. Or questions of ‘how do you do that?’ Sure,
someone can put a model proposal in front of you, say this is what
a successful proposal looks like, that could maybe be helpful, but I
-9-
think that this alone wouldn’t answer all the questions”.
(Humanities and Social Sciences, Woman)
If there is no sufficient support by a mentor, then this will often have a negative career
effect. One is not made aware early enough of the important factors and strategies in an
academic career; one is not integrated into social networks nor does one receive offers of
positions or fellowship opportunities (abroad), as well as many other things.
Sometimes the actions of supervisors aroused a certain degree of ambivalence,
although the positive, supportive dimension was accentuated. Mentors require that
emerging researchers orient themselves according to their expectations, behaviour and
style in order to gain recognition and, furthermore, support (Krais 2002, 415).
“I did have to struggle occasionally to get through. For him . . .
you certainly have to work a lot. Sometimes I had to set
boundaries and say . . . But he is someone who just says, ‘You can
do it!’ and throws you in at the deep end: ‘Here is the lecture. You
don’t know the subject. Doesn’t matter. You’ll do it next
semester!’” (Law, Woman)
As catalysts for attributing and recognising achievement, mentors can help people
develop and demonstrate certain independence in research. They can make it possible for
emerging researchers to present an independent, (lower-level) academic persona at a time
when one is not yet independent but is actually reliant on the grace of mentors. The
following quote shows this accurately:
“In the position I am in at present, you have to prove yourself
while at the same time . . . Well . . . We don’t have the means they
prove ourselves yet, and yet we are expected to have proven
ourselves already in order to advance. And this situation, it’s a
little, it’s a bit ambiguous, you see, at the moment . . . Basically, I
think that there isn’t a choice: at some point, you’re required to get
a mentor to support you, to be able to do research more or less
independently, to try and attain, so to speak, an intermediate
position. The problem is that when you leave, for the first time, to
go abroad, if you want to make a submission as someone on a
fellowship when you’re abroad, you have to have had a boss who
- 10 -
lets you pursue your own ideas and publish as the last author10, to
be able to show when you’re abroad that you’ve already taken the
step of becoming independent. And the mentors who will let you
do that are very rare indeed”. (Hard and Natural Sciences,
Woman)
Beaufaÿs and Krais, in their observations of and interviews with professors and their
mentees, show how such a mentoring relationship is built on the anticipation of trust and
produces long-term trust as a reciprocal investment by the mentor and the emerging
researcher (Beaufaÿs 2003, 196f.; Krais and Beaufaÿs 2005). This trust, or belief of a
mentor in the mentee’s capacity to produce work of a certain standard, is a central factor
in the process of constructing academic careers and academic personas. This belief is not
just about recognising the capabilities and achievements of the mentee, but also about
attributing such capabilities to him or her. Achievements only become socially relevant
and visible through this construction process, rather than being something produced “in
loneliness and freedom” (Engler 2001). This is the prerequisite for being able to position
oneself in the academic field as a legitimate, even if emerging, researcher (Beaufaÿs
2003, 246f).
According to Beaufaÿs’s und Krais’ conclusions, it is more difficult for women to gain
such trust and build on it because they receive less recognition as researchers whose work
is to be taken seriously and because impending motherhood (at least as anticipated by
[male] professors) puts their supportability into question. All of this often happens
through very subtle actions and messages.
We can conclude that mentoring is an indispensable form of support which enables
access to further cultural, social, economic and symbolic resources that are important for
an academic career. We thus speak of mentoring as a catalyst that triggers the process of
constructing an academic career and speeds up its progress. In this construction process,
mentoring is the prerequisite for achieving the status of a promising young academic
within the scientific community and for advancing further on the career path.
If women are less often seen to be worth supporting than their male colleagues and
less frequently have adequate mentoring in the sense of recognition as well as trust (in
advance), then they are crucially disadvantaged in building up an academic career and
have lower chances of successfully establishing themselves.
10
In the hard and natural sciences, the senior scientists, project leaders and/or professors are
the last to be listed in the publication credits. This is different in the humanities and social
sciences, where their names come first.
- 11 -
6.2 Mentoring in the postdoc phase
In the second wave of the Swiss Graduate Survey (2007), PhDs were asked if they have
received decisive support and promotion during their postdoctoral period by somebody
whom they would call a mentor. Three categories of mentors were possible: (1)
professors, (2) senior research associates (peers) at universities and other research
organisations, and (3) academics outside of the scientific community. The respondents
had to indicate the exact figure of mentors for each category (0, 1, 2, …).
67 academics did not answer this question. We assume that these respondents either
did not pursue an academic career anymore after their PhD graduation (and therefore
were not addressed by the question), or they had not had a mentor but did not mention it
by filling in a “naught”. Because the exact reasons cannot be traced, we estimate two
different models. In the first model (Model A) these 67 persons are set as missing values
meaning they are not included in the analyses. In the second model (Model B), these
cases are treated as if they had not had a mentor in their post-doctoral phase. If the effects
of the independent variables in the two models are the same, it is reasonable to assume
that the results do not depend on this 67 “unclear” cases. We will only show the
estimation results of Model B (see Table 2) and report possible differences between
Models A and B in the text.
We constructed two different dependent variables:
1)
Mentoring by professor(s): During the postdoctoral period, the respondent has
had at least one mentor who is a professor at a university or at another research
organisation: Yes (1)/No (0).
2)
Mentoring by peer(s): During the postdoctoral period, the respondent has had at
least one mentor who is a senior research associate (peer) at a university or at
another research organisation: Yes (1)/No (0).
The third category – academics outside of the scientific community – is deemed
irrelevant for our topic because we are interested in the support obtained within the
scientific community as factor contributing to a successful development of an academic
career.
Table 1 gives an overview of the coding and size of the different categories of the
dependent variables. If the respondent had at least one mentor in the respective category,
the variable is coded as 1. Otherwise, it is coded as 0.
- 12 -
Table 1: Coding of the variables “mentoring”
%
Model A
Model B
Count of mentors (professors at
Mentoring by professor(s):
Mentoring by professor(s):
universities or at other research
(dummy variable)
(dummy variable)
organisations)
Missing values
13.9
0
52.3
0
0
1
21.6
1
1
2
9.8
1
1
3 and more
2.3
1
1
Mentoring by peer(s):
Mentoring by peer(s):
(dummy variable)
(dummy variable)
Total
0
100.0
Count of mentors (senior research
associates at a university or at
another research organisation)
Missing values
13.9
0
71.8
0
0
1
8.2
1
1
2
4.5
1
1
3 and more
1.6
1
1
Total
0
100.0
Source: Swiss Graduates Survey (Federal Statistical Office), own calculations.
In order to investigate the chance of being mentored after the PhD, we included
several explanatory and control variables which cover sociodemografic as well as
academic factors (see Table 2). First consider the likelihood of being mentored by a
university professor. We observe that female upcoming researchers have a significantly
smaller chance – less than half of the chance of male researchers11 –of finding a professor
in the postdoc phase who will rigorously support and foster them in a mentoring
relationship. This result is equally valid for models A and B. This result is consistent with
a number of studies documenting that women are less likely able to count on an
academically established person who will provide support and promote their careers
(Siemienska 2007, 263; Zimmer, Krimmer, Stallmann 2007, 122f.; Ledin et al. 2007, 985;
Allmendinger, Fuchs, von Stebut 2000; Grant and Ward 1996; Bagilhole 1993; Geenen
1994, 91).
We do not find evidence that age and former academic mobility affect the likelihood
of having a mentor. It seems that older academics and academics from abroad do not
encounter higher barriers in finding support and promotion by mentors. Our results
11
Model B: exp(-0.964)*100% = 38%, Model A: exp(-0.901)*100% = 41%.
- 13 -
suggest that young researchers with an academic family background12 are less likely to
report a mentor. A priori, we expected that they receive more recognition as promising
future researchers due to their greater familiarity with the academic field. One reasonable
explanation for the negative sign, however, could be that the support and promotion they
get is taken for granted (and maybe obtained through their parents) and therefore not
valued as “support”. The language region has been controlled for in order to account for
potential differences in the university systems in the German speaking and the French
speaking part, but it does not show any relevance. Because economics and the technical
sciences are more connected to the private and public sectors (industry, financial
institutes, or state departments), important and relevant mentors in these subject areas can
also be found outside the academia.
Career-oriented support during doctorate generates further support for young
researchers by a professor. This effect, known as ‘cumulative advantage’, stems from the
fact that, in the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy, those doctoral candidates who were
considered to have promise and above-average academic talent by mentors also receive
more recognition and support after completing their doctorate (Cole 1979; Merton 1985
[1968]).
12
It is likely that in the case of a mother who graduated from university also the father has a
university degree.
- 14 -
Table 2: Determinants of mentoring after PhD (logistic regression models)
Mentoring by professor(s)
(Model B)
Socio-demographic factors
Woman
Age
Masters Degree abroad
Father university degree (academic background)
Mother university degree (academic background)
University factors
French-speaking part of Switzerland
Disciplinary field (natural sciences = base category)13
Social sciences and humanities
Economics
Law
Medicine/pharmacy
Technical sciences
Integration during the doctorate
Subject-specific support during doctorate
Career-oriented support during doctorate
Integration after the doctorate
Employment directly after doctorate
(not in academia = base category)
Position in academia
Others (training, unemployed, travelling, …)
Employment five years after doctorate
(not in academia = base category)
Position in academia
Others (training, unemployed, travelling, …)
Participation in a postdoctoral programme14
Mentoring programme after doctorate (only women)
Constant
-0.964***
(0.361)
-0.0355
(0.0493)
0.437
(0.355)
0.223
(0.364)
-1.033**
(0.496)
0.267
(0.391)
-0.0122
(0.0697)
-0.129
(0.389)
-0.582
(0.438)
0.645
(0.613)
0.174
(0.370)
-0.368
(0.437)
0.376
(0.460)
-2.020**
(0.833)
0.520
(0.635)
-0.729
(0.837)
-0.982**
(0.434)
-1.163**
(0.565)
-1.466
(1.159)
-1.149
(1.096)
0.0294
(0.416)
0.0234
(0.110)
0.678***
(0.242)
-0.184
(0.142)
0.434
(0.283)
1.240***
(0.344)
0.674
(0.475)
0.463
(0.439)
-0.484
(0.612)
1.142***
(0.331)
0.601
(0.711)
0.432
(0.717)
0.982
(1.142)
0.781**
(0.376)
0.484
(0.743)
0.314
(0.721)
0.415
(1.032)
-1.009
(1.886)
346
-170.6
58.20***
19
Number of observations
Value of the log-likelihood
Model Chi-squared
Degrees of freedom
Effect coefficient (b), Standard errors in parentheses
* p  .10, ** p  .05, *** p  .01
Mentoring by peer(s)
(Model B)
-1.161
(2.714)
320
-132.9
26.04***
18
Source: Swiss Graduates Survey (Federal Statistical Office), own calculations.
As one would expect, PhD graduates who are straight after graduation and five years
later still in academia (position in academia) have more often an academic mentor. The
causality between these two variables – remaining in academia and being mentored – is
13
“Law” is omitted due to missing variation (i.e., cells without cases or perfect prediction).
14
In German: Graduiertenkolleg.
- 15 -
ambiguous, however, because not being supported by a mentor can result in withdrawing
from an academic career trajectory.
Noteworthy are the insignificant effects of postdoctoral and mentoring programmes15
after the doctorate on the likelihood to have a mentor in the postdoctoral phase. Our
results raise the question about the efficacy and quality of the mentoring programmes of
the first generation established by the Swiss Federal Equal Opportunity at Universities
Programme. It can be assumed, however, that the first generation of programmes mainly
attracted female academics who were poorly integrated in academia. Furthermore, it
might be to early to measure the effects of the programme, and we therefore do not find
the expected positive effect in our data.
With regard to peer mentoring we do not find significant effects, except for the
differences in fields of study and the academic position after the doctorate. Since we have
no academics in the law discipline in our data who are mentored by peers, we drop this
category from the analysis. Compared to the natural and technical sciences, the likelihood
of having a peer as mentor in the social sciences and medicine/pharmacy is substantially
smaller. Compared to mentoring by a university professor, we do not find gender
differences in peer mentoring, nor differences in the other sociodemographic factors.
There is also no evidence that the integration in the scientific community during the
doctorate affects the likelihood of having a peer as mentor.
7 Reconciling Career and Family
We now examine the gender-specific impact of having a family on the leaky pipeline
phenomenon in academic careers. In the survey of PhDs, the respondents were asked
about their family situation (children, domestic partnership) as well as the division of
labour among couples who have children five years after the doctorate. In the interviews,
we asked the respondents if they accept compromises or face any difficulties in
reconciling private and professional life.
Domestic Partnership
In contrast to the results of other studies, which investigated the family situation of
professors – some of them focused in particular on the first generation of women
professors – (Onnen-Isemann and Oßwald 1991; Zimmer et al. 2007), the young female
researchers we questioned have a domestic partner nearly as often as their male
colleagues.
15
As our data reveals, only women took part at mentoring programmes.
- 16 -
Children
The problem arises once children enter the picture. As we can see in Table 3, doctoral
graduates who were employed in the academic field five years after the doctorate are
more likely not (yet) to have children than doctoral graduates employed in other fields.
Just 43% of all male academics have children, whereas the proportion of doctoral
graduates who have children and are employed in other fields is 57%.
Table 3: Children and field of employment five years after the doctorate (by gender)
Men
Women
Academic field
Other fields
Academic field
Other fields
43%
57%
32%
38%
Children Yes
Source: Swiss Graduates Survey (Federal Statistical Office), own calculations.
The same significant difference holds for women, although less marked (32% in
academia as opposed to 38% with children in other fields). These results suggest that in
Switzerland reconciling a family with an academic career is impeded by institutional
characteristics of the scientific field and poses problems for women as well as for men.
Moreover, fewer women with doctorates have children than men with doctorates. The
obstacles to start a family while pursuing an academic career therefore seem bigger for
women than for men. This result is consistent with numerous other studies (e.g., Lind
2008; Zimmer et al. 2007, 147ff.; Mason and Goulden 2004; Leemann 2002). As further
analysis shows, women who do not (yet) have children are also less likely to plan having
them in the future than men do. The gender gap is thus set to increase further.
Employment patterns amongst couples
If we look at the employment patterns of couples, then we observe that the two couple
households share overall similarities, as long as there are no children (see Figure 1),
though the female parts tend to be employed part-time or not at all to a greater degree
than the male parts.
- 17 -
Figure 1: Employment patterns of couples without children
Female doctoral graduates without children
Partners (if without children)
PT
PT
FT
FT
Male doctoral graduates without children
Partners (if without children)
NE
PT
PT
FT
FT
Source: Swiss Graduates Survey (Federal Statistical Office), own calculations.
PT = part-time (white), FT = full-time (blue), NE = not employed (orange).
With the arrival of children, the employment patters of the couple households change
(see Figure 2), producing a known gender-specific pattern even among the group of
highly qualified doctoral graduates. Female doctoral graduates with children are for the
most part employed, but often part-time only. In around 30% of the cases, their partners
are also employed part-time, while the remaining 70% are employed full-time. In contrast
to that, if male doctoral graduates have children, then their employment pattern does not
change: They continue to be full-time employed. Their partners, however, often reduce
their employment to part-time or give up employment altogether. These results are also
consistent with those of many other studies (Ledin et al. 2007, 985; Majcher 2007, 313;
O’Laughlin and Bischoff 2005, 88 and 94; Mason and Goulden 2004).
- 18 -
Figure 2: Employment patterns of couples with children
Female doctoral graduates with child(ren)
FT
Partners (if with children)
NE
PT
FT
PT
Male doctoral graduates with child(ren)
Partners (if with children)
FT
PT
NE
PT
FT
Source: The Swiss Graduates Survey (Federal Statistical Office), own calculations.
PT = part-time (white), FT = full-time (blue), NE = not employed (orange).
Distribution of childcare duties among couples
The distribution of childcare responsibilities (see Table 4) follows the same genderspecific pattern. Half of the fathers from the survey of doctoral graduates can rely on a
partner who takes care of or organises all childcare on weekdays. This is rarely the case
with the mothers. They are always involved with the children in that they take over
childcare duties and/or arrange the care of the child(ren) with the help of a third person or
a childcare institution. Various studies provide evidence of this gender-specific pattern of
labour distribution (Lind 2008; Lind and Löther 2008; Zimmer et al. 2007, 154; Probert
2005, 63; Spieler 2004; Leemann 2002, 176; Blake and La Valle 2000, 29).
- 19 -
Table 4: Distribution of childcare duties amongst couples
Who is/was predominantly responsible for the care of
your preschool children during the week (Mon-Fri)?
Men
Women
a.
I alone
1%
14%
b.
The other parent and/or my partner
51%
2%
c.
I, together with the other parent and/or my partner
7%
3%
d.
Other persons or institutions
10%
15%
e.
I, the other parent and/or my partner,
31%
55%
0%
11%
100%
100%
and other persons or institutions
f.
I, and other persons or institutions
Total
Source: Swiss Graduates Survey (Federal Statistical Office), own calculations.
Effects of children on career trajectories
How does the birth of a child actually affect the academic career trajectory? The results of
the survey of PhDs confirm that the birth of a child after the doctorate stands in a negative
relation to remaining in academia and pursuing further qualifications (habilitation,
postdoc).16 A small child also makes it difficult to undertake networking activities abroad
and reduces the likelihood of a research period abroad, although the causality here is not
clear. Whoever plans to go abroad for a research period, or is already abroad, tends to
postpone the decision to have children.17
On the other hand, it is worth noting that measureable performance in the form of
publication output is not curtailed by starting a family.18 This result, too, is consistent
with various other studies (e.g., Leemann 2005; Romanin and Over 1993; Cole and
Zuckerman 1991). Because we only have a small number of mothers, we could not
statistically calculate verifiable interaction effects between birth and gender. Therefore,
we do not have evidence if this result holds for both female and male academics.
Daily research life and family duties
As the in-depth interviews with emerging researchers show, reconciling a family with a
research career is a daily challenge for the mothers we interviewed, leading to an
intensification of the feeling of risk or "mad hazard" as well as to greater uncertainties.
16
For more details, see Leemann, Keck and Boes (2009).
17
For more details, see Leemann, Dubach and Boes (2010) and Leemann (2009).
18
For more details, see Boes and Leemann (2009b).
- 20 -
“It happens daily! It’s my everyday dilemma: is it more important
to get home on time or to finish the project? And how can I
organise myself to get every-thing done?” (Technical Sciences,
Woman)
This happens above all, as the interviews show rather clearly, because daily work and
nightly rest are turned upside-down, which leads the women to fundamentally doubt
whether they can deal with the increased pressure. As academics who are simultaneously
mothers and thus not always available for work, they even doubt whether they can be
taken seriously in the academic world.
“As far as handicaps go, I have to say, honestly, that you often
have the feeling, ‘Is my family a handicap?‘ If you handicap
yourself, like when you’re running a race, it means that you have
to achieve the same thing while carrying an extra weight, right?
And so sometimes you feel, I can’t, I just can’t do the same
amount, or work as long, as someone who doesn’t have a child,
who doesn’t have to get up maybe two, three times in the night
when the child cries, etc. Then, sure, you sometimes have the
feeling, ‘Can I do it? Will I be taken seriously? Can I really
establish myself?’ But that’s something that only time will tell,
right?” (Law, Woman)
Mothers also experience no support from the university. It is considered a private
matter how the young woman professor who has just started her job organises the care of
her small child; she has to find the solutions on her own.
“And there, you’re actually left completely alone. So, you have
the position, and then: figure it out! So, I found that very difficult”
(Law, Woman)
In a comparative study of different universities by Acker and Armenti (2004),
accessing day care was not problematic for all women faculty. The authors conclude that
the particular institutional context is important in shaping the possibilities for academic
careers. Besides the supply of childcare facilities by the universities and communities,
cultural norms and values on family life and gender responsibilities are part of this
institutional setting. As the next excerpt shows, the ideas and expectations within the
- 21 -
faculty and workplace about one’s availability and flexibility are often not compatible
with childcare hours and family life. This female academic who has spent time abroad
points out that she did not experience the same conflicts at her former university.
“Somehow the favourite time of day for a meeting is after 6:00
p.m., once the nursery is closed. I just found that difficult,
‘difficult’ being the mildest term for it (...) Thus, I actually found
that my position [as a professor] in [a city in Switzerland] was in a
certain way the hardest in my academic career, because I suddenly
had so many conflicts between childcare and my private life and
my position and my work. I hadn’t experienced problems like this
before; things had gone relatively smoothly, even with a child in
[abroad]”. (Humanities and Social Sciences, Woman)
By contrast, male academics do not discuss the family in terms of uncertainty or
constraints placed on academic work. Family and academic work seem to belong to two
different spheres. Only in several interviews there are indications that male academics see
themselves as family providers, which means that they cannot or do not want to find
themselves in a financially precarious academic career.
“Yeah, the compromises were that I have a clinical career, that I
have a clinical position here which primarily puts bread and butter
on the table, where I know that I can support my family (...). I
could become a medical specialist, which indirectly offers career
security, because I can go into practice with that too, and hence
provide for my family. But where I lacked the courage and the
security was to commit myself only to experimental work, only in
the laboratory, where I would have been dependent on three-year
positions and an uncertain future [unclear]”. (Medicine, Man).
With the men, then, the central theme is the economic uncertainty connected to an
academic career, while the women are concerned above all about the uncertainty of their
academic habitus, and about the question of their recognition and achievement. On this
basis, we can formulate the assumption that women tend to be confronted with more
fundamental uncertainties than their male rivals. Male academics can for the most part
count on being able to connect research with family, simultaneously ensuring that they
can make the required academic commitment.
- 22 -
However, this does not mean that starting a family does not have problematic aspects
for fathers, too, with regard to the shape of their career trajectory. But, in addition to a
synchronous model (career and family at the same time), men also have the opportunity
to implement a diachronic model, which means that they can start a family after reaching
a certain point in their careers, particularly after having attained a permanent position
(Mason and Goulden 2004). In addition, as our analyses suggest, they can rely much
more heavily on their partners for childcare. For that reason, it is easier for them to put
"all their eggs in one basket" and to pursue an academic career.
For women, the reconciliation of family and (academic) work is more difficult. They
are confronted with the problem of the clashing clocks of biology and tenure (Acker and
Armenti 2004) since they cannot arbitrarily postpone childbirth and they do not have
strong support for (the organisation of) childcare, especially during periods spent abroad.
In the interviews with young researchers, there are several indications that women who
do not want to give up having children put in question whether or not to remain in
academia, or they already left it. One does hardly find this pattern among men. These
findings are largely confirmed by other studies. Women academics without children are
more likely to explain their childlessness on the grounds of the difficulty of reconciling
an academic career with family life (Spieler 2004). If women (want to) stay in academia,
then they forego having children more often than men, or they push the decision to have
children ever further off, with the result that, whether they want or not, they may remain
childless (see for example Zimmer et al. 2007; Majcher 2007, 313; Auferkorte-Michaelis,
Metz-Göckel, Wergen, Klein 2006).
As mentioned before, the reasons for the gender-specific pattern in linking life courses
(Krüger and Levy 2000, 2001) can in part be found in the academic field and its culture,
symbolic practices, and career constructions itself (Krais 2008). The prevailing work
norms (in particular the high number of hours of availability and the high degree of
temporal and geographical flexibility) make it difficult to reconcile family and career, as
do career expectations ("all the eggs in one basket", the pressure to achieve, age norms)
(Dressel and Langreiter 2008; Jacobs and Winslow 2004; Merz and Schumacher 2004;
Beaufaÿs 2003, 146ff.), and the view of “academia as a form of life ” as a core aspect of
the belief system (illusio) of an academic habitus (Krais 2008). Consequently, women
academics work harder and sleep less with the result of fatigue, stress and exhaustion
shaping their daily lives (Acker and Armenti 2004).
Furthermore, childbearing and childrearing are tabooed subjects in academia (Acker
and Armenti 2004; Hochschild 1975; Wolf-Wendel and Ward 2003) and they are
traditionally not associated with reason and logic (Pillay 2008). This status can be seen,
for instance, in the fact that childcare duties are not taken into consideration when
- 23 -
assessing career track records during professorial appointments, or that the university
does not consider itself responsible for providing childcare opportunities (Rusconi and
Solga 2002).
An added institutional factor is that the childcare infrastructure in Switzerland is not
tailored to academic careers. In view of the low salaries (except for the professor level),
childcare is very costly (Spieler 2004, 64ff). Furthermore, in many cases there are too few
places available, and the hours do not correspond to the needs of academics. However,
even optimal childcare conditions do not fully solve the problem. Parenthood, according
to the subjective assessment of female and male academics, places limits on one’s
availability for academic work – frequency of attending conferences, research time,
networking opportunities, geographic mobility (Lind 2008; O’Laughlin and Bischoff
2005; Romanin and Rover 1993) and leads to problems of compatibility (Spieler 2004;
Blake and La Valle 2000, 29).
9 Conclusions
Why do young female researchers, who already gained a foothold in the university
system, drop out of academia after their PhD more often than male academics? In this
paper, we discuss two core problems that women academics encounter and that have to be
explained with reference to the culture and practices of academia itself.
One hurdle is that women miss more often than men the support by a mentor, who
fosters and promotes their academic career. In the PhD period, the relation of female to
male emerging researchers with an academic mentor is about four to ten. In other words,
we may presume that professors value young female researchers not equally promising as
they value male researchers. Of course, nowadays no chair would say this frankly, neither
in a formal nor in an informal setting. Times have changed since the 1950s, where in a
survey prejudices and indignities on women’s academic abilities were mentioned without
reservation (Anger 1960, cited in Krais 2008). Nevertheless, professors are less willing to
give recognition, appreciation and support to female academics. As we have shown,
without these little pieces of what is called “mentoring” – knowledge transfer, gate
keeping, investment of trust, information giving, functioning as a role model, providing
resources, introduction in relevant academic circles, etc. – an emerging researcher hardly
can manage to build up an academic career by his or her own.
The other problem women face more than men is the culture at universities and in
academia in general that depends on a flexible, disembodied and disembedded individual
whose research life is not contaminated by child-rearing, stress, and sleepless nights, or
unpredictable absents due to sick children (e.g. Krais 2008; Daston 2003; Merz and
- 24 -
Schumacher 2004). As our data reveal, female academics do not have the same conditions
in order to correspond to these values and norms as male researchers have.
If women decide to start a family, then they are confronted with all these demands and
cultural beliefs established over the last century in the scientific community that hardly
allows to reconcile family and academic work. In particular, in order to fully concentrate
on their academic career they often have to forego having children, whereas male
emerging researchers can much more rely on a female partner who allows them to
dedicate their life to science without giving up the idea of a family. Mentors, who are
representatives of this academic culture, know about these conflicts of female upcoming
researchers (Krais 2002) and – as we can conjecture on the basis of our data – decide to
support women less after PhD graduation than to support men.
- 25 -
References
Acker, Sandra and Carmen Armenti. 2004. "Sleepless in academia." Gender and
Education 16:3-24.
Allmendinger, Jutta, Stefan Fuchs, and Janina von Stebut. 2000. "Should I stay or should
I go? Mentoring, Verankerung und Verbleib in der Wissenschaft. Empirische
Ergebnisse einer Studie zu Karriereverläufen von Frauen und Männern in Instituten
der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft." 33-48 in Karriere von Akademikerinnen.
Bedeutung des Mentoring als Instrument der Nachwuchsförderung, Ed. J. Page and
R. J. Leemann. Bern: Bundesamt für Bildung und Wissenschaft.
Anger, Hans. 1960. "Probleme der deutschen Universität. Bericht über eine Erhebung
unter Professoren und Dozenten". Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Verlag.
Auferkorte-Michaelis, Nicole, Sigrid Metz-Göckel, Jutta Wergen, and Annette Klein.
2006. "Junge Elternschaft und Wissenschaftskarriere. Wie kinderfreundlich sind
Wissenschaft und Universitäten." Zeitschrift für Frauenforschung und
Geschlechterstudien 23:14-23.
Bagilhole, Barbara. 1993. "Survivors in a Male Preserve: A Study of British Women
Academics' Experiences and Perceptions of Discrimination in a UK University."
Higher Education 26:431-447.
Beaufaÿs, Sandra. 2003. Wie werden Wissenschaftler gemacht? Beobachtungen zur
wechselseitigen Konstitution von Geschlecht und Wissenschaft. Bielefeld:
transcript.
Blake, Margaret and Ivana La Valle. 2000. "Who applies for research funding? Key
factors shaping funding application behaviour among women and men in British
higher education institutions." The Wellcome Trust, London.
Boes, Stefan and Regula Julia Leemann. 2009a (forthcoming). "Scientific achievements
of young researchers: Does funding make a difference?" in Forschungsförderung in
wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen – Zugang, Erfolg, Bedeutung und Wirkung aus
Geschlechterperspektive, edited by R. J. Leemann and H. Stutz. Zürich: Rüegger
Verlag.
Boes, Stefan and Regula Julia Leemann. 2009b. "Keeping up scientific output: Intrafamily work share and the role of child-care institutions." Working paper.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. "The forms of capital." 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson. Westport CT:
Greenwood.
—. 1990. Homo Academicus, Edited by T. P. Collier. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
- 26 -
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology,
Edited by t. o. R. Anthropologie". Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Passeron, and Monique de Saint Martin. 1994. Academic
discourse : linguistic misunderstanding and professorial power. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Cole, Jonathan R. 1979. Fair Science. Women in the Scientific Community. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Cole, Jonathan R. and Harriet Zuckerman. 1991. "Marriage, Motherhood, and Research
Performance in Science." 157-170 in The Outer Circle. Women in the Scientific
Community, edited by H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole, and J. T. Bruer. New York:
W.W. Norten & Company.
Daston, Lorraine. 2003. "Die wissenschaftliche Persona. Arbeit und Berufung." Pp. 109136 in Zwischen Vorderbühne und Hinterbühne. Beiträge zum Wandel der
Geschlechterbeziehungen in der Wissenschaft vom 17. Jahrhundert bis zur
Gegenwart, edited by T. Wobbe. Bielefeld: transcript.
Dressel, Gert and Nikola Langreiter. 2008. "Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten - schneller.
höher, weiter? Zum (Un-)Verhältnis von Arbeit und Freizeit in den (Kultur)Wissenschaften." Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 9: Art. 38.
Dubach, Philipp. 2009 (forthcoming). "«Leaky pipelines» im Längsschnitt:
Auswertungen des Schweizerischen Hochschulinformationssystems (SHIS)." in
Forschungsförderung in wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen – Zugang, Erfolg,
Bedeutung und Wirkung aus Geschlechterperspektive, edited by R. J. Leemann and
H. Stutz. Zürich: Rüegger Verlag.
Enders, Jürgen. 1996. Die wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter. Ausbildung, Beschäftigung
und Karriere der Nachwuchswissenschaftler und Mittelbauangehörigen an den
Universitäten. Frankfurt a/M; New York: Campus.
Engler, Steffani. 2001. "In Einsamkeit und Freiheit"? Zur Konstruktion der
wissenschaftlichen Persönlichkeit auf dem Weg zur Professur. Konstanz:
Universitätsverlag.
European Commission. 2008. "Mapping the maze: Getting more women to the top in
research." Brussels.
Geenen, Elke M. 1994. Blockierte Karrieren. Frauen in der Hochschule. Opladen: Leske
und Budrich.
Grant, Linda and Kathrin B. Ward. 1996. "The Stratification of Mentoring in Academia:
Gender, Race, and Experiences of Scientists." University of Georgia, Southern
Illinois University.
Hausmann, Ricardo, Laura D. Tyson, and Saadia Zahidi. 2008. “The Global Gender Gap
- 27 -
Report 2008”. World Economic Forum. Downloaded April 9, 2009,
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2008.pdf.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1975. "Inside the clockwork of male careers." 47-88 in
Women and the power of change, edited by F. Howe. New York. McGraw Hill
Book Company.
Jacobs, Jerry A. and Sarah E. Winslow. 2004. "Overworked Faculty: Job stresses and
Family Demands." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 596:104-129.
Krais, Beate. 2008. "Wissenschaft als Lebensform. Die alltagspraktische Seite
akademischer Karrieren." 177-211 in Arbeit als Lebensform? Beruflicher Erfolg,
private Lebensführung und Chancengleichheit in akademischen Berufsfeldern,
edited by B. Krais and Y. Haffner. Frankfurt a. M: Campus.
—. 2002. "Academia and the Hierarchy of the Sexes." Higher Education Quarterly
56:407-418.
—. 2000. „Das soziale Feld Wissenschaft und die Geschlechterverhältnisse. Theoretische
Sondierungen.“ 31-54 in Wissenschaftskultur und Geschlechterordnung. Über die
verborgenen Mechanismen männlicher Dominanz in der akademischen Welt, Ed.
B. Krais. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Krais, Beate and Sandra Beaufays. 2005. "Wissenschaftskultur und Geschlechterordnung.
Verborgene Mechanismen der Macht." 29-46 in Akademische Seilschaften.
Mentoring für Frauen im Spannungsfeld von individueller Förderung und
Strukturveränderung, Ed. D. Nienhaus, G. Pannatier, and C. Töngi. Bern: eFeF.
Krüger, Helga and René Levy. 2001. "Linking Life Courses, Work, and the Family:
Theorizing a not so Visible Nexus between Women and Men." Canadian Journal of
Sociology 26:145-166.
Krüger, Helga and René Levy. 2000. "Masterstatus, Familie und Geschlecht. Vergessene
Verknüpfungslogiken zwischen Institutionen des Lebenslaufs." Berliner Journal für
Soziologie 10:379-401.
Ledin, Anna, Lutz Bornmann, Frank Gannon, and Gerlind Wallon. 2007. "A persistent
problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists." EMBO reports
8:982-987.
Leemann, Regula Julia. 2009. "Inequalities in academic career mobility: characteristics,
causes and outcomes." Paper to present at The European Conference on
Educational Research. Symposium: The shifting geographies of trans-national
academic mobility: challenging conventional policy paradigm. Vienna. 28 - 30
September 2009.
—. 2002. Chancenungleichheiten im Wissenschaftssystem. Wie Geschlecht und soziale
- 28 -
Herkunft Karrieren beeinflussen. Chur and Zürich: Rüegger.
—. 2005. "Geschlechterungleichheiten in wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen." 179-214 in
Institutionalisierte Ungleichheiten. Wie das Bildungswesen Chancen blockiert, Ed.
P. A. Berger and H. Kahlert. Weinheim and München: Juventa.
Leemann, Regula Julia and Sandra Da Rin. 2009 (forthcoming). "Zum Verhältnis von
Forschungsförderung, Laufbahn und Geschlecht – institutionelle und habituelle
Bedingungen." in Forschungsförderung in wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen –
Zugang, Erfolg, Bedeutung und Wirkung aus Geschlechterperspektive, edited by
R. J. Leemann and H. Stutz. Zürich: Rüegger.
Leemann, Regula Julia, Andrea Keck, and Stefan Boes. 2009 (forthcoming)." Fünf Jahre
nach dem Doktorat – Geschlechtereffekte bezüglich Antragsaktivität in der
Forschungsförderung und Verbleib in der Wissenschaft." in Forschungsförderung
in wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen – Zugang, Erfolg, Bedeutung und Wirkung aus
Geschlechterperspektive, edited by R. J. Leemann and H. Stutz.
Leemann, Regula Julia, Philipp Dubach, and Stefan Boes. 2010 (in process). "The “Leaky
Pipeline” in Academic Career Trajectories: Gender Barriers in Academic
Integration." Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie Contribution for the special
Issue of the Swiss Journal of Sociology: Longitudinal Analysis in Switzerland.
Lind, Inken. 2008. "Aufgeschobene Kinderwünsche, eingeschränkte Perspektiven? Zur
Vereinbarkeit von Wissenschaft und Elternschaft - Ergebnisse einer aktuellen
Studie." Forschung & Lehre:754-756.
Lind, Inken and Andrea Löther. 2008. "Juniorprofessuren in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Ein
Vergleich der Qualifikationswege Juniorprofesur und C1-Assistentenstelle."
Kompetenzzentrum Frauen in Wissenschaft und Forschung CEWS.
Majcher, Agnieszka. 2007. "Seeking the Guilty - Academics Between Career and Family
in Poland and Germany." 299-325 in Gendered Career Trajectories in Academia in
Cross-National Perspective, Ed. R. Siemienska and A. Zimmer. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Mason, Mary Ann and Marc Goulden. 2004. "Do Babies Matter (Part II)? Closing the
Baby Gap." Academe 90.
Merton, Robert K. 1973 [1942]. "The Normative Structure of Science. Theoretical and
Empirical Investigations." 267-278 in The Sociology of Science, edited by R. K.
Merton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1985 [1968]. "Der Matthäus-Effekt in der Wissenschaft." 147-171 in
Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Aufsätze zur
Wissenschaftssoziologie, Ed. ders. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Merz, Martina und Christina Schumacher. 2004. "Spurensuche. Geschlechtliche
- 29 -
Differenzierung im disziplinären Vergleich." 195-270 in Wissenschaft, die
Grenzen schafft. Geschlechterkonstellationen im disziplinären Vergleich, Hrsg. B.
Heintz, M. Merz, und C. Schumacher. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
O'Laughlin, Elisabeth M. and Lisa G. Bischoff. 2005. "Balancing Parenthood and
Academia: Work/Family Stress as Influenced by Gender and Tenure Status."
Journal of Family Issues 26:79-106.
Onnen-Isemann, Corinna and Ursula Oßwald. 1991. Aufstiegsbarrieren für Frauen im
Universitätsbereich. Bonn: Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft.
Pillay, Venitha. 2008. "Academic mothers finding rhyme and reason." Gender and
Education 20:1-14.
Probert, Belinda. 2005. "'I Just Couldn't Fit It In': Gender and Unequal Outcomes in
Academic Careers." Gender Work and Organization 12:50-72.
Romanin, Susanne and Ray Over. 1993. "Australien Academics: Career Patterns, Work
Roles, and Family Life-Cycle Commitments of men and Women." Higher
Education 26:411-429.
Rusconi, Alessandra and Heike Solga. 2002. "Verflechtung von beruflichen Karrieren in
Akademikerpartnerschaften." Junge Akademie, Berlin.
Siemienska, Renata. 2007. "The Puzzle of Gender Research Productivity in Polish
Universities." 241-266 in Gendered Career Trajectories in Academia in CrossNational Perspective, Ed. R. Siemienska and A. Zimmer. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Scholar.
Spieler, Michèle. 2004. "Vereinbarkeit von akademischer Karriere und Elternschaft."
Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Zürich.
Stutz, Heidi, Jörg Guggisberg, Silvia Strub, and Gesine Fuchs. 2009 (forthcoming).
"Erstantragstellende beim Schweizerischen Nationalfonds " in
Forschungsförderung in wissenschaftlichen Laufbahnen – Zugang, Erfolg,
Bedeutung und Wirkung aus Geschlechterperspektive, edited by R. J. Leemann and
H. Stutz. Zürich: Rüegger.
Wolf-Wendel, Lisa and Kelly Ward. 2003. "Future prospects for women faculty:
negotiating work and family." 111–134 in Gendered futures in higher education:
critical perspectives for change, edited by B. Ropers-Huilman. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Zimmer, Annette, Holger Krimmer, and Freia Stallmann. 2007. Frauen an Hochschulen:
Winners among Losers. Zur Feminisierung der deutschen Universität. Opladen:
Budrich.
- 30 -
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
Proposition de communication pour
« Les inégalités dans l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche »
2ème Conférence internationale du RESUP
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2008
LA CONSTRUCTION D’EGALITE AU RISQUE DE LA
REPRODUCTION DES INEGALITES
VERSION PROVISOIRE
NE PAS CITER SANS AUTORISATION DES AUTRICES
Equipe Reunil
Farinaz Fassa, Sabine Kradolfer
Université de Lausanne, ITB-SSP
reunil@unil.ch
++41.21.692 32 25
Résumé :
Le constat de la faible représentation des femmes aux postes les plus prestigieux des hiérarchies
universitaires helvétiques (7% de femmes professeurs en 1998) donna naissance en 2001 au premier
Programme fédéral « Egalité des chances ». L’objectif principal de ce programme – le doublement du
nombre de professeures – a été atteint en 2006 puisqu’à l’issue du deuxième programme (2004-2007), la
proportion des femmes professeures s’élevait à 14%. Actuellement un nouveau doublement de ce chiffre
est souhaité pour 2012 (25% de professeures) et un troisième programme est en cours pour la période
2008-2011. Un autre des buts de ces programmes est l’institutionnalisation de la promotion de l’égalité
dans toutes les universités suisses.
Dans cette communication, nous nous interrogerons sur les représentations des carrières féminines qui
sous-tendent la philosophie des instruments de corrections des inégalités visant à promouvoir des femmes
aux postes prestigieux des hiérarchies universitaires, qu’il s’agisse des programmes fédéraux ou d’actions
plus locales au sein des universités suisses. En nous appuyant sur les résultats d’une recherche
quantitative et qualitative menée sur la relève académique à l’université de Lausanne (1990-2006), nous
verrons que les instruments proposés pour corriger les inégalités d’accès des femmes au professorat
(primes d’incitation à la nomination de femmes ; programmes de mentoring ; dispositifs de garde des
enfants) relèvent parfois d’un certain « sens commun académique » qui envisage les femmes comme « en
retard » dans leurs carrières du fait de leurs responsabilités au sein de la sphère domestique. Loin de nier
la nécessité de structures d’accueil pour les enfants et/ou d’instruments qui permettent de faciliter la
conciliation entre sphères professionnelle et familiale, nous constatons cependant que les problèmes que
les femmes peuvent rencontrer dans leurs parcours académiques sont inlassablement rapportés à des
problèmes de conciliation, alors même qu’une importante partie d’entre elles choisissent de privilégier
leur vie professionnelle au détriment de leur vie privée. Nous montrerons comment la vision des carrières
féminines rattache celles-ci au corps des femmes et notamment à la maternité (réelle ou potentielle) et
renvoie inexorablement les femmes à leur nature biologique et à une assignation prioritaire au travail de
reproduction et de soin. De notre point de vue, cette focalisation sur les difficultés de la conciliation
travail-famille décharge les organisations professionnelles que sont les universités ainsi que les
concepteurs/trices des différents programmes de promotion des carrières féminines de la responsabilité du
maintien de critères qui peuvent être à la source de discriminations directes ou indirectes : le modèle
normatif de la carrière universitaire n’est pas remis en questions et si un semblant d’égalité paraît
reconstitué, il passe par la stabilisation d’une vision extrêmement sexuée des carrières… et de la vie.
1
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
Introduction
Au tournant du 20ème siècle, les statistiques relatives au nombre de professeures dans les
universités suisses révélaient que très peu de femmes accédaient à des postes aux plus
hautes fonctions des hiérarchies académiques. Devant ce constat, tant les autorités
politiques que scientifiques du pays décidèrent de prendre des mesures afin de rendre
les carrières académiques plus attrayantes pour les femmes. De nombreux organismes
mirent ainsi sur pied des programmes s’adressant exclusivement aux femmes de la
relève ou prirent un certain nombre de mesures en faveur des femmes. Dans cette
communication, nous analyserons comment les représentations des obstacles que les
femmes rencontrent (ou rencontreraient) dans leurs parcours influencent la mise en
place de tels programmes et comment ils conduisent, au final, au maintien de certaines
inégalités. Pour ce faire, nous nous baserons principalement sur les résultats d’une
recherche que nous avons menée entre 2006 et 2008 à l’Université de Lausanne
(UNIL)1. Cette étude de cas (Fassa et al., 2008) visait à identifier les facteurs
(structurels, organisationnels et individuels) rendant les trajectoires des membres de la
relève propices à l’accomplissement d’une carrière universitaire. Nous avons mis en
place un dispositif de recherche complexe qui mêlait entretiens compréhensifs (une
cinquantaine) et analyses statistiques de données compilées par d’autres (bases de
données fournies par le centre informatique de l’UNIL) ou construites grâce aux
réponses au questionnaire (N=1008) que nous avons adressé à toutes les personnes qui,
à un titre ou un autre, ont fait partie de la relève universitaire lausannoise entre 1990 et
2006. Nos conclusions montrent que la vision des carrières féminines rattache celles-ci
au corps des femmes et notamment à la maternité (qu’elle soit réelle ou potentielle) et
qu’elle renvoie inexorablement les femmes à leur nature biologique et à une assignation
prioritaire au travail de reproduction et de soin. Ce phénomène s’inscrit parallèlement
dans une vision de la carrière académique répondant à l’idéal-type du savant wébérien,
soit un homme jeune, libéré de toute tâche non professionnelle et totalement dévoué à
ses recherches.
Les analyses que nous avons pu réaliser dans le cadre de cette étude de cas en
profondeur révèlent des mécanismes et des représentations qui émergent de manière
plus générale dans de nombreux instruments et programmes de soutien aux carrières
académiques féminines. Il nous ainsi paru intéressant de confronter nos résultats à
l’analyse des représentations des carrières féminines qui sous-tendent les Programmes
Fédéraux « Egalité » de la Conférence universitaire suisse (CUS). Ce travail de
comparaison montre qu’une inspiration commune aux mesures, tant locales que
nationales, repose sur une vision des femmes considérées comme « en retard » sur leurs
collègues masculin ou moins bien informées sur les critères des carrières académiques.
Les retards de carrière des femmes seraient ainsi liés aux difficultés de la conciliation
travail-famille, qui leur incomberait principalement. Cette focalisation sur les barrières
que rencontrent (ou rencontreraient) les femmes du fait de leur supposée maternité ou
de leur implication particulière dans la sphère privée nous semble décharger les
1
Cette recherche n’aurait pu se faire sans le soutien financier de la Direction, du Bureau de l’égalité et du
Décanat de la Faculté des sciences sociales et politiques de l’UNIL.
2
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
organisations professionnelles que sont les universités, ainsi que les concepteurs/trices
des différents programmes de promotion des carrières féminines, de la responsabilité du
maintien de critères qui peuvent être à la source de discriminations directes ou
indirectes : le modèle normatif de la carrière universitaire n’est pas remis en question et
si un semblant d’égalité paraît reconstitué, il passe par la stabilisation d’une vision
extrêmement sexuée des carrières… et de la vie.
Les Programmes Fédéraux « Egalité » 2
Intitulés très exactement Programmes « Egalité des chances entre femmes et hommes
dans les universités » (PFE)3, ces instruments de promotion des femmes ont été mis en
place au début des années 2000 par la CUS « l’organe commun de la Confédération et
des cantons pour la collaboration dans le domaine de la politique des hautes écoles
universitaires ». Ils correspondent à une volonté politique visant à favoriser l’accès des
femmes au professorat issue du constat particulièrement dramatique établit, de la faible
proportion des femmes aux fonctions les plus élevées des hiérarchies académiques. On
ne comptait en effet, en 1998, que 7% de femmes professeures occupant des postes
stables à temps plein ou à temps partiel. Depuis lors, différents programmes et
instruments ont été mis en place par les institutions qui composent le paysage
universitaire suisse. Outre la création des PFE, sur lesquels nous reviendrons plus en
détail ci-dessous, on peut citer :
- La levée des limites d’âge, entre 2002 et 2008, pour les bourses de chercheuses
débutantes et avancées du Fonds National Suisse (FNS), ainsi que la prise en
compte d’âge académique pour tous les instruments de promotion de la relève
depuis 2009.
- La création en 1991 des subsides Marie Heim-Vögtlin du FNS destinés à des
candidates de niveau doctorat ou post-doctorat pour effectuer un travail de
recherche. Jusqu’à 2002, les femmes des sciences humaines et sociales étaient
exclues de ce programme.
- La création des Bureaux de l’égalité des chances entre femmes et hommes
(BEC) dans la plupart des institutions liées à la recherche.
- Des mesure locales liées à des volontés institutionnelles ou personnelles
particulières.
En automne 1999, les Chambres fédérales adoptèrent le Message du Conseil fédéral du
25 novembre 1998 relatif à l’encouragement de la formation, de la recherche et de la
technologie pour les années 2000-2003. Dans ce message, une série de propositions
donnèrent naissance au premier PFE dans le but de corriger les disparités entre les taux
de femmes et d’hommes au sommet des hiérarchies académiques. Il était piloté par la
CUS (à l’aide d’un comité élu ad hoc) et avait pour cadre légal la loi fédérale du 8
octobre 1999 sur l’aide aux universités (LAU). Les objectifs de ce programme, qui sera
reconduit avec la même enveloppe budgétaire de 16 mios pour la période 2004 à 2007,
2
Les éléments présentés ci-dessous sont tirés de Bachman et al., (2004), Widmer et Lischetti, (2003) ainsi
que d’informations disponibles sur les sites web de la CUS (www.cus.ch), de la CRUS (www.crus.ch) et
du Bureau de l’égalité de l’UNIL (www.unil.ch/egalite/) [pages consultées entre avril 2008 et mai 2009]
3
http://www.cus.ch/wFranzoesisch/portrait/index.php?navid=2 [page consultée le 29 avril 2009]
3
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
étaient de parvenir à doubler la proportion des femmes pour atteindre un taux de 14% en
2006. Cet objectif paraissait particulièrement difficile à atteindre mais il a pourtant été
rempli à la fin de l’année académique 2005-2006 (l’Unil se situant quant à elle
seulement à 13%). Le troisième PFE 2008-2011 est géré pour des raisons stratégiques
par la Conférence des recteurs des universités suisses (CRUS)4 et vise quant à lui à
atteindre le chiffre de 25% de femmes professeures en 2012. D’ici-là, les responsables
du projet espèrent arriver à institutionnaliser la promotion de l’égalité dans toutes les
universités suisses. Chaque PFE a disposé d’une enveloppe budgétaire d’environ 16
mios et les établissements qui ont participé ou participent à un projet (modules 2 et 3,
voir ci-dessous) doivent, en principe, assurer la moitié du financement. Pour la période
2000-2007, l’Unil a reçu plus de 3 mios de francs (Theurillat et Jufer, 2006 : 64), preuve
de l’implication de cette dernière dans les programmes d’encouragement aux carrières
féminines et de la pertinence d’une comparaison entre la vision des carrières
universitaires qui émerge dans les discours des personnes de l’UNIL, que nous avons
analysés dans notre recherche (Fassa et al., 2008), et celle qui est présentée dans les
PFE.
Chaque PFE comprend trois modules qui regroupent différentes mesures :
1. Le « système d’incitation » récompense financièrement les universités pour la
nomination de femmes professeur.e.s sur des postes stabilisés. Ces fonds sont
distribués aux universités en fonction du nombre de femmes nommées durant
l’année écoulée. Tous les établissements, qui pouvaient utiliser ces fonds à bien
plaire, ont décidé de les investir dans la promotion de l’égalité des chances et ont
financé divers projets en fonction des réalités et des besoins propre à chaque
institution.
2. Les programmes de « mentoring » ont pour objectif d’encourager la relève
féminine à poursuivre dans les carrières universitaires par le biais de systèmes
de coaching, de bourses et d’offres de conseils et de formations, ainsi que de la
mise en réseaux des femmes engagées dans une carrière. Ce réseautage se fait
par le biais d’un marrainage par des femmes plus expérimentées, des rencontres
entre doctorantes ou encore des échanges entre les personnes intéressées par les
Etudes genre et les questions d’égalité. Le financement de ce module s’est fait
par le versement de montants fixes et de contributions variables (en fonction du
nombre de titres de diplômes, licences ou doctorats, décernés à des femmes) aux
universités (mentoring intra-universitaire) et à des projets inter-universitaires.
3. Les « structures d’encadrement pour les enfants » consistent à développer les
places d’accueil pour les enfants dans les crèches universitaires puisque les
possibilités de garde en 1999 ne satisfaisaient pas les besoins des étudiant.e.s,
doctorant.e.s et enseignant.e.s. Ce module cherche à créer de meilleures
conditions pour concilier études ou carrière académique et obligations
familiales. Les montants alloués (tout comme pour ceux du deuxième module)
sont composés de sommes fixes et de contributions variables en fonction du
nombre de diplômes décernés aux femmes par les universités bénéficiaires. Les
projets de ce module sont appelés à se poursuivre durablement dans l’avenir
puisqu’il s’agit d’amélioration ou de création d’infrastructures qui devraient
4
http://www.crus.ch/information-programmes/egalite-des-chances.html?L=1 [pages consultées le 29 avril
2009]
4
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
avoir un effet positif à long terme sur l’égalité des chances et l’augmentation du
nombre de femmes professeures.
Dans le PFE pour la période 2008-2011, un quatrième module prévoit le développement
et le soutien aux Etudes genre dans des filières interdisciplinaires (création de chaires,
mise en place de bourses, encouragement à la recherche…).
Des programmes pour aider les femmes dans leurs carrières
L’un des principaux problèmes qui nous semblent émerger de la lecture détaillée des
différents instruments proposés par le PFE pour permettre aux femmes d’accéder aux
plus hautes sphères des hiérarchies académiques, est lié à l’utilisation d’instruments de
soutien individuels et individualisés des carrières féminines. En effet, alors que de
nombreuses études ont montré que les inégalités entre les femmes et les hommes étaient
la conséquence de facteurs non seulement individuels mais aussi structurels (Bourdieu,
1984 ; Bourdieu et Passeron, 1964 ; Roux et al., 1997) et organisationnels (CSST,
2001 ; Felli et al., 2006 ; Palomba et Menniti, 2001 ; Rehmann, 2004), les instruments
pensés dans les PFE présentés ci-dessus, s’adressent, pour la plupart d’entre eux,
individuellement aux femmes5. Ils font ainsi l’impasse sur toute une réflexion au sujet
des structures universitaires et ne proposent de ce fait que peu d’aménagements afin
d’ancrer durablement de véritables politiques d’égalité au sein de ces institutions. Bref,
ils offrent une récompense aux universités qui nomment des femmes (module 1 : primes
d’incitations), proposent à certaines femmes de bénéficier de soutiens pour combler
leurs retards de carrière ou leur connaissance insuffisante des rouages de l’académie
(module 2 : mentoring), ou améliorent les structures de garde des enfants de certains
parents (mères ?) (module 3 : crèches).
Avant de nous intéresser plus en détail au mentoring et aux représentations des carrières
féminines au sein des académies qui lui sont liées, nous nous arrêterons rapidement sur
les deux autres modules. Les primes d’incitation du module 1, dont l’appellation en
allemand est beaucoup moins euphémistique, puisqu’on y parle de « Kopfprämien »
(primes par tête) nous rappellent que pour pouvoir faire circuler les femmes entre
différentes familles, les sociétés patriarcales européennes avaient mis au point le
système de la dot. Dot dont le prix était proportionnel à l’ascension sociale
(hypergamie) que la femme allait opérer par le biais du mariage. Si ces pratiques sont
maintenant tombées en désuétude dans la plupart des cercles de la vie civile, nous
sommes bien obligées de constater que la dot a fait son retour dans les sphères
professionnelles des académies suisses. Et que le succès n’était pas forcément au
rendez-vous, comme par exemple en 2002-2003 à l’UNIL, puisque ces primes ne
5
L’augmentation du nombre de places dans les crèches, qui contribuera à une amélioration des
infrastructures existantes, ne parviendra pas à répondre à toutes les demandes de la communauté
universitaire. De ce fait, seules les personnes dont les enfants sont pris en charge sur leur campus verront
les conditions de la conciliation entre leur vie professionnelle et leur vie privée améliorée. Pour que l’effet
des crèches puisse être considéré comme un instrument structurel de promotion des femmes, il faudrait
qu’il s’adresse à une large majorité des parents et plus seulement à une minorité d’élu.e.s.
5
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
suffirent pas à faire entrer cette année-là, des femmes au sein du sérail (ou de la tribu),
aucune femme n’ayant été nommée sur un poste professoral stable.
Les crèches du module 3 renvoient le plus clairement les femmes à la maternité et bien
qu’il soit spécifié, dans un cahier présentant le premier PFE que « […] mères et pères
assument ensemble la garde des enfants » (Widmer et Lischetti, 2003 : 28), celle-ci
semble toutefois concerner avant tout les femmes : « Lorsque les places de crèches
existent en nombre suffisant, les femmes envisagent plus volontiers de fonder une
famille, car elles savent qu’elles pourront poursuivre en même temps leur carrière
professionnelle. En mettant sur pied de telles structures d’accueil, les universités
contribuent donc activement à encourager la relève féminine en évitant aux femmes de
devoir interrompre leur parcours professionnel » (2003 : 28). Même si en 2003, comme
le montre la première des citations ci-dessus, l’idée que les homme participent à la
garde des enfants était affirmée, on peut lire sur la page web, créée en 2008 sur le site de
la CRUS pour présenter le troisième PFE (2008-2011) que : « […] des structures
d'accueil flexibles ont été mises sur pied (p. ex. pour répondre aux besoins des mères en
cas de maladie, de participation à une séance ou à un congrès, etc.) […] »6 (nous
soulignons). Ceci est d’autant plus choquant que l’on parle abondamment des
problèmes rencontrés par les Dual Career Couples (DCC) dans le troisième PFE et que
des injonctions fortes sont faites pour mettre sur pied des instruments permettant la
poursuite des carrières des deux membres du couple. Or, le fait de considérer, en 2008,
que les structures d’accueil répondent aux besoins des mères en oubliant de faire
allusion aux pères révèle bien qu’une certaine vision de la famille et du couple perdure,
vision qui renvoie encore et toujours les femmes à la sphère privée (même dans les
programmes de soutien aux académiciennes) et les hommes au domaine public. Loin de
nier la nécessité de structures d’accueil pour les enfants et/ou d’instruments qui
permettent de faciliter la conciliation entre sphères professionnelle et familiale, nous
constatons ainsi que les problèmes que les femmes peuvent rencontrer dans leurs
parcours académiques sont ainsi inlassablement rapportés à des problèmes de
conciliation, alors que cela n’est presque jamais le cas pour les hommes et/ou comme
nous le verrons ci-dessous, qu’une part importante des femmes choisissent de
privilégier leur vie professionnelle au détriment de leur vie privée.
Le deuxième module destiné aux programmes de mentoring attirera ici particulièrement
notre attention. En effet, partant du constat que pour permettre aux femmes de
poursuivre dans les carrières universitaires, il faut leur offrir du coaching, des offres de
conseils et de formations, et favoriser leur mise en réseau, ce module appelait à la
soumission de projet de mentoring par la communauté académique. Nombre de ces
projets reprennent des catégories bien connues de mentoring :
- One-to-one (mentoring individuel) : constitution de paires de mentor/menta
(enseignant.e-chercheur.e senior) et mentee (femme de la relève).
- Some-to-one (mentoring de groupe) : un groupe de mentees est encadré par un.e
mentor/menta.
- Peer mentoring : mise en réseau de femmes de la relève qui mettent en commun
leurs expériences.
6
http://www.crus.ch/information-programmes/egalite-des-chances.html?L=1 [page consultée le 15 mai
2009]
6
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
-
Offre de cours et/ou de conférences pour soutenir les jeunes chercheuses à
différentes étapes de leur carrière académique ou les sensibiliser aux questions
liées à l'égalité.
- Allocation de bourses pour des décharges pour les activités d’enseignement afin
de permettre à certaines femmes de se consacrer à la rédaction de la thèse ou
d’articles scientifiques et rattraper ainsi leur supposé retard.
D’autres projets s’adressent aux collégiennes du secondaire II, pour leur faire connaître
des disciplines où le nombre de femmes est faibles (notamment mathématiques,
informatique et sciences naturelles), par le biais de journées d’information ou de stages
dans des équipes de recherche. Finalement, certains projets ont permis la mise en place
de banques de données ou de plateformes de communication (Femdat, une banque de
données des expertes en Suisse, et le LIEGE, Laboratoire interuniversitaire en Etudes
Genre), attestant ainsi d’une volonté de dépasser la logique d’un soutien individualisé à
un certain nombre de femmes pour envisager la question des carrières de manière plus
collective.
Le retard des femmes
Nous constatons ainsi, tant dans les instruments du PFE que dans la recherche que nous
avons menée à l’UNIL, que les réponses aux inégalités observées au sein des universités
se concentrent sur des mesures de « rattrapage » destinées aux femmes pour qu’elles
puissent combler leur « retard », principalement en leur proposant de l’aide pour
progresser dans leurs carrières ainsi que dans la conciliation entre vie professionnelle et
vie familiale. Il est à cet égard extrêmement intéressant de noter qu’une large majorité
des personnes que nous avons rencontrées s’accordent sur le fait que les limites d’âge
doivent être flexibles pour les femmes, l’un.e des responsables des facultés, citant en
exemple les Etats-Unis, où un enfant égale une année de « retard » sur le cursus normal.
Cette référence montre en elle-même que le modèle normatif de la carrière professorale
renvoie à la partition entre sphère privée et sphère publique, la première « débordant »
ponctuellement, pour des raisons essentiellement liées à la maternité ou à l’éducation
des enfants, sur la sphère professionnelle, et occasionnant ainsi des « retards » de
carrière pour les femmes. Ces associations montrent aussi que les femmes sont
considérées comme étant seules responsables du fonctionnement de la vie familiale et il
s’agit dans cette optique de les rendre plus aptes à assurer la conciliation entre famille et
travail. Le modèle existant, qui est celui qu’ont forgé les générations de professeurs
masculins actuellement en exercice, n’est ainsi jamais fondamentalement mis en cause.
Si la figure de l’excellence précoce, telle qu’elle a été mise en évidence par Goastellec
et al. (2007) au sujet des postes de professeur.e.s boursiers.ières du FNS est présentée
comme une solution aux carrières féminines, force est de constater que ce type de profil
est relativement peu fréquent7. Il s’agit de personnes réalisant des carrières linéaires et
enchaînant sans interruption le doctorat, des recherches post-doctorales et des postes de
professeur.e.s d’abord précaires, puis stables au début de la trentaine. Ce type de
7
Il n’est par ailleurs que peu compatible avec les études en sciences humaines dans lesquelles la durée
des thèses excède largement celle qui est le fait des sciences de la vie ou de certaines des filières de droit.
7
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
carrière est considéré par certain.e.s décideurs.euses comme permettant aux femmes de
faire carrière à condition qu’elles acceptent d’avoir des enfants après leur nomination
sur des postes stables. Or, nous avons constaté dans notre recherche sur la relève
académique à l’UNIL (Fassa et al., 2008) que les femmes sont engagées plus âgées que
les hommes aux postes d’assistant.e.s diplômé.e.s, de premiers.ières assistant.e.s, de
MA, de MER et de professeur.e.s, les retards se cumulant au cours de la carrière. De
plus, les femmes restent moins longtemps à l’Unil que les hommes et elles y
accomplissent des carrières plus « basiques » c’est-à-dire qu’elles sont plus nombreuses
à quitter cet environnement professionnel après quelques années d’assistanat et à se
réorienter vers d’autres activités professionnelles. Il faut encore ajouter à cela que les
femmes travaillant à l’Unil changent plus souvent que les hommes de taux d’activité et
qu’elles sont en général moins satisfaites de leur cadre professionnel que celles qui sont
employées hors de l’université, alors que les hommes qui travaillent dans l’Alma Mater
se déclarent très contents, plus contents que les hommes employés hors de l’Unil.
Nos résultats montrent que l’exclusion des femmes au sommet des hiérarchies n’est pas
uniquement influencée par des facteurs individuels mais aussi par des facteurs d’ordre
organisationnels et structurels. A vouloir « apprendre » aux femmes, par le biais de
programmes de mentoring, à mieux gérer individuellement leur carrière et à mieux
comprendre les ficelles du métier de chercheuse, il nous semble par conséquent que l’on
passe sous silence nombre d’éléments qui les freinent dans leurs parcours et sur lesquels
elles n’ont individuellement aucune prise.
Femmes, maternité, carrière et conciliation
Afin de mieux comprendre pourquoi des mesures individuelles n’arriveront que très
difficilement à avoir des effets sur la situation d’exclusion des femmes des postes les
plus élevés des hiérarchies académiques, nous allons nous revenir de manière plus
détaillée sur la question de la conciliation entre sphère privée et sphère professionnelle.
L’image des femmes dans l’institution universitaire reste fortement attachée à un
modèle normatif qui associe les femmes, même professeures, à la sphère privée (et les
décrit prioritairement comme des mères actives ou potentielles), et les hommes (même
s’ils sont pères) à la sphère publique. Parallèlement au rattachement des femmes à la
sphère privée, la forte implication de la charge de professeur.e ordinaire dans la sphère
publique est affirmée avec les obligations de participer à de nombreuses séances,
d’appartenir à des réseaux ou encore de fournir des activités de service. Ces éléments
sont relevés à plusieurs reprises comme pouvant poser problème dès lors que des
enfants doivent être pris en charge. Cette vision du monde fait reposer tout entière la
question de la conciliation vie professionnelle – vie familiale sur les femmes, exigeant
de celles qui visent une carrière académique qu’en plus des autres compétences liées à
la carrière professorale, elles soient des gestionnaires hors pair de leur temps et exigeant
des compagnes des hommes dans la même situation qu’elles organisent leur vie et leur
carrière en fonction de celle de leur compagnon. Cette vision du monde renvoie aussi
les femmes à leurs corps et associe leur appartenance biologique à un inévitable et
évident projet de procréation. Cette explication a ceci de particulier qu’elle considère
finalement les inégalités dans l’accès aux postes professoraux comme l’effet des
8
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
potentialités ou des limites qu’impliquerait le sexe des femmes. Les autorités décanales
font ainsi très largement référence aux femmes du personnel académique en les
décrivant avant tout comme des mères potentielles (la question de la paternité
potentielle des hommes n’est que très rarement évoquée – une seule occasion), les
difficultés de la carrière académique étant envisagées en partant de cette vision. Dans
cette logique, il semble évident :
• premièrement, que toute femme est mère, même si ce n’est que virtuellement ;
• deuxièmement, que la maternité réelle ou supposée engendre toute une série de
difficultés qui se traduisent principalement par le fait que les femmes sont moins
disponibles que les hommes pour leur métier, puisqu’elles sont par ailleurs
chargées de gérer la sphère familiale ;
• troisièmement, que cet état de fait implique à son tour des retards de carrières
qui ne peuvent être vraiment comblés, si ce n’est grâce à des « mesures
correctives » (Fraser, 2005), telles que celles prônées par les programmes de
mentoring.
La récurrence et la convergence de tels propos sont extrêmement importantes et ils
semblent s’appuyer sur une logique rigoureuse qui ne souffrirait pas d’exceptions. Cette
logique est par ailleurs assez unanimement partagée par les membres de la relève en ce
qui concerne la source principale des inégalités pour ne pas être questionnée en tant que
telle. Ses soubassements ne sont que rarement discutés même si, dans les faits, ils ne
correspondent pas à la situation des femmes travaillant à l’Unil et sur lesquels nous
reviendrons ci-dessous. Ils sont particulièrement bien illustrés par la citation cidessous :
« Je dis que pour un prof, je vois que les femmes sont moins disponibles, je le vois comme
homme, les femmes sont moins disponibles pour les services, alors qu’elles ont des tas de
raisons d’être plus ouvertes à l’aspect ‘services’. Elles sont moins disponibles quand elles ont
des enfants en particulier, mais peut-être simplement parce que le modèle que j’ai dans la tête
du service c’est un homme à 120 pourcent qui est tout le temps là, qui est au bureau, et [pour
qui] la vie de famille passera après les services » (B1).
Les associations faites ici montrent que pour être « professorable », il faudrait organiser
l’ensemble de sa vie autour de ses obligations professionnelles. Or la qualité de mère
qui s’attache à toutes les femmes – et ceci qu’elles aient ou non des enfants, qu’elles
envisagent ou non cette éventualité – rend cette qualification impossible. Un tel discours
a des effets sur le déroulement des carrières des femmes, d’autant plus qu’il est produit
par des personnes susceptibles de faire partie des commissions évaluant les dossiers.
Si nous nous penchons en détail sur la situation des femmes à l’UNIL, à l’aide des
réponses que nous avons obtenues à notre questionnaire (N=1008), nous constatons que
les femmes travaillant à l’Université ne sont aussi des mères que dans une proportion
très minime en comparaison avec les moyennes nationales et que par conséquent,
l’explication de leur moindre succès professionnel ne peut donc se trouver dans ce
facteur. En effet, seules 37.2% des 427 femmes de notre population ont un ou plusieurs
enfants, alors que les hommes sont pères dans une proportion bien plus importante
(51.2% ; N=566). Dès lors, et même si, comme le dit une personne interrogée : « Je ne
parle pas des femmes célibataires qui sont sans doute des hommes, de ce point de vuelà », la maternité ne peut être invoquée comme freinant toutes les carrières. De plus, loin
de subordonner leur carrière professionnelle à des choix de vie familiaux, les femmes
disent significativement plus que les hommes faire dépendre leurs choix de vie privée
9
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
des impératifs de la carrière : à la question « Envisagez-vous d’en avoir [des enfants] ? »
qui tentait de mesurer la perception de la relation entre carrière et famille, les femmes
disent de manière significativement plus nette que les hommes (Khi2(1) =17.95 ; N=612
p<.001) modifier leurs projets de parentalité pour des raisons professionnelles (« Oui,
mais plus tard pour des raisons professionnelles » : 17.6% ; « Non, pour des raisons
professionnelles » : 3%), (respectivement 9% et 2.1% pour les hommes). Ces résultats
montrent que, loin de faire dépendre leur vie professionnelle de leur vie privée et
familiale, les femmes de l’Unil construisent plus que les hommes des stratégies
professionnelles qui tentent d’adapter leur vie privée aux impératifs de la profession
d’universitaire. Ils suggèrent aussi une sensibilité accrue des femmes à l’articulation
entre vie professionnelle et vie privée, sensibilité qui se traduit par les réponses données
à la question touchant à la perception de la relation entre vie de couple et
accomplissement professionnel. Si les répondant.e.s considèrent très majoritairement le
« fait de vivre avec une ou des autres personnes » comme un « avantage »
(respectivement 84% des hommes et 77.8% des femmes), les femmes sont
significativement (Khi2(1)=5.79 N=925 p=.016) plus divisées que les hommes sur cette
question. Il y a donc lieu de constater que les femmes de notre population perçoivent
avec plus d’acuité que les hommes les difficultés de concilier vie familiale et vie
professionnelle et que cette dernière influe grandement sur leurs choix dans le domaine
privé.
De tels résultats ne permettent pas pour autant de conclure que la conciliation travailfamille ne pèse pas plus sur les épaules des femmes que sur celles des hommes. Nos
résultats montrent qu’au contraire les femmes paient un tribut bien plus lourd que les
hommes de ce point de vue : 18.4% des femmes interrogées disent effectuer la plupart
des tâches, les hommes dans la même situation ne consistant qu’en une toute petite
minorité (2%) et une forte proportion des hommes reconnaît que la plupart des tâches
sont effectuées par leur conjointe (21%). La prise en charge des enfants est le domaine
où les différences sont les plus nettes et les réponses des personnes interrogées montrent
que les hommes bénéficient largement du travail de leur conjointe alors que les femmes
ne peuvent le faire. L’éducation des enfants ne semble pas faire partie de la vie des
hommes universitaires, à tel point que 91% d’entre eux ne prennent part aux activités
éducatives que pour 1/4 ou moins du temps, 1.8% consacrant plus de la moitié de leur
temps à ces activités. L’investissement des femmes est de nature différente. Une grande
proportion d’entre elles (31.3%) disent prendre en charge les enfants pour moitié, celles
qui s’en occupent moins étant toutefois plus nombreuses (40.3%) que celles qui s’en
occupent plus (28.4%). De telles différences pointent le moindre investissement des
hommes dans la sphère familiale mais aussi le report de ce type de charges sur leur
compagne, les femmes devant salarier une personne externe si elles ne peuvent
consacrer plus de la moitié de leur temps à leurs enfants. En effet, près de la moitié des
hommes qui travaillent ou étudient comme doctorants à l’Unil (47.5%%) font appel à
leur compagne pour prendre en charge leurs enfants pour plus de la moitié du temps.
Les femmes jouissant d’une telle aide de la part de leur compagnon sont, par contre, très
nettement minoritaires (6.3%).
10
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
Problèmes structurels, réponses individuelles
Sans nier l’apport que les programmes de mentoring peuvent apporter aux carrière
féminines (notre groupe de travail est né de rencontres réalisées dans ce cadre-là et notre
projet a bénéficié du soutien du LIEGE), force est de constater que la réalisation d’un
véritable gender mainstreaming ne sera possible qu’au prix d’une déconstruction des
représentations de la carrière académique. En effet, les récits de carrière que nous avons
entendus ont mis l’accent sur des obstacles et facilitations de toute nature mais ceux qui
se mettent sur le chemin des femmes sont plus nombreux et tiennent à leur sexe. Les
discriminations dont il a été fait mention sont pour la plupart dues à une perception des
femmes qui les rattachent encore prioritairement à la sphère privée et qui conçoit leur
investissement professionnel comme complémentaire à leur investissement privé. Leur
carrière, au regard des normes universitaires, est finalement conçue comme atypique.
L’importance du thème de la conciliation dans l’ensemble des discours en témoigne non
seulement mais induit aussi des pratiques organisationnelles de par sa performativité.
Nos propos sont loin de mettre en cause la réalité des difficultés de la conciliation et
l’importance des tensions auxquelles donne lieu l’impératif de faire jouer les
implications professionnelles avec les implications privées. Ces tensions sont fortes et
elles créent, comme le disent les répondant.e.s des obstacles dans les carrières féminines
et dans certaines des carrières masculines. Elles sont perceptibles par la plupart de nos
interlocuteurs.trices institutionnel.le.s qui tentent de trouver des solutions pour les lever,
tout au moins partiellement. Plusieurs des responsables des Facultés de l’UNIL ont
d’ailleurs fait état de leur volonté de « construction de l’égalité » (Laufer, 2005) en
envisageant la possibilité de mesures de rattrapage pour compenser le temps consacré à
la maternité. Elles vont d’une interprétation souple des limites d’âge à un calcul qui
équivaut un enfant par une année de « retard » ou un article en moins. Cette attitude,
louable car elle permet d’envisager des actions pour promouvoir l’égalité, n’est que
rarement mise en relation avec la paternité et ses obligations. Une seule personne, parmi
les responsables facultaires, dit pouvoir envisager que ces mesures soient ouvertes
indifféremment aux deux sexes. Ce fait est regrettable car il maintient l’association
femme-maternité-sphère privée et fait subsister les raisons elles-mêmes qui peuvent être
à la source de la moindre confiance accordée aux femmes. Il semble paradoxal que cette
question ne soit prise au sérieux et que les sacrifices demandés aux femmes ne soient
évalués à leur juste prix, que sous la pression des revendications d’hommes voulant
vivre dans un monde plus égalitaire.
La « communauté d’intérêt » est celle qui traditionnellement régi les carrières
scientifiques et elle est tout aussi traditionnellement très majoritairement masculine.
Cette caractéristique extérieure à la profession intervient dans le dessin des trajectoires
et construit un plafond de verre sur le chemin des femmes, dessinant de plus une voie
bornée par des parois de verre. Les mécanismes de cette exclusion de la course aux
postes les plus prestigieux ne sont toutefois pas explicites et les responsables des
Facultés justifient le faible nombre de femmes aux postes professoraux par des éléments
qui renvoient justement au système de genre et les dédouanent de la responsabilité
organisationnelle que porte l’Unil. Le discours sur la conciliation travail-famille semble
être un de ces cache-genre et il a ceci de particulier qu’il sert à définir des politiques
tendant à construire plus d’égalité. On ne saurait nier, comme le remarque Laufer
(2005), que ce discours reflète une part de réalité, tant il est vrai que « le poids des
11
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
modèles de socialisation et la question des rôles familiaux » a pour effet de construire
de plus grandes difficultés lorsqu’il s’agit de circonvenir les obstacles de la carrière
professorale8. Mais un tel discours a aussi pour résultat de « négliger l’importance
d’autres processus qui sont, eux, localisés dans les organisations, et qui (à travers les
processus de recrutement et de carrière notamment) assignent aux femmes des rôles et
des statuts organisationnels exigeant soumission et dépendance » (Laufer, 2005 : 34).
La focalisation faite sur les difficultés de la conciliation travail-famille participe ainsi,
de notre point de vue, à décharger les membres de ces organisations professionnelles de
la responsabilité des politiques de recrutement et du maintien de critères qui peuvent
être à la source de discriminations directes ou indirectes9. En faisant reposer les
différences que l’on peut constater dans les recrutements sur des facteurs extérieurs aux
Facultés et à l’université, les membres des autorités décanales se délestent d’un poids
qui pourrait inciter à la révision des critères de recrutement et de construction de la
carrière. Cette perception est partagée par les membres de la relève; sa prépondérance
évite que le modèle normatif de la carrière universitaire ne soit questionné et ses normes
discutées. Dans ce registre, l’explication des inégalités en termes de genre est ramenée à
une question de sexe et ce sont les femmes, du fait des limitations – ou des potentialités
– de leur corps qui finissent par être responsables de leurs « retards de carrière ».
Conclusion : pistes pour rompre avec l’idée du « retard »
La situation décrite combine des inégalités s’inscrivant dans les différents niveaux de la
réalité sociale, dans le système de genre, dans l’organisation professionnelle qu’est
l’Unil et, au niveau individuel, elle induit des « choix » très cadrés selon le genre des
personnes. Elle est connue des acteurs/trices de l’Unil et amène les femmes qui
travaillent à l’Unil à exprimer une moindre satisfaction professionnelle que leurs
collègues masculins. Elle les conduit aussi à imaginer moins volontiers leur avenir
comme professeure et à adopter des stratégies (y inclus de rupture) différentes selon
qu’elles considèrent que l’égalité passe par l’un des trois modèles décrits ci-dessous.
•
Le premier modèle consiste dans le maintien du statut quo ; ce modèle masculin
du savant désincarné et sans inscription autre que la science exige des femmes
qu’elles s’adaptent ; dans ce cadre, elles doivent travailler plus que les hommes
et faire des sacrifices plus importants pour obtenir des résultats similaires. C’est
en adéquation avec ce modèle qu’une de nos répondantes a pu déclarer que :
Mais le fait d'être une femme, tu dois toujours t'associer avec soit un prof ou soit un homme.
Donc moi je me suis toujours associée avec un partenaire homme pour arriver au bout de nos
8
Le rapport écrit par Roux, et al. il y a plus de 10 ans, montrait brillamment que « …la conjugalité et la
famille constituent un obstacle à la carrière féminine, tandis qu’elles soutiennent au contraire la carrière
masculine » (1997 : 26).
9
« La discrimination indirecte utilise un critère, autre que l’un des critères prohibé par le droit
communautaire pour fonder une différence de traitement, à l’encontre de personnes relevant d’un de ces
critères. Le résultat est analogue à celui d’une discrimination directe mais à l’issue d’un processus
différent. La discrimination indirecte est ainsi cachée par un critère neutre faisant écran. La discrimination
indirecte se découvre en examinant les effets de la règle ou de la pratique. La discrimination indirecte est
une discrimination en fait. » (Miné, 2003 : 8).
12
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
affaires. C'est une stratégie qui est quasiment nécessaire dans cet institut…pour réussir malgré
tout. Donc, c'est quand même une barrière. Avoir des projets propres comme un homme, ce n'est
pas possible, ça je ne crois pas que. Mais il faut accepter ça comme ça. Moi je n'ai pas de
problème d'avoir quelqu'un devant, mais entre avoir quelqu'un devant et être complètement
effacée, ça, c'est autre chose ! (F, 322).
•
Le second modèle vise l’intégration des femmes au sein de l’université mais
conserve le même modèle normatif comme référence. Appréhendant les femmes
comme des outsiders qui doivent bénéficier de mesures d’encouragement (telles
que celle prônées par les PFE et les programmes de mentoring) pour rattraper
leurs retards ou compenser leur atypicité, il maintient une forme
d’essentialisation du genre. Un semblant d’égalité paraît reconstitué, mais il
passe par la stabilisation d’une vision extrêmement sexuée des carrières… et de
la vie. Ce second modèle peut par ailleurs créer du ressentiment car les
corrections qu’il apporte ponctuellement isolent celles qui en bénéficient et
peuvent les faire approcher comme des « bénéficiaires privilégiées d’un
traitement de faveur immérité » (Fraser 2005 : 37) plutôt que comme des
personnes à qui l’on donne leur dû.
•
Finalement, le troisième modèle affirme qu’une véritable politique d’égalité ne
sera possible qu’au prix d’un changement fondamental de paradigme (par
ailleurs aussi revendiqué par certains hommes) et d’une mise en cause des
normes nées de l’icône wébérienne du savant.
Il va sans dire que la pérennité du premier modèle nous semble inacceptable dans une
perspective de construction de l’égalité. Il inscrit en effet les femmes dans des situations
de dépendance et de soumission et les contraint à ruser pour se faire (re)connaître et
pour valoriser leurs mérites. Dans ce cadre, l’excellence ne peut jamais se conjuguer au
féminin et en faire preuve revient à accepter de se nier dans des différences culturelles
qui existent et marquent les trajectoires. Quant au second modèle, il correspond à ce que
Fraser décrit comme une « redistribution corrective » visant « à remédier à l’injustice
économique de genre [en] s’efforçant de garantir aux femmes une part équitable des
emplois et des formation existants, sans toucher ni à la nature ni au nombre de ceux-ci »
(2005 : 37). Se présentant comme un rééquilibrage des sexes dans les couches
supérieures des hiérarchies, ces corrections ne s’attachent pas à la question de la
reconnaissance ; elles ne prennent pas en compte l’injustice culturelle faite aux femmes
et ne valorisent pas la féminité. Certaines des critiques faites à ces timides tentatives
d’ « action positive » montrent à l’envi que ces redressements laissent intact « le code
binaire du genre » et peuvent donner naissance à de nouvelles formes de nonreconnaissance et à de nouveaux dénis de compétences. Le troisième modèle, auquel va
notre faveur car il est seul susceptible de servir de base à la diversité et de souche à une
véritable égalité implique lui que les critères et les normes de la carrières soient
réévalués de façon à prendre du large avec les références maculinistes implicites qui lui
ont donné naissance. Il s’agit ici, dans l’optique de Fraser, d’une remédiation
transformatrice dont elle dit qu’elle « vise les causes profondes » et qui passe par la
déconstruction et tend « à mettre fin au non-respect en transformant la structure
13
Reunil : Fassa-Kradolfer
d’évaluation culturelle sous-jacente. En déstabilisant les identités et la différenciation
existantes, ces remèdes ne se contentent pas de permettre au respect de soi des groupes
actuellement non respectés de se développer ; ils changent le sens de soi de chacun.»
[sic] (Fraser 2005 : 31).
Bibliographie
Bachmann, R., Rothmayr, C., & Spreyermann, C. (2004). Evaluation Programme
fédéral Egalité des chances entre les femmes et les hommes dans le domaine
universitaire. Rapport sur la mise en oeuvre et l'efficacité du programme de
2000 à 2003. Berne: OFES.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1964). Les héritiers. Paris: Minuit.
CSST (Conseil suisse de la science et de la technologie). (2001). L'encouragement de la
relève universitaire dans les hautes écoles suisses (No. document CSST
1/2001). Berne: Conseil suisse de la science et de la technologie.
Fassa, F., Kradolfer, S., & Paroz, S. (2008). Enquête au royaume de Matilda. La relève
académique à l’Université de Lausanne. Genève et Lausanne: PAVIE Working
Papers (Vol. 1).
Felli, R., Goastellec, G., Baschung, L., & Leresche, J.-P. (2006). Politique fédérale
d'encouragement de la relève académique et stratégies institutionnelles des
universités. Evaluation du programme "relève" de la Confédération (20002004). Lausanne: Observatoire Science/politique/société. Université de
Lausanne.
Fraser, N. (2005). Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution.
Paris: La découverte.
Goastellec, G., Leresche, J.-P., Moeschler, O., & Nicolay, A. (2007). Les
transformations du marché académique suisse. Evaluation du programme
Professeurs boursiers FNS. Berne: Fonds national suisse.
Laufer, J. (2005). La construction du plafond de verre: le cas des femmes cadres à
potentiel. Travail et emploi, 102, 31-44.
Miné, M. 2003. "Les concepts de discrimination directe et indirecte", Lutte contre la
discrimination: Les nouvelles directives de 2000 sur l’égalité de traitement,
Trèves
31
mars-1er
avril
2003,
http://www.era.int/web/fr/resources/5_1095_2955_file_fr.4200.pdf
(consulté
mai 2008).
Palomba, R., & Menniti, A. (Eds.). (2001). Filles de Minerve. Rome: Institut de
recherche sur la population et les politiques sociales.
Rehmann, I. (2004). Helsinki-Gruppe. Frauen in der Wissenschaft. Länderbericht
Schweiz. Bern: Bundesamt für Bildung und Wissenschaft.
Roux, P., Gobet, P., & Lévy, R. (1997). La situation du corps intermédiaire dans les
Hautes Ecoles Suisses. Berne: Conseil suisse de la science.
Theurillat, G., & Jufer, N. (2006). L'égalité de A à Z. Lausanne: Bureau de l'égalité
(UNIL).
Widmer, M., & Lischetti, B. (2003). Programme fédéral "Egalité des chances" 20002003. Berne: CUS.
14
Parcours de genre dans les institutions


















                 

            
             
          

             


            


             
             



         
               
             
               

             



       
             
             



      


      
             
           
            
            

          
          






                
             
               

               
                 
             

           
            
           





               

 

             



              



           
              
           
               


                





            

            



            
            

              
          


            
              



             





     

             


         


           
          
 

        


            
               





                  
          
         


             




            


            
            

              


           
              

           
           



           

             
      

           


        
          
              
          
        

 

             




         
           


           







            


                
         




              






            
             


              

           




                






            
            






            




            




               
   
               


    
             




           


         


             


             





              
              
                
       
              


            
              
             
           




              






               
            





             

               







              
             
     

    

                





             
             
 



             

           
           



            



           
              
          



                
              
           



 


          



             





              
            

            



             





            




          
            
           






            


  

               
          
        


         

             
   
             
 


              
              





           



               

             
              

              
            





            
            



         


             
         

              

 



             



              



            
























            


                

           
           



           

               


          
              
              

              
             








             
             
             



              
     
            
            
                
          
           

 

                
           







            


             
             


               
              
            
            

            


              


                



            
                


              
              

               
            
             


             
             



             



 

   
           
             
           




             









                  



               
              
            
           


            
           

             






            






             
             



              

            

 

             
           




              
               



             
             

              
          
            
             
             










              




 


             

             

            

           
           

 

           
            
              
          
            
            




              
    

            

              

             


             

           


             

            

            

 

             

             
           

          

           
            


           



             

            

               

            


            




           



















































































   




























































































































































































 















































































              













































































































































            



    


































































































































             














































































































































































































              


      
















































 



























































































































              






















































 



















































































































 


 



























 



















 
















Filières scientifiques et genre
!"#$%&%'()*+,-.+/0
12345675'5&'(3"5&358'95'#:;963%4"2&
0<573<5675'%8823";5'%6'0*=(*>'?&"@578"4;'95'0%5&>'A7%&35
BC845@%&2@"3DE%&%922CF7'
!"#$%&#$"'()&)$'#*+,*,)-'*)*."/*)01$'+*'$*-,(
!"#$%&'()#*+(),-#'./012#*3450/0/#*6*!"(7080/#*9450/0/#*:#*)"4'()#*;--07#%-%#))#*)#<*90))#<*=
,6$2679:<6"> '5&' A7%&35>' #58' F"##58'82&4' 5&47;58' 9%&8 ' 426458 '#58 'F"#"G758' 95' #H5&85"I&5J5&4'
86K;7"567''54'75K7;85&45&4'#%'J%$27"4;'958'5FF534"F8>'LMNC'*##58'82&4'J%$27"4%"758'5&'#544758'OPQ>QNR'54'
83"5&358'<6J%"&58'OMP>SNRC'T58'F"##58'2&4'F%"4'958'K573;58'75J%7U6%B#58'5&'J;953"&5>'LV>WN>'54'5&'
972"4>'MXN>'85345678'%6475F2"8'32&8"9;7;8'32JJ5'J%836#"&8C'Y%"8'9%&8'#5'8534567'958'I7%&958';32#58'
9H"&I;&"5678>'5##58'75845&4'47G8'J"&27"4%"758'54'75K7;85&45&4'5&'SZZP>'SMN'958'5FF534"F8CW''T5'4%6['958'
F"##58'@%7"5'85#2&'#5'J295'95'7537645J5&4'958';32#58'\'SMN'9%&8'#58'F27J%4"2&8'6&"@578"4%"758>'SXN'
9%&8'#58';32#58'753764%&4'%6'&"@5%6'B%33%#%67;%4>'SSN'9%&8'#58';32#58'753764%&4'867'#5'K72I7%JJ5'
958'3#%8858'K7;K%7%42"758'83"5&4"F"U658C'',688">'#5'4%6['95'F"##58'@%7"5'9H6&5';32#5']'#H%6475'\'WXN']'
#H^>'WPN']'#H*32#5'05&47%#5>'J%"8'SV>XN']'#H/-(,SC'',6$2679H<6">'#H*_A'K7;85&45'#%'K%74"36#%7"4;'5&'
32JK4%&4 ' #5 ' K#68 ' I7%&9 ' &2JB75 ' 958 ' F"##58> ' QQN ' 5& ' SZZP> ' 32JK%7%4"@5J5&4 ' ] ' 9H%64758 ' ' ;32#58'
9H"&I;&"5678C'
TH;32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5>'a'*_Ab*32#5'9H"&I;&"5678'c'95K6"8'#%'J"["4;Q>'%';4;'37;;5'
5& ' WdSL ' K%7 ' 6&5 ' F5JJ5 ' "&I;&"567bK"2&&"G75 ' Y%7"8bT26"85 ' _%7"8 ' 9%&8 ' 6&5 ' ;K2U65 ' 2e ' "# ' ;4%"4'
U6%8"J5&4'"JK288"B#5'K267'6&5'F"##5'95'K26786"@75'#58';46958'83"5&4"F"U658'54'95'95@5&"7'"&I;&"567C'
T%' 37;%4"2&'95' 35445' ;32#5'%@%"4'K267 'B64'95' K57J54475'#H%33G8'958 'F5JJ58 ']'#H"&96847"5'54'%6['
3%77"G758'$68U65'#]' '7;857@;58'%6['<2JJ58C'*##5'%'F27J;'K5&9%&4'Md'%&8'958'F5JJ58'"&I;&"5678'
%@%&4'95'8H26@7"7']'#%'J"["4;'5&'WddXC'15K6"8'#H26@574675'95'#H;32#5'%6['I%7f2&8'#58'5FF534"F8'958'
F"##58'2&4'9"J"&6;'F2745J5&4'9G8'#%'K75J"G75'%&&;5'95'#%'J"["4;'\'MQN'5&'WddX'K75J"G75'%&&;5'95'#%'
J"["4;>'LZN'5&'WddL>'QSN'5&'WddP>'QPN'5&'SZZZ>'QQN'5&'SZZX'54'QQN'5&'SZZPC
1G8 ' U6H"#8'2&4 ' ;4;'%6427"8;8 ']' `'5&4757> '#58'I%7f2&8' 2&4 ' 75K7"8' #% 'K#%35'92J"&%&45 'U6H"#8'
2336K5&4'<%B"465##5J5&4'9%&8'#58';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'\'5&'SZZP'#H;32#5'32JK75&9'QQN'95'F"##58'54'
MPN'95'I%7f2&8C'02JK%7%4"@5J5&4']'9H%64758';32#58'54'F27J%4"2&8'453<&"U658'54'83"5&4"F"U658>'3H584'
#H*_A'U6"'32JK45'#5'K#68'I7%&9'&2JB75'95'F"##58'OQQN'32&475'SMN'958'F"##58'867'#H5&85JB#5'958'
;32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'5&'SZZPRC'057458'#%'K72K274"2&'958'F"##58'OQQN'95K6"8'SZZXR'75845'86K;7"5675']'#%'
K#6K%74 ' 958 ' ;32#58 ' 9H"&I;&"5678> ' J%"8 ' "# ' &H5JKg3<5 ' U65 ' #H;32#5 ' &:% ' K%8 ' 7;688" ' ] ' 7;%#"857 ' 6&'
W
=%KK274>'SZZd>'!"##$%&$'&()*+,-%&%.*&#$&/0$1"-&2$&#34()#"'45&2$&#34/,#$&6&#3$-%$"(-$1$-'&%.74*"$.*>'Y"&"84G75'95'
#:;963%4"2&'&%4"2&%#5C
S
-245'9H"&F27J%4"2&>'ZMCSSC
Q
',@53'#5'K%88%I5']'#%'J"["4;'5&'WddX>'TH*32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5'3<%&I5'#5'&2J'54'95@"5&4'a'TH*_Ab*32#5'
9H"&I;&"5678'cC'
7537645J5&4'K%7"4%"75C'h6"'82&4'358'F"##58'54'358'I%7f2&8'U6"'5&475&4']'#H;32#5'i
1%&8'354'%74"3#5'&268'%##2&8';469"57'#58'J;3%&"8J58'54'#58'F%345678'U6"'K26885&4'#58';#G@58>'
F"##58'54'I%7f2&8>']'85'K7;85&457'%6['32&32678'54']'"&4;I757'6&5';32#5'9:"&I;&"5678'i
_267 ' 45&457 ' 95 ' 75&975 ' 32JK45 ' 95 ' #5678 ' J24"@%4"2&8> ' &268 ' %@2&8 ' 3<2"8" ' 9H;469"57 ' #58'
47%$5342"758 ' 958 ' ;#G@58'\ ' U65#8 ' 5&$56[ ' #58 ' K26885&4b"#8 ' ] ' 85 ' K7;85&457 ' %6[ ' 32&32678'i ' _564b2&'
9"84"&I657'#58'J24"@%4"2&8'958'I%7f2&8'95'35##58'958'F"##58'i'
1%&8'6&'K75J"57'45JK8>'&268'&268'%44%3<572&8']'%&%#`857''#H;@2#64"2&'95'#%'J"["4;'9%&8'#58'
;32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'54'&268'J54472&8'%335&4'867'#H;@2#64"2&'95'#%'J"["4;']'#H5[b*32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'
A;J"&"&5C''1%&8'6&'956["GJ5'45JK8>'&268'K7;85&4572&4'#58'7;86#4%48'95'&2475'5&U6g45'K274%&4'867'#58'
J24"@%4"2&8']'"&4;I757'6&5';32#5'9H"&I;&"5678C'
23456789:;:<=9)>8)?18@A*B=?8)4=?C:8BD9<EF8)G6H<9<98
*&'A7%&35>'#58';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'2&4'#2&I45JK8';4;'958';32#58'7;857@;58'%6['I%7f2&8'54'
5##58'&5'85'82&4'26@57458'%6['F"##58'U65'4%79"@5J5&4C',#278'U65'#58'K75J"G758'a'I7%&958';32#58'c'2&4'
;4;'37;;58'%6'WVGJ5'8"G3#5>'#58';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'&H2&4'32JJ5&3;']'8H26@7"7'%6['F"##58'U6H%6'9;B64'
96'SZGJ5' 8"G3#5>'86"45']'#%'K75J"G75'I65775'J2&9"%#5'U6"'%'K72@2U6;'6&5'I7%&95'K;&67"5'95'$56&58'
<2JJ58 ' O#H*32#5 ' 05&47%#5 ' 95 ' _%7"8 ' 5& ' WdWP> ' #H/&84"464 ' -%4"2&%# ' 9H,I72&2J"5 ' 5& ' WdWd> ' #H*32#5'
(6K;7"5675'9H;#5347"3"4;'5&'WdWd>'#H*32#5'(6K;7"5675'9H%;72&%64"U65'5&'WdSX>CCCRC'1H%6475'K%74>'#58'
;32#58'F2&9;58']'35445';K2U65'2&4';4;'426458'J"[458'\'#H*32#5'95'3<"J"5'95'Y%785"##5'OWdWPR>'#H*32#5'
95'3<"J"5'95'=265&'OWdWVR>'#H*32#5'95'3<"J"5'95'=5&&58'OWdWdR>'#H*32#5'95'3<"J"5'95'(47%8B267I'
OWdWdR>'#H/&84"464'9H2K4"U65'OWdSZRC'Y%"8'358'26@5746758'&H2&4'K%8'K72@2U6;'6&'%FF#6['95'$56&58'
F"##58'\'7%758'82&4'35##58'U6"'2&4';4;'%9J"858'9%&8'358';4%B#"885J5&48'54'5&3275'K#68'7%758'2&4';4;'#58'
F5JJ58'9"K#jJ;58'"&I;&"5678'U6"'2&4'5[573;'#5'J;4"57C
_267 ' K%##"57 ' 35445 ' 8"46%4"2& ' 54 ' F%@27"857 ' #H%33G8 ' 958 ' F"##58 ' %6[ ' ;46958 ' 54 ' %6[ ' 3%77"G758'
9H"&I;&"5678'9%&8'#5'J2&95'"&96847"5#>'$68U65'#]'7;857@;58'%6['<2JJ58>'6&5'F5JJ5'9"K#jJ;5>'5&'
WdSS>'95'#H/&84"464'9Hk#5347"3"4;'95'l75&2B#5>'Y%7"5bT26"85'_%7"8>'U6"'%@%"4'@;36'9"FF"3"#5J5&4'8%'
8"46%4"2&'J"&27"4%"75'9%&8'35445';32#5>'9;3"95'95'F2&957>'5&'WdSL>'6&5';32#5'9H"&I;&"5678'7;857@;5'
%6[ ' F"##58> ' #H*32#5 ' _2#`453<&"U65 ' A;J"&"&5C ' _5&9%&4 ' Md ' %&8> ' 35445 ' ;32#5 ' % ' F27J; ' 958 ' F5JJ58'
"&I;&"5678'%@%&4'95'8H26@7"7'%6['I%7f2&8'54'95'95@5&"7'J"[45'5&'WddXC'
Même si le pourcentage des filles dans les écoles d’ingénieurs augmente après la deuxième
guerre mondiale, avec l’apparition de nouveaux secteurs et de nouvelles écoles, il ne dépasse pas
4% jusqu’en 1964. À partir de cette date leur proportion croît régulièrement passant de 7% en
1975, 11% en 1978, à 15% en 1981. À cette époque, les dernières grandes écoles non-mixtes
s’ouvrent progressivement à la mixité : l’École des Ponts et Chaussées en 1962, l’École des Mines
de Paris en 1969, et l’Ecole polytechnique en 1972. En 1986 les ENS d’ULM et de Sèvres
fusionnent, entraînant une baisse très importante des filles admises dans les sections mathématiques
et physique.
Depuis 1984, le nombre de filles sur l’ensemble des écoles d’ingénieurs ne cesse
d’augmenter ; mais il s’agit d’une augmentation modérée car leur proportion n’a jamais dépassé
30% : 17,5 en 1984 (7494 filles), 19,6 en 1989 ( 10633 filles), 22,6 en 1994 (16534 filles), 22,3 en
1998 (18467 filles), 23,1 en 2000 (20606 filles) et 25% en 2004 (25308 filles).4
L’Ecole Polytechnique Féminine (EPF) de Seaux qui, depuis sa création en 1925, était la
seule école d’ingénieurs réservée aux filles, restait la dernière école d’ingénieurs non-mixte. En
1994, elle devient mixte en s’ouvrant aux garçons. Depuis, la proportion des filles a
considérablement diminué.
*&'WdSL>'#H*_A'%@%"4';4;'37;;5'K267'F27J57'6&"U65J5&4'958'F"##58C'15'WdSP']'WdQS>'5##5'%'F27J;'
L'9"K#jJ;58'K%7'%&>'95'WdQQ']'WdQd>'X>V'9"K#jJ;58>'95'WdXZ']'WdXX>'M>S'9"K#jJ;58>'95'WdXL']'WdXd>'
SZ>V'9"K#jJ;58C8'1%&8'#58'%&&;58'WdMZ>'#H;32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5'$265'6&'7j#5'"JK274%&4'\'5&'
WdMX ' 5##5 ' F27J5 ' XLN ' 958 ' F5JJ58 ' "&I;&"5678 ' 9"K#jJ;58 ' 95 ' #H%&&;5 ' OWSM ' 867 ' SVWRC ' Y%"8 ' %@53'
#H26@574675'958'%64758';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'%6['F"##58'9%&8'#58'%&&;58'WdPZ>'35445'K72K274"2&'9"J"&65'
32&8"9;7%B#5J5&4'\'SXN'5&'WdPS'OWZQ'867'XSSR'54'856#5J5&4'LN'5&'WdVd'OWXQ'867'SdXMR9C'1%&8'#58'
%&&;58'WddZ>'#5'&2JB75'95'3%&9"9%46758'B%"885'32&8"9;7%B#5J5&4>'F%"8%&4'37%"&975'K267'#H;U6"#"B75'
F"&%&3"57 ' 95 ' #H;32#5 ' 54 ' %688" ' K267 ' 8% ' 7;K64%4"2&C ' TH%&%#`85 ' 958 ' 3%&9"9%46758 ' 958 ' F"##58 ' U6" ' 85'
K7;85&4%"5&4']'#H;32#5''9%&8'#%'K;7"295'95'WdVZ']'WddX'J2&475'U65>'$68U6H]'WdVV>'#%'K72I7588"2&';4%"4'
32&84%&45'54'9;K%88%"4'VZZ'3%&9"9%46758>'J%"8']'K%74"7'95'WdVV'#5'&2JB75'95'3%&9"9%46758'32JJ5&35'
]'9"J"&657C'05445'B%"885'8H%335&465'%K7G8'WddZ'54'%445"&4'SSN'5&'WddQ'2e'WLS';#G@58'82&4'5&47;58']'
#H;32#5>'K267'MQW'3%&9"9%46758'5&75I"847;58C'0H584'35445'B%"885'96'&2JB75'958';#G@58'U6"'%'K2688;'
#H;32#5'5&@"8%I57'#%'J"["4;C'
15K6"8'WddW>'#H*32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5'%';I%#5J5&4'958'K72B#GJ58'9H"&8574"2&'95'358'
9"K#jJ;58C'*&'WddS>'WXN'95'#%'K72J24"2&'584'5&'753<573<5'9H5JK#2"'U6%475'J2"8'%K7G8'#%'8274"5'95'
#H;32#5'54'SLN'%K7G8'<6"4'J2"8>'%#278'U65'#58'K72J24"2&8'95'WdVM']'WddW'%@%"5&4'4726@;'6&'5JK#2"'
472"8']'U6%475'J2"8'%K7G8'#567'8274"5'95'#H;32#5PC'TH;32#5'584'%688"'K7;2336K;5'K%7'#%'9"J"&64"2&'95'#%'
K72K274"2&'95'F"##58'9%&8'#58'3#%8858'457J"&%#58'54'K%7'#567'K7;F;75&35'K267'#58'K72F588"2&8'95'#%'8%&4;'
54 ' #58 ' 3%77"G758 ' 32JJ573"%#58> ' %"&8" ' U65 ' K%7 ' #% ' J6#4"K#"3%4"2& ' 958 ' F27J%4"2&8 ' 9H"&I;&"5678 ' 5&'
K72@"&35'54'958'37;%4"2&8'958'F"#"G758'6&"@578"4%"758'J2"&8'32m456858'U65'#H*_AC','35445';K2U65'#%'
K#6K%74'958';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'82&4'4263<;58C'*4%&4'6&5';32#5'K7"@;5>'92&4'#58'F7%"8'95'#%'832#%7"4;'
X
-245'9H"&F27J%4"2&'96'Y"&"84G75'95'#H*963%4"2&'-%4"2&%#5\'VPCWd>'dXCQZ>'dVCSd>'ZSCZQ>'ZQCLW>ZMCSSC
l75#2&',C>WddS>'Y%7"5bT26"85'_%7"8'54'#58'9;B648'95'#H*32#5'K2#`453<&"U65'F;J"&"&5'OWdSLbWdXLR>':.##$'"-&2;0"%',"*$ &
2$&#;4#$/'*"/"'45&&nWdC
L
M
Y%77`'0C>'SZZX>&<$%&=$11$%&"-(4-"$.*%5&>-$&*4?,#.'",-&*$%7$/'.$.%$5&_%7"8>'!5#"&5&2KC>'3"4C>'KCWZSC
P
'A2&9%4"2&'*_A>'(532&9'5[573"35>'W57'2342B75'WddSoQW'%2m4'WddQ>'=%KK274'9H%34"@"4;C
;4%"5&4'47G8';#5@;8'54'92&4'VZN'958'7588267358';4%"5&4'%8867;58'I7p35']'#%'832#%7"4;'958';#G@58>'#H*_A'
7"8U6%"4'9H%@2"7'958'9"FF"36#4;8'F"&%&3"G758C'_267'#%'9"7534"2&'95'#H;32#5'"#'&H;4%"4'K%8'#%'U6584"2&'95'
9"J"&657'#5'&"@5%6'96'32&32678'9H5&47;5>'&"'95'9"J"&657'#5'&2JB75'958';#G@58C''.6@7"7'#H;32#5'%6['
I%7f2&8'%KK%7%"88%"4'%#278'32JJ5'#%'J5"##5675'82#64"2&'K267';@"457'#%'37"85';32&2J"U65C''
T%'9;3"8"2&'95'K%8857']'#%'J"["4;''584'K7"85'5&'WddXC'T5'8"I#5'*_A'584'32&857@;>'K%735'U6H"#'584'32&&6'
958'5&475K7"858'U6"'7537645&4'#58';#G@58>'J%"8'"#'&5'857%'K#68'9;3#"&;C'TH;32#5'95@"5&4'*_Abk32#5'
9H"&I;&"5678C'1G8'#%'K75J"G75'%&&;5'95'#H"&84%67%4"2&'95'#%'J"["4;>'#%'K72K274"2&'958'$56&58'F"##58'
5&47;58'5&'K75J"G75'%&&;5'%'9"J"&6;'47G8'7%K"95J5&4>'95'WZZN'958'F"##58'%@%&4'#%'J"["4;'5&'WddX'
OWLS'5&'WddQR>'2&'584'K%88;']'LZN'5&'WddM'OPd'F"##58R>'K6"8'#%'3<645'%'32&4"&6;C'15K6"8'SZZX>'#H;32#5'
%'84%B"#"8;'#5'&2JB75'95'F"##58']'QQNC
02JJ5&4'5[K#"U657'35445'J2"&975'K7;85&35'958'F"##58'9%&8'#58';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'i'.&'&5'
K564'32JK75&975'#5'3%8'95'#H*_A'U65'8"'2&'#5'75K#%35'9%&8'#5'32&45[45'95'#H5&85JB#5'958'5FF548'95'#%'
J"["4;'9%&8'#5'8`84GJ5'832#%"75'54'9%&8'#5'3<%JK'K#68'8K;3"F"U65'958';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678C'T%'J"["4;'
%'56'5&'5FF54'958'5FF548'32&47%84;8'\'9H6&5'K%74>'32JJ5'#H2&4'J2&47;' B5%6326K'9H%645678'O1676b
!5##%4>'SZZX'q'!%695#24>'SZZM'q''A5#26r"8>'WddXR>'#%'J"["4;'%'26@574'95'&26@5##58'F"#"G758'%6['F"##58'54'
#567'%'K57J"8'9H%3U6;7"7'958'9"K#jJ58'&26@5%6[C'*&'K%74"36#"57>'#%'J"["4;'%'75&96'K288"B#5'#H%33G8'
958'F"##58'%6['9"K#jJ58'9H"&I;&"567C'05K5&9%&4'3H584'K564bg475'%688"'#%'J"["4;'U6"'K564'5[K#"U657'#567'
F%"B#5 ' K7;85&35> ' 5& ' 7%"82& ' 958 ' 27"5&4%4"2&8 ' 47G8 ' 9"FF;75&4"5##58 ' 958 ' F"##58 ' 54 ' 958 ' I%7f2&8 ' 9%&8'
#H5&85JB#5'96'8`84GJ5'832#%"75'J"[45C'T58'753<573<58'2&4'5&'5FF54'J"8'5&';@"95&35'958'K<;&2JG&58'
84763467%6['9H"&;I%#"4;>'958'K72358868'95'9"837"J"&%4"2&8'54'958'F27J58'9H%642b8;#534"2&' '3<5r'#58'
F"##58'5&'J"["4;C'
_267'75&975'32JK45'95'#%'F%"B#5'K7;85&35'958'F"##58'9%&8'#58'F"#"G758'U6"'K7;K%75&4'%6'J;4"57'
9H"&I;&"567>'Y%7"5'1676b!5##%4V>'5[K#"U65'U65'#58'F"##58'2K45&4''K267'''#58'''27"5&4%4"2&8''26''K267''#58'
92J%"&58'2e''#%''K288"B"#"4;''95''a'32&3"#"57'c''#%''@"5''F%J"#"%#5''54''#%''@"5'K72F588"2&&5##5'%KK%7%s4'
K#68'F%3"#5C'*##58';3%745&4'95'#567'3<2"['a'#58''3%77"G758'''U6"'#567''K%7%"885&4'"&32JK%4"B#58''%@53''#5'
9584"&' '823"%#' 'U6"'#567'85JB#5'"&32&4267&%B#5'cC'_267'#58'F"##58>'35'U6H5##58'32&8"9G75&4'32JJ5'
a'75&4%B#5'c>'35'82&4'958'"&@584"885J5&48'';963%4"F8'9%&8' '#%' '9"7534"2&''958''F"#"G758' 'U6"'#567'82&4'
47%9"4"2&&5##5J5&4''9584"&;58'54'U6"'327758K2&95&4'%6['85345678'96'J%73<;'96'47%@%"#'U6"'5JK#2"5&4'
K7;F;75&4"5##5J5&4 ' 958 ' F5JJ58C ' *##58 ' &H"I&275&4 ' K%8 ' U65 ' #H5&I%I5J5&4 ' 9%&8 ' #58 ' F"#"G758'
47%9"4"2&&5##5J5&4'J%836#"&58'7"8U65'9H5&47%s&57'K267'5##58'958'9"FF"36#4;8''a'9H"&8574"2&''823"%#5''54'
K72F588"2&&5##5'c>'J%"8'';I%#5J5&4'958'9"FF"36#4;8''K8`3<2#2I"U658'54'F%J"#"%#58>'3%7'2&'%445&9'9H6&5'
F"##5'U6H5##5'8H"&@584"885''9%&8''#%'@"5'F%J"#"%#5C
Y%772'54'AC+26"##24d'2&4''J2&47;''U65''#58''F"##58''2&4''96''J%#''']'''8H"J%I"&57'''9%&8'''958'
K72F588"2&8' ' ' 83"5&4"F"U658C' ' T5' ' '95I7;' ' '95' '32&I765&35' '5&475' '"J%I5' '95' '82"' '54' ' #H"J%I5'
K72424`K"U65'95'#%'F"#"G75'83"5&4"F"U65'584''47G8''F%"B#5'3<5r'#58'F"##58C'05'U6"'@564'9"75'U65'#58'I%7f2&8'
V
'1676b!5##%4'YC>'SZZX>'TH;32#5'958'F"##58C'h65##5'F27J%4"2&'K267'U65#8'7j#58'823"%6['i>'_%7"8>'t%7J%44%&>'S5';9C
Y%772'0C>'+26"##24'AC>'WddW>'=5K7;85&4%4"2&'95'82">'75K7;85&4%4"2&'96'83"5&4"F"U65b4`K5'54'3<2"['9:6&5'27"5&4%4"2&'
83"5&4"F"U65'3<5r'958'F"##58'54'958'I%7f2&8'95'8532&95>'<;@*"$-')'",-&A/,#)"*$&$'&B*,=$%%",--$##$>'&nQ>'@2#C'SZ>'WddWC
d
92&&5&4'6&5'"J%I5'K72424`K"U65'K723<5'95'35##5'95'#%'K72F588"2&'83"5&4"F"U65C 'T58'F"##58> 'JgJ5'
U6%&9'5##58'9;3#%75&4'U65'#58'F"##58'2&4'958'3%K%3"4;8';I%#58']'35##58'958'I%7f2&8'K267'#H%33G8'%6['
J;4"578'453<&"U658>'5&@"8%I5&4'35K5&9%&4'J%$27"4%"75J5&4'K267'5##58bJgJ58'6&'J;4"57'u'F;J"&"&'vC'
1:%"##5678>'85#2&'ACY%7"244"WZ>'JgJ5'U6%&9'#58'F"##58'"&4GI75&4'#58'F"#"G758'83"5&4"F"U658>'5##58'&H`'
5&475&4'K%8'%@53'#58'JgJ58'75K7;85&4%4"2&8'U65'#58'I%7f2&8'54'J%&"F5845&4'6&5'K#68'I7%&95'9"FF"36#4;'
9H"95&4"F"3%4"2&'%6'J29G#5'96'83"5&4"F"U65C '.&'K564'86KK2857'U65'#58'F"##58'2&4']'F%"75'F%35']'958'
B%77"G758'"&84"464"2&&5##58'54'36#4675##58'U65'&5'75&32&475&4'K%8'#5678'3%J%7%958'I%7f2&8C
' T5'3<%JK'958'I7%&958';32#58>'5&'K%74"36#"57'#5'3<%JK'958'I7%&958';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678>'
8H"&837"4 ' 9%&8 ' #5 ' 32&35K4 ' 95 ' #% ' 75K729634"2& ' O!2679"56> ' WdVdRWW' 95 ' #% ' 92J"&%4"2& ' 958 ' F"#"G758'
83"5&4"F"U658 ' 867 ' 9H%64758 ' F"#"G758> ' %"&8" ' U65 ' 9%&8 ' #% ' 75K729634"2& ' 95 ' #% ' 36#4675 ' 83"5&4"F"U65 ' U6"'
95@"5&4'6&'"&8476J5&4'"JK274%&4'95'#%'92J"&%4"2&'J%836#"&5'9%&8'#%'823";4;'"&96847"5##5'54'U6"'5[3#64'
#58'F5JJ58C
T58'K#68'I7%&958';32#58>'32JJ5'#H*32#5'K2#`453<&"U65>'#H*32#5'958'J"&58>'#H*32#5'958'K2&48'
54'958'3<%688;58>'543C>'26@75&4'#%'K288"B"#"4;'95'47G8'I7%&958'3%77"G758C'*&'9"84"&I6%&4'#58'F%36#4;8>'#58'
K54"458';32#58'54'#58'I7%&958';32#58>'_C!2679"56'J2&475'#H2KK28"4"2&'95'358'472"8'I726K58'9%&8'#5'
3<%JK'96'K26@2"7'2e'35445'2KK28"4"2&'9;F"&"4'#H;32#5'54'#%'K28"4"2&'U6H5##5'2336K5C',"&8">'#H%64567'
9"84"&I65'#58';32#58'95'#%'a'I7%&95'c'54'95'#%'a'K54"45'c'K2745C'05445'2KK28"4"2&'5&475'#%'a'I7%&95'c'54'
#%'a'K54"45'c'K2745'32&47"B65']'75K7296"75'#58'a'3%9758'86K;7"5678'c'54'#58'a'3%9758'J2`5&8'cC'T58'
3%9758'86K;7"5678'"8868'958';32#58'95'#%'I7%&95'K2745'O_2#`453<&"U65>'T%'05&47%#5>'T58'J"&58>'T58'
_2&48'54'0<%688;58wR'85'9"7"I5&4'@578'#58'<%6458'F2&34"2&8'95'#H*4%4'26@7%&4'867'95'47G8'I7%&958'
3%77"G758C'T58'3%9758'J2`5&8'"8868'958';32#58'95'#%'K54"45'K2745'92&4'F%"4'K%74"5'TH*_A'O#58';32#58'
453<&"U658'54'8K;3"%#"8;58>'#58';32#58'95'K72@"&358>'#58'F%36#4;8'95'83"5&358wR'85'9"7"I5&4'@578'958'
J;4"578'54'958'85345678'#58'K#68'8K;3"%#"8;8'54'9"75345J5&4'27"5&4;8'@578'#%'K729634"2&C'02JJ5'"#'`'%'
6&5'92J"&%4"2&'958'I7%&958';32#58'867'#58'K54"458';32#58'9%&8'#5'3<%JK'96'K26@2"7>'"#'`'%'%688"'6&5'
92J"&%4"2&'54'6&5'@"2#5&35'8`JB2#"U65'U6"'5[3#65&4'#58'F"##58'95'#567'3<%JKC'T%'8;#534"2&']'#H5&47;5'
9%&8'358';32#58'9;3267%I5'#58'F"##58>'3%7'5##58'82&4'47%9"4"2&&5##5J5&4'5[3#658'96'3<%JK'96'K26@2"7>'
95'JgJ5'35445'8;#534"2&'584'6&5'F27J5'95'#%'@"2#5&35'8`JB2#"U65'U6"'#58'75K26885'@578'9H%64758'
92J%"&58'J2"&8'"JK274%&48'9%&8'#5'3<%JK'96'K26@2"7';32&2J"U65>'K2#"4"U65>'823"%#>w
h65#U658'3<573<56858'OY%77`>'WddL>'SZZX'q'A2&4%&"&">'SZZSR'5[K#"U65&4'35K5&9%&4'K267U62"'
54'32JJ5&4'3574%"&58'F"##58'K%7@"5&&5&4']'9;K%8857'358'9;457J"&"8J58'26'358'3<2"['32&47%"&48'54'F2&4'
958'3<2"['9"48'a'%4`K"U658'cC'1%&8'#567';4695'%6K7G8'958'K2#`453<&"3"5&&58'54'958'&27J%#"5&&58'
83"5&4"F"U658>'YCA577%&9>'AC/JB574'54''0CY%77`WS'8H"&45772I5&4'867'#58'J;3%&"8J58'54'#58'F%345678'U6"'
32&96"85&4 ' 358 ' F"##58 ' ] ' 8H"&@584"7 ' 9%&8 ' 958 ' F27J%4"2&8 ' &2& ' 47%9"4"2&&5##5J5&4 ' "&@584"58 ' K%7 ' #58'
F5JJ58'U65'75K7;85&45&4'#H*-('9H?#Jb83"5&358'54'#Hk32#5'_2#`453<&"U65C'(5#2&'358'%6456758>'#58'
WZ
Y%7"244"'AC>'SZZW>'u'_#%35'54'84%464'958'J%4<;J%4"U658'85#2&'#5'85[5'9%&8'#%'847634675'958'75K7;85&4%4"2&8'823"%#58'95'#%'
83"5&35'54'958'J;4"578'83"5&4"F"U658'3<5r'#58'32##;I"5&8'54'958'#`3;5&8'v>'<$%&/)0"$*%&"-'$*-)'",-).C&2$&7%D/0,#,("$>'
&nXdC
WW
!2679"56'_C>'WdVd>'<)&-,E#$%%$&2;F')'G&H*)-2$%&4/,#$%&$'&$%7*"'&2$&/,*7%5&_%7"8>'Y"&6"4C
WS
A577%&9''YC>'/JB574'AC>'Y%77`'0C>'WddP>'A5JJ58'54'83"5&358C'?&5';U6%4"2&'"JK72B%B#5'i>'!,*1)'",-IF17#,">'&nLLC
3<2"[''95'F27J%4"2&'U65'F2&4'#58'F"##58''&5''82&4''K%8'F273;J5&4'a'7%"82&&%B#58'c'54'32&F27J58'%6['
%445&458'U65'#%'823";4;'%'@"8b]b@"8'9H5##58C'T567'F%"B#5'K7;85&35'&5'8"I&"F"5'K%8'#H5[3#68"2&>'J%"8'
327758K2&9' ']'6&'3<2"['9;#"B;7;C'T58'F"##58'958'J"#"56['K7"@"#;I";8'86B"885&4'J2"&8'95'32&47%"&458'
U65 ' #58 ' I%7f2&8 ' 958 ' JgJ58 ' J"#"56[C ' .& ' %445&9 ' J2"&8 ' 9H5##58 ' U6H5##58 ' F%885&4 ' 6&5 ' 3%77"G75'
K72F588"2&&5##5 ' ' 54 ' 823"%#5 ' B7"##%&45C ' T5678 ' 3<2"[ ' 9;K5&9%&4 ' J2"&8 ' U65 ' 356[ ' 958 ' I%7f2&8 ' 958'
K7588"2&8 ' F%J"#"%#58 ' 54 ' 823"%#58> ' 5##58 ' 3<2"8"885&4 ' 85#2& ' #567 ' I2m4> ' 92&3 ' 5##58 ' &5 ' 3<2"8"885&4 ' #58'
83"5&358'54'#%'453<&2#2I"5'U65'8"'5##58'%"J5&4'358'J%4"G758C'.&'K564'86KK2857'U6H"#'5&'584'95'JgJ5'
K267'#58'F"##58'U6"'2&4'3<2"8"'54'U6"'3<2"8"885&4'95'F%"75'#H*_AC
*& ' 35 ' U6" ' 32&357&5 ' #H*_A> ' &268 ' 3<573<2&8 ' ] ' 32JK75&975 ' K267U62" ' #58 ' ;#G@58> ' F"##58 ' 54'
I%7f2&8 ' 3<2"8"885&4 ' 35445 ' ;32#5C ' *& ' 75K75&%&4 ' #% ' 4<G85 ' 95 ' _C!2679"56 ' 54 ' YC ' 95 ' (%"&4bY%74"&JK&
2KK28%&4'9%&8'#5'3<%JK'958'I7%&958';32#58'aI7%&95c'54'aK54"45'c'K2745>'&268'K282&8'#H<`K24<G85'
U65'#H*_A';4%&4'6&5'aK54"45'c'I7%&95';32#5'K7"@;5' ']'K7;K%8'"&4;I7;58>'#58'I%7f2&8'#%'3<2"8"7%"5&4'
K%735'U6H5##5'#567'K57J54>'%#278'U6H"#8'2&4'6&'&"@5%6'832#%"75'"&86FF"8%&4'K267'%33;957'%6['3#%8858'
K7;K%7%42"758'54'%6['I7%&958';32#58'#58'K#68'K7584"I"56858>'9H2B45&"7'J%#I7;'4264'#5'4"475'9H"&I;&"567'
I;&;7%#"845>'%#278'U65'#58'F"##58'#%'3<2"8"7%"5&4'K%735'U65'#H27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5'95'#H;32#5'#58'7%88675'54'
#567' 92&&5' 32&F"%&35'K267' %FF72&457'35'J"#"56'47%9"4"2&&5##5J5&4'32&8"9;7;' 32JJ5'6&' 4577"42"75'
J%836#"&C
_267'%KK27457'958';#;J5&48'95'7;K2&85>'#H5&U6g45'J5&;5'%6K7G8'958';#G@58'95'#H*_A'8H584'
K72K28;5 ' 9H%&%#`857 ' #58 ' F%345678 ' 54 ' #58 ' J24"@%4"2&8 ' #567 ' K57J544%&4 ' 9H"&4;I757 ' #H;32#5C ' T%'
J;4<292#2I"5'%92K4;5';4%"4'6&'U6584"2&&%"75'54'958'5&4754"5&8'85J"b9"7534"F8C'(67'VLZ'U6584"2&&%"758'
9"847"B6;8> ' SPd ' 2&4 ' ;4; ' 7;36K;7;8C Le taux de réponse s’élève à 32,8%. Notre échantillon est
composé de 60% (165) de garçons et 40% (109) de filles. En 2000, au moment de la passation du
questionnaire, à l’école, on comptait 37% des filles sur l’ensemble de la formation généraliste. De
ce point de vue, notre échantillon de l’étude est représentatif de la population des élèves scolarisés
à l’école. Les entretiens semi-directifs au nombre de 31 (15 filles et 16 garçons) ont été effectués
auprès des élèves qui ont accepté de nous laisser leurs coordonnées dans le questionnaire. Ils ont
donné lieu à une analyse thématique.
TH%&%#`85'4<;J%4"U65'958'5&4754"5&8JL'&268'%'K57J"8'95'9"84"&I657'U6%475'I726K58'9H;#G@58'\
WC TH;32#5'32JJ5'957&"G75'3<%&35'9H%33;957'%6'4"475'"&I;&"567'I;&;7%#"845'\'#58';#G@58'U6"'%K7G8'
#H;3<53'5&'Y%4<8'(?_'54'5&'Y%4<8'(_*'5&475&4']'#H;32#5'K267'2B45&"7>'J%#I7;'4264>'#5'4"475'
9H"&I;&"567'I;&;7%#"845C
SC TH*_A>';32#5'9;8"7;5'\'#58';#G@58'U6"';4%"5&4'%44"7;8'K%7'#5'3j4;'I;&;7%#"845'95'#H;32#5>'%"&8"'K%7'
#H6&5'958'2K4"2&8'U6H5##5'K72K285C
WQ
!2679"56'_C>'(%"&4bY%74"&'YC>'WdVP>'a',I7;I%4"2&'54'8;I7;I%4"2&C'T5'3<%JK'958'I7%&958';32#58'54'#5'3<%JK'96'
K26@2"7'c>'M/'$%&2$&#)&*$/0$*/0$&$-&%/"$-/$%&%,/")#$%>'&nMdC'
WX
-2475'75365"#'95'92&&;58'32&8"845'5&'475&45'54'6&'5&4754"5&8'85J"b9"7534"F8C'-2475'32JJ6&"3%4"2&'K2745'867'#H%&%#`85'95'
<6"4'5&4754"5&8C
QC TH*_A>'#%'32&4"&6%4"2&'95'#H<"842"75'F%J"#"%#5'\'#58';#G@58'U6"'2&4'9;$]'56'6&5'JG75>'8x67'26'4%&45'
U6"'584'K%88;5'K%7'35445';32#5'54'U6"'8%@%"4'U65'#H*_A';4%"4'6&5'B2&&5';32#5C
XC TH;32#5 ' 54 ' 858 ' K7;K%8 ' "&4;I7;58> ' K288"B"#"4; ' 9H2B45&"7 ' 6& ' 9"K#jJ5 ' 9H"&I;&"567 ' 5& ' ;@"4%&4 ' #58'
3#%8858'K7;K%7%42"758'3#%88"U658'\'#58';#G@58'U6"'8H%642b8;#534"2&&5&4'54'37%"I&5&4'#H%4J28K<G75'
32JK;4"4"@5'958'3#%8858'K7;K%7%42"758'26'U6"';4%"5&4'32&83"5&48'U6H"#8'&H%@%"5&4'K%8'#5'&"@5%6'
86FF"8%&4'K267'"&4;I757'6&5'3#%885'K7;K%7%42"75C
I3JF<)7=9:)B87)K<??87)8:)B87)L;5M=97)EF<)89:589:)N)?1*4G)O
_267U62"'54'U65#8'82&4'#58'5&$56['54'#58'F%345678'U6"'K26885&4'#58';#G@58>'F"##58'54'I%7f2&8>']'85'
K7;85&457'%6['32&32678'54']'"&4;I757'#H;32#5'i'TH%&%#`85'958'7;86#4%48'958'92&&;58'96'U6584"2&&%"75'%'
K57J"8'9H;469"57'#58'J24"@%4"2&8'958'F"##58'54'958'I%7f2&8']'"&4;I757'#H;32#5>']'5[%J"&57'K267U62"'#58'
F"##58'54'#58'I%7f2&8'2K45&4'K267'35445';32#5C'
TH%&%#`85 ' 958 ' J5&4"2&8 ' 2B45&658 ' %6 ' B%33%#%67;%4 ' 958 ' ;#G@58> ' F"##58 ' 54 ' I%7f2&8> ' J2&475 ' U65'
I#2B%#5J5&4'#58';#G@58'5&475&4']'#H;32#5'%@53'958'J5&4"2&8'a'_%88%B#5'c>'XZN'54'a',885r'B"5&'c>'
XLN'54'B5%6326K'J2"&8'%@53'#58'J5&4"2&8'a'!"5&'c>'WXN'54'a')7G8'B"5&'c>'WNC'05'82&4'#58'I%7f2&8'
U6"'5&475&4'75#%4"@5J5&4'K#68']'#H;32#5'%@53'#%'J5&4"2&'a'_%88%B#5'c'OXMN'32&475'QSN'958'F"##58R>'
%#278'U65'#58'F"##58'"&4GI75&4'#H;32#5'5&'K#68'I7%&9'&2JB75'%@53'#58'J5&4"2&8'a',885r'B"5&'c'OLZN'
32&475'XWNR'54'a'!"5&'c'OWPN'32&475'WSNRC
TH5[%J5&'95'#567'J2`5&&5'%&&65##5'5&'J%4<8'54'5&'K<`8"U65'&268'J2&475'U65'#58';#G@58'958'
956['85[58'2&4'56'6&5'J2`5&&5'%&&65##5'5&'K<`8"U65'95'WQCS'OJ"&yP>J%[yWdR'J%"8'U6H5&'J%4<8'
#58 ' F"##58 ' 2&4 ' 56 ' 6&5 ' J2`5&&5 ' 6& ' K56 ' K#68 ' ;#5@;5 ' U65 ' 35##5 ' 958 ' I%7f2&8> ' O#% ' 9"FF;75&35 ' 584'
8"I&"F"3%4"@5'%6'856"#'95'ZCZLR'3H584b]b9"75>'#%'J2`5&&5'%&&65##5'958'I%7f2&8';4%"4'95'WSCd'54'35##5'
958'F"##58'95'WQCL>'OJ"&yV>'J%[yWVRC
T%'''#2I"U65'''96''F2&34"2&&5J5&4''95''#H27"5&4%4"2&''832#%"75''%B264"4''%6''F%"4''U65'#H5&47;5'5&'
3#%885'K7;K%7%42"75'83"5&4"F"U65'584'7;857@;5''%6[''B2&8'';#G@58>''%@53''6&''B2&'&"@5%6''5&''J%4<8''54'
K<`8"U65C'(56#5J5&4'#58''F"##58''9"8K28%&4''9H6&'%688"''B2&''B%I%I5''832#%"75''U65''#58''I%7f2&8'U6"'
327758K2&9']''#H5[35##5&35>''8674264''5&''J%4<8>''285&4''95J%&957'6&5'27"5&4%4"2&'83"5&4"F"U65'%K7G8'
#567 ' B%3C ' 0C ' Y%77` ' ' 826#"I&5 ' ' U65 ' ' #% ' ' 47%$5342"75 ' "JK72B%B#5> ' 958 ' F"##58 ' 9%&8 ' ' #58 ' ' ;32#58'
9H"&I;&"5678>''584''9"75345J5&4'''I;&;7;5'''K%7''#5'''F2&34"2&&5J5&4'''''832#%"75''''95''#H5[35##5&35C'
1%&8'6&5'5&U6g45'%6K7G8'958' 'K2#`453<&"3"5&8' '54' '958' '&27J%#"5&8' '#H%645675'J2&475' ' '6&5' 'K#68'
I7%&95' ''F7;U65&35'' ''958''' 'J5&4"2&8' '''47G8'' ''B"5&'''O)!R'54'B"5&'O!R>'K%74"36#"G75J5&4'3<5r'#58'
F"##58CWL' Y%"8'#H*_A'&H5&475'K%8'9%&8'#%'3%4;I27"5'958';32#58'#58'K#68'K7584"I"56858C'T58';#G@58'U6"'
5&475&4']'#H;32#5'2&4'5&'I;&;7%#'#58'J5&4"2&8'a'_%88%B#5'c'54'a',885r'!"5&'c'54'U65'#567'K%732678'&5'
WL
A577%&9'YC>'/JB574'AC>'Y%77`'0C>'Wddd> '<;$C/$##$-/$&%/,#)"*$&N&.-$&)==)"*$&2$&=)1"##$5&<$&/)%&2$%&-,*1)#"$--$%&$' &
-,*1)#"$-%&%/"$-'"="O.$%5'_%7"8>'#Ht%7J%44%&C
327758K2&9'K%8']'6&'K%732678'9H5[35##5&35C'058'7;86#4%48'J2&475&4'U65'#58';#G@58>'F"##58'54'I%7f2&8>'
U6"'85'9"7"I5&4'@578'#H*_A'&5'85'9"84"&I65&4'K%8'K%7'#567'5[35##5&35'832#%"75'54'U65'#567'27"5&4%4"2&'
@578'#H*_A'54'#58';46958'9H"&I;&"5678'584'75&965'K288"B#5'K%7'#5678'&2458'J2`5&&5J5&4'B2&&58'5&'
9"83"K#"&58'83"5&4"F"U658C'
''''''''
!5%6326K'95'47%@%6['2&4'J2&47;'U65'#58'F"##58'U6"'85'9"7"I5&4'@578'#58';46958'9H"&I;&"567'82&4'
9H27"I"&5'958 '3263<58' 86K;7"56758' 54' U6H5##58'86B"885&4'826@5&4'#H"&F#65&35'96'32&45[45' F%J"#"%#'
83"5&4"F"U65'54'826@5&4'6&'J29G#5'F;J"&"&C'OY%77`>'SZZX>'A2&4%&"&">'SZZSR
TH;4695 ' 95 ' #H27"I"&5 ' 823"%#5 ' 958 ' ;#G@58 ' 5&47;8 ' ] ' #H*_A> ' &268 ' % ' J2&47; ' U65 ' #58 ' ;#G@58'
832#%7"8;8']'#H*_A'2&4'#5678'956['K%75&48'9"8K28%&4'95'4"4758'95'#H5&85"I&5J5&4'86K;7"567'OMLN'958'
KG758'54'LXN'958' JG758R'54';I%#5J5&4'U65'#58'F"##58'2&4'K#68' U65' #58'I%7f2&8' 6&'KG75'9"K#jJ;'
"&I;&"567'OLPN'32&475'XQNRC'058'7;86#4%48'&268'%JG&5&4']'9"75'U65'#%'F%J"#"%7"4;'%@53'#%'K72F588"2&'
9H"&I;&"567'%'75&96'K288"B#5'35445'27"5&4%4"2&'@578'#H*_A''54'@578'#58';46958'9H"&I;&"5678C'.&'K564'
86KK2857'%688"'U65'#58'F"##58'%`%&4'6&'KG75'"&I;&"567'#58'%"95&4']'867J2&457'#58'84;7;24`K58'867'#5'
J;4"57'9H"&I;&"567'32JJ5';4%&4'6&'J;4"57'J%836#"&C
-268'%@2&8';469";'32JJ5&4'#58';#G@58'2&4'32&&6'#H;32#5>'8H"#8'2&4'9;K28;'#567'3%&9"9%4675'
9%&8'9H%64758';4%B#"885J5&48>'8H"#8';4%"5&4'%9J"8>'54'8H"#8'826<%"4%"5&4'"&4;I757'6&5'%6475';32#5C'-268'
%@2&8'@26#6'8%@2"7'8"'#5'3<2"['95'#H*_A';4%"4'6&'3<2"['K%7'9;F%64'26'6&5';32#5'@7%"J5&4'9;8"7;5>'8"'
#58';#G@58'#%'3<2"8"88%"5&4'K%735'U6H"#8'&H%@%"5&4'K%8'2B45&6'#H;32#5'9;8"7;5'26'6&5'K7;K%'9%&8'6&'
B2&'#`3;5C'
TH%&%#`85'95'#%'95J%&95'54'95'#H%9J"88"2&'958';#G@58'9%&8'9H%64758';4%B#"885J5&48'&268'%'
J2&47;'U6H5&'I;&;7%#'#58';#G@58'2&4'2B45&6'#H;4%B#"885J5&4'U6H"#8'%@%"5&4'95J%&9;C'T%'J%$27"4;'%'
9;K28;'8%'3%&9"9%4675'9%&8'6&5';32#5'%K7G8'#5'B%3>'3H584b]b9"75'QPN>'92&4'SQN'958'I%7f2&8'54'WXN'
958 ' F"##58C ' .& ' 75J%7U65 ' %688" ' U6H5& ' I;&;7%# ' "#8 ' 2&4 ' 56 ' 6&5 ' 7;K2&85 ' F%@27%B#5 ' ] ' #567 ' 95J%&95C'
*&86"45>'6&'I7%&9'&2JB75'9H;#G@58'%'95J%&9;'6&5'3#%885'K7;K%7%42"75'3#%88"U65>'SMN>'92&4'WLN'958'
I%7f2&8'54'WWN'958'F"##58>'54'U65'WLN'958'I%7f2&8'54'WZN'958'F"##58'2&4';4;'%9J"8C'Y%"8'B5%6326K'
J2"&8 ' 9H;#G@58 ' 2&4 ' 95J%&9; ' 6& ' 1?) ' 54 ' 6& ' !)(CPN ' 9H5&475 ' 56[ ' 2&4 ' F%"4 ' #567 ' "&837"K4"2& ' ]'
#H6&"@578"4;C'
-268'K26@2&8'32&84%457' U65' #58';#G@58>'JgJ5'8H"#8'2&4' 56'6&5'7;K2&85'F%@27%B#5']'#567'
3%&9"9%4675'9%&8'6&5'%6475';32#5'9H"&I;&"5678'54'9%&8'6&5'3#%885'K7;K%7%42"75>'2&4'K7;F;7;'#H*_AC'
1H%"##5678>&]'#%'U6584"2&'95'8%@2"7'8H"#8'%@%"5&4'K7;F;7;''6&5'%6475';32#5'26'F"#"G75'#%'J%$27"4;>'PPN>'
9;3#%75 ' 95 ' &5 ' K%8 ' 75I754457 ' #5 ' 3<2"[ ' 95 ' #H;32#5> ' 92&4 ' XLN ' 958 ' I%7f2&8 ' 54 ' QSN ' 958 ' F"##58C ' J9&
0CA2&4%&"&"'OSZZSR'%'32&84%4;'9H%K7G8'6&5';4695'%6K7G8'958';469"%&48'95'#H/-)'O/&84"464'-%4"2&%#'958'
);#;32JJ6&"3%4"2&8R'U65'#58'F"##58'82&4'J2"&8'&2JB756858'U65'#58'I%7f2&8'OSSN'32&475'XXNR']'
WM
'TH/-)'584'J5JB75'96'l726K5'958');#;32JJ6&"3%4"2&8'Ol*)R'54'95'#%'02&F;75&35'958'l7%&958'*32#58C'T5'32&32678'
9H5&47;5'5&'K75J"G75'%&&;5'584'26@574'%6[';#G@58'958'3#%8858'K7;K%7%42"758'83"5&4"F"U658'J%4<;J%4"U658'z'K<`8"U65'
OY_R>'K<`8"U65'b'3<"J"5'O_0R>'K<`8"U65'b'83"5&358'95'#H"&I;&"567'O_(/R'54'K<`8"U65'z'453<&2#2I"5'O_)R
75I754457 ' 95 ' &5 ' K%8 ' %@2"7 ' "&4;I7; ' 6&5 ' %6475 ' ;32#5 ' 9H"&I;&"567 ' 45#8 ' U65 ' 05&47%#5 ' _%7"8>'
);#;32JJ6&"3%4"2&8>'T58'Y"&58'95'_%7"8>'_2#`453<&"U65C
T58';32#58'#5'K#68'826@5&4'J5&4"2&&;58'K%7'958';#G@58'95'#H*_A'82&4'\'*(Y*'(697"%'O*32#5'
8K;3"%#5'95'J;3%&"U65'54'9H;#5347"3"4;R>'WVN>'#58';32#58'96'I726K5'A*(/0'OA;9;7%4"2&'958';32#58'
86K;7"56758'9H"&I;&"5678'54'958'3%9758R>'WdN>'#58'/-(,'O/&84"464'&%4"2&%#'958'83"5&358'%KK#"U6;58R>'
WWN>'*(/**'O/&I;&"5678'5&';#53472&"U65'54';#53472453<&"U65R>'WSN>'*(),0,'O*32#5'86K;7"5675'958'
453<&"U658 ' %;72&%64"U658 ' 54 ' 95 ' 32&847634"2& ' %642J2B"#5R> ' VN> ' *(/*, ' O*32#5 ' 86K;7"5675'
9H"&F27J%4"U65>';#53472&"U65>'%642J%4"U65R>'XNC
)26458' 358' ;32#58'J5&4"2&&;58'82&4'958';32#58'5&'3"&U'%&8>'8K;3"%#"8;58'9%&8'6&'3574%"&'
92J%"&5>'54'K7"@;58>'8%6F'#58'/-(,'U6"'5&475&4'9%&8'#%'3%4;I27"5'958';32#58'6&"@578"4%"758C'TH;4695'
9H6&5'5&U6g45'a'T5'3#%885J5&4'958'I7%&958';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'c'K6B#";5'5&'SZZS'K%7'a'T5'-26@5#'
*32&2J"845'c'&268'J2&475'U65'K%7'7%KK274']'426458'358';32#58'J5&4"2&&;58'K%7'958';#G@58>'#H*_A'584'
#%'J"56['K#%3;5>'8%6F''K%7'7%KK274']'#H/-(,'95'T`2&C',"&8"'2&'&245'U65'#H*_A'2336K5'#%'WSGJ5'K#%35'
9%&8'#5'7%&I'95'3#%885J5&4>'#H/-(,'95'T`2&'#5'dGJ5>'#H/-(,'95')26#2685'WPGJ5>'#H/-(,'95'=5&&58'
SSGJ5>'#H*(/**'SdGJ5>'#H*(/*,'QSGJ5>'#H*(Y*b(?1=/,'QQGJ5C'
TH;4695'95'#%'K723;9675'9H%9J"88"2&'9H5&47;5'958';#G@58']'#H*_A'%'J2&47;'U65'#%'J%$27"4;'
958';#G@58'%'"&4;I7;'#H;32#5'%K7G8'#5'B%3'(>'MXN>'92&4'QPN'958'F"##58'54'SPN'958'I%7f2&8C'/#'F%64'
826#"I&57'%688"'U65'QMN'958';#G@58'"&4GI75&4'K%7'958'%9J"88"2&8'867'4"475>'#%'J%$27"4;'%K7G8'Y%4<8'
(?_'54'Y%4<8'(_*>'WVN>'WSN'958'I%7f2&8'54'MN'958'F"##58'%"&8"'U65'95'#H6&"@578"4;>'WXN>'VN'958'
I%7f2&8'54'MN'958'F"##58C'T58'K26735&4%I58'958';#G@58'%`%&4'"&4;I7;'#H;32#5'%K7G8'Y%4<8'(_*>'1?)'
54'!)('82&4'F%"B#58>'%64267'95'QNC'.&'K564'9"75'U65'#58';#G@58'%K7G8'#H;3<53'5&'J%4<8'(?_'54'5&'
Y%4<8'(_*'5&475&4']'#H;32#5'K267'2B45&"7'J%#I7;'4264'#5'9"K#jJ5'9H"&I;&"567'I;&;7%#"845'54'95'#H%6475'
3j4;'#58';#G@58'@5&%&4'95'#H?&"@578"4;>'95'1?)'26'!)('5&475&4']'#H;32#5'K267'2B45&"7'#5'9"K#jJ5'
9H"&I;&"567'K#68'@%#27"8;'867'#5'J%73<;'95'#H5JK#2"C
P3)/1=5<L<98)K6H<9<98)>8)?16B=?8
TH;4695'958'7%"82&8'96'3<2"['95'#H*_A'%'J2&47;'U65'35'U6"'%44"75'#5'K#68'#58';#G@58'@578'35445'
;32#5'3H584'8%'F27J%4"2&'I;&;7%#"845>'QQN'OWdN'958'I%7f2&8'54'WXN'958'F"##58R>'5&86"45'#5'3<2"['958'
8K;3"%#"4;8 ' 5& ' 3`3#5 ' "&I;&"567> ' QQN ' OWPN ' 958 ' I%7f2&8 ' 54 ' WMN ' 958 ' F"##58R> ' 54 ' 858 ' F27J%4"2&8'
"&457&%4"2&%#58> ' WPN ' OWSN '958 'I%7f2&8'54'LN '958 ' F"##58RC ' (56#5J5&4' WN '9;3#%75'g475 '%44"7;'K%7'
#H;32#5'K267'82&'27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5>'54'"#'F%64'826#"I&57'U65'35'K26735&4%I5'32&357&5'#58'I%7f2&8'54'
U6H%636&5'F"##5'&H%'9;3#%7;'%@2"7';4;'%44"7;5'K%7'#5'K%88;'F;J"&"&'95'#H;32#5C
-268 ' %@2&8 ' F%"4 ' #H<`K24<G85 ' U65 ' #58 ' F"##58 ' 3<2"8"885&4 ' #H;32#5 ' K267 ' 82& ' K%88; ' F;J"&"&C'
TH%&%#`85'958'92&&;58'&5'&268'%'K%8'K57J"8'95'#H%FF"7J57C'0574%"&58'F"##58'35K5&9%&4'9;3#%75&4'9%&8'
#58'5&4754"5&8'U65'#5'F%"4'9H%@2"7'K#68'95'F"##58'9%&8'#567'5&4267%I5'%'F%3"#"4;'#567'"&4;I7%4"2&']'#H;32#5C'
*&'%&%#`8%&4'#58'7%"82&8'U65'#58';#G@58'&268'2&4'92&&;'K267'3<2"8"7'#H*_A>'&268'%@2&8';4;'
%J5&;5']'9"84"&I657'U6%475'I726K58'9H;#G@58>'85#2&'#%'J24"@%4"2&'K7"&3"K%#5'U6"'#58'%'32&96"8']'
3<2"8"7'35445';32#5C'
<;4/,#$&/,11$&2$*-"P*$&/0)-/$&2;)//42$*&).&'"'*$&"-(4-"$.*&(4-4*)#"%'$
05'I726K5'584'75K7;85&4;'K%7'958';#G@58'U6"'9H6&'3j4;>'%K7G8'#H;3<53'5&'J%4<8'(?_'54'5&'
J%4<8'(_*>'5&475&4']'#H*_A'K267'2B45&"7'J%#I7;'4264'#5'4"475'9H"&I;&"567'I;&;7%#"845>'54'95'#H%6475'
K%7'958';#G@58'U6"'@"5&&5&4'95'#H6&"@578"4;'K267'2B45&"7'6&'9"K#jJ5'K#68'@%#27"8;'867'#5'J%73<;'95'
#H5JK#2"'U6H6&'9"K#jJ5'6&"@578"4%"75C'/#8';4%"5&4'4268'95'B2&8';#G@58'54'"#8'%@%"5&4'95'B2&&58'&2458'
9%&8'#58'J%4"G758'83"5&4"F"U658'OJ%4<8'54'K<`8"U65R'54'5&'I;&;7%#'"#8'2&4'2B45&6'6&5'J5&4"2&'%6'B%3C'
T567'27"5&4%4"2&'5&'K75J"G75'('54'5&'457J"&%#5'(';4%"4'I6"9;5'K%7'#5678'B2&&58'&2458'54'K%7'#567'
K7;F;75&35 ' K267 ' #58 ' J%4"G758 ' 83"5&4"F"U658'\ ' a'#58 ' J%4"G758 ' 83"5&4"F"U658> ' f% ' %##%"4 ' 4264 ' 856#'c ' 26'
a'3H584'35'U6H"#'`'%@%"4'95'K#68'F%3"#5'cC'/#8';4%"5&4';I%#5J5&4'32&83"5&48'U65'#%'F"#"G75'('26@7%"4'867'
426458'#58'9"83"K#"&58'95'#H5&85"I&5J5&4'86K;7"567C
0H584'6&'K56'K%7'9;F%64>'F%645'95'J"56['U6H"#8'82&4'5&47;8']'#H;32#5'K267'2B45&"7'6&'9"K#jJ5'
9H"&I;&"567C'T692@"3>'%K7G8'%@2"7'F%"4'6&'%&'5&'J%4<8'(?_'%'K7"8'32&83"5&35'U6H"#'&H%'K%8'6&'&"@5%6'
%885r'86FF"8%&4'K267'"&4;I757'%K7G8'J%4<8'(_*'6&5';32#5'K7584"I"5685>'26'32JJ5'"#'9"4>'a 'O.)-2 &
Q;4')"%&$-&1)'0%&A>B5&+)&%$&7)%%)"'&-"&E"$-5&-"&1)#&$-&=)"'5&"#&-;D&)?)"'&*"$-&2$&/)')%'*,70"O.$5&1)"% &
Q;)?)"%&*$()*24 &.-&7$.&/$&O."&4')"'&.-&7$.&7*P%&1,-&-"?$).5&$'&Q$&1$&%."%&2"'&+)&-$&?).'&7)% &
?*)"1$-'&#$&/,.7&O.$&Q$&'*)?)"##$&2.*&$-&ABF&7,.*&="-)#$1$-'&"-'4(*$*&7)%&=,*/$1$-'&#$%&4/,#$%&O." &
/,**$%7,-2)"$-'&$C)/'$1$-'&6&/$&O.$&Q$&?,.#)"%&$'&2,-/&Q$&1$&%."%&7,*'4&%.*&#;FB!'cWPC',#278'U65'
K267'-%4<%#"5>'%K7G8'956['75926B#5J5&48'5&'K75J"G75'%&&;5'95'#%'F%3'95'K<%7J%3"5>'#H*_A';4%"4'#%'
957&"G75'3<%&35'9H2B45&"7'6&'9"K#jJ5'9H5&85"I&5J5&4'86K;7"567>'aQ;)"&=)"'&"-(4-"$.*&7)*&24=).'&-$ &
7,.?)-'&7)%&=)"*$&#)&70)*1)/"$&cWVC'/#8'2&4'56'4268'#58'956['#%'J5&4"2&'aB"5&'c'%6'B%3C'_5&9%&4'42645'
#%'832#%7"4;'"#8';4%"5&4'95'B2&8';#G@58'54'5&'K%74"36#"57'9%&8'#58'J%4"G758 '83"5&4"F"U658'OJ%4<8'54'
K<`8"U65R>'#5'3<2"['95'#%'F"#"G75'('8H"JK28%"4'32JJ5'6&5'a%."'$&#,("O.$'c'26'K%735'U65'3H584 'R/$ &
O.;"#&D&)?)"'&2$&7#.%&=)/"#$'cC'/#8'5&475&4']'#H;32#5'867'4"475'5&'956["GJ5'%&&;5>'T692@"3'867'9288"57>'
-%4<%#"5'5&'K%88%&4'#58'45848'32JK#;J5&4%"758C'',6'J2J5&4'95'#H5&4754"5&'"#';4%"4'5&'L GJ5'%&&;5>'5##5'
5&'QGJ5C'
058';469"%&48>'U6"'2&4'"&4;I7;'#H*_A'a'K%7'9;F%64'c>'8%@%"5&4'%@%&4'9H5&4757']'#H;32#5'U6H5##5'
;4%"4 ' 6&5 ' ;32#5 ' 95 ' F"##58 ' 54 ' U6H5##5 ' &H584 ' K%88;5 ' U65 ' 47G8 ' 7;35JJ5&4 ' ] ' #% ' J"["4;C ' T58 ' F"##58'
75@5&9"U65&4'#5'F%"4'U6H5##58'&H2&4'K%8'"&4;I7;'#H;32#5'K267'82&'27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5>'a'f%'&H%'%636&'
7%KK274'%@53'U65'35'82"4'J"[45'26'K%8'c'54'5##58'4726@5&4'&27J%#>'5&'U65#U65'82745>'U6H"#'`'%"4'K#68'95'
I%7f2&8C'T58'I%7f2&8>'56[>';4%"5&4'K5786%9;8'U6H"#'`'%@%"4'K#68'95'F"##58'U65'9%&8'9H%64758';32#58'
9H"&I;&"5678C'Y%"8'K267'#58'F"##58'54'#58'I%7f2&8'"8868'95'35'I726K5>'#H27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5'95'#H;32#5'&H%'
K%8'96'4264'$26;'9%&8'#567'3<2"['54'9%&8'#567'27"5&4%4"2&'@578'#H;32#5>'a'f%'&H;4%"4'&"'6&5'J24"@%4"2&>'
WP
'(45@%&2@"3'!C>'SZZM>'<)&1"C"'4&2)-%&#$%&4/,#$%&2;"-(4-"$.*%G&<$&/)%&2$&#;$CIF/,#$&B,#D'$/0-"O.$&!41"-"-$>'_%7"8>'
t%7J%44%&>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCWXZC'
WV
'/B"9C>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCWXQC
&"'6&'2B84%3#5'cC
T58'F"##58'54'#58'I%7f2&8';@2U65&4'#58'B2&8'3j4;8'54'#5'B"5&F%"4'95'#%'J"["4;'867'#%'J5&4%#"4;'54'
#H%4J28K<G75'95'#H;32#5C'T58'F"##58'K5&85&4'U6H6&'3%975'6&"U65J5&4'F;J"&"&'584'J2"&8'5&7"3<"88%&4>'
%@53'958'45&9%&358']'#%'$%#268"5'54']'#H<`K237"8"5C'-%4<%#"5'J5&4"2&&5>'a'6&#)&#"1"'$&%"&$##$&)?)"'&4'4 &
$-/,*$&.-"O.$1$-'&=41"-"-$&Q$&-$&%."%&7)%&%S*$&O.$&Q$&%$*)"%&?$-.$5&7)*/$&O.$&Q$&7$-%$5&.-$&4/,#$ &
,T&"#&D&)&.-"O.$1$-'&2$%&="##$%5&/;$%'&.-$&1$-')#"'4&O.)-2&1U1$&%74/")#$5&/;$%'&7$.'IU'*$& &1,"-% &
',#4*)-'5 & 7#.% & %4*"$.CG & M?$/ & 2$% & ()*+,-% & /;$%' & .- & 7$. & 7#.% & 24/,-'*)/'4G & V;$%' & 7#.% & =)/"#$ & 2$ &
'*)?)"##$*&2)-%&.-&$-?"*,--$1$-'&1"C'$&O.$5&.-"O.$1$-'&=41"-"-&cWdC'
_267'#58'I%7f2&8'%688"'#5'3%7%34G75'F;J"&"&'95'#H;32#5'75K7;85&45'6&5'26@574675'9H58K7"4'54'6&'
J"#"56'a'K#68'%;7;>'K#68'26@574>'J2"&8'B764'c>'32&47%"75J5&4'%6[';32#58'2e'"#'`'%'47G8'K56'95'F"##58>'
3%7'a'6&5'J5&4%#"4;'95'I%7f2&8'3H584'#2679'cC
_267'35'K72F"#'9H;469"%&4>'#%'&2&bJ"["4;'75K7;85&45'U65#U65'3<285'9H<"8427"U65>'64"#5'9%&8'6&5'
;K2U65>'%#278'U65'#%'J"["4;'75K7;85&45'a'6&5'75@%#27"8%4"2&'7;5##5'95'#H;32#5'%6'&"@5%6'"&96847"5#'c>'
3%7'a'f%'F%"4'K#68'J2957&5w6&5';32#5'6&"U65J5&4'F;J"&"&5>'f%'F%"4'6&'K56'9"&28%675'cC
<;FB!5&#;4/,#$&24%"*4$
1%&8'35'I726K5'&268'4726@2&8'#58';#G@58'U6"';4%"5&4'%44"7;8'K%7'#5'3j4;'I;&;7%#"845'95'#H;32#5>'
%"&8"'U65'K%7'#H6&5'958'2K4"2&8'U6H5##5'K72K285C'T5'F%"4'U6H5##5';4%"4'@7%"J5&4'6&5';32#5'9;8"7;5'85'
@2"4']'47%@578'#58'847%4;I"58'95'3574%"&8';#G@58'U6"'2&4'45&4;'K#68"5678'F2"8'#58'32&32678'95'#H*_A'54'
U6"'2&4>'82"4'75F%"4'#%'457J"&%#5'('9%&8'#5'B64'9H%@2"7'6&'J5"##567'&"@5%6>'82"4'F%"4'6&5'%6475'F"#"G75'
32JJ5'K%7'5[5JK#5'6&'/?)'U6"'#567'%'K57J"8'95'#H"&4;I757'%K7G8'K#68"5678'45&4%4"@58C'T567'K%732678'
832#%"75 '&5 ' 85 ' 3%7%34;7"85'K%8 'K%7 ' #5 'K%732678 '9H6& ';#G@5 'B7"##%&4> ' JgJ5 '8" '3574%"&8 ' 2&4 ' 56' 958'
J5&4"2&8'%6'B%33%#%67;%4C''Y%"8'35'I726K5'9H;#G@58'%'6&'K2"&4'5&'32JJ6&>'"#8'2&4'3<2"8"'#%'F"#"G75'('
%6'#`3;5'K%735'U6H"#8'%"J%"5&4'#58'J%4"G758'83"5&4"F"U658>'`'32JK7"8'#%'B"2#2I"5'54'#%'3<"J"5C
T5'3<2"['95'#H*_A'K267'35'I726K5'9H;#G@58';4%"4'%688"'847%4;I"U65>'K%735'U65'#H*_A';4%"4'
J"56[ ' 324;5 ' U65 ' #58 ' ;32#58 ' 2e ' "#8 ' ;4%"5&4 ' %9J"8 ' 54 ' U6" ' ;4%"5&4 ' 958 ' ;32#58 ' 8K;3"%#"8;58 ' O(697"%>'
T*(/*,>'T*(),0,wRC
TH27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5'&H;4%"4'K%8'#5'37"4G75'95'3<2"['95'#H;32#5'K267'35'I726K5'9H;#G@58C'T58'
F"##58';4%"5&4'32&45&458'95'85'754726@57'6&5'F2"8'5&47;58']'#H;32#5'K%7J"'4%&4'95'F"##58>'%#278'U65'#58'
I%7f2&8'85'85&45&4'6&'K56'9;@%#27"8;8']'#H"9;5'95'85'754726@57'9%&8'6&5' 'a'4/,#$&7,.*&#$%&="##$%'cC'
{6#"5&'826#"I&5'a'$##$&-$&%;)77$##$&7#.%&#;F/,#$&B,#D'$/0-"O.$&!41"-"-$5&$##$&%;)77$##$&FB!5&/;$%' &
Wd
/B"9C>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCWXMC
7)%&7,.*&#$&/W'4&2$&#;)-/"$--$&4/,#$'cSZC
_267'#58'F"##58'#5'3%7%34G75'F;J"&"&'&H;4%"4'K%8'#5'K2"&4'9;3"8"F>'3H;4%"4'8532&9%"75C'/8%B5##5'
%FF"7J5'U6H5##5'8%@%"4'U6H"#'`'%@%"4'K#68'95'F"##58'U65'9%&8'9H%64758';32#58'54'5##5'8H584'9"4'U6H5##5'
%67%"4'K#68'9H%"95'%6'&"@5%6'95'#H"&4;I7%4"2&C
<;4/,#$5&#)&/,-'"-.)'",-&2$&#;0"%',"*$&=)1"#")#$&N&R&<$%&04*"'"P*$%&X
05'I726K5'584'75K7;85&4;'K%7'958';#G@58'U6"'2&4'9;$]'56'U65#U6H6&5'95'#567'F%J"##5>'6&5'JG75>'
6&5'8x67'26'6&5'4%&45>'U6"'584'K%88;5'K%7'35445';32#5'54'U6"'8%@%"4'9;$]'U65'#H*_A';4%"4'6&5'B2&&5'
;32#5C'T%'K%74"36#%7"4;'95'35'I726K5'584'U65'358'K5782&&58'95'#%'F%J"##5';4%"5&4'832#%7"8;58'K5&9%&4'
U65'#H;32#5';4%"4'&2&bJ"[45C'
0%72#"&5'%'56'6&5'8x67']'#H;32#5'K5&9%&4'U65'3H;4%"4'5&3275'&2&bJ"[45>'T%675'8%'JG75'54'
Y%I%#"'956['4%&458C'058'472"8'F"##58'2&4'3<2"8"'#H*_A'K%735'U65'9%&8'#%'F%J"##5'2&'32&&%"88%"4'B"5&'
#H;32#5>'5##58' 8%@%"5&4'U65'#H*_A' ;4%"4' 6&5'B2&&5';32#5' '26'32JJ5 '9"4'0%72#"&5>'aQ$&%)?)"%&,T &
Q;)##)"%'cC ' T% ' K28"4"2& ' 95 ' 0%72#"&5 ' @"8b]b@"8 ' 95 ' #% ' J"["4; ' 95 ' #H;32#5 ' 85 ' 47%96"4 ' ] ' 47%@578'
#H%6IJ5&4%4"2&'96'&"@5%6'95'#H;32#5'95K6"8'#%'J"["4;>'a#$&-"?$).&)&).(1$-'4&E$)./,.7&7."%O.;"#&D&) &
7#.%&2$&1,-2$&6&%;"-%/*"*$&2,-/&"#&D&)&7#.%&2$&%4#$/'",-'cSW>'3H584b]b9"75'6&5';32#5'6&"U65J5&4'
F;J"&"&5 ' 8"I&"F"5 ' #% ' 9;@%#27"8%4"2& ' %#278 ' U65 ' #% ' K7;85&35 ' 958 ' I%7f2&8 ' ] ' #H;32#5 ' 8"I&"F"5 ' 6&5'
7532&&%"88%&35'54'6&5'@%#27"8%4"2&'95'#H;32#5'54'95'4"475'"&I;&"567'*_AC'1H%"##5678'8"'3H;4%"4'426$2678'
6&5 ' ;32#5 ' K267 ' #58 ' F"##58> ' 5##5 ' &5 ' 857%"4 ' K%8 ' 5&47;5C ' h6%&4 ' ] ' Y%I%#"> ' 5##5 ' 9;3#%75 ' U65 ' #H27"I"&5'
F;J"&"&5'&H%'K%8'"&F#65&3;'82&'3<2"[>'J%"8'5##5'7532&&%s4'U65'#5'F%"4'95'85'754726@57'9%&8'6&5';32#5'
2e'"#'`'%'B5%6326K'95'F"##58>'%@%"4'6&'3j4;'K28"4"F>'RO.;"#&D&)"'&7#.%&2$&="##$%5&+)&1;)&7#.&7)*/$&O.$&Q$ &
7$-%$&O.$&/;$%'&?*)"&O.$&/;4')"'&)(*4)E#$&2;U'*$&7)*=,"%&&$-'*$&#$%&="##$%5&"#&D&)&.-$&).'*$&)1E")-/$ &
O.$&%$.#$1$-'&)?$/&2$%&()*+,-%&XYYG&_6"8'5##5'9"4'%688"'U6H5##5'75885&4%"4'6&5'3574%"&5'F"574;'9H%@2"7'
4%&4'95'F"##58'%64267'9H5##5'54'95'@2"7'U65'426458'358'F"##58'@2&4'95@5&"7'"&I;&"5678C& ,'47%@578'35'
4;J2"I&%I5'2&'@2"4'U65'K267'35445'F"##5'#%'@"8"2&'95'#%'83"5&35'54'9H"&I;&"57"5'584'32&8"9;7;5'32JJ5'
6& ' 92J%"&5 ' J%836#"&> ' 6&5 ' 3574%"&5 ' K72K274"2& ' 958 ' F"##58 ' 85 ' J2&475 ' 7%8867%&45 ' 867 ' #5 ' K#%&'
K8`3<2#2I"U65'54''K267'858'K72$548'K72F588"2&&5#8C'02&357&%&4'#%'J"["4;']'#H;32#5>'426458'#58'472"8>'5&'
7;F;75&35'%@53'#58'K72K28'958'K5782&&58'95'#567'F%J"##5'U6"'F7;U65&4%"5&4'#H;32#5>'826#"I&5&4'U65'#%'
K7;85&35 ' 958 ' I%7f2&8 ' ] ' #H;32#5 ' % ' B5%6326K ' 9H"JK%34 ' 867 ' #H%4J28K<G75> ' a/;$%' & .- & 7$. & 7#.% &
24/,-'*)/'45&1,"-%&/,-%/"$-/"$.C&cC'
SZ
SW
/B"9C>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCWLZC
'/B"9C>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCWLXC
SS
'/B"9C>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCWLLC
<;4/,#$&$'&%$%&7*47)%&"-'4(*4$%
1%&8'35'I726K5'#58';#G@58'2&4'3<2"8"'#H*_A'9%&8'#5'B64'9H;@"457'#58'3#%8858'K7;K%7%42"758'
3#%88"U658>'82"4'K%735'U6H"#8'8H%642b8;#534"2&&5&4'54'37%"I&5&4'#H%4J28K<G75'32JK;4"4"@5'958'3#%8858'
K7;K%7%42"758>'82"4'K%735'U6H"#8';4%"5&4'32&83"5&48'U6H"#8'&H%@%"4'K%8'6&'&"@5%6'86FF"8%&4'K267'%33;957'
%6['J%4<8'(?_'54'J%4<8'(_*'54'`'7;688"7C'/#8'%"J%"5&4'4268'#58'J%4<;J%4"U658'54'#%'K<`8"U65>'7%"82&'
K7"&3"K%#5'K267'#5'3<2"['95'#%'F"#"G75'(C'/#8'2&4'4268'"&4;I7;'#H;32#5'5&'K75J"G75'%&&;5C'
02&357&%&4'#H27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5'95'#H;32#5>'#58';469"%&48'9;3#%75&4'U65'f%'&H%'K%8'27"5&4;'#567'
3<2"[C'Y%"8'#58'F"##58'85'85&45&4'K#68']'#H%"85']'#H*_A'K%735'U6H"#'`'%'K#68'95'F"##58'U65'9%&8'9H%64758'
;32#58'9H"&I;&"5678C
?&5 ' 753<573<5 ' 7;%#"8;5 ' K%7 ' 12J"&"U65 ' Y%74"&YK' %6K7G8 ' 958 ' ;469"%&458 ' 95 ' #H*32#5'
_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5'5&'WdPW'J54'5&';@"95&35'#5'@;36'95'#%'&2&bJ"["4;'95'#H;32#5'K%7'#58'F"##58'
832#%7"8;58']'#H;32#5'%6'J2J5&4'95'#H5&U6g45C','35445';K2U65'#%'&2&bJ"["4;'75K7;85&4%"4'K267'358'
$56&58'F"##58'#%'@2"5'95'#H%3372"885J5&4'958'F5JJ58'"&I;&"5678'5&'A7%&35C'T%'K#6K%74'958'F"##58'9%&8'
#58 ' %&&;58 ' MZ ' 54 ' PZ ' 3<2"8"88%"5&4 ' #H;32#5 ' K267 ' ;@"457 ' #% ' 32JK;4"4"2& ' %@53 ' #58 ' I%7f2&8 ' 54 ' #%'
32JK%7%"82&'%@53'56['U6%&4']'#5678'3%K%3"4;8C'TH"&837"K4"2&'9%&8'35445';32#5'U6"';4%"4'&2&bJ"[45']'
6&5';K2U65'2e'426458'#58'%64758';32#58'9H"&I;&"5678'8H26@75&4'%6['F5JJ58>'75K7;85&4%"4'K267'5##58'
6&5'82745'95'K724534"2&>'a'6&'@2"#5'K724534567'c'9%&8'35'92J%"&5'7;857@;'%6['<2JJ58C'/&45772I;58'
867'#H26@574675'95'#H;32#5'%6['I%7f2&8>'5##58';4%"5&4'426458'9H%33279'J%"8'%FF"7J%"5&4'%@53'37%"&45'
U65'#567'K7;85&35'a'F%@27"857%"4'#H58K7"4'95'32JK;4"4"2&'9%&8'#5'47%@%"#'cYLC
)75&45'%&8'%K7G8>'%636&5'F"##5'&H5&@"8%I5'#5'754267']'#%'&2&bJ"["4;C'T%'&26@5##5'"95&4"4;'95'
#H;32#5'K%7%s4'g475'%3U6"85'K267'#58'F"##58'32JJ5'K267'#58'I%7f2&8C'T567'5&47;5']'#H;32#5'&H%'K%8';4;'
I6"9;5'K%7'#5'K%88;'F;J"&"&'54'3H584'@%#%B#5'K267'#58';#G@58'95'4268'#58'I726K58C'/#'85JB#5'U65'3H584'
#%'F27J%4"2&'I;&;7%#"845'54'#58'K578K534"@58'9H5JK#2"'U6"'82"5&4'#58'K7"&3"K%6['37"4G758'96'3<2"['958'
;469"%&48C
.=9B?F7<=9
T58 ' ;#G@58 ' U6" ' 2K45&4 ' K267 ' 35445 ' ;32#5 ' 82&4 ' aJ2`5&8 ' B2&8'c> ' #567 ' K%732678 ' 832#%"75 ' &5'
327758K2&9'K%8']'6&'K%732678'9H5[35##5&35>'"#8'"&4GI75&4'#H;32#5'%@53'958'J5&4"2&8'K%88%B#5'54'%885r'
B"5&>'#58'F"##58'82&4'K#68'&2JB756858']'5&4757']'#H;32#5'%@53'#%'J5&4"2&'%885r'B"5&>'35'U6"'K726@5'U65'
#H*_A ' 584 ' 6&5 ' I7%&95 ' aK54"45'c ' ;32#5 ' 96 ' 956["GJ5 ' 7%&IC ' T5678 ' &2458 ' J2`5&&58 ' %&&65##58 ' 5&'
9"83"K#"&58'83"5&4"F"U658'54'8m75J5&4'#5'I2m4'K267'#58';46958'9H"&I;&"567'54'K267'#%'453<&"U65'2&4'
75&96'35445'27"5&4%4"2&'K288"B#5C'T58';#G@58>'F"##58'32JJ5'I%7f2&8>'&H%`%&4'K%8'#5'&"@5%6'86FF"8%&4'
SQ
Y%74"&'1C>'WdPW>'a'<;4#P?$&"-(4-"$.*&2$&#;4/,#$&7,#D'$/0-"O.$&=41"-"-$'c>')<G85'5&'823"2#2I"5>'_%7"8'+C
SX
Y%74"&'1C>'WdPW>'2KC>'3"4C>'KCVMC
K267'"&4;I757'#58'3#%8858'K7;K%7%42"758''3#%88"U658'54'%K7G8'#58';32#58'#58'K#68'7;K64;58>'#%'3<2"8"885&4'
K%735'U6H%@53'6&'47%@%"#'7;I6#"57'"#8'82&4'8m78'9H2B45&"7'#5'9"K#jJ5'9H"&I;&"567'I;&;7%#"845']'#%'F"&'95'
#5678';46958C'T58'I7%&98'K26735&4%I58'958';#G@58'5&47;8']'#H;32#5'867'#58'%9J"88"2&8'867'4"475'54'U6"'
@"5&&5&4'95'J%4<8'(?_'54'95'#H?&"@578"4;>'J2&475&4'U65'K267'358';#G@58'U6"'2&4'32&&6'6&';3<53'5&'
3#%885'K7;K%7%42"75'3#%88"U65'9H6&'3j4;>'54' 95'#H%6475'U6"'@"5&&5&4'95'#H6&"@578"4;>' ' #H*_A'584'#%'
957&"G75'3<%&35'9H2B45&"7'6&'9"K#jJ5'9H"&I;&"567'I;&;7%#"845'@%#27"8;'823"%#5J5&4'867'#5'J%73<;'95'
#H5JK#2"C
TH;4695 ' 958 ' 92&&;58 ' 96 ' U6584"2&&%"75 ' &5 ' &268 ' % ' K%8 ' K57J"8 ' 9H%FF"7J57 ' U65 ' #58 ' F"##58'
3<2"8"885&4'#H;32#5'K267'82&'K%88;'F;J"&"&C'1H%"##5678>'9H%K7G8'#58'5&4754"5&8'#H27"I"&5'F;J"&"&5'9%&8'
%636&'3%8'&H%'K%8'"&F#65&3;'#5'3<2"['95'#H27"5&4%4"2&C'?&5'F2"8'5&47;58']'#H;32#5'3574%"&58'F"##58'
9;3#%75&4'U65'#5'F%"4'9H%@2"7'K#68'95'F"##58'9%&8'#H5&4267%I5'%'F%3"#"4;'#567'"&4;I7%4"2&']'#H;32#5'54'#58'%'
7%8867;58'9%&8'#567'3<2"['K72F588"2&&5#>'95'@2"7'5&4%&4'95'F"##58'U6"'@2&4'95@5&"7'"&I;&"567C
T%'J"["4;'95'#H5&85"I&5J5&4'K267'358'&26@5##58'I;&;7%4"2&8'9H"&I;&"5678'584'%3U6"85'54'4264'
]'F%"4'#;I"4"J5'3%7'#%'823";4;'584'J"[45>'#5'J2&95'96'47%@%"#'584'J"[45>'92&3'"#'F%64'32JJ5&357']'
8H<%B"4657'%6'J;#%&I5'958'85[58'9;$]']'#H;32#5C'/#8'82&4'4268'9H%33279>'F"##58'32JJ5'I%7f2&8>'"#8'
75F685&4'#%'&2&bJ"["4;'54'#5'754267']'#%'&2&bJ"["4;>'32&8"9;7;5'32JJ5'U65#U65'3<285'9H<"8427"U65'54'
9;K%88;>'64"#5'9%&8'6&5'3574%"&5';K2U65C
,*G*,*'.*()Q$Q/$"+,&4R$J-*(
,7J8472&I'/C_C>'072JB"5'lC>'SZZZ>'u'02JK72J"858'"&',92#5835&48H'.336K%4"2&%#',8K"7%4"2&8'%&9'*[K534%4"2&8'F72J'
l7%958'V'42'WZ'v>'Z,.*-)#&,=&[,/)'",-)#&:$0)?",*>'&nLMC
!%&967%',C>'WdPP>u'(5#Fb5FF"3%3`'\')2E%79'%'6&"F`"&I'4<527`'2F'B5<%@"27%#'3<%&I5'v>'B%D/0,#,("/)#&\$?"$]>'VX'OSRC
!%695#24'0C>'*84%B#54'=C>'SZZM>'M##$^&#$%&="##$%&_5'_%7"8>'(56"#>'S5';9C
!54r'-C*C>'t%3|544'lC>'WdVW>'u')<5'75#%4"2&8<"K'2F'3%7557b75#%459'85#Fb5FF"3%3`'5[K534%4"2&8'42'K5735"@59'3%7557'2K4"2&8'
"&'32##5I5'E2J5&'5&9'J%&'v>'Z,.*-)#&,=&V,.-%$#"-(&B%D/0,#,(D>'SVOLRC
!2679"56'_C>''_%88572&'{C0C>'WdPZ>'<)&\$7*,2./'",-5'_%7"8>'*9"4"2&8'95'Y"&6"4C
!2679"56'_C>'(%"&4bY%74"&'O95R'YC>'WdVP>'a',I7;I%4"2&'54'8;I7;I%4"2&'\'#5'3<%JK'958'I7%&958';32#58'54'#5'3<%JK'95'
K26@2"7'c>'M/'$%&2$&#)&*$/0$*/0$&$-&%/"$-/$%&%,/")#$%5'&nMd>'KCWbXdC
!2679"56'_C>'WdVd>'<)&-,E#$%%$&2;F')'5&(*)-2$%&4/,#$%&$'&$%7*"'&2$&V,*7%5'_%7"8>'Y"&6"4C
!2679"56'_C>'WddV>'<)&2,1"-)'",-&1)%/.#"-$>'_%7"8>'(56"#C
0%3<5#26'{C>'WdVX>'a'15'Y%7"5'067"5'%6['"&I;&"5678'95'#H%&'SZZZ'c>'V.#'.*$&'$/0-"O.$5'&nWS>'J%78>'KCSMLbSPWC
1676b!5##%4'YC>'<;4/,#$&2$%&="##$%G&`.$##$&=,*1)'",-&7,.*&O.$#%&*W#$%&%,/").C&a>'_%7"8>'t%7J%44%&>'SZZX>'S5';9C
A5#26r"8'lC>'WddX>'<$&/,##P($&).&O.,'"2"$-&N&)2)7')'",-5&%,/")#"%)'",-&$'&*4.%%"'$&%/,#)"*$2$%&="##$%&$'&2$%&()*+,-%>'_%7"8>'
_?AC
A577%&9'YC>'/JB574'AC>'Y%77`'0C>'WddP>'A5JJ58'54'83"5&358C'?&5';U6%4"2&'"JK72B%B#5'i>'!,*1)'",-IF17#,">'&nLLC
A577%&9'YC>'/JB574'AC>'Y%77`'0C>'Wddd> '<;$C/$##$-/$&%/,#)"*$&N&.-$&)==)"*$&2$&=)1"##$5&<$&/)%&2$%&-,*1)#"$--$%&$' &
-,*1)#"$-%&%/"$-'"="O.$%5'_%7"8>'#Ht%7J%44%&C
A2&4%&"&"'0<C>'SZZS>'a')7%$548'823"%6['54'832#%"758'958'F"##58'54'958'I%7f2&8'@578'6&5';32#5'9H"&I;&"567'\'TH/&84"464'
-%4"2&%#'958');#;32JJ6&"3%4"2&8'c>'\$?.$&2$%&A/"$-/$%&A,/")#$%>'&nSd>'KCWQZbWQPC
l244F75982& 'TC(C> 'WdVW>'a'0"736J837"K4"2& '%&9'32JK72J"85'\ ','95@5#2KJ5&4%# '4<527`'2F '2336K%4"2&%# '%8K"7%4"2&8v>'
Z,.*-)#&,=&V,.-%$#"-(&B%D/0,#,(D>'SV'OMRC
l75#2& ' ,C> ' WddS> ' a'Y%7"5bT26"85 ' _%7"8 ' 54 ' #58 ' 9;B648 ' 95 ' #H*32#5 ' _2#`453<&"U65 ' A;J"&"&5'c> ':.##$'"- & 2;0"%',"*$ & 2$ &
#;4#$/'*"/"'45'&n'WdbSZ>'$6"&b9;35JB75>'KC'WQQbWLMC
T%K%& ' )C=C> '{"&I5#58|"' {C> ' WddS> ' u0"736J837"B"&I ' +23%4"2&%# ' ,8K"7%4"2&8 ' "& ' {6&"27 ' t"I< ' (3<22#v> 'Z,.*-)# & ,= &
V,.-%$#"-(&B%D/0,#,(D>'@2#C'Qd>'&nWC
Y3Y%<2&'YC>''_%442&'}C>'WddP>'u'l5&957'9"FF575&358'"&'3<"#975&:8'%&9'%92#5835&48:'K5735K4"2&8'2F'"&F#65&358'2&'4<5"7'
3%7557'95@5#2KJ5&4'v>'A/0,,#&V,.-%$#,*>'XXC
Y%772 ' 0C> ' +26"##24 ' AC> ' WddW> ' =5K7;85&4%4"2& ' 95 ' 82"> ' 75K7;85&4%4"2& ' 96 ' 83"5&4"F"U65b4`K5 ' 54 ' 3<2"[ ' 9:6&5 ' 27"5&4%4"2&'
83"5&4"F"U65'3<5r'958'F"##58'54'958'I%7f2&8'95'8532&95>'<;@*"$-')'",-&A/,#)"*$&$'&B*,=$%%",--$##$>'&nQ>'@2#C'SZ>'WddWC
Y%7"244"'AC>'SZZW>'u'_#%35'54'84%464'958'J%4<;J%4"U658'85#2&'#5'85[5'9%&8'#%'847634675'958'75K7;85&4%4"2&8'823"%#58'95'#%'
83"5&35'54'958'J;4"578'83"5&4"F"U658'3<5r'#58'32##;I"5&8'54'958'#`3;5&8'v> '<$%&/)0"$*%&"-'$*-)'",-).C&2$&7%D/0,#,("$>'
&nXdC
Y%77`'0C>'WdVd>'a'A5JJ58'"&I;&"5678'\'6&5'O"7R7;8"84"B#5'%835&8"2&'i'c>'b-=,*1)'",-&%.*&#$%&A/"$-/$%&A,/")#$%5'S>'@2#CSV>'
$6"&>'KC'SdWbQXXC
Y%77`'0C> 'WddS>'a'156[ 'I;&;7%4"2&8 '95 'F5JJ58'"&I;&"5678 '"88658 '958';32#58 '9H;#5347"3"4;'c> ':.##$'"- &2;0"%',"*$ &2$ &
#;4#$/'*"/"'45'&nWd>'$6"&b9;35JB75>'KC'WLPbWMdC
Y%77`'0C>'a'A5JJ5'54'"&I;&"567'\'#%'F"&'9H6&5'"&32JK%4"B"#"4;'i'c>'<)&*$/0$*/0$5'&nSXW>'J%78>'KC'QMSbQMQC
Y%77`'0C>'WddS>'a'T58'"&I;&"5678'\'6&5'K72F588"2&'K#68'J%836#"&5'5&',##5J%I&5'U6H5&'A7%&35'i'c'<;,*"$-')'",-&%/,#)"*$ &
$'&7*,=$%%",--$##$5'SW>'&nQ>'$6"##54b85K45JB75>'KCSXLbSMPC
Y%77`'0C>'SZZX>&<$%&=$11$%&"-(4-"$.*%5&>-$&*4?,#.'",-&*$%7$/'.$.%$5&_%7"8>'!5#"&5&2KC>'3"4C>'KCWZSC
Y%6'}5"b0<5&I>'SZZQ>'u'A%34278'4<%4'"&F#65&35'K578"845&35'"&'83"5&35'%&9'5&I"&557"&I'3%7557'%8K"7%4"2&8'v> 'V)*$$* &
c$?$#,71$-'&`.)*'$*#D>'J%78C)
Y2832&"'->'WdVd>'<)&1"C"'4&2)-%&#;$-%$"(-$1$-'&%$/,-2)"*$5&.-&=).C&%$1E#)-'&a>'_%7"8>'_?AC
Y2832&"'->'WddX>'!$11$%&$'&%)?,"*%G&<)&%,/"4'45&#;4/,#$&$'&#)&2"?"%",-&2$&%)?,"*%5&_%7"8>'#Ht%7J%44%&C
Y2832&" ' -C> ' (45@%&2@"3 ' !C>) SZZP> 'H$-*$ & $' & M?$-"*G' <$% & *$7*4%$-')'",-% & 2$% & 14'"$*% & /0$^ & #$% & )2,#$%/$-'$% & $' & #$% &
)2,#$%/$-'%5'_%7"8>'t%7J%44%&>'(;7"5'a'l5&75'54'*963%4"2&'cC
_"I5`75 'AC>'WdVM> 'A,/")#"%)'",-&2"==4*$-'"$##$&2$%&%$C$%G&<)&/)%&2$%&=.'.*$%&=$11$%&/)2*$%&2)-%&#$%&(*)-2$%&4/,#$% &
2;"-(4-"$.*%&$'&2$&($%'",-5&)<G85'K267'#5'923427%4'95'QGJ5'3`3#5'5&'823"2#2I"5>'?&"@578"4;'95'_%7"8'+//C
(45@%&2@"3'!C>'SZZQ>'<)&1"C"'4&2)-%&#$%&4/,#$%&2;"-(4-"$.*%&N&<$&/)%&7)*)2,C)#&2$&#;$CIF/,#$&B,#D'$/0-"O.$&!41"-"-$5&
)<G85'5&'(3"5&358'95'#H;963%4"2&>'?&"@578"4;'-%&45775b'_%7"8'WZC
(45@%&2@"3'!C>) SZZX>'a'TH<"842"75'95'#%'J"["4;']'#H5['*32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5'OWdMdbSZZZR'c> 'V)**$=,.*%&2$ &
#;42./)'",-5'$%&@"57b$6"&>'&nWP>'KKCLVbPMG
(45@%&2@"3'!C>'Y2832&"'-C>'SZZL>'a'TH;32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5'\'6&5'J"["4;'K%7%92[%#5'c>' '\$?.$&!*)-+)"%$&2$ &
B42)(,("$>'&nWLZ>'KKCWdbQWC
Stevanovic B., 2006, La mixité dans les écoles d’ingénieurs. Le cas de l’ex-Ecole Polytechnique Féminine, Paris,
l’Harmattan, coll. « Savoir et Formation ».
(45@%&2@"3'!C>'SZZV>'a'Y24"@%4"2&8']'"&4;I757'6&5';32#5'9:"&I;&"5678C'T:5[b*32#5'_2#`453<&"U65'A;J"&"&5\'T:27"I"&5'
F;J"&"&5'95'#:;32#5'%44"75b4b5##5'#58'F"##58i'c>'V)0"$*%&2.&VF\!FF>'&nSL>'KKCLWbPQC
1
Les Cycles Préparatoires Polytechniques contribuent-ils à réduire les
inégalités de genre dans l’accès aux formations d’ingénieurs ?
Josette Costes1
Les Cycles Préparatoires Polytechniques (CPP) ont été créés en 1993 par les Instituts
Nationaux Polytechniques (INP) dans un contexte général de hausse de l’offre de places en
école d’ingénieurs et de baisse d’attrait pour les études scientifiques. Il s’agissait de
diversifier les voies d’accès aux écoles d’ingénieurs. Les INP, qui regroupent vingt écoles
publiques d’ingénieurs2, ont fait l’hypothèse que des élèves qui refusaient de passer par les
classes préparatoires (CPGE) pouvaient devenir de très bon-ne-s ingénieurs, moyennant une
formation adaptée.
Conçus dès leur création comme une alternative aux CPGE, les CPP présentent d’importantes
différences avec ces dernières. La plus « spectaculaire » est que les élèves qui y sont admises ne passent pas de concours au terme des deux années d’étude : c’est le contrôle continu qui
joue ce rôle (moyenne de 10 sur 20 demandée à la fin de chaque année, classement des élèves
pour l’accès aux écoles d’ingénieurs).
Les autres différences résident dans le mode d’accès aux CPP (entretien individuel avec lettre
de motivation en plus des résultats scolaires), dans l’organisation des études (enseignement
généraliste pendant trois semestres, spécialisé au 4ème semestre et stage obligatoire de cinq
semaines en entreprise ou en laboratoire) et dans l’information donnée sur les écoles
(présentation systématique, rencontres avec d’anciens-nes élèves)
Les filles, qui sont plus nombreuses que les garçons à poursuivre des études supérieures, sont
minoritaires dans les études scientifiques, et leur part n’évolue que lentement.3 Au sein des
études scientifiques, filles et garçons n’ont pas le même parcours : ils étudient des disciplines
différentes dans des établissements différents. Les garçons investissent les CPGE quand les
filles, jugeant ces dernières trop compétitives, sont plus nombreuses à l’université 4. Quand
elles envisagent une école d’ingénieur, elles sont plus nombreuses que les garçons à choisir
une préparation intégrée (30 % des filles contre 16 % des garçons)5. Elles se concentrent en

1
PRAG Mathématiques à l’Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse ; Membre de l’équipe Simone
SAGESSE-CERTOP Université Le Mirail à Toulouse et de l’équipe Genre et Education de l’IUFM MidiPyrénées
2
situées géographiquement aux environs de Grenoble, Nancy et Toulouse
Nous nous intéressons ici aux études scientifiques non médicales.
4
Education et formations n°72 septembre 2005 Impact du contexte scolaire dans l’élaboration des choix
d’études supérieures des élèves de terminale. « Le fait d’être une fille plutôt qu’un garçon réduit de moitié les
chances d’envisager une orientation en CPGE ». « Toutes choses égales par ailleurs, les filles ont en moyenne
deux fois plus de chances que les garçons d’envisager des études supérieures à l’université » Le même constat
avait été fait en 2001 (Note d’information 01-31)
5
Enquête du CNISF de 1999, citée par C Marry « Les femmes ingénieurs » p 166
3
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
2
chimie, biologie, agronomie quand les garçons se répartissent dans tous les secteurs. Les
écoles d’ingénieurs reflètent ces différences : en 2006-07, 27 % de leurs effectifs sont des
femmes mais elles sont 13 % à l’Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers et 61 % dans
les écoles dépendant du Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche (agronomie)6.
Les CPP sont à la fois une alternative déclarée aux CPGE et une voie d’accès à des écoles
d’ingénieurs. Dans cette étude, nous nous demandons si depuis leur ouverture en 1993, les
CPP ont favorisé ou non l’accès des femmes à ces écoles et si l’originalité de leur cursus a
modifié la répartition sexuée dans ces écoles. Pour l’admission en CPGE, c’est dès la
terminale que les élèves choisissent leur discipline dominante, alors que les élèves des CPP
disposent de deux années de plus pour cela. La différence est particulièrement importante
pour la biologie. Or cette discipline marque les différences sexuées d’orientation (2 élèves sur
3 de BCPST7 sont des filles). Ce report du choix, joint aux informations données sur toutes les
écoles, favorise-t-il ou non une diversification du choix des filles ?
Pour répondre à ces questions, nous avons d’abord fait une analyse sexuée des CPP, de la
candidature aux CPP à l’admission en école.
Nous avons continué par une analyse sexuée et comparative de la répartition en écoles de
deux populations : celle des élèves des CPP admis-es en 1ère année d’école d’ingénieur et celle
des élèves de ces mêmes écoles non issu-es des CPP. Nous cherchons à déterminer si les
différences sexuées de répartition sont plus importantes ou non dans la population issue des
CPP. Dit autrement : le passage par un CPP fait-il entrer plus de filles dans les écoles peu
féminisées et plus de garçons dans les écoles très féminisées ?
Nous avons utilisé :
-
les taux de féminisation des différents groupes d’élèves
la répartition dans les écoles selon la spécialité, le sexe et l’origine (CPP ou non)
une répartition sexuée « théorique » des élèves issus des CPP en 1ère année d’école : ce
qu’elle serait si les élèves des CPP se répartissaient comme les non issus des CPP8
la moyenne des notes obtenues par les élèves des CPP admis-es en école
le nombre de places offertes aux CPP par les différentes écoles
Selon le caractère étudié, nous avons considéré les effectifs cumulés sur une période donnée
ou l’évolution dans le temps.
Cette étude porte à priori sur toutes les promotions d’élèves depuis la création des CPP en
1993 jusqu’à la rentrée 2008. Cependant, les données n’étant pas toutes disponibles pour

6
Les étudiants Repères et références statistiques – éd 2007 p187
BCPST : classe préparatoire aux grandes écoles, section Biologie, Chimie, Physique, Sciences de la Terre
8
répartition proportionnelle à celle des élèves non issus des CPP
7
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
3
toutes les années, nous avons à diverses reprises réduit la période d’étude. Nous le préciserons
à chaque fois.
Les données sont issues des statistiques fournies par les INP et des Procès-Verbaux des jurys
d’admission en école.
Les résultats de l’étude (1ère partie) :
1 - Les CPP sont plus féminisés que les CPGE ou les INSA mais n’atteignent pas la
parité.
Les CPP sont une petite structure. L’effectif des élèves de 1ère année est passé de 140 en 1993
à 277 à la rentrée 2008 avec un total de 3 116 élèves pour la période 1993-2008. Le
graphique suivant représente l’évolution du taux de féminisation des élèves de 1ère année entre
1993 et 2008.

Pendant cette période, le taux de féminisation des 1ère année de CPGE scientifiques est passé
de 26 % en 1993-94 à 30 % en 2006-07. Celui des 1er cycles d’universités scientifiques a
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
4
oscillé entre 36 % et 38 %. Celui des INSA, établissements qui recrutent sur le même vivier
d’élèves que les CPP, est resté stable à 30 %9
Les CPP se distinguent donc par une forte féminisation : passées les deux premières années, la
part des filles oscille autour de 40 % des effectifs, frôle la parité en 1998 et dépasse d’environ
10 points celle en CPGE et dans les INSA. La féminisation des CPP est proche de celle des
facultés de sciences. En cumulant les effectifs depuis 1993, sur 10 élèves admis dans les CPP,
4 étaient des filles.
Cette féminisation a cru fortement de l’ouverture en 1993 (31 %) à 1998 (49 %). La tendance
générale est ensuite à une baisse modérée (41,5 % en 2008).

2 - Les filles sont plus souvent admises dans les CPP que les garçons, mais l’écart se
réduit au fil des années.
Evolution du pourcentage de femmes dans les candidatures et les admissions aux CPP :
Lecture : en 1998, les filles représentaient 30 % des candidats et 49 % des admis aux CPP

9
Notes d’information du Ministère de l’Education Nationale 94-16, 94-29 ,00-32 et 06-22

Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
5
La part des candidatures féminines est très stable : de 1998 à 2008, 3 candidats aux CPP sur
10 sont des candidates. Seulement 3 sur 10 alors qu’à cette période, de 42 % (en 1997) à 46 %
(en 2004) des élèves de terminale S sont des filles10.
Les filles sont plus souvent admises dans les CPP que les garçons, l’écart allant de 19 points
en 1998 à 7 en 2007.
Deux explications à cet avantage aux filles :
La meilleure réussite des filles au lycée : elles redoublent moins, sont plus souvent à l’heure
ou en avance, sont plus souvent reçues au baccalauréat (+5 points) et avec de meilleures
mentions que les garçons11. L’admission au CPP faisant intervenir les notes des classes de
première et terminale et les résultats au baccalauréat, les filles sont en meilleure position que
les garçons dans 2 critères de sélection sur 3.
Les garçons s’orientent plus souvent vers les CPGE que les filles, ces dernières préférant les
filières moins sélectives. Au Baccalauréat général et technologique12 2005, 46 % des filles
ayant obtenu une mention Très Bien et 28 % de celles ayant obtenu une mention Bien se sont
orientées en CPGE contre 60 % et 39 % des garçons dans la même situation13. Les CPP, qui
sont une alternative aux classes préparatoires, avec contrôle continu, sont donc susceptibles
d’intéresser un plus grand nombre de filles avec de bons résultats scolaires : en particulier
celles qui, si elles étaient nées garçons, seraient allées en CPGE.
3 - Les élèves filles des CPP, sont un peu plus souvent admises en école d’ingénieur que
les élèves garçons.
La comparaison pour une même promotion de la part des filles à l’entrée dans les CPP et à
l’entrée en école d’ingénieur au terme des deux années d’étude est à l’avantage des filles.
Trois promotions seulement, dont la 1ère, ont vu la part féminine légèrement diminuer :

10
Note d’information 06-06
Note d’information 04-07
19,6 % des reçues au baccalauréat S en 2003 ont obtenu la mention Bien ou Très Bien contre 16 % des garçons.
12
(STI, STL et STT uniquement)
13
Note d’information 06-23
11
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
6
Lecture : Dans la promotion admise en 1ère année des CPP en 1993, il y avait 31 % de filles. Deux ans après,
elles représentaient 28 % des admis en 1ère année d’école d’ingénieurs.
Les élèves filles des CPP sont un peu plus souvent admises en 2ème année que les garçons :
elles représentent 40 % des effectifs de 1ère année entre 1993 et 2006, 42,4 % des effectifs de
2nde année entre 1994 et 2007 et 42,6 % des effectifs des admis-es en école entre 1995 et
2007.
C’est une différence notable avec les CPGE scientifiques où la part des filles diminue de la
1ère à la 2ème année (-5 %)14. Non seulement les filles sont plus nombreuses à intégrer les CPP,
mais elles y restent.
Cette scolarité meilleure des filles est confirmée par leurs résultats au CPP. La moyenne des
notes qu’elles y obtiennent est chaque année sauf en 2007 et 2008, légèrement supérieure à
celle des garçons (+ 0,1 point sur 20 en moyenne). Cette note moyenne, qui conditionne
l’accès aux écoles par l’intermédiaire du classement, joue un rôle fondamental dans
l’admission en écoles.
4 – Parmi les élèves admis-es entre 1997 et 2007 en 1ère année des écoles d’ingénieurs des
INP, le groupe des élèves issu-es des CPP a toujours été nettement plus féminisé que
celui des non issu-es des CPP.

14
Notes d’information 96-14, 00-18, 03-29, 04-16
« Si 22 % des élèves des classes scientifiques abandonnent avant les concours, ces taux sont plus fréquents
encore parmi les filles » Lemaire, 2001, cité par C Marry « Les femmes ingénieurs »
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
7
Lecture : en 1997, parmi les élèves admis en 1ère année d’école, il y avait 34 % de filles parmi les élèves des CPP
et 25 % de filles parmi les élèves non issus des CPP.
Ce tableau met en évidence l’augmentation lente mais continue de la part des femmes dans les
écoles qui les reçoivent. L’écart de féminisation avec les élèves issu-es des CPP est
important : il varie entre 7 % en 2005 et 23 % en 2000. Il est à noter que la parité est atteinte
chez les élèves des CPP en 2000 et frôlée en 2004.
Cette analyse sexuée des CPP, de la candidature à l’admission en écoles nous fournit une
première réponse : oui les CPP ont favorisé l’accès des filles aux écoles d’ingénieurs des
INP, contribuant ainsi à réduire les inégalités de genre. Ils intègrent plus de filles que les
CPGE, elles y font une bonne scolarité et, sur les effectifs cumulés entre 1997 et 2007, 44 %
des élèves des CPP admis en école étaient des filles contre 28 % des non issus des CPP. La
différence est importante.

Les résultats de l’étude (2ème partie) :
Ces résultats concernent la répartition des élèves admis en 1ère année d’écoles entre 1997 et
2007, selon la spécialité de l’école, le sexe des élèves et leur origine (CPP ou non CPP).
Nous avons comparé les parts de chaque école par sexe et selon l’origine des élèves. Les
écoles les plus féminisées sont celles d’agronomie, de chimie et l’école de géologie (taux
supérieur à 42 % sur la période 1997-2007). Dans toutes les autres, le taux de féminisation est
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
8
inférieur à 33 % (même période). Nous considérons les premières comme féminisées (même
si les écoles de chimie et géologie ne sont pas paritaires) et les secondes comme peu
féminisées. Nous disons alors que l’origine CPP tend à réduire pour une école donnée les
différences sexuées d’orientation si elle augmente plus la part des garçons que celle des filles
pour les écoles « féminisées » et/ou si elle augmente plus la part des filles que celle des
garçons pour les écoles « peu féminisées ».
1 - La féminisation élevée des CPP fait entrer plus de filles dans toutes les écoles y
compris les peu féminisées.
Catherine Marry avait fait le même constat à propos des INSA dans son étude sur les femmes
ingénieurs15.
Le diagramme suivant fournit pour chaque école le taux de féminisation des élèves qui y sont
admis-es entre 1997 et 2007 selon qu’ils sont ou non issus des CPP.
Lecture : Parmi les élèves issus des CPP entrés à l’ENSAIA entre 1997 et 2007, 67 % étaient des filles. Parmi les
élèves non issus des CPP entrés à l’ENSAIA entre 1997 et 2007, 64 % étaient des filles
L’intitulé complet des écoles figure en fin d’article.
ENSG : école de Géologie
EMN : école des Mines de Nancy
Ecoles de biologie : ENSAIA et ENSAT
Ecoles de chimie : A7 et ENSIC

15
Catherine MARRY, Les femmes ingénieurs, Une révolution respectueuse, Belin, 2004
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
9
La courbe de féminisation des élèves issu-es des CPP suit globalement celle des non issu-es
des CPP. Elle est décalée vers le haut, avec deux « pics » inverses correspondant à l’école des
Mines de Nancy et à l’école de géologie. Cela signifie que le fait de passer par un CPP ne
modifie pas le caractère plus ou moins féminisé de la majorité des écoles. Mais ce constat
global doit être nuancé.
Dans les écoles les moins féminisées, la proportion de filles parmi les élèves des CPP est
nettement supérieure à celle des filles parmi les élèves non issus des CPP, la différence allant
de 8 à 31 points et le taux de féminisation du groupe CPP y est au moins double de celui des
non CPP dans cinq écoles sur 1016. L’école des Mines de Nancy, qui constitue l’un des pics,
est remarquable : parmi les élèves qui y sont admis, 1 sur 2 est une fille s’ils viennent des
CPP, 1 sur 5 sinon.
Dans les trois écoles les plus féminisées, la proportion de filles parmi les élèves des CPP est
soit inférieure, soit un peu supérieure à celle des filles non issues des CPP, l’écart allant de
moins 7 points à plus 10.
Il y a là comme une atténuation des différences sexuées d’orientation, les CPP tendant à faire
entrer un peu plus de filles dans des écoles peu féminisées et un peu plus de garçons dans les
écoles les plus féminisées.
L’école de Géologie de Nancy, qui constitue le second pic, est la seule où la part des filles
issues des CPP est inférieure à celle des non issues des CPP. Elle fait partie des écoles les plus
féminisées, après celles de biologie et avant celles de chimie. L’étude de la répartition dans
les écoles par sexe et par origine montre que ce sont les filles des CPP qui intègrent cette
école deux fois moins que celles non issues des CPP, le poids de cette école étant quasi le
même pour les garçons, qu’ils soient ou non issus des CPP. L’origine CPP réduit donc pour
cette école les différences sexuées d’orientation.
2 – Etude de la répartition dans les écoles.
Pour étudier l’influence de l’origine CPP sur la répartition dans les écoles, nous avons calculé
ce que serait la répartition des élèves des CPP entrés dans les écoles entre 2000 et 2007 s’ils
se comportaient comme les élèves non issus des CPP dans la même période et nous avons
comparé cette répartition théorique (proportionnelle à celle des non CPP) à la répartition
réelle.

16
l’EMN (Mines de Nancy), l’ENSGSI (Génie des Systèmes Industriels), l’ENSICA (Constructions
Aéronautiques),l’ENSEM (Electricité et Mécanique) et l’ESISAR (Systèmes avancés)
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
10
Répartition théorique des élèves des CPP proportionnelle à celle des non issus des CPP :
Pour les filles :
Lecture : entre 2000 et 2007, 63 filles élèves des CPP ont intégré l’A7 chimie. Si elles s’étaient réparties
proportionnellement à leur consœurs non issues des CPP, elles auraient été 60.
La liste complète des écoles figure en annexe.
Nous lisons sur ce diagramme que l’origine CPP a favorisé l’entrée des filles dans les écoles
d’agronomie (ENSAT et ENSAIA, +33), de papeterie (EFPG, +14), et dans une moindre
mesure à l’N7 (+8), les autres gains n’étant pas significatifs.
Nous lisons aussi que l’origine CPP a réduit l’accès des filles à l’école de géologie (-17), à
celle de chimie de Nancy (l’ENSIC, -16) et à l’école des Mines (-14).
Pour les garçons :
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
11

Lecture : entre 2000 et 2007, 112 garçons élèves des CPP ont intégré l’N7. S’ils s’étaient répartis
proportionnellement à leurs confrères non issus des CPP, ils auraient été 100.
L’origine CPP a favorisé l’entrée des garçons dans les écoles d’agronomie (ENSAIA et
ENSAT, +40), de génie industriel (ENSGI et ENSGSI, +25), à l’ENSIMAG (informatique,
+10) , à l’N7 et à l’école de papeterie (+9).
Elle a réduit leur accès à l’école des mines (-41), à l’ESISAR (systèmes avancés, -16), à
l’ENSICA (Constructions aéronautiques, -15) et à l’ENSEEG (électricité, -11),
La comparaison des deux diagrammes montre que l’origine CPP a favorisé l’accès aux écoles
d’agronomie, de papèterie et à l’N7, pour les filles comme pour les garçons, et qu’elle a
réduit l’accès à l’école des mines et à l’ENSIC, pour les filles comme pour les garçons.
Elle montre aussi que l’origine CPP n’influe pas de la même manière sur les deux écoles de
chimie : cette influence est quasi nulle pour l’A7, alors qu’elle réduit l’accès à l’ENSIC.
Elle met aussi en évidence les différences sexuées d’orientation, indépendamment de l’origine
(CPP ou non) : Les garçons vont d’abord à l’N7, l’A7 (école de chimie) n’arrivant qu’en 4ème
position. Les filles vont d’abord dans les écoles d’agronomie et l’A7, l’N7 n’arrivant qu‘en
4ème position.
Les conséquences sur les inégalités de genre sont ambivalentes : en favorisant l’accès des
garçons aux écoles très féminisées d’agronomie, l’origine CPP tend à les réduire. Mais en
favorisant l’accès aux filles de ces mêmes écoles, elle tend à augmenter leur concentration sur
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
12
ce domaine. Concernant l’ENSIC (chimie) son accès réduit pour les filles des CPP tend à
réduire les inégalités de genre en diminuant la concentration des filles sur ce domaine. Mais
cette école est aussi la moins féminisée des deux écoles de chimie. L’origine CPP éloigne
donc d’un objectif paritaire.
3 – Etude de la répartition dans les écoles suivant la spécialité.
Nous avons regroupé les écoles suivant leurs spécialités, à partir des groupements utilisés par
le CNISF dans sa 18ème enquête. La liste des écoles par spécialité figure en fin d’article.
Le tableau suivant donne l’intitulé des groupements et leur poids parmi l’ensemble des écoles.
spécialité
électronique, télécommunications,
électrotechnique, électricité, automatique
physique, matériaux, fluides
chimie
Mines, géologie
agronomie
Informatique, mathématiques appliquées
mécanique, constructions aéronautiques
génie des systèmes industriels
total
abréviation
élect, télécom
poids
25
mat, fluides
chimie
mines, géol
agro
info
méca, aéro
génie indust
17
12
11
10
9
9
7
100
Lecture : sur 100 élèves admis-es en 1ère année d’école, 25 on intégré une école d’ « élect, télécom »
Les deux diagrammes suivants représentent la répartition des élèves admis-es dans les écoles
entre 2001 et 2007, par sexe, spécialité et origine :
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
13
Lecture : sur 100 filles élèves des CPP admises en 1ère année d’école entre 2001 et 2007, 27 ont intégré une
école d’agronomie. Sur 100 filles non issues des CPP admises en 1ère année d’école entre 2001 et 2007, 21 ont
intégré une école d’agronomie.
Lecture : sur 100 garçons élèves des CPP admis en 1ère année d’école entre 2001 et 2007, 28 ont intégré une
école d’électricité, d’électronique, télécommunications, électrotechnique, électricité, automatique. Sur 100
garçons non issus des CPP admis en 1ère année d’école entre 2001 et 2007, 29 ont intégré l’une de ces écoles.

La comparaison des deux diagrammes montre que l’origine CPP fait varier la part de chaque
spécialité dans le même sens, sauf pour « constructions aéronautiques ». La part de celle-ci est
en effet quasi la même pour les filles, issues on non des CPP et moindre pour les garçons des
CPP.
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
14
Pour les spécialités peu féminisées, l’origine CPP augmente le poids de « physique,
matériaux, fluides » et diminue un peu le poids de « électricité, télécommunication », et
surtout celui de « mines, géologie », pour les filles comme pour les garçons.
Pour les spécialités féminisées, l’origine CPP augmente le poids de l’agronomie (elle le
double pour les garçons) et diminue un peu celui de la chimie.
D’après la 18ème enquête du CNISF17 (2007), « électricité, télécommunication » et
« informatique » sont, avec la mécanique, les spécialités les moins féminisées, agronomie et
chimie étant les plus féminisées. L’informatique est un marqueur particulier des différences
sexuées dans la mesure où la part des femmes y était nettement plus importante il y a trente
ans18. Dans notre étude, la part de l’informatique est pour les filles la moitié de celle pour les
garçons, CPP ou non. Celle de l’agronomie est prépondérante pour les filles, CPP ou non,
dernière pour les garçons non issus des CPP mais médiane pour ceux des CPP. La part de la
chimie est pour les garçons, la moitié de celle pour les filles.
Parmi les élèves non issu-es des CPP :
Une fille sur 5 a intégré une école d’agronomie contre 1 garçon sur 20.
Une fille sur 5 a intégré une école de chimie contre 1 garçon sur 10.
Parmi les élèves issu-es des CPP :
Une fille sur 4 a intégré une école d’agronomie contre 1 garçon sur 10.
Une fille sur 6 a intégré une école de chimie contre 1 garçon sur 12.
Si nous regroupons les spécialités agronomie et chimie, nous constatons que 4 filles sur 10
intègrent l’une école de ces écoles, un peu plus pour celles des CPP (4,3) et un peu moins
(3,9) pour les non CPP. Quant aux garçons, moins d’1 sur 2 intègre l’une de ces écoles, 1,9
s’ils viennent des CPP, 1,4 sinon. Or les effectifs de 1ère année de ces écoles représentent 22
% des effectifs totaux. La concentration des filles dans ces domaines est donc flagrante.
Nous constatons donc que l’origine CPP, indépendamment de la féminisation élevée de ceuxci, ne réduit pas les différences sexuées d’orientation les plus marquantes.

17
18
Conseil National des Ingénieurs Scientifiques de France
Isabelle Collet, 2005
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
15
5 – Les deux écoles les plus cotées admettent des groupes d’élèves des CPP beaucoup
plus féminisés que les non CPP.
Les écoles fixent chaque année le nombre de places qu’elles réservent aux élèves des CPP.
Ceux-ci classent les écoles qu’ils souhaitent intégrer. Ils y sont ensuite admis ou non en
fonction de leurs résultats. Les écoles les plus cotées sont aussi les plus demandées. Le
nombre de places offertes étant régulièrement supérieur à celui des élèves admis en écoles,
certaines « font le plein » quand d’autres gardent des places vacantes. Le choix des élèves est
donc un choix qui peut être contraint.
Nous avons classé les écoles suivant la moyenne des notes obtenues au CPP par les élèves qui
y ont été admis-es entre 2000 et 2007. Cinq d’entre elles, parmi les moins féminisées,
recrutent les meilleurs élèves et ne laissent aucune place vacante. Deux écoles arrivent en tête
et se détachent : l’école des Mines de Nancy et l’ENSICA19. Les deux premières sont celles
qui proposent le moins de places et un petit nombre de places. Les possibilités des élèves sont
donc réduites. Or nous avons constaté plus haut que la part de ces deux écoles est bien
inférieure pour les élèves des CPP que pour les autres. Ce nombre très limité de places
offertes nous en fournit une explication.
Pour autant, les filles des CPP y sont très présentes, particulièrement à l’école des Mines. Ces
écoles étant les plus cotées, seul-es les meilleur-es peuvent y prétendre. Les filles, dont les
résultats sont légèrement supérieurs à ceux des garçons peuvent y prétendre. L’étiquette
Mines, ou aéronautique, à la différence de chimie ou biologie, est plutôt connotée masculine.
Nous pouvons lire ici un effet de « la logique de l’excellence » qui pousse les meilleurs élèves
à postuler aux meilleures écoles, quels que soient les freins éventuels, en particulier ceux liés
au sexe.
6 – Deux écoles d’une même spécialité peuvent recevoir des filles et des garçons des CPP
en proportions différentes.
Nous avons déjà fait ce constat à propos des deux écoles de chimie. Il en est de même dans
d’autres spécialités :
L’ENSEEIHT à Toulouse est divisée en cinq départements. Celui d’hydraulique et mécanique
des fluides intègre le groupe d’élèves des CPP le plus féminisé (50 % de filles), celui
d’informatique le groupe le moins féminisé (12 % de filles) HMG est aussi une école
d’hydraulique et mécanique. Le taux de féminisation des élèves des CPP qui y sont admis est

19
moyenne aux Mines de Nancy : 14,1 sur 20 ; à l’ENSICA : 13,9 ; autres écoles : inférieure à 12,9
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
16
de 35 %. L’ENSIMAG forme des ingénieurs en informatique. Le taux de féminisation des
élèves des CPP qui y sont admis est de 23 %. Nous constatons ici que des écoles ayant les
mêmes spécialités n’ont pas la même audience auprès des filles des CPP. La cote de ces
écoles ne peut expliquer ces différences : l’ENSEEIHT est la seule à laisser des places
vacantes, l’ENSIMAG et HMG sont plus cotées que l’ENSEEIHT. Pourquoi ces
différences ? Si des raisons géographiques interviennent, l’image et la réputation de ces écoles
jouent aussi un rôle. Les élèves se fabriquent une représentation des écoles plus ou moins
fidèle à la réalité et cette représentation influe sur leur choix. Une enquête sur les
déterminants de ces choix d’école est en cours. Les écoles ont certainement une carte à jouer
en travaillant leur présentation et les informations qu’elles donnent.
Conclusions :
Nous avons étudié les taux de féminisation des écoles et des élèves CPP et non CPP, sans
considérer le poids de chaque école. L’étude de la répartition des élèves dans les écoles nous a
permis de raisonner sans influence du taux de féminisation. Nous avons aussi évoqué la cote
des écoles. Comment ces paramètres se croisent-ils et quelle influence ont-ils sur les
différences sexuées d’orientation ?
La première conclusion est que le paramètre le plus important est la féminisation élevée des
CPP. Les filles investissent alors toutes les écoles, y compris les plus masculines.
La seconde conclusion concerne les spécialités qui marquent les différences sexuées
d’orientation. Globalement, les filles des CPP, comme leurs consœurs, sont nombreuses en
agronomie et chimie et plus rares en informatique.
Cependant, l’origine CPP augmente le poids des écoles de biologie pour les filles comme pour
les garçons mais plus pour les garçons. La tendance est donc à équilibrer la répartition sexuée
en favorisant l’entrée des garçons.
En chimie, le poids des écoles diminue pour les filles et les garçons. La tendance est alors à
diminuer la concentration des filles mais aussi à s’éloigner de l’objectif paritaire.
En informatique, la féminisation des CPP amène plus de filles dans cette spécialité, sans
modifier la répartition sexuée. La tendance est donc à réduire les différences sexuées
d’orientation.
En automatique/électricité, électronique/télécommunications, la féminisation des CPP amène
plus de filles dans ces spécialités. L’étude de la répartition montre que l’origine CPP diminue
un peu la part de la seconde. Les deux influences sont donc antagonistes.
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
17
La troisième conclusion concerne les deux écoles les plus sélectives. Elles sont aussi parmi les
plus masculines. L’origine CPP multiplie par deux et plus le taux de féminisation du groupe
d’élèves qui intègre chacune de ces écoles. Mais cette influence qui, jointe aux effets d’une
logique d’excellence, tend à réduire les différences sexuées d’orientation, est
considérablement limitée par le petit nombre de places offertes.
La quatrième conclusion est que la spécialité et le niveau d’entrée des écoles ne sont pas les
seuls déterminants du choix des élèves. Pourquoi l’ENSIC, qui recrute plus haut que
l’ENSIACET et a des places disponibles est-elle déficitaire en élèves des CPP ? Pourquoi
l’ENSIMAG, qui recrute plus haut que l’ENSEEIHT et n’a pas de places vacantes, accueillet-elle plus de filles du CPP que l’ENSEEIHT informatique ? La réputation des écoles joue un
rôle important dans les vœux formulés par les élèves. Les écoles gagneraient à intégrer dans
leurs présentations la question des choix masculins et féminins.
Par ailleurs, le mode de recrutement dans les CPP change depuis la rentrée 2006 (diminution
du poids du baccalauréat, entretien et choix du CPP plus précoces). Quelles seront les
incidences des modifications du recrutement, en particulier sur le taux de féminisation, dont
nous avons vu l’importance ?
La conclusion générale est que par rapport à un objectif de réduction des différences
sexuées d’orientation, le meilleur atout des CPP est son taux élevé de féminisation. Il est
clair que, grâce à lui, les CPP favorisent l’accès des filles aux écoles d’ingénieurs et à
toutes les écoles, quelque soit leur spécialité. Par contre, ils modifient peu les tendances
lourdes de la répartition sexuée dans les écoles. L’influence de l’origine CPP sur
l’orientation en agronomie et en chimie est ambivalente : augmentation du poids des
écoles d’agronomie pour les garçons mais légère augmentation de la concentration pour
les filles. Le petit nombre de places offertes par l’école la plus cotée est un frein réel à
l’entrée des filles dans cette école.
L’originalité de la structure CPP ne bouleverse pas la donne en matière d’orientation.
Elle attire plus de filles, qui y restent et intègrent des écoles d’ingénieurs en n’en
délaissant aucune. Mais cette étude prouve aussi que parmi les déterminants qui influent
sur le choix de ces écoles, ceux liés à l’identité sexuée et aux rapports sociaux entre les
sexes sont particulièrement puissants. Une modification, même légère, de ces choix ne
peut se faire sans un travail en profondeur sur le masculin, le féminin, les rapports
sociaux et les inégalités entre les sexes. Les écoles d’ingénieurs pourraient introduire
cette dimension dans leurs présentations aux élèves et les CPP initier une réflexion sur
ces questions à partir de l’insertion professionnelle des femmes et des hommes. Ce
travail mené, avec les filles et avec les garçons, permettrait peut-être une évolution de
leurs choix. Les CPP contribueraient alors, à la mesure de leur taille, à un accès plus
égalitaire aux études scientifiques.
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
18
Bibliographie :
Isabelle COLLET, Etat des lieux : l’existence d’un fossé numérique concerne surtout les
filles, dans Actes du colloque : Femmes, sciences et techniques de l’information et de la
communication, décembre 2005
Catherine MARRY, Les femmes ingénieurs, Une révolution respectueuse, Belin, 2004
Françoise VOUILLOT, L’orientation : un instrument du genre, dans Actes du colloque
Femmes et Informatique, les encourager de l’école à l’université, ENS Lyon, 17-18 novembre
2006
CNISF : 18ème enquête, 2007 Conseil National des Ingénieurs Scientifiques de France
Rachid BOUHIA, , Les étudiants en classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles, année 20052006, Note d’information 06-23
Amélie BRIFFAUX,Résultats définitifs de la session 2003 du baccalauréat, Note
d’information 04-07
Brigitte DETHARE, Les classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles, année 1995-1996, Note
d’information 96-14
Brigitte DETHARE, Les classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles, année 1999-2000, Note
d’information 00-18
Brigitte DETHARE , Les écoles d’ingénieurs publiques et privées, année 1999-2000 , Note
d’information 00-32
Brigitte DETHARE, Les classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles, année 2002-2003, Note
d’information 03-29
Pauline GIRARDOT, Les étudiants en classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles, année 20032004, Note d’information 04-16
Sylvie LEMAIRE, Profil et devenir des élèves inscrits dans une classe préparatoire aux
grandes écoles, Note d’information 01-31
Nadia NAKHILI, Education et formation n°72, 2005, Impact du contexte scolaire dans
l’élaboration des choix d’études supérieures des élèves de terminale
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
19
Delphine PERELMUTER et Sandrine MASSE, Les écoles d’ingénieurs publiques et privées
Effectifs en 2004-2005, Note d’information 06-22
Fabienne ROSENWALD, Les filles et les garçons dans le système éducatif, Note
d’information 06-06
Les étudiants, repères et références statistiques, 2007
ANNEXE : Liste des écoles par spécialité et des sigles utilisés
CPGE : Classes Préparatoires aux Grandes Ecoles
CPP : Cycle Préparatoire Polytechnique
INPG : Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble
INPL : Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine
INPT : Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse
Les groupements d’écoles par spécialité :
Agronomie :
ENSAT : Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Toulouse
ENSAIA : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Agronomie et des Industries Alimentaires (Nancy)
Chimie :
A7 : ENSIACET : Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Ingénieurs en Arts Chimiques et
Technologiques (Toulouse)
ENSIC : Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Industries Chimiques (Nancy)
Electronique, télécommunications, électrotechnique, électricité, automatique :
ENSERG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electronique et Radioélectricité de Grenoble
INPG tél : Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble Département Télécommunication
ENSEEG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electrochimie et Electrométallurgie de Grenoble
ENSIEG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs Electriciens de Grenoble
N7 : ENSEEIHT : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electrotechnique, d’Electronique,
d’Informatique, d’Hydraulique et des Télécommunications de Toulouse, départements de
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
20
Génie Electrique et Automatique, de Electronique et Traitement du Signal et de
Télécommunications et Réseaux
Mines et géologie :
ENSMN : Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Nancy
ENSG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Géologie (Nancy)
Informatique et mathématiques appliquées :
ENSIMAG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Informatique et de Mathématiques Appliquées de
Grenoble
N7 : ENSEEIHT : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electrotechnique, d’Electronique,
d’Informatique, d’Hydraulique et des Télécommunications de Toulouse, département de
Informatique et Mathématiques Appliquées
Mécanique, constructions aéronautiques :
ENSEM : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electricité et de Mécanique (Nancy)
ENSICA : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs de Constructions Aéronautiques
(Toulouse)
Physique, matériaux, fluides :
EEIGM : Ecole Européenne d’Ingénieurs en Génie des Matériaux (Nancy)
ENSHMG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Hydraulique et Mécanique de Grenoble
ENSPG : Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Physique de Grenoble
EFPG : Ecole Française de Papeterie et des Industries Graphiques de Grenoble
ENSEEIHT : Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electrotechnique, d’Electronique, d’Informatique,
d’Hydraulique et des Télécommunications de Toulouse, département de Hydraulique et
Mécanique des Fluides.
Génie des systèmes industriels :
ENSGI : Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Génie Industriel (Grenoble)
ENSGSI : Ecole Nationale Supérieure en Génie des Systèmes Industriels (Nancy)
ESISAR : Ecole Nationale Supérieure en Systèmes Avancés et Rhône-Alpes
Josette Costes
2ème Conférence internationale du Resup
Lausanne, 18-20 juin 2009
Actes du Colloque international du RESUP : Les inégalités dans l'
enseignement supérieur et la recherche, Université de Lausanne, 18 au 20 Juin
2009
Inequalities and knowledge production
Research Policy, industry and scientific publications
   
  
 
 
 
   

             
         
           
           
           
           
           
            
       
       
    

           
              
            
               
              
            

           
          



            
             
             
            
            
             
    
           
               
           
           
          
            
            
           
             
           
              
            
            
          
           

             
           
               
                 
               
                

     
             
            
            
            
             
           
           
           
         
            
             
               
                
          
            
           
          
 
            
            
               
            
           
         
           

              
               
              
    

            
             
              
              
            
           
           
             
               

  
           
           
              
             
              
            
          
     
  
           
           
           

            
        

              
              
             
               
     

             
            
            
            
           
               
             
             
          

            
           
          
             
               
           
             
             
            
            
            
              

               
              
                 
               
              
            

                 
              


              
          
             
               
           

             
           


            
          
             
               
           
          
           
           
           
            
          
      
           
              

             
               

            
                
    

            
             
              
           
               
              
             
                
           

 
           
           
            
           
           
             
              
            
       
           
            
              
            
             
          
         
          

          
            
            
            
              
               
           
             

           
               
             
          
                
           
           
              
            
             
               
              
            
             
                
              
            

                
                
 

             
              
                
               
             
              
                 
             
             
           
            
            
             
              
              
            
              
      
              
              

 
          
            
           

                
               
                
      

          
         
             
             
        
           
             
            
 

 
           
         
            
         
          
           
           

            
          
            
            

          
  
         
             

            
             
          
              
             
                 
            
            

              
          
            
             
             
                
              
            
              
                 
              
                
             
             
             
             
          
            
        
            

            
             
            
             
              
              
             
              
             
              
            


            
            
              
             
              
               
             
            
              
            
      
            
             
               
              
     

              
             


        
             
           
            
            
          
          
           
            
    
             
 

 
              
               
           
            
            
              
          
             

        
           
           
             
      
              
          
            
        
                      
                  
           
              
               
         
                 
             
          
               
              
     
            
            
                  
             
            
     
             
            

            
              
            
               
             
               
             
           
               
              
           
              
            
              
            
           
       
            
            
              
               
              
          
            
             
       


    
              
         
               
             
            
 
           
               
              
           
         
               
             
         
              
          
             
  
             
      
           
             
    
            
             


              
               
               
     
              
    
              
            

    
                
            
             
               
             
             
           
             
              
             
               
            
              
            
             

           
            
               
           
    
           
                 
              
           
          
               
             
               
           

            
          
             
              
             
             
            
             
              
             
           
              
            
           

           
             
            
      
            
            
            
            
             
           
           
            
              
            
             
           
           
             
            
            

               
           

                
                 
          


        


 
  
      
              
                  
              

            
      

            
           
           
            
     
              
             
                 
                
               
               
           
   
              
           
                 
             
            
           
             
          
                
            
              
            
          
            
            

      
             
             
             
              
              
              
             
             
           
              
              
               
           
              
           
            
           
    
                  
            
             
           
             
             
             

             
              
              
 

               
          
              
              
             
            
               
            
              
           
             
            
             
            

              
            
             
            
              
           
            
            
             
 
                   
              
             
              

             
           
              
            
             
             
          
            
           
              
              
           
                
            
             
              
             
            
            
             
  
              
            
          
            
              
              
               
               

            
             
            
             
      
            
              
             
                 
               
            
              
            
             
             
       
         
                
            
           
                
           
      

 
            
            
           

            
               
            
               
            
           
         
      
          
            
               
             
              
           
        

             
       
            
       
              
          
  
            
        

              
           
 
          
    
             
        
        
             
        
            
         
   
              
             
     
              
        
             
         
         
     
             
         


           
          
          
            
          
  
              
          

           
         
   
           
 
          
         
              
     
            
          
        
    
              
     

           
          

             
        
            
  
           
           
           
     
               
        
        
    
            
       
              
         
      
          
         
             
  

           
 
            
          

        
 
             
          
    
             
        
            
            
          
         
  
              
            
      
            
          
             
            

             
       
          
   
           
        
              
         

            
            
       
            
          

          
     
              
        
            
   
               
       

            
            
        
             
           
           
          
             
        
 
            
        

Figure 1: Total Number of Publications
400
200
100
0
1985
1990
1995
Year
Imperial
2000
2005
City
Figure 2: Average Number of Publications (per staff)
4
3
PublNo
Publication
300
2
1
0
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
Imperial
City
95% confidence interval
2005
Figure 3: Average % of EPSRC with Industry (per staff)
1
Industry EPSRC
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
Imperial
City
2005
95% confidence interval
Figure 4: Average % of industry co-authored publications
Industry Publication
.6
.4
.2
0
1985
1990
1995
Year
Imperial
2000
City
95% confidence interval
2005
Table 1: Variables used in descriptive statistics and GMM estimation
Variable
Dependent Variables
Description
Publications
Number of publications by individual i corresponding to observation period t
Co-author weighted publications
Number of publications by individual i corresponding to observation period t weighted
by the inverse of the number of co-authors
Impact Factor weighted publications
Number of publications by individual i corresponding to observation period t weighted
by the Impact Factor of the journal
Fraction of applied publications
Categorial Variables
Fraction of applied publications by individual i in observation period t
Leavers 1-5yrs
Individuals i that left the sample after 1 to 5 years
Leavers 6-10yrs
Individuals i that left the sample after 6 to 10 years
Newcomers after 2002
Industry EPSRC
Individuals i that joined the sample after 2002
Value of EPSRC funds
Amount of total EPSRC funding in GBP received by individual i in observation period t
Fraction of EPSRC funds with industry
collaboration
Fraction of EPSRC funds with one or more industrial partners received by individual i
in observation period t
Degree of industry collaboration
Moving fraction of accumulated EPSRC funds with one ore more industrial partners
received by individual i up to period t-1
No industry collaboration
Equals 1 if no EPRSC funds involved the industry up to period t-1 ; 0 otherwise
No EPSRC
Industry Co-author
Equals 1 if no EPSRC funds were received up to period t-1 ; 0 otherwise
Fraction of publications with co-authors
from the industry
Fraction of publications with one or more industry co-authors published by individual i
in observation period t
Fraction of co-author weighted
publications with co-authors from the
industry
Fraction of publications with one or more industry co-authors published by individual i
in observation period t and weighted by the inverse of the number of co-authors
Fraction of Impact Factor weighted
publications with co-authors from the
industry
Fraction of publications with one or more industry co-authors published by individual i
in observation period t and weighted by the Impact Factor of the journal
Degree of industry collaboration
Moving Fraction of accumulated publications with one or more industry co-authors
published by individual i up to period t-1
Quadratic Term
Square of 'Degree of industry collaboration'
No industry collaboration
Equals 1 if no publications were industry co-authored up to period t-1 ; 0 otherwise
No Publications of any
Released patents
Equals 1 if there were no publications up to period t-1 ; 0 otherwise
Number of patents filed previous year
Number of patents filed by individual i in period t-1
Number of patents filed this year
Number of patents filed by individual i in period t
Number of patents filed following year
Academic Rank
Number of patents filed by individual i in period t+1
Lecturer
Equals 1 if individual i is Lecturer in period t ; 0 otherwise (Benchmark)
Senior Lecturer
Equals 1 if individual i is Senior Lecturer in period t ; 0 otherwise
Reader
Equals 1 if individual i is Reader in period t ; 0 otherwise
Professor
Equals 1 if individual i is Professor in period t ; 0 otherwise
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
City University
Std.Dev.
Min
2.8
0
Variable
Number of publications
Mean
1.15
Number of co-author weighted
publications
0.65
1.27
Number of Impact Factor weighted
publications
1.209
Value of EPSRC funds (in £1000)
Imperial College
Std.Dev.
Min
2.21
0
Mean
1.64
0
12.5
0.7
0.95
0
7
3.835
0
45.954
1.892
4.245
0
62.606
0.682 (0.146)***
16.32
33.02
0
271.45
77.23
149.1
0
2138.22
60.703 (45.59)***
Fraction of applied publications
79.3%
34.3%
0.0%
100.0%
79.4%
35.2%
0.0%
100.0%
0.001 (0.020)
Fraction of publications with
coauthors from the industry
8.2%
24.2%
0.0%
100.0%
11.6%
25.4%
0.0%
100.0%
0.028 (0.013)**
Fraction of EPSRC funds with industry
collaboration
31.5%
43.1%
0.0%
100.0%
33.8%
38.6%
0.0%
100.0%
0.023 (0.022)
0.03
0.18
0
2
0.05
0.27
0
4
Number of patents filed this year
The total number of observations for City University is 1088 (97 academics); for Imperial College it is 3097 (279 academics).
Standard errors in parentheses; * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Inactive Staff -or those having no publications and no EPSRC funds- are excluded
Max
16
Comparison
Mean Diff. (Imperial - City)
0.497 (0.083)***
Max
34
0.048 (0.037)
0.024 (0.008)***
Table 3: Impact of industry-collaboration - measured as % of industrial EPSRC over all EPSRC - on Number of Publications
GLS with Fixed Effects
Constant
1.758
(0.243)***
No industry collaboration
Degree of industry collaboration
Interaction for Leavers 1-5yrs
Interaction for Leavers 6-10yrs
Interaction for Newcomers 2002
Released patents
Number of patents filed previous year
Number of patents filed this year
Number of patents filed following year
Academic Rank
Senior Lecturer
Reader
Professor
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications and
Patents)
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications and
Industry Collaboration)
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications, Patents
and Industry Collab)
1.477
(0.240)***
1.649
(0.255)***
1.582
(0.280)***
2.939
(0.624)***
2.934
(0.607)***
0.197
(0.018)***
0.232
(0.069)***
0.234
(0.069)***
0.274
(0.074)***
0.273
(0.079)***
-0.924
(0.191)***
-0.639
(0.149)***
-0.840
(0.257)***
0.697
(1.472)
0.550
(0.662)
-0.304
(1.697)
-0.758
(0.188)***
-0.516
(0.147)***
-0.704
(0.252)***
0.694
(1.444)
0.467
(0.649)
-0.575
(1.666)
-1.296
(0.250)***
-0.697
(0.215)***
-0.802
(0.334)**
0.168
(0.410)
-0.295
(1.000)
dropped
-1.178
(0.252)***
-0.706
(0.212)***
-0.718
(0.346)**
0.092
(0.375)
-0.404
(0.481)
dropped
-2.519
(0.692)***
-1.593
(0.491)***
-3.062
(0.921)***
2.017
(5.019)
2.326
(1.869)
dropped
-2.491
(0.675)***
-1.527
(0.446)***
-3.035
(0.945)***
-0.505
(5.822)
2.072
(1.819)
dropped
0.082
(0.131)
-0.220
(0.132)*
-0.286
(0.133)**
0.117
(0.128)
-0.156
(0.130)
-0.311
(0.131)**
0.345
(0.154)**
0.197
(0.141)
-0.043
(0.161)
0.060
(0.184)
-0.309
(0.169)*
0.252
(0.631)
0.404
(0.158)**
0.276
(0.162)*
-0.068
(0.183)
0.091
(0.180)
-0.210
(0.225)
0.063
(0.616)
0.598
(0.120)***
1.240
(0.147)***
1.907
(0.192)***
0.458
(0.118)***
0.949
(0.147)***
1.470
(0.193)***
0.100
(0.094)
0.687
(0.153)***
0.872
(0.184)***
0.089
(0.098)
0.582
(0.174)***
0.819
(0.234)***
-0.047
(0.129)
0.463
(0.170)***
0.523
(0.212)**
-0.024
(0.126)
0.470
(0.174)***
0.593
(0.221)***
Publications (t-1)
Industry collaboration
No EPSRC
GLS with Fixed Effects
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications)
3442
3442
3091
3091
3091
3091
Observations
348
348
325
325
325
325
Number of ID
220
133
256
305
Number of Instruments
-5.09 (0.0000)
-5.00 (0.0000)
-5.05 (0.0000)
-5.01 (0.0000)
AR1 test z (p-value)
0.87 (0.3850)
0.85 (0.3976)
0.99 (0.3242)
0.95 (0.3427)
AR2 test z (p-value)
0.3923
0.1960
0.3396
0.7747
Sargan test p-value
0.07
0.10
R-squared (within)
0.11
0.35
R-squared (between)
Standard errors are in parentheses. * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
All models include year dummies. The category LECTURER is the omitted category in the Tenure scale. GMM instruments are lagged values of the left hand side variables. For GMM estimates, the
finite-sample correction to the two-step covariance matrix derived by Windmeijer (2005) is used. Inactive Staff -or those having no publications and no EPSRC funds- are excluded
Table 4: Impact of industry-collaboration - measured as % of Publications with Industry Coauthors - on Number of Publications
GLS with Fixed Effects
Constant
1.543
(0.246)***
No industry collaboration
Degree of industry collaboration
Interaction for Leavers 1-5yrs
Interaction for Leavers 6-10yrs
Interaction for Newcomers 2002
Released patents
Number of patents filed previous year
Number of patents filed this year
Number of patents filed following year
Academic Rank
Senior Lecturer
Reader
Professor
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications and
Patents)
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications and
Industry Collaboration)
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications, Patents
and Industry Collab)
0.948
(0.248)***
1.734
(0.283)***
1.638
(0.288)***
2.142
(0.442)***
2.199
(0.418)***
0.201
(0.019)***
0.230
(0.069)***
0.235
(0.069)***
0.265
(0.069)***
0.259
(0.071)***
-0.728
(0.202)***
-0.501
(0.150)***
-1.191
(0.446)***
-0.529
(3.948)
-0.871
(1.227)
-0.648
(2.415)
-0.207
(0.205)
-0.202
(0.150)
-0.720
(0.440)
-0.754
(3.876)
-1.158
(1.205)
-0.819
(2.371)
-1.336
(0.297)***
-1.005
(0.273)***
-2.096
(0.647)***
-1.330
(1.426)
-1.306
(1.164)
dropped
-1.084
(0.275)***
-0.923
(0.257)***
-1.779
(0.617)***
-1.709
(1.161)
-1.108
(1.080)
dropped
-1.849
(0.472)***
-1.361
(0.407)***
-2.624
(1.261)**
-5.067
(6.678)
0.588
(1.407)
dropped
-1.804
(0.458)***
-1.355
(0.405)***
-2.705
(1.238)**
-5.013
(10.336)
0.388
(1.286)
dropped
0.080
(0.131)
-0.206
(0.132)
-0.281
(0.133)**
0.113
(0.129)
-0.148
(0.130)
-0.306
(0.131)**
0.323
(0.150)**
0.177
(0.143)
-0.075
(0.162)
-0.008
(0.189)
-0.331
(0.173)*
0.337
(0.628)
0.346
(0.150)**
0.188
(0.153)
-0.132
(0.177)
0.060
(0.184)
-0.231
(0.218)
-0.114
(0.601)
0.533
(0.121)***
1.179
(0.150)***
1.874
(0.195)***
0.449
(0.119)***
0.954
(0.149)***
1.487
(0.195)***
0.012
(0.100)
0.606
(0.155)***
0.847
(0.177)***
0.034
(0.107)
0.488
(0.176)***
0.862
(0.198)***
-0.119
(0.115)
0.376
(0.182)**
0.663
(0.216)***
-0.125
(0.113)
0.401
(0.181)**
0.713
(0.225)***
Publications (t-1)
Industry collaboration
No Publications
GLS with Fixed Effects
GMM
(Instrumenting for
Publications)
3442
3442
3091
3091
3091
3091
Observations
348
348
325
325
325
325
Number of ID
220
133
253
302
Number of Instruments
-5.22 (0.0000)
-5.15 (0.0000)
-5.34 (0.0000)
-5.27 (0.0000)
AR1 test z (p-value)
0.96 (0.3368)
0.93 (0.3544)
1.16 (0.2449)
1.11 (0.2679)
AR2 test z (p-value)
0.2250
0.2015
0.1869
0.3720
Sargan test p-value
0.07
0.10
R-squared (within)
0.11
0.40
R-squared (between)
Standard errors are in parentheses. * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
All models include year dummies. The category LECTURER is the omitted category in the Tenure scale. GMM instruments are lagged values of the left hand side variables. For GMM estimates, the
finite-sample correction to the two-step covariance matrix derived by Windmeijer (2005) is used. Inactive Staff -or those having no publications and no EPSRC funds- are excluded.
Table 5: Impact of industry-collaboration measured as % of industrial EPSRC over all EPSRC
GMM
GMM
(3 year stock of
(excluding those with
industry collaboration)
few publications)
Dependent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Dependent Variable: Publications
Publications
Publications
Interaction for
Main Effect
City
GMM
(with University Interactions)
GMM
GMM
Probit
Dependent Variable:
Coauthor Weighted
Publications
Dependent Variable:
Impact Factor
Weighted Publications
Dependent Variable:
Applied-ness
Coefficients
Marginal
Effects
Constant
2.454
(0.457)***
2.697
(0.564)***
2.844
(0.630)***
1.150
(0.200)***
5.442
(1.438)***
Dependent Variable (t-1)
0.332
(0.040)***
0.239
(0.072)***
0.269
(0.079)***
0.234
(0.055)***
0.008
(0.112)
Industry collaboration
No EPSRC
No industry collaboration
Degree of industry collaboration
Released patents
Number of patents filed previous year
Number of patents filed this year
Number of patents filed following year
Academic Rank
Senior Lecturer
Reader
Professor
0.502
(0.626)
-1.694
(0.467)***
-1.172
(0.382)***
-2.334
(0.730)***
-0.868
(0.429)**
-0.297
(0.433)
0.294
(0.826)
-2.226
(0.638)***
-1.623
(0.514)**
-2.312
(0.771)***
-2.261
(0.705)***
-1.279
(0.478)***
-2.712
(1.016)***
-0.866
(0.222)***
-0.523
(0.182)***
-1.182
(0.400)***
-4.973
(1.495)***
-3.802
(1.222)***
-5.488
(1.861)***
-0.467
(0.183)**
-0.226
(0.119)*
-0.958
(0.265)***
-0.163
(0.068)**
-0.074
(0.039)*
-0.307
(0.084)***
0.075
(0.186)
-0.081
(0.235)
0.284
(0.499)
1.633
(0.321)***
1.837
(0.331)***
-0.989
(0.672)
-0.101
(0.566)
-0.280
(0.203)
-0.081
(0.189)
0.093
(0.182)
-0.211
(0.179)
0.095
(0.591)
0.108
(0.083)
-0.016
(0.106)
-0.014
(0.292)
0.070
(0.402)
-0.689
(0.558)
-0.218
(1.187)
0.174
(0.083)**
-0.124
(0.084)
-0.015
(0.087)
0.055
(0.026)**
-0.039
(0.027)
-0.005
(0.028)
0.018
(0.111)
0.717
(0.191)***
1.012
(0.229)***
-0.048
(0.129)
0.438
(0.184)**
0.617
(0.225)***
-0.027
(0.057)
0.217
(0.078)***
0.283
(0.092)***
-0.084
(0.160)
0.603
(0.282)**
1.188
(0.474)**
-0.081
(0.133)
-0.172
(0.129)
-0.140
(0.163)
-0.026
(0.044)
-0.057
(0.044)
-0.045
(0.052)
-0.091
(0.123)
0.401
(0.169)**
0.511
(0.204)**
3093
3245
2464
2751
3091
3091
Observations
325
272
268
325
325
Number of ID
464
260
302
305
305
Number of Instruments
-5.82 (0.0000)
-4.95 (0.0000)
-5.02 (0.0000)
-6.25 (0.0000)
-1.92 (0.0553)
AR1 test z (p-value)
1.56 (0.1190)
1.62 (0.1044)
0.91 (0.3631)
0.29 (0.7752)
-0.99 (0.3239)
AR2 test z (p-value)
1.0000
0.3911
0.9672
0.7715
0.6215
Sargan test p-value
0.2100
Pseudo R-squared
0.7450
Predicted p
-1588.3864
Log likelihood
Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
All regressions include year dummies, and Interactions with dummy variables for Leavers and Newcomers. The category LECTURER is the omitted category in the Tenure scale. Probit Regressions include
group dummies. GMM instruments are lagged values of the left hand side variables. For GMM estimates, the finite-sample correction to the two-step covariance matrix derived by Windmeijer (2005) is
used. Inactive Staff -or those having no publications and no EPSRC funds- are excluded.