Women in Think Tanks

SERIES

WOMEN IN THINK THANKS edited by Meghan Froehner

Think tanks should recruit and retain talented women as policy researchers and in other roles for many principled reasons, from basic fairness to the value of diverse perspectives.

RUTH LEVINE

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Assessing and addressing gender barriers within a think tank is part of a more complete process of challenging gender discrimination in societies in general.

MEGHAN FROEHNER

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

In this series:

“The workplace environment and gender-sensitised leadership are essential components in creating equal opportunity in think tanks for women.”

MEGHAN FROEHNER from interviews with Claudia Williams and Tiffany Boiman

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Women in Think Tanks: Are there barriers to women succeeding in think tanks? If so, what are they? Are women funnelled into certain policy issues or do they themselves choose to work on different topics than men? Does gender shape the way discourse and research is developed? Do men and women apply different methodologies? These were some of the questions that this series on Women in Think Tanks seeks to answer. You can also follow the discussion on Twitter: #womeninthinktanks

ARTICLES IN THE SERIES: Women in Think Tanks: Thinking about gender and equal opportunity in think tanks

by Meghan Froehner Perspectives from a Former Think Tank Director on the Gender Dynamics of Knowledge Organisations

by Priyanthi Fernando More Women in Government, More Women in Think Tanks

by Ruth Levine Experiences from two DC-based Thinktankers: Women-led Organisations and the Critical Importance of Recognising Care Work

by Meghan Froehner Women in Think Tanks in Peru: Conversations with Cynthia Sanborn and María Balarín

by Meghan Froehner Women in think tanks series: lessons so far

by Enrique Mendizabal Redefining the ‘ideal worker’: Rachel Moss offers a unique perspective on gender performance in the workplace.

by Rachel Moss Is there a systemic gender bias in knowledge production? A look at UK Universities and Think Tanks

by Josephine Tsui Consolidating themes and identifying strategies for change: next steps in supporting women in think tanks

by Meghan Froehner Strategies to increase women in higher education leadership in public universities in Uganda

by Tabitha Mulyampiti

This publication has been made possible thanks to the generous support of the Hewlett Foundation.

SERIES

THE SCENARIO “What does persist are more subtle barriers to women advancing, such as assumptions about researchers’ commitment to their work when they adjust their schedules around care activities.”

CYNTHIA SANBORN

THE OPPORTUNITY “As national and subnational governments move closer to gender balance in both political and technical cadres, think tanks should at a minimum be keeping up with this trend – and ideally should be showing the way.”

RUTH LEVINE

WHAT TO DO “To be more inclusive, think tanks need to be willing to rethink their business models entirely.”

ENRIQUE MENDIZABAL

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Are there barriers to women succeeding in think tanks? If so, what are they? Are women funnelled into certain policy issues or do they themselves choose to work on different topics than men? Does gender shape the way discourse and research is developed?

Do men and women apply different methodologies?

MEGHAN FROEHNER

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Women in Think Tanks: Thinking About Gender and Equal Opportunity in Think Tanks

BY MEGHAN FROEHNER

Meghan Froehner is the editor of the series Women in Think Tanks.

As editor of the series, I called on women thinktankers to offer their perspectives on the role that their gender identity plays in the workplace. Are there barriers to women succeeding in think tanks? If so, what are they? Are women funnelled into certain policy issues or do they themselves choose to work on different topics than men? Does gender shape the way discourse and research is developed? Do men and women apply different methodologies? These were some of the questions I set out to answer. However, in the course of developing the series, I became aware that the questions were shaped very much by my own identities and experiences. Therefore, in this first article, I will reflect on what the series set out to do and how these objectives evolved over time through conversations with other women thinktankers. The nature of this dynamic reflective process reveals a lot about how to think around women in think tanks. The article will conclude with an introduction of the contributors and the themes they will discuss.

As a former student of gender and development and a researcher with experience in a women’s policy organisation, a think tank, in Washington, D.C., I developed a series of questions as a prompt for contributors, while anticipating that most responses would focus on work-family policies and discrimination, which are applicable to many workplace settings, but also hoping to elicit any think tank specific dynamics that might exist. I found myself wondering if the exercise would be worthwhile or if we ought not just provide a list of the many studies and policy papers lauding public and institutional policies that help women succeed and stay in the work place by taking into account their disproportionate care burdens. These were the themes I was familiar with and those most often discussed by policy researchers I had worked with and certainly shaped the type of questions I asked. And as a feminist researcher and gender specialist, I had no idea what type of response I would receive from women who did not necessarily identify as feminist or work on gender issues.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Contributors were central to identifying possibly limiting assumptions in the questions being asked. Priyanthi Fernando indicated the possible error in problematizing women’s participation in think tanks. She suggested that in her regional context, Sri Lanka, women may face fewer barriers in entering research or knowledge sectors than in many other types of employment, but that women’s presence in the sector has a different gendered dynamic that may be an indicator or cause of how that work is viewed in Sri Lanka. Another researcher pointed out that it is important to remember that in many, if not most, think tanks there are not structured paths for promotion and ascension to leadership and that thinktankers can come to their organisations from varied backgrounds, which is highly relevant to the type of interventions that would be applicable.

These thinktankers’ responses, in addition to feedback from other contributors, underlined the importance of involving people from the start of such reflective processes.

Although I am myself a woman that has worked in think tanks, the specific context of this work makes my experience insufficient to frame a complete debate. The heterogeneity of experiences must be reflected to find out more about the reality of women in think tanks. Luckily, the open-ended and participatory format of this blog space left room for contestation by contributors and the series evolved to emphasise these themes.

The Importance of Context Responses from contributors pointed to the critical importance of context, both regional and political, in understanding women’s role in think tanks. Ruth Levine, Global Development and Population Program Director at the Hewlett Foundation, introduced a discussion on the increasing number of women serving as elected and appointed officials in certain contexts and how a mirrored increase in women in policy research could be valuable in the policy process. This is reinforced by Priyanthi Fernando’s commentary on the need to understand constraints that women thinktankers face as reflective of constraints in the wider job market and of the social, cultural and political realities of women in their society.

Intersectionality Contributors also emphasised the importance of the diversity of women’s experiences that are shaped not only by gender, but also by dimensions such as motherhood, race, class or nationality. Critical analysis that takes into account the complexity of these intersecting identities is elaborated in theory on intersectionality. Many contributors called attention to the importance of professional identities like economist or anthropologist and how these identities interact with how women (and men) perceive their gendered reality.

Likely, the roles of economist or anthropologist are experienced differently by men and women because of the gendered associations with those roles and we may also see how the gendering of certain fields may be related to how those activities are valued in organisations and society at large.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Using Women as a Group for Analysis Contributors also pointed to the complexities of using women as a group for analysis and the danger of conflating women with gender. Using women as a group for analysis not only runs the risk of homogenising women as a group and leaving out the experiences of marginalised people, but also reifying binary gender identities (men vs. women) and further reproducing the system of power relations we are looking to overcome through research on women. This is not to say, women should never be used as a group for analysis, but it should be done using an intersectional approach that recognises women’s lived experiences without equating them to truths about their gender but instead recognising them as outcomes of the systems of power relations in which they exist.

Comprehensive analysis should also recognise that there are individuals that do not fall onto one side of the sex-gender binary and that binary analyses exclude genderqueer individuals.

Contributors The articles in this series will touch on these themes as ways of thinking about women in think tanks while discussing the dynamics of women’s participation in think tanks and organisational practices to improve gender diversity.

Our second article is authored by Priyanthi Fernando, international development consultant and former Executive Director of the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA).

Fernando provides a look into her experience of ten years as the Executive Director of a think tank. Among other issues, Fernando discusses the gendering of organisations, conceptions of the identity of workers as supported by caregivers in the home stemming from the out-dated model of male breadwinners and female caregivers, and the relationship of gender to the valuing of certain policy areas.

The third article, by Ruth Levine, addresses matching diversity in public policy with think tank and scholars and discusses the value of having women engaged in policy research in contexts where women are increasingly serving as elected representatives and appointed officials. Levine touches on the benefits of increased representation for think tanks in having their voices heard and suggests strategies for fostering women’s participation in think tanks.

The fourth article incorporates interview feedback from two DC thinktankers. Claudia Williams, of the Washington Area Women’s Foundation, and Tiffany Boiman, of the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labour, discuss their experiences in womenled organisations and the importance of organisational policies on family leave and work life balance. They discuss the challenges of navigating career decisions in a context where there are no government mandated maternity leave policies or paid family leave. Williams points to how working in an organisation that emphasises staffs well-being and work life balance, for all employees, is critical for keeping women in the workforce during phases of their life where they have the heaviest care burdens.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

The fifth article explores the role of women in think tanks in the Peruvian context and draws on interview feedback from researchers working in Lima. Cynthia Sanborn contributes her perspective as the Director of Universidad de Pacifico’s researcher centre, CIUP, and María Balarín, a researcher at GRADE, emphasising organisational assessments of diversity and the crucial role of providing spaces for women researchers to maintain the same level of visibility as men researchers, as well as the possible role of donors in supporting organisations to be able to provide sufficient benefits to their staff. Other commentary pointed to the importance of having spaces for women think tankers to share common experiences, consolidating research and perspective of challenges that women thinktankers face specific to their gender, and recognising that a significant part of gender barriers stem from subtle preconceptions about gender roles and performances of femininity that may be difficult to address through formal institutional policy.

Enrique Mendizabal reflects on some lessons learned from the series so far. He draws, among others, a key conclusion: to be more inclusive, think tanks need to be willing to rethink their business models entirely. It may not be possible to tweet things around the edges only. Also, the discussion on women in think tanks is perfectly relevant to a conversation about any under-represented group in think tanks, maybe.

Another addition to the series is a re-article of Rachel Moss‘ article on gender and emotionality in the workplace, where she draws parallels with her studies on the performance of masculinity in medieval romance, and suggests that rather than just insisting women in the workplace perform in more masculine ways, we should rebuke the concept of the ‘ideal worker’ as an emotionally restrained masculine performing individual.

An eighth article comes from Josephine Tsui, of the Overseas Development Institute, who analyses the gender distribution of staff in top think tanks and universities in the UK in an attempt to determine if there is systemic gender bias in knowledge production.

Our series concludes with a final article, reflecting on common themes from contributors and proposing ideas for further research and action on women in think tanks. This article outlines a number of actions that think tanks and their funders could take to promote #womeninthinktanks.

An additional article was prepared for the series focusing on women in leadership positions in universities in Uganda. It was developed by Tabitha Mulyampiti based on a paper written with Catherine Kanabahita and Noor Muhidin, from the School of Women and Gender Studiesat Makerere University.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

According to the Think Tank Initiative (TTI): Of 5,033 think tank staff in Latin America, Africa and South Asia, 2,123 are female (42.2%).

Of 43 think tanks, 6 have female Executive Directors (14%).

ENRIQUE MENDIZABAL Author, Women in Think Tanks Series: Lessons so Far

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Traditionally ‘male’ characteristics such as rationality, critical thinking, aggressiveness and dedication to paid work gain currency and are rewarded, creating a ‘masculine ethic’ within the organisation which devalues the traditional feminine characteristics of nurturing, care-giving and emotionality.

PRIYATHI FERNANDO

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Perspectives from a Former Think Tank Director on the Gender Dynamics of Knowledge Organisations

BY PRIYANTHI FERNANDO

Priyanthi Fernando is an international development consultant and former Executive Director of the Centre for Poverty Analysis, in Sri Lanka.

Groundwork for thinking about think tanks and gender In thinking about issues around women in think tanks, the first step I took was to try and understand what type of organisation a think tank is. Most modern day organisations, especially those in the corporate world, are gendered organisations. This means that in these organisations the patterns of advantage and disadvantage, leadership and control, meaning and identity, and differential valuing of rationality and emotion, are formed in terms of the binary relationship between women and men. A discussion of women’s participation and ascension to leadership roles in think tanks, questions on gendered ways of thinking and discourse, paths to careers and gender divide in issue areas – all assume that think thanks are also gendered organisations, and that somehow women led think tanks could behave differently, and that there are organisational practices that might ‘relieve some of the barriers to inclusion and promotion that women face in think tanks.’ For me, the responses to these questions are, indeed, contingent on the organisational nature of the think tank and the degree to which its structure and organisational processes are gendered. I cannot obviously speak for all think tanks, or even a sub-group of them, but I would like to share my own experiences of working and leading a think tank for ten years.

I might add before I proceed that there are three dimensions that also need to be factored into the concept of a gendered organisation.

• First, the increasing recognition that gender is not a binary relationship, but should encompass a spectrum of different relationships that go beyond the heterosexual conceptualisation of male and female, masculine and feminine;

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

• Second that in a pluralistic society such as the one I live in, gender is one dimension of power, and that it intersects with other dimensions such as race, language, class etc; and • Third that in think tanks in particular, there is a hierarchy of knowledge that is both constructed in gendered and other excluding terms but which also affects the position and actions of women and men in a knowledge organisation.

I am afraid the first two are beyond my own experience, and would require some research.

In this article, I will expand on the third.

Gendering of the workplace and workers Joan Acker, one of the earliest writers on the gendered organisation, and others who have built on her writing, argue that the basis for a gendered organisation lies in the conceptualisation of ‘jobs’. A ‘job’ presumes the existence of a ‘worker’ who puts the job and the organisation above all other commitments. While organisational theory does not engender this worker, the inherent presumption is that there will be someone else outside of the ‘job’ who will take on the family’s household responsibilities, including care for children and the elderly. In practice, the concept of a ‘job’ mirrors the gender division of labour that exists in most societies and supports the idea of male breadwinner/female care-giver.

This idea is reinforced by gendered expectations and working norms, often formalized into performance assessments. Traditionally ‘male’ characteristics such as rationality, critical thinking, aggressiveness and dedication to paid work gain currency and are rewarded, creating a ‘masculine ethic’ within the organisation which devalues the traditional feminine characteristics of nurturing, care-giving and emotionality.

Some analysts also talk about the ‘heroic individualism’ in organisations where the organisational culture glorifies employees that work as if they had no personal life, needs or responsibilities, work all hours to meet deadlines, silence personal concerns and refuse to recognise or admit the costs of overwork. The literaturealso suggests that women who have achieved positions of power in these organisations have assumed the persona of ‘socially functioning men’.

Experiences at the Centre for Poverty Analysis in Sri Lanka While none of the literature that I have come across applies to social policy research institutes or think tanks (obviously a potential area for study) I am sure the above discussion will ring bells for many of us in the think tank community. Even the military connotations implicit in the term ‘think tank’ has a masculine feel to it! At the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA), Sri Lanka where I was the Executive Director from 2005-2015, I believe we, albeit rather unwittingly, tried to dismantle some of the characteristics of a gendered organisation, and tried to create a more equitable working space for women and men.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

The separation of the public and private sphere via the demands of the ‘job’ as described above has been eroded at CEPA, as it has in other organisations because of the use of technology, the ability for researchers to ‘work from home’, and the accommodation of part-time work. At CEPA, the profile of the staff, while still predominantly women (I will come to that later) has shifted from an earlier demographic of unmarried or childless workers, to women (and men) with young families. ‘Heroism’ is no longer demonstrated by working long hours in the office, though it has been replaced in some instances somewhat less visibly, by working long hours at home. Assessments of staff commitment are not made, either formally or informally, by the quantity of time spent, but increasingly on the quality of work that is produced and on contributions to team effort. The demands of family responsibilities are recognized for both women and men.

Two of CEPA’s senior male researchers also work from home when there are demands of child care. Researchers still have to balance the demands of their care responsibilities with being away on field work or at networking events in-country and outside, but this is somewhat facilitated by the existence of extended family and affordable child care support in the country.

The blurring of the public work space, and the private nurturing and care space, is to some extent reinforced by the internal culture of the think tank. CEPA’s centre is its kitchen, where two women cooks have been providing tea and lunches to staff since the organisation’s inception. All the staff eat lunch together without any hierarchical division, and the women cooks play a more than cooking role in supporting the physical well being of all staff – providing herbal medication if required, or cooking special dishes if needed. The ‘caring’ inherent in this central function, permeates relationships within the organisation, where mentoring and team work is encouraged, and staff members fill in for others if and when the need arises.

I would argue that in CEPA, where stereotypical gender roles are blurred and the job/care dichotomy is managed through a concern for feasible work-life balance, women will find it less of a challenge to take on leadership roles. During my tenure the Senior Management Team that managed the organisation comprised three women and two men. With the restructuring and the new (male) Executive Director, there are likely to be four women and three men in the senior management.

Social policy research as a feminine practice?

The majority of researchers at CEPA are women and this was a cause of embarrassment for many years and stimulated job advertisements that carried a line saying ‘men are encouraged to apply’. There is a critical mass of men now (9) in a staff strength of 30! This number could well increase as CEPA’s work expands. However, I think a strong female presence could be a characteristic of policy research institutes in Sri Lanka (would need to do a research to confirm this). In Sri Lanka, women outnumber men in all the faculties of the Universities, except in Engineering and IT and Computer science.

While this in itself is telling, it probably hides some of the gendered hierarchies within disciplines (e.g. economics). I see that an organisation like CEPA with its focus on the

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

social sciences, and its reputation for being strong in micro-studies and qualitative research, maybe more attractive to women who are by far the larger majority of social scientists in Sri Lanka, have an interest in flexible working conditions and are stimulated by working ‘with people’.

By this I am implying that there could be a difference between men and women researchers, with the latter preferring the ‘softer’ aspects of qualitative research and talking to ordinary people, than men (who prefer the more technical approach of quantitative, number crunching exercises).

In CEPA in the past, qualitative, primary field research was privileged over and above everything else, and still is to some extent even though the quantitative has received some ascendancy in recent years. However, somewhat contrarily to my hypothesis of the gender differences in preference for quantitative and qualitative research, the quantitative research activities at CEPA are also largely run by women; as is its accounts department.

Despite the lower participation of women in IT and Computer science education, much of the organisation’s online presence is also run by a team of young women, where it would seem that age, rather than gender is the defining characteristic.

I must mention here that the ‘value’ that is attached to certain types of knowledge, and their attractiveness to women or men, may also vary with time. My first job as a young graduate was also with a think tank, probably Sri Lanka’s first. At that time almost four decades ago, the staff of that organisation was predominantly male – and this included the whole team that carried out social anthropological primary research in the field.

Almost none of the few women researchers did any primary field research.

There is also an issue of hierarchy of jobs, well exemplified in the all-women accounts department. Accountancy jobs in the corporate sector are highly remunerated and carry considerable additional benefits (e.g. a company car). CEPA has never been able to retain male accountants, partly I am sure, for the reason that the think tank does not provide similar benefits. I am assuming that the social science jobs are also somewhat hierarchically organised – and that hard core economists for instance will look to other opportunities (e.g. the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and other think tanks focusing on economic analyses) for employment. Where these organisations are highly gendered, women may have a very different experience.

Further research on women and gender in think tanks needed My personal experience and the absence of any formal research, limits my ability to comment further on the issues of different genders, or pluralistic social groupings (e.g. ethnicity, religion) or knowledge hierarchies, but I am sure these dynamics will intersect with each other to facilitate/constrain the participation in think tanks. I believe the complexity of these intersections could be the focus of a fascinating programme of research.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

INTERSECTIONALITY, is an important concept to take into account. Women’s experiences are shaped not only by gender, but also by dimensions such as motherhood, race, class or nationality.

MEGHAN FROEHNER Editor, Women in Think Tanks Series

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Gender is a powerful dimension of individuals’ identity, and a tremendous amount of a think tanks’ influence derives from personal connections and credibility. As national and subnational governments move closer to gender balance in both political and technical cadres, think tanks should at a minimum be keeping up with this trend – and ideally should be showing the way.

RUTH LEVINE

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

More Women in Government, More Women in Think Tanks

BY RUTH LEVINE

Ruth Levine is the Director of the Global Development and Population Program at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation..

Think tanks should recruit and retain talented women as policy researchers and in other roles for many principled reasons, from basic fairness to the value of diverse perspectives. They should also do it for the most selfinterested of reasons: think tanks that provide opportunities for women researchers will have more influence within the policy community.

Women in Government The policy community itself is a place where more and more women can be found. In addition to 13 women who are currently heads of state, as of January 2015, in 41 single or lower houses of national legislatures, more than 30 percent of the members are women.

This includes 11 countries in Africa and 9 in Latin America. While this is far from anything like gender parity in political representation, it is significantly better than in the past, and all signs point to increasing political engagement by women around the world.

Gender and Communication As more women are in decision making positions, policy researchers of the same gender have greater opportunities for influence. I believe women in think tanks can communicate with women who are elected representatives, political appointees and government officials more effectively than men can. In part, this is because of gender-specific ways of speaking and listening. In part, it is because professional women, who have faced similar challenges, can establish rapport and a relationship of trust more easily. It is also because in their research, women are more likely than men to take into consideration issues like the care economy and multi-generational impacts of policy, which have a particular salience to women, regardless of career trajectory. Does this mean that women

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

researchers cannot communicate with or influence men in positions of political power, or that men will not be listened to by women leaders? Of course not. But gender is a powerful dimension of individuals’ identity, and a tremendous amount of a think tanks’ influence derives from personal connections and credibility. As national and subnational governments move closer to gender balance in both political and technical cadres, think tanks should at a minimum be keeping up with this trend – and ideally should be showing the way. Those that do will see their stature grow.

Strategies for Improving Women’s Representation in Think Tanks Once think tank boards and directors understand the value of recruiting and women as scholars and in other senior positions, they have to take intentional actions, some of which can be borrowed from academic settings that are seeking ways to provide opportunities for talented women. These include, for example: • Creating and making visible a nondiscrimination policy, committing to fair recruitment and pay equity.

• Identifying women who are promising junior researchers, such as research assistants, and investing in educational and other professional development opportunities.

• Recruiting women researchers who may be working in related fields, rather than in traditional economics or political science tracks.

• Recruiting women who have been engaged in political life or as practitioners – for example, from multilateral development banks – as “policy fellows” or in a similar position.

• Providing generous parental leave benefits.

• Stopping the promotion “clock” during periods of parental leave.

• Developing policies for flextime and telecommuting.

• Fostering an inclusive intellectual culture – for instance, by seeking gender balance in invitees to speak at public events.

I’m sure others have ideas about steps that think tanks can take to improve staff gender balance, and I hope they come to light in subsequent blog posts. The important starting point, though, is to understand that when institutions are able to speak with diverse voices, and can undertake research inspired by a variety of life experiences and interests, they are – in the end – going to make the biggest difference.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

There’s a difference between drawing healthy boundaries and dividing ourselves up, pouring the contents of ourselves into smaller boxes marked with categories like RESEARCHER, FRIEND, WIFE, MOTHER, TEACHER. No one was made to live within the narrow confines of a single role, no matter how stimulating and exciting that role might be.

RACHEL MOSS, Author, Redefining the ‘Ideal Worker’: Rachel Moss Offers a Unique Perspective on Gender Performance in the Workplace.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

It is essential to recognise that it is the characteristics and practices of the women in positions of leadership, rather than the simple fact of being a woman, that makes the greatest differences.

MEGHAN FROEHNER

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Experiences from two DC-based Thinktankers: Women-led Organisations and the Critical Importance of Recognising Care Work

BY MEGHAN FROEHNER

This article was written by Meghan, based on interviews with Claudia Williams, of the Washington Area Women’s Foundation, and Tiffany Boiman, of the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor.

The thinktankers For our fourth contributor article, DC-based researchers were interviewed about their experience working in think tanks. Claudia Williams of the Washington Area Women’s Foundation has worked in Washington, DC for over 8 years, most of which with a think tank working on women’s policy. Tiffany Boiman*, currently with the Women’s Bureau at the U.S. Department of Labour, has also spent several years working at DC based think tanks in addition to other researchbased work.

Both Williams and Boiman have spent the majority of their careers working in women-led organisations that also focused primarily on research and policy from a gender perspective.

This background gives them a unique perspective on the role of women in think tanks and provides an insight into how women-led think tanks may differ.

Throughout my discussions with Boiman and Williams, they both consistently cited having the flexibility to balance care responsibilities with paid work as a major determinant of how gender plays out in the work place. Other important themes that the researchers addressed were the role of mentorship and supports for junior and mid-level women and unconscious bias both from individuals and internalised into workplace policies.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Care as a recurring theme A major theme in the interviews (and in the commentary of nearly all of this series’ contributors) is how workers navigate balancing care work with professional work hours and commitments. Although there are important gender issues, like discrimination, that affect all women in the work place, succeeding at work is particularly challenging for women with care responsibilities.

Tiffany Boiman pointed to how care responsibilities fall disproportionately on women, not only for children but also for sick or elderly relatives. Time use studies for the United States show that women are still spending 75% more time carrying out child care and housework activities than men, with men on average working more, but among non-employed individuals women were also doing significantly more housework and childcare. Because of these trends, we see that the burden of care responsibility, although also relevant for men, is an issue that affects women disproportionately and as such is central to our discussion on women in think tanks.

As a parent of two small children, Boiman was able to comment on her personal experience of balancing care work with her career. Having young children, or other care responsibilities like a sick relative or aging parent, is a critical time in many women’s careers when they are forced to make tough decisions that can have implications on their career trajectory and income for decades to come. Boiman cited her ability to take on parttime work that offered the option for telework as critical to her ability to stay in the work force while also being able to provide care for her children.

Being able to engage in part-time flexible work was a way to stay connected to the workforce and avoid sliding backwards after many years of education and career progression. For Boiman, working at a women’s policy organisation likely made negotiating flexible work preferences easier than in other contexts. Although she was able to exercise options for flexible work arrangements and experienced receptivity in structuring her schedule around her need to carry out care responsibilities, she pointed out that it was an arrangement and work environment she sought out diligently and that that type of flexibility is hard to access in many organisations. Citing a Pew study that reveals 71% of mothers are engaged in the labour force and 40% of households with children are primarily supported by a women worker, Boiman pointed to the need for a serious recognition of the prevalence and importance of women workers and how they support their families, financially, emotionally, and otherwise. If American policy makers are serious about improving the lives and well-being of children and families, supports for working mothers are a critical piece of that puzzle.

Another common phenomena that Boiman mentioned, which can serve as a barrier for women successfully taking leave and flex-work and returning after, is the differentiated perceptions of men and women when they take time out for care work. She cited a study

by Michelle Budig, which showed that women could suffer a 4% decrease in their earnings for each child they have, while men stand to gain a 6% salary increase by becoming fathers.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

The study attributed much of the difference to cultural bias, as work hours could only explain a marginal portion of the difference, and is underlined by the 2014 study by Munch, Ridgeway, and Williams that shows men who request flex-time are not only granted it at significantly higher rates, but are also viewed more favourably as a result. In contrast, women’s requests resulted in them being viewed as less committed to work and generally less likeable.

This indicates that workplace policies, although highly important, are not sufficient in significantly reducing gender barriers in the workplace. A combination of nondiscrimination policies and gender-sensitisation, like training managers and leaders to recognise unconscious bias, are essential in achieving better gender parity.

Women-led organisations The consensus between the two interviewees was that women-led organisations generally opened up more opportunities for women to advance and were generally better about recognising employees as more complete individuals that might have care responsibilities.

Their experience with women-focused organisations was that there was a desire to ‘walk the walk’ if they were ‘talking the talking’, in other words maintain consistency with the research goals and policy recommendations that they were promoting.

However, an important note is that being women-led is not a silver bullet. Women-led organisations were often more sensitive to care-givers’ flexibility needs as their leaders may have personal experiences that make them sensitive to gender-differentiated needs for women. Yet, it is essential to recognise that it is the characteristics and practices of the women in positions of leadership, rather than the simple fact of being a woman, that makes the greatest differences. Simply said, women can also fail to recognise gendered barriers and reproduce discriminative practice while men can also practice gender sensitivity in their management style. The key is to examine women leaders who are fostering diverse staffs and identify key practices that are assuring women’s presence is being seen and heard.

Williams hypothesised that women-focused organisations, like those she’s worked at, tend to be less hierarchical as a result of their social justice focus and as such leave more spaces for junior and mid-level employees to contribute to and be recognised within their organisations. This is significant because one of the reason women do not advance to leadership roles at the same rates as men is because they sometimes find themselves either without the skills or confidence to speak in formal spaces or when they do posses these abilities they are not given space and their input is overlooked, often times unconsciously, and sometimes by both men and women colleagues.

Mentoring and workplace supports Claudia Williams felt that a key component for helping women succeed in think tanks is mentorship, support, and feedback for junior and mid-level associates. Although great for

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

staff development in general, this kind of support can be critical for women who might feel less confident and who have the pressure of carefully navigating how they present themselves in professional spaces.

Williams highlighted regular check-ins and communication with supervisors as critical to her work experience. Maintaining open lines of communication with supervisors has helped her feel supported in project decisions and maintain continuity in their team.

Her current organisation, although not a think tank, gives a great example of how the work-life balance critical for workers with care responsibilities is incorporated into the way they manage projects and work loads. The organisation takes an active role in encouraging healthy work-life balance, using check-ins as a means to ensure projects are on schedule and employees have the resources to complete their work within office hours. When projects run behind and staff has to work late nights and weekends to make a deadline, reflection on how and why the project could not be completed within office hours is encouraged as well as better planning to prevent project run-over in the future.

Maintaining this kind of discipline in scheduling projects and completing them within a 40-hour workweek can be challenging in a field where organisations often rely on projectbased funding to finance employees’ salaries. Organisations can find themselves in a position of mounting project deadlines with stretched budgets and little money left for overhead, employee benefits, and staff development. Further investigation into strategies for think tanks to avoid overcommitting to project loads while maintaining sufficient budgets would be positive change for all workers, but with particularly large potential benefits for those with care responsibilities.

Towards improved gender equity in think tanks An important takeaway from the feedback from Claudia Williams and Tiffany Boiman is that the workplace environment and gender-sensitised leadership are essential components in creating equal opportunity in think tanks for women.

The analysis of women-led organisations is significant in that it touches on both of these themes. Women leaders often exhibit gender-sensitised behaviour and women-focused organisation shows tendencies towards less hierarchical forms of organisation that create spaces for junior and mid-level associates to participate actively and feel valued within their organisations.

These types of workplace dynamics coupled with a recognition of workers’ care responsibilities were highlighted as key interventions by the interviewees to achieving more gender-equitable workplaces in think tanks.

* The views expressed in this article are of Tiffany Boiman alone and do not represent formal positions of the U.S. Department of Labor.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

I believe women in think tanks can communicate with women who are elected representatives, political appointees and government officials more effectively than men can.

RUTH LEVINE Author, More Women in Government, More Women in Think Tanks

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

What does persist are more subtle barriers to women advancing, such as being overlooked in meetings or in the organisation of conferences and assumptions about researchers’ commitment to their work when they adjust their schedules around care activities.

CYNTHIA SANBORN

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Women in Think Tanks in Peru: Conversations with Cynthia Sanborn and María Balarín

BY MEGHAN FROEHNER

This article was written by Meghan based on interviews with Cynthia Sanborn, Director of Universidad de Pacifico’s research centre (CIUP), and Maria Balarín, Associate Researcher at the Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo (GRADE).

This article is based on interview feedback from two women thinktankers based in Lima, Peru. Cynthia Sanborn is the Director of the Centro de Investigación de la Universidad del Pacífico (CIUP), the research centre housed at the University of the Pacific, and Maria Balarín is an Associate Researcher at the Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo (GRADE). The researchers offer their views on gender dynamics in think tanks on issues such as overt and subtle biases, the role of care, and pipeline challenges. They also put forward possible strategies for addressing gender issues, including affirmative action, mentorship, assessments, mobilisation strategies, and the promotion of new ways of thinking about workers’ identities. Their feedback reflects the diversity and nuance of experiences among thinktankers illustrated throughout this series and provides a similarly diverse set of responses that could be effective depending on regional context, organisational structure, work cultures among other factors.

Cynthia Sanborn I spoke with Dr Sanborn who provided her perspective as Director of one the top think tanks in Peru and as a founding member of Grupo Sofía, a voluntary organisation that works to improve the visibility of women in the social sciences in Peru.

Where to start?

Sanborn, recognising that gender diversity might be lacking at CIUP, began by using the organisation’s annual report as an occasion to measure and track women’s representation.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

She cited this as a critical first step for organisations trying to get a hold on and improve their gender dynamics.

CIUP currently has nearly equal representation of men and women among its research assistants (44 per cent are women), but has fewer women in senior positions, where they make up a third of researchers. She attributed the underrepresentation of women in senior positions to various factors including generational changes, discrimination and sexism, pipeline issues and the balance of work and care activities.

How do you recognise and deal with sexism and discrimination within an organisation?

Sanborn spoke about discrimination and casual sexism that still pervades in Peru. She noted that there seems to be a generational shift away from direct forms of discrimination, with younger male workers adopting more egalitarian views of their female colleagues.

What does persist are more subtle barriers to women advancing, such as being overlooked in meetings or in the organisation of conferences and assumptions about researchers’ commitment to their work when they adjust their schedules around care activities.

She argued that a key tool for recognising barriers and raising awareness, which is at the unique disposal of research organisations and think tanks, is having discrimination as an issue area for research and debate. CIUP has, indeed, had discrimination as a line of priority work for six years, conducting both testimonial and experimental research as part of the Peru Sin Discriminación project. Sanborn believes that research in this field has helped to raise staff’s sensitivity to gender disparities, as well as racial and ethnic differences among others.

What are the pipeline issues for women in think tanks?

Part of the problem of today’s underrepresentation of women in senior position is a lack of a pipeline of female scholars in the past. Another aspect of this issue is that there is now more competition in Peru for talented scholars in the public sector and women are being courted by new government agencies such as the Ministries for Social Inclusion and the Ministry for Women’s and Vulnerable Populations. A final challenge to the pipeline has to do with where women see openings for themselves professionally now and in the future.

Women might not imagine that they would get the professional support they need at institutions when they do not see other women working. This dynamic is played out in how women are represented in research areas within the social sciences as well. Women tend to be more highly represented in the fields of anthropology, sociology and social policy while steering away from more male dominated fields of economics, public works and engineering, and foreign policy.

CIUP has tried to address these pipeline issues by making conscious efforts to help women researchers feel supported and not marginalised within the institution. They do this by engaging women researchers in CIUP activities, promoting them for grants and graduate studies, and supporting their work for publication.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

How do think tanks treat workers with care responsibilities?

Echoing commentary from Priyanthi Fernando in our second article, Sanborn points out that in theory, research positions can be more family-friendly than in other sectors, because key phases of the work can be carried out from home or from anywhere with a computer and internet connection and at any time of the day.

There is much less need to be in an office everyday than other fields, especially in the writing stages, which is largely an individual process with collaboration taking place in the form of edits and commentary sent via e-mail. However, the implications of this can be that work runs into all parts of personal life and become a twenty-four hour practice.

Additionally, in the case of university-based think tanks, such as CIUP, where teaching is a big part of researcher’s duties, or for thinktankers whose positions involve other duties like management, outreach or research dissemination, more time in the office might be a necessity.

Sanborn mentioned that women may be more comfortable asking a women supervisor to exercise flex-time options, which underlines that having more women in leadership positions will help perpetuate more equitable representation of men and women.

She has noted an uptick in men also requesting flex-time for care activities in recent years and hopes this indicates a shift towards more equitable divisions of care. A cultural shift towards more equal sharing of care labour, although beyond the scope of institutional interventions, would relieve pressure for women to compete in a predominantly male breadwinner model in the workplace, where workers are assumed to be fully supported by a committed household and with no responsibilities of their own beyond formal work.

What interventions are effective for increasing women’s presence and influence?

Lastly, Sanborn and I discussed possible interventions and institutional policies that foster better gender equity. Her feedback centred around four different types of interventions: • Self-Assessments: as described above, Sanborn cites self-assessments as a great place to start a conversation about the state of gender equity in an organisation and movement towards combatting institutionalised gender barriers.

• Affirmative Action: making an active effort to recruit and promote more women will shift the gender balance within an organisation, as long as this is accompanied by continued efforts to include them in core activities and not marginalise them around the table. This will hopefully counteract tendencies for women to drift into other sectors.

• Mentorship and workplace supports: Like Claudia Williams’ feedback in our fourth article, Sanborn placed significant importance on professional development for junior and mid-level staff. She favours less a one-on-one style of mentorship, which can be highly assymetrical and foster dependency, and prefers fostering an environment of support among staff. This would include gender-sensitisation

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

of leadership to encourage women to speak and be heard in collaborative and informal spaces, where their voices are often lost. It would also mean fostering junior women researchers across all research areas so they are not only streamed into certain policy areas.

• Funding benefit and support systems: Throughout this series, benefits and supports for workers, especially those with care responsibilities have been cited as an essential component of retaining and fostering women’s participation in think tanks. The last article mentions a discussion with Claudia Williams around the difficulty of maintaining work life balance in organisations whose overhead costs are underfunded, causing them to take on oppressive project loads to fill out their budgets. Sanborn proposes a possible strategy, important especially for smaller and start-up organisations, of working with donors who prioritise gender equity to help fund their overhead and staff development budget with the goal of not only better capacitation of staff but also improved gender equity.

María Balarín Soon after my conversation with Cynthia Sanborn, I had the opportunity to speak with María Balarín of GRADE who is also is an active member of the Grupo Sofía and author of a useful chapter in the group’s recent publication that reviews the international literature available on women in the social sciences.

Thinking about women in think tanks Our conversation began with a discussion on how to structure thinking around women’s participation and ascension in think tanks. An essential consideration, Balarín noted, is that think tanks, in contrast to academia for example, do not have a clear career progression. The lack of a structured career path and the fact that think tankers can come from highly varied backgrounds makes identifying challenges in the achievement of gender equity a complex project.

Specifically, in Maria’s organisation, there is no salary structure for senior researchers and each fundraise their own projects. As such, researchers tend to work very independently unless they are collaborating on a specific project.

Senior researchers are most often hired through networks and there are no open calls for senior research posts. Many senior researchers initially entered the institution as research assistants. Research assistants are hired separately by each researcher on a project basis rather than through an application to the organisation itself. The fragmentation of the hiring and research processes in this way would make it difficult to institutionalise policies on diversity for hiring or promotion.

What types of barriers do women thinktankers face?

For Balarín, specific institutionalised interventions might not serve their purpose or may

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

prove to be insufficient because gender barriers in workplaces, in think tanks and in general, often manifest in the form of subtle behaviours and attitudes.

These include the valuing of masculine attitudes and behaviours and heightened judgement of women workers who demonstrate their role as carers. Women who discuss their care responsibilities or adjust their work schedule around school schedules may create an impression of weakness and lesser competence or commitment. The trouble with this is that it is difficult to impossible for women to know exactly how their performance of themselves as carers is affecting how their co-workers view them.

Women may attempt to exhibit more highly valued masculine qualities, such as strong assertiveness, competitiveness, and dedication to work above all else, but must tread carefully on this path or risk being labelled as difficult, aggressive, or as taking themselves too seriously. Research on this theme is elaborated further in her paper.

Selected Findings from Balarin’s paper that further the discussion It is worth noting some of the key findings from her study as they provide critical insights into the nuances of the nature of women’s experience in academia -and also applies to many think tanks: • Despite growing numbers of women enrolled in higher education, there is still a marked underrepresentation of women employed in academia and an especially low number of women in high-level positions. This does not speak of think tanks specifically, but it is a relevant finding as the relationship between academia and think tanks is tightly bound to each other.

• Women are self-selecting or incentivised into ‘feminine’ issue areas and administrative-heavy work. Balarín speaks about a horizontal and vertical segregation of men and women in research. A horizontal segregation by subject area where women are concentrated in the arts, social policy, humanities, and health; while men are more concentrated in areas that also tend to be more prestigious and higher paying, like economics and the hard sciences. And a vertical segregation exists where women hold more positions with higher levels of administrative duties but lower levels of prestige, authority, notoriety, and remuneration.

• A large portion of the underrepresentation of women in academia is due to more subtle gendered mechanisms that affect both how women are valued in an organisation and how they assess their own professional value. These subtle and often unspoken mechanisms present themselves as a preference for ‘masculine’ behaviours that women tend not to be socialised in. One manifestation of this is that women are discouraged from applying for promotions in early stages of their careers while men are often encouraged to do so.

• The ideal academic worker is someone who exhibits preferred masculine qualities, including prioritising work above family and personal commitments. This makes it difficult for women, who tend to have greater care responsibilities, to excel and

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

advance in academia. They often make up for the strain on their time by decreasing their time invested in research activities, which is the activity most central in creating notoriety for oneself as a researcher, and instead prioritise teaching and administrative responsibilities. A greater integration of family and professional life is severely lacking in order for women to be able to succeed.

What steps could be taken towards improving gender equity?

Balarín, like Sanborn, offers some practical recommendations for action: • Creating spaces for women thinktankers to organise: Balarín cited spaces for women’s organisation as a key step for women thinktankers to recognise and develop strategies for improved gender equity, such as the Grupo Sofía initiative.

Because they are outside of workplace spaces, they can provide women with an opportunity to identify and discuss subtle and institutionalised barriers and challenges without creating an accusatory dynamic. They can help women sort out what gendered dynamics might be at work in their organisations, maintain strong networks and not lose confidence in their work, which some claim to be an important factor in how women fare in the workplace.

• Consolidating research and perspectives: Research that helps create consensus while attempting to aggregate different experiences, such as Balarín’s publication and some of the literature we’ve cited in the topic page, is important for building a base for advocacy and action within different think tank communities, whether regional or subject-based.

• Promoting a new model of the ‘ideal worker’: Lastly, Balarín argues that an important practice for women thinktankers or organisations who aspire to assess gender dynamics in their organisations and work towards greater gender equity is to promote alternative conceptions of the ideal worker. Balarín’s paper discusses the current model of an ideal worker that is based on gendered assumptions of workers as individuals who are supported by carers in the home so that they can devote all their time and effort to professional activities. This is the norm of male breadwinner/female caregiver that Priyanthi Fernando describes in her article in the discussion of the gendering of workers, and a paradigm that’s been criticised and disassembled through a large body of work on feminist economics. Balarín emphasises the importance of promoting new models of ‘integrated’ workers, who are committed to both professional and caring responsibilities as a crucial aspect to overcoming more nuanced gender barriers. Ideally, valuing a model of an integrated worker should be valid and desirable for both men and women and could lead to a greater transformation of gender relations in the workplace.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

A large portion of the underrepresentation of women in academia is due to more subtle gendered mechanisms that affect both how women are valued in an organisation and how they assess their own professional value.

MARÍA BALARÍN From the interview with Meghan Froehner: Women in Think Tanks in Peru: Conversations with Cynthia Sanborn and María Balarín

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

It may sounds obvious but think tanks often forget that their most important assets are their people. When think tanks worry more about their financial sustainability they risk forcing people into a business model rather than constructing a business model around the people the think tank wants to involve.

ENRIQUE MENDIZABAL

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Women in Think Tanks Series: Lessons So Far

BY ENRIQUE MENDIZABAL Founder, On Think Tanks.

When we first considered producing a series on women in think tanks we envisaged that there would be demand for it -mostly, we expected that it would generate an interesting discussion. We have found that there was an even greater interest than anticipated.

Any discussion on women in think tanks tends to be underlined by a great number of assumptions. These include, for instance, that there are not enough female researchers or that female leaders are scarce generally. We expect more women to work in the more qualitative research sectors while men to focus their attention on quantitative research and hard-nosed economics.

Unfortunately, while this all sounds plausible, it is also not hard to find cases that disprove these assumptions. And then, it all depends on when you are looking at the issue. For instance, last year, in Peru, two of the top three think tanks were led by women. This year, two are led by men. In the UK, a few years ago, two of the top three international development think tanks were led by women, today, only one is led by a woman (the one that had been led by a man). Hence, looking at numbers alone cannot be enough.

The Think Tank Initiative’s think tanks provide an interesting cohort as it covers three regions: Latin America, Africa and South Asia. According to the TTI: • Of 5,033 think tank staff, 2,123 are female (42.2%) • Of 43 think tanks, 6 have female EDs (14%) They do not currently have desegregated data for each region or for different roles (e.g. researchers, communications, management) but, at first glance, we may confirm something that the authors of the #womeninthinktanks series articles have stressed: There are many more women in the early stages of their careers than at the top.

Something happens along the way that discourage women from “following through” all the way to executive roles.

But numbers are not enough. It is necessary to look into the complex nature of think tanks, the thinktanking job (and jobs), and the characteristics of individual thinktankers.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

The series has had the desired effect: to elicit a discussion on a number of issues related to women in think tanks -and think tanks and their employees more generally. We have also developed a Topic Page on Women in Think Tanks to bring together posts and literature on the subject. Please, let us know if you’d like to add anything to it.

Let me reflect on some of the lessons learned.

A think tanker career: is there such a thing?

All authors seem to agree that there is a model of an ideal thinktanker that needs to change -or, at the very least, needs to be made explicit. The model, they argue, does not take into account the nature and the responsibilities of female researchers (and thinktankers more generally -as it can include communicators and managers). It prioritises a 24/7 work culture that follows the 24/4 political and media culture that think tanks aim to influence.

This culture works against, mainly, women who have to balance other responsibilities, such as care. It leads to an intrusion of their professional life into their personal life and could limit their own potential. This happens in many practical ways, for instance: • Think tanks expect their researchers to undertake time-intensive research, to be available to respond to the media and seize political windows and influencing opportunities, whenever these happen.

• Think tanks increasingly judge their staff on quantitate measures: number of publications, financial targets, cases of influence, media appearances, etc. These reward certain type of behaviours, most often associated with men.

Business models matter enormously, too: some think tanks are centrally managed and funded meaning that all staff receive a salary (at least a basic salary) and funding responsibilities are shared, in others researchers’ income in entirely up to the researchers themselves who are responsible for fundraising for their work, and in yet other models, think tanks impose strict financial targets on individual researchers. In the second a third cases, women -and anyone with caring responsibilities- may be unfairly treated.

Of course, care is not solely provided by women and the negative effects that a 24/7 culture has on people can be felt by men as well as women.

The flexibility that comes with business models in which think tanks are solely responsible for their income may be a good thing in certain cases but it may also lead to researchers ‘dropping off’ the radar during difficult times. Since the think tank, in these cases, has no financial stake on their fundraising capacity they are unlikely to support them during difficult periods. However, inflexibility, as in the case of target-setting think tanks, on the other hand, can lead to women researchers choosing to work alone or ‘passing on’ promotion opportunities to keep their targets low, which would involve assuming much larger financial target responsibilities.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

But just as think tank business models come in many different forms, and each has different effects on their employees, think tanks are conceived in different ways in different countries. This has an effect on the careers that thinktankers can have in a think tank.

When the authors talk about a research career in a think tank they are thinking of think tanks that are more akin to academic bodies or research centres. The model think tank that Cynthia Sanborn and MarĂ­a BalarĂ­nhave in mind is one in which researchers could potentially spend their whole professional life in. But the think tanks that Claudia Williams and Tiffany Boiman know are centres in which researchers join for a few years to then move on to greater (ideally) things.

Many think tanks in the developing world, unlike those in developed countries -and especially the Anglo-American tradition of think tanks, represent one of the best career choices for their researchers. The alternatives: universities, the government, NGOs, or consultancies, are too bureaucratic, politicised, poorly funded or too business driven.

Leaving them (to join another think tanks or to move on to a different type of organisation in the country) is not at the top of their agendas. Often there are 2 or 3 think tanks at most so there are limited employment opportunities for them. They expect to live-out their entire professional careers in them. Inevitably, then, opportunities for promotion are extremely limited and, almost inevitably, unfair.

In Britain or the US, a think tank is a more transitory place for most researchers who are driven instead by political or ideological motivations and see think tanks as vehicles, stepping stones, for their ambitions. They may join them for brief periods while they develop their policy ideas and establish the necessary networks to take them forward, then join a political organisation or even the government to try to implement them, return to a think tank (sometimes a different one) to reflect on their experience, join an NGO or a corporation, maybe go into academia for a brief period, etc.

In these two models (of think tanks as a home or as a stepping stone) thinktankers need and expect different things. These different models demand that we consider different think tank careers or professional experiences. And in these different careers, it is important, too that we consider different ways to addressing the different needs of all employees or participants.

Good advice may not be enough; who provides it is important, too In the past I have held the view that think tanks are not meant to be representative bodies and therefore should not worry if their staff not representative of wider society. I still think that we ought to be careful about imposing on think tanks the same demands we would impose on democratic institutions (such as political parties or congress) but an effort has to be made to avoid certain extreme situations. I completely agree, for instance, with the backlash on all-male panels. I am also critical of international development think tanks mainly staffed by Americans, British or Europeans advocating for policies that

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

affect the lives of millions in countries far away from their own (and where they are not accountable for their mistakes).

Ruth Levine’s article provides a strong argument for making a concerted effort to recruit more women in think tanks:

I believe women in think tanks can communicate with women who are elected representatives, political appointees and government officials more effectively than men can.

In part, this is because of gender-specific ways of speaking and listening.

They are also more likely to address issues that affect women, she argues. But her argument is also perfectly applicable to recruiting more people with disabilities, more ethnic minorities, more graduates from regional universities, more former policymakers and business entrepreneurs, etc.

Think tanks’ research agendas do not simply ‘apear out of thin air’, they are developed by the researchers in their interaction with their experience and context. Ruth’s argument could be read as: do you want a think tank’s research to be more relevant? Hire more researchers with the relevant experience.

My friends in business may be right after all when they question the ‘expertise’ of researchers who have never ‘done’ or ‘experienced’ the issues that they claim to be experts on, but have instead focused on ‘studying’ them.

People first business models It may sounds obvious but think tanks often forget that their most important assets are their people. Policymakers do not read a brief because it has a great title or because the content is very good -as much as I think that communication is important. The think tank brand and the author matter a great deal more. Time-poor decision makers rely on this to decide what to read or who to talk to.

When think tanks worry more about their financial sustainability they risk forcing people into a business model rather than constructing a business model around the people the think tank wants to involve. This can lead to the best people leaving the think tanks.

But can also make it impossible to recruit the best people. This is why, for instance, international development think tanks in the US, Britain or Brussels struggle to employ more researchers from developing countries. The standard business model in Aid think tanks in Europe is based on high financial targets for individual researchers -who also

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

have to fundraise for their teams. This means that new recruits need to be able to fundraise enough to cover their salaries, their team’s costs, and an organisational overhead. Unless the researcher has the right networks, he or she will struggle to raise enough funds. And the right networks are often local which means that the best positioned researchers to take on these jobs are local ones -or those who have lived and work in Britain or Brussels for a long time.

If the think tanks want to recruit more researchers from Latin America, Africa or Asia they will have to consider a full rethink of their business models.

This is another argument emerging from the articles so far. If think tanks want to recruit and promote more women (or any other under-reprsented group) they need a full rethink of their business models. Simply encouraging more women to apply may not be enough -the numbers, in fact, suggests that there are plenty of women working in think tanks, but they are certainly not able to ‘follow through’ to all positions of leadership.

These new models need to take into account some of the recommendations made by the authors, such as: • Institutionalising mentoring and learning schemes -which take time and need to be funded • Investing in the careers of promising researchers, communicators and managers -which may include supporting them through periods away from the think tanks in other sectors or types of organisations • Recruiting senior female researchers from academia, government, business, and other key sectors or audiences where the think tanks would like to make a difference • Establishing affirmative-action quotas -in some cases (and sectors) where strong corrections need to be done • Designing welfare support agreements with employees to ensure minimum benefits (such as maternity and paternity leave, care leave, pensions, health insurance, etc.)

• Encouraging the development of and the participation in new spaces for researchers to organise and address their own interests -possibly encouraging the formation of unions or support networks • Promoting a healthier model for an ideal researcher or think tanker -and possibly of an ideal politician or journalist or entrepreneur to benefit society at large • Rethinking the ‘office’ to include more flexible designs, flexible working hours, remote working, tele-working, etc -which could start by developing simple intranets that would allow staff to access their files anywhere in the world thus given them, at least, the choice of working from home or near to home when necessary.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

What next?

The series is not over. We are expecting more contributions from authors in the UK, Africa and elsewhere. Given the number of comments and emails we have received we will continue to encourage women (and men) in think tanks to contribute to the series on an ongoing basis in the future.

We hope these will provide actionable recommendations for think tanks to take forward.

We will also encourage and support any events or meetings that want to discuss this issue, so please do get in touch with us.

Finally, we will develop a possible research agenda to encourage funders and think tanks themselves to take on. We think, and we think the contributors agree with this, that more research is necessary to understand the current situation of women in think tanks (and why not, of “everyone” in think tanks?) before we can make far-reaching recommendations. This may be a case of: “more research is needed” when, in fact, more is necessary.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Ensuring researchers are diverse and representational of different minorities is a strong pathway to ensuring research benefits all of us in society.

JOSEPHINE TSUI Author, Is There a Systemic Gender Bias in Knowledge Production? A Look at UK Universities and Think Tanks

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

(...) emotional restraint is subtly but definitely coded as masculine. The ideal worker in academia is intellectually engaged and rigorous, but emotionally restrained.

RACHEL MOSS

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Redefining the ‘Ideal Worker’: Rachel Moss Offers a Unique Perspective on Gender Performance in the Workplace

BY RACHEL MOSS

Rachel Moss is currently a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the Faculty of History, University of Oxford, where she also lectures in late medieval history.

A recent article in our series on women in think tanks, which draws on interview feedback from Cynthia Sanborn and María Balarín, concludes by calling for a movement to redefine conceptions of the ideal researcher or academic. The concept of the ideal thinktanker manifests in how workers are expected to manage their personal obligations and care responsibilities, how their well-being is valued, and how they express themselves and perform their identity in the workplace. Several entries in the series have reflected on the conflict of care responsibility with expectations of full devotion to work responsibilities, a central theme in most discussions about women in the workplace, but particularly relevant in a sector expected to be in tune with the often 24/7 nature of policy entrepreneurship.

The series has also treaded into discussion about gender performance in the workplace.

María Balarín discussed the subtly of valuing typically ‘masculine’ behaviours over typically ‘feminine’ ones, such as assertiveness, competiveness and rationality. Men may be able to ‘get away with’ being doubtful or emotional and their behaviour will instead be attributed to them having a bad day or because a project did not go well. They may even be considered a sub-par worker because of it, but it will never be used as evidence as to why their entire gender make for poor workers. Women, who are socialised to perform in more feminine ways, can be penalised for expressing doubt, uncertainty, ‘excessive’

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

emotion or impartiality and these practices are attributed to their gender rather than their individual being. Women struggle because they will never be able to completely embody this masculine ideal; women who perform in masculine ways can be also be viewed poorly for stepping outside of their expected gendered behaviour. This manifests in women being considered difficult, pushy and bossy in instances when the same behaviour in men would make them assertive and leaders.

In the piece below, originally published on her personal blog, Rachel Moss responds to the recent comments by Tim Hunt on women and science, drawing parallels with her studies on the performance of masculinity in medieval romance, and suggests that rather than just insisting women in the workplace perform in more masculine ways, that we should rebuke the concept of the ‘ideal worker’ as an emotionally restrained masculine performing individual. It was not written with think tanks in mind but its insights are quite relevant to our discussion.

Falling in love and crying: “Professionalism”, gender and emotion I’m currently tinkering with the final edits to a blog post on male swooning in Middle English romance. Medieval romances are full of fainting men: swooning from lovesickness, losing consciousness after battle, collapsing on receipt of bad news about beloved companions. In the middle ages, it seemed to me that swooning and weeping could be used as proofs of hypermasculinity – and so a blog post was born. Some of you have heard it in a protoform at a couple of different conferences, and according to the journal editors, it’s almost ready to go out into the world: pages of virile men collapsing on the battlefield, in the forest and at court.

[Gawain said:] “Ah, my uncle king Arthur! My good brother Sir Gareth is slain, and so is my brother Sir Gaheris, who were two noble knights.” Then the king and Gawain both wept, and so they fell on swooning. – Thomas Malory, Works, ed. Eugene Vinaver (my translation).

Meanwhile, the academic twittersphere has been stirred up today when the renowned scientist Tim Hunt made crass remarks about women’s place in the laboratory. According to him, women disrupt the scientific workplace because men fall in love with them, they fall in love with men – and they cry if they’re criticised. Women scientists are a threat to the masculine rationality of the laboratory. They offer the distraction of romance, and they respond to useful critique by weeping, presumably dissolving their colleagues’ ability to reason with them, like the Wizard of Oz‘s Wicked Witch melting under a bucket of water.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

“Three things happen when they [women] are in the lab…

You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.”

– Nobel Prize-winner Sir Richard Timothy “Tim” Hunt, World Conference of Science Journalists 2016.

Twitter has responded with its usual heady blend of sharply-articulated outrage and gleefully tongue-in-cheek jokes. Women academics have tweeted about not being able to get to work because they’re swooning over Tim Hunt, and I smiled as I read down my timeline this morning. Still, it struck me that there was a greater problem than this. Many academics were robustly defending women’s abilities to be just as professional in the lab as their male peers – which is absolutely true. And it’s easy to dismiss Hunt as a fossil, a relic of the Bad Old Days of science. But there’s a deeper issue here, which is about how we model professionalism: and what we deny when we’re doing that.

I didn’t meet my spouse at work, but I know a lot of people who did. When we go to our office, lab, store, restaurant – wherever it is we work – we don’t stop being human and become employees. We fall in love. We fall out of love. We make friends, and sometimes enemies. We cry: both because of things that happen at work, and because of things that are happening outside of work. Of course it’s healthy to have some distance between the different roles we occupy in our lives, because otherwise we’d never get anything done.

But there’s a difference between drawing healthy boundaries and dividing ourselves up, pouring the contents of ourselves into smaller boxes marked with categories like RESEARCHER, FRIEND, WIFE, MOTHER, TEACHER. No one was made to live within the narrow confines of a single role, no matter how stimulating and exciting that role might be; pretending that we are not all our roles at once, even if we must necessarily allow one or other of them to take precedence at any particular moment, is to deny that we are complete human beings.

In the passage from Malory I quoted at the start, Arthur has already received the news of his nephews’ deaths. Surrounded by his knights, he swoons with grief. So when Gawain comes to tell him what has happened, Arthur must already be awaiting his arrival with dread and sadness. Gawain faints with sorrow at his brothers’ deaths, and Arthur swoons in mutual grief and in a terrible sympathy. They are not in private; they are at court. The death of two knights is as much courtly business as it is a private family matter, after all, and in my post I argue that this swooning is both both an emotional response and a political act. What we now think of as a typical association of fainting with femininity is a nineteenth-century development, when swooning became something of the home and of the weak female body. In medieval literature, women swooned; but men did, too, and they did it in public and without shame.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

This isn’t to say that I think medieval people were more “emotionally open” (whatever that means) than people are today; in the past, people’s emotional responses were as strongly socially codified as they are now – but that codification has changed. Nowadays, to be “professional” is to be emotionally restrained, and the quality of that emotional restraint is subtly but definitely coded as masculine. The ideal worker in academia is intellectually engaged and rigorous, but emotionally restrained. Working in a highintensity research environment is both emotionally draining and emotionally stimulating, as well as being full of intellectual highs and lows: and yet weeping at work is seen as weakness. That’s because it’s a disruption of the proper order, just as Tim Hunt seems to think women themselves are. “You fall in love with them,” he said, making the you who is the natural inhabitant of the laboratory a man and the outsider-them automatically a woman. Which is why I think it’s dangerous for us women to defend ourselves on the grounds that we work just like men, because that’s buying into a culture that says we are acceptable so long as we behave just like you.

It’s easy to read this example across intersectional lines, of course. It’s not just women who get criticised for being “too” “emotional”; men of colour do as well. People with mental health issues are criticised that way, too. People are are not white, abled, middle-class men don’t necessarily dress “professionally”. They don’t always speak “professionally”, and they may not have the kind of household set up that allows them to maintain a nice home and family (because Professional People ideally have a spouse and children who can be referenced in Christmas cards as proof of their Well-Rounded status) while also working the lengthy hours and at multiple locations that academic “professionalism” demands.

Right now I have an unprofessional body. Within me I’m growing another body; 29 weeks and counting, and they are definitely making themselves felt. Fortunately I live in a country where my working rights are protected, and I in fact work at a university with an incredibly generous parental leave provision. All of my colleagues have been thoughtful and considerate of my pregnant state. But there’s still this sense in the industry as a whole that the ideal professional way for women like me to work during pregnancy is to carry on as normal; to make accommodations where necessary, but otherwise to keep going.

Because ours are jobs of intellect more than body, and we’ve worked so hard to find a place for ourselves in an industry that was dominated by people who didn’t have to worry about morning sickness or swollen ankles or finding nursery places.

Except that we are always in our bodies. I carry my child with me wherever I go; day by day the boundaries of my flesh are being expanded – sometimes with a glowing unfolding, but more often with aching strain. Even the texture of my skin is different. I am myself, and I am someone else. My emotions feel more raw these days, and that’s not because I’m “hormonal” (all human beings are hormonal all the time; that’s how hormones work), but because I’m undergoing huge physiological, emotional and, yes, intellectual shifts in this two-bodied state. That doesn’t mean that I want to sit in the common room and cry, any more than I think my male colleagues should take up strategic fainting to secure political

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

advantages. But I’m not going to pretend that my academic, as well as my personal life, is not affected by going through a major life change. Not because I need accommodation, in that patronising sense of being treated differently from the “norm”. Nothing I’m experiencing is abnormal – but even if it were, I would still be an academic professional.

I don’t have to fulfil a narrow set of socially-coded values – themselves dependent on temporally and culturally specific hegemonic norms – to be “professional”. And neither do you.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

While there has been increasing number of research on women in academia, very little research has been done about women’s advancement in think tanks. Think tanks have similar advancement systems to the private sector and don’t have as much ambiguity in maternity leave policies as academia with regard to tenure.

JOSEPHINE TSUI

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Is There a Systemic Gender Bias in Knowledge Production?

A Look at UK Universities and Think Tanks

BY JOSEPHINE TSUI

Earlier in the series, Priyanthi Fernando discussed gendered forms of knowledge and how they affect the position of women and men in a knowledge organisation. She discussed her experience at CEPA and how the demographic of staff are predominantly women. I have also heard similar feelings at my own workplace, the Overseas Development Institute. Recently after giving an academic visitor the tour of the building, she remarked how it was a nice change to be surrounded by so many women researchers. She noted it would be a welcome change from her past employer.

Despite being extremely talented she left academia, partly because she felt the institution largely dominated by men were crowding her style of research but also her possibility for advancement.

Through our discussions, we started to ask some questions. Are there more women in think tanks than in academic institutions? How does this reflect on the ownership of knowledge production?

Though the landscape is changing, there is evidence that UK academic institutions are still lagging behind with gender diversity. The institutional bias in academia is distinctive because it has a unique advancement system. Recently a study conducted of Cambridge academics determined that restricted male-oriented ways of assessing achievement in academia were failing to accommodate women in advancement. In “Do Babies Matter?

Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower”, the book draws on several studies demonstrating that having children hinders women’s career where it has the opposite effect for men.

In fact, many academic institutions struggle with how to handle maternity leave with regards to the tenure system.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

A study conducted at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed to a systematic bias against women in faculties that commanded more wealth or prestige.

Researchers tried to determine how faculty responded to requests from students whose names had distinct gender and cultural markers. The study demonstrated that faculty were less likely to write or meet students who were women and minorities. There were large disparities between different types of schools. For example, faculty at private schools were more likely to discriminate against women and minorities than public schools.

Faculties in lucrative fields and natural sciences were more likely to discriminate than those in less lucrative fields or in the humanities.

While there has been increasing number of research on women in academia, very little research has been done about women’s advancement in think tanks. Think tanks have similar advancement systems to the private sector and don’t have as much ambiguity in maternity leave policies as academia with regard to tenure. While not completely free of bias, think tanks follow more mainstream maternity leave policies and cannot penalize a woman’s career advancement based on her choice for a family. Could it be that because think tanks have more mainstreamed workplace policies, there is less of an institutional gender bias in think tanks? Does this explain why there appear to be more women in think tanks than in academia?

Women are underrepresented in academia and in certain policy areas of think tanks To explore this further I decided to do my own analysis. Focusing on UK institutions working in the area of international development, I compared the top five UK academic institutions with the top five UK think tanks. Using the 2014 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report as a reference to choose a sample of think tanks, I looked at the percentage of women researchers in the top five UK international development think tanks. The 2014 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report looks at the top 50 think tanks by subject area. In the area of international development, there were only five UK think tanks and they are all represented in Table 1. Then through the REF 2014 guide, I picked the top five UK academic institutions who submitted REF submissions in the “Anthropology and Development Studies” and calculated the percentage of women researchers there.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Table 1. Gender distribution of international development academic faculties and think tanks Anthropology and Development studies academic institutions

Women

Men

Brunel University

3 (33%)

6 (66%)

Cambridge University

17 (44%)

22 (56%)

Durham University

14 (50%)

14 (50%)

University of East Anglia

8

(29%)

20 (71%)

Goldsmiths University

5

(38%)

8 (62%)

Average

39% 61%

International development think tanks Chatham house

68 (32%)

147 (68%)

Overseas Development Institute

109 (56%)

87 (44%)

Institute of Development Studies

134 (59%)

95 (41%)

Centre for the Study of African Economies

24 (26%)

68 (74%)

International Institute for Environment and Development

61 (66%)

32 (34%)

Average

47% 53%

Based on the numbers, approximately 39% of the academics who submitted REF results under the heading of anthropology and international development are women. In contrast, 47% of researchers in international development think tanks are women. This is a small dataset, and it is not clear whether the REF figures cover all the research staff in the academic organisations. However, some of the contrasting figures are quite striking.

To explore this idea further, I then looked at economic institutions, which have been stereotyped as using skills where men are predominantly favoured. This is in contrast

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

to anthropology and development studies where it has been stereotyped as using skills where women are predominantly favoured.

There are six UK institutions in the Global Go to Think Tank Index Report for the top domestic economic think tanks. Using the top five I calculated the number of women researchers in those institutions. Again through the REF 2014 guide, I picked the top five UK academic institutions that submitted an REF submission in the “Economic Studies� and calculated the percentage of women researchers there.

Table 2. Gender distribution of Economics academic faculties and think tanks Economics Academic Institutions

Women

Men

Birkbeck University

8 (30%)

19 (70%)

Birmingham University

4 (16%)

21 (84%)

Bristol University

5 (25%)

15 (75%)

Brunel University

7 (26%)

20 (74%)

Cambridge

7 (26%)

20 (74%)

Average

24% 76%

Domestic Economic Think Tanks Adam Smith Institute

2 (9%)

20 (91%)

Centre for Economic Policy Research

101 (13%)

680 (87%)

Institute of Fiscal Studies

4 (14%)

24 (86%)

Institute of Economic Affairs

19 (40%)

28 (60%)

National Institute of Economic and Social Research

68 (32%)

147 (68%)

Average

24% 76%

Although the percentage of women is the same in both (24%), it is markedly lower than both types of institution working in international development. This may point to a different gendered politicisation of knowledge in Economics to those in Anthropology and development studies.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Further research is needed to understand why women are underrepresented in knowledge production Comparing the gendered dynamics of knowledge between academia and think tanks is an important issue to analyse. Gender barriers are often studied in one industry in silo but rarely do we compare the gendered political economies between institutions.

Institutional discrimination might change the nature of the knowledge produced as it can cause over-representation of major demographic groups, as is the case in academia.

Whoever produces and owns the knowledge has the most autonomy over what topics are researched, how they are researched, and inevitably who the research impacts. Ensuring researchers are diverse and representational of different minorities is a strong pathway to ensuring research benefits all of us in society.

This was a short study using datasets that may be incomplete. While the REF data is the most comprehensive dataset I could find, it is not clear whether or not it contains the full number of staff in all academic institutions. University websites do not provide the information in a uniform way so it has not been possible to verify the REF figures.

However, what I have found convinces me that this is an issue that requires further study.

While there are no figures for the gender distribution of senior managers in think tanks, there are now more women entering university than men and there is almost equal representation of women and men at lower professional levels. However, only 27.5% of senior managers in higher education and 20.5% of professors in the UK are women.

It seems likely that there would be similar proportions of men and women applying for positions, which would suggest there may be biases in academia’s advancement opportunities.

Of course, we still do not know the causal links. More research will be needed to determine whether there is gender discrimination with regards to knowledge production but this small study explores the idea that because of hidden but systemic biases, perhaps women are being directed out of academia and into the think tank industry.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

The gap in gender equity in think tanks, particularly at higher levels, is large and as such warrants action within think tanks to address it; however, there are also significant exogenous factors that hinder think tanks’ abilities to recruit, employ and promote representative numbers of women.

MEGHAN FROEHNER

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Consolidating Themes and Identifying Strategies for Change: Next Steps in Supporting Women in Think Tanks

BY MEGHAN FROEHNER

A recent article in our series on women in think tanks, which draws on interview feedback The last in our series on women in think tanks, this article begins by reflecting more generally on the question of women in think tanks. It then summarises important points of discussion from throughout the series, first recounting factors that shape the experience of women in think tanks, then suggesting strategies for promoting greater equity, and finally exploring opportunities for follow-up. We hope that the series, rather than just providing recommended interventions for gender equity in think tanks, will provide material for think tanks to reflect on. There is a diversity of environments and factors that can help foster women’s success in the field of knowledge production and the compilation of findings from our contributors should provide think tanks with some possible next steps and help them in assessing what dynamics may be impeding improved equity of opportunity in their organisations.

A big picture look at the issue of women in think tanks While working through this series on women in think tanks, we’ve tried to answer questions about whether equal opportunity exists in think tanks, how women experience think tank work, and what can be done to improve their experiences and to create more gender equitable workplaces in think tanks; However, we have had much less discussion about the importance of the role of women in think tanks.

Why is important to make think tanks more gender equitable spaces and what might that mean for the way they work and exact influence on policy processes?

There are several reasons why more gender equitable think tanks are desirable:

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

• Equity and fairness: Equal opportunity to be employed, succeed in and exact influence within any field without regards to your gender, sexual orientation, race or class is an intrinsic question of fairness that stems from a belief that all people are equal and deserve the same opportunities to thrive. This is in fact a principle that many think tanks include among their own.

• Creating a change in who is imagined to be a successful thinktanker: Encouraging more women to enter think tank work and supporting them in moving up the ranks helps in re-defining the typical thinktanker. Creating a space in think tanks where women can see themselves thriving will encourage more talented women to pursue careers in think tanks, as Cynthia Sanborn mentioned in our fourth article.

• Strategic benefits to think tanks: there may be some strategic benefits to think tanks, such as matching diversity in government for relationship building as Ruth Levine discussed in her article.

• Benefits of diversity to research quality: Research quality may also benefit from a more diverse staff representing different experiences. These experiences might include how public policy affects them personally or how they relate to the state among others, which can affect how they respond to policy challenges.

Could gender equity threaten policy influence?

However, would think tank leadership in some contexts and situations feel that adopting a more gender equitable workplace model that recognises care responsibilities and attempts to challenge the ideal of the masculine worker would somehow undermine their ability to influence policy? Policy influence is how think tanks measure their success and increasingly donors are asking that think tanks present measurable indicators of policy influence. If elected officials and policy makers are still overwhelmingly male and/or operating in a system that values masculine performances and modes of communication, but if a think tank does not, could they lose influence?

Maintaining funding and visibility is crucial for think tanks, but I believe that a think tank can navigate a masculine environment while still making efforts to not reproduce gender inequities within their staff. For instance, CEPA in Sri Lanka, although dominated by women researchers and utilising more ‘feminine’ research methods, was successful in maintaining viability and influencing policy. Priyanthi Fernando, in further conversation since her article, has also highlighted that policy influence does not only happen through interaction with high-level policy makers. It can happen by influencing policy makers’ constituencies through media and civil society, by opening up spaces for debate, or even by mentoring future leaders. Think tanks can use their staff strategically based on their strengths in different types of communication.

The key in promoting gender equity in this case would be equal valuation of both types of contribution. Think tank directors and senior management can be cognisant of the fact that policy makers may be more responsive to communication from people similar to them without mistaking it for individual ability. And surely there are very talented

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

individuals with good communication skills that could be effective in achieving influence despite difference. Successful think tanks are no strangers to working strategically and this would likely be intuitive for them.

Think tanks can’t fix the whole problem on their own The gap in gender equity in think tanks, particularly at higher levels, is large and as such warrants action within think tanks to address it; however, there are also significant exogenous factors that hinder think tanks’ abilities to recruit, employ and promote representative numbers of women. Major factors are pipeline issues that can be traced as far back as primary school education or a lack of social services and public goods in many countries. Women’s participation, particularly in STEM related policy fields, can be traced back to how their confidence and abilities are fostered from primary school. A lack of social supports such as state funded day cares and other public supports for families can make it harder for caregivers to balance work and career. A lack of public goods, like high quality public schools, can make it harder for individuals who might not be expected to be successful professionals to have a fighting chance at a policy career.

Understanding the current status of women in think tanks Our contributors to the women in think tanks series have identified a number of characteristics and themes that aid in the understanding of the status and experience of women in think tanks in various contexts.

Context is crucial When analysing gender in think tanks, it is essential to recognise that think tanks exist within their cultural and political contexts and it is crucial that they are analysed within that frame. As gender relations will be shaped by those cultural and political realities, assessing and addressing gender barriers within a think tank is part of a more complete process of challenging gender discrimination in societies in general.

Taking on discrimination as a research area, as Cynthia Sanborn explained was done at CIUP, is one way of understanding the landscape of discrimination in one’s context.

However, in cases where this is not financially or strategically viable, think tank staff coming from underrepresented groups can serve as experts on their own experiences and should be consulted to help orient interventions so they can be implemented in an effective way.

Sexism and discrimination is happening Although some contributors hypothesised that the incidence of sexism and discrimination and some other gendered barriers may be lower in think tanks than some other fields, it certainly is still a phenomena that women (and other non-masculine presenting individuals) experience in all contexts explored in the series. In the data we have available we see that women are underrepresented in think tanks, particularly in certain issue areas and in top management positions. Among think tanks funded by the Think Tank

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Initiative, we know that just over 42% of staff are women but only 14% of think tanks have women executive directors. Josephine Tsui illustrated that women were particularly underrepresented in economics think tanks in the UK and this type of issue divide by gender was supported anecdotally by the commentary from other contributors.

Gender barriers are often subtle The subtly of gendered barriers was strongly argued by María Balarin and reinforced by commentary from other contributors. In Balarín’s own study, she discusses several ways that subtle unspoken gendered barriers manifest as a preference for ‘masculine’ behaviours that women tend not to be socialised in. This is the workings of a model of an ‘ideal worker’ who is supported by a carer in the home and who exhibits typically ‘masculine’ behaviours such as complete commitment to work, assertiveness, and competitiveness that is introduced in Balarín’s article and expanded upon in Rachel Moss’s article. Examples of these manifestations compiled from various articles include: • That women are discouraged from applying for promotions in early stages of their careers while men are often encouraged to do so, often in an unconscious way.

• How women are valued in an organisation and how they assess their own professional value.

• Women self-selecting or incentivised into ‘feminine’ issue areas and administrative-heavy work. There is a horizontal and vertical segregation of men and women in academia. A horizontal segregation by subject area where women are concentrated in the arts, social policy, humanities, and health, while men are more concentrated in areas that also tend to be more prestigious and higher paying, like economics and hard sciences. And a vertical segregation exists where women hold more positions with higher levels of administrative duties and that hold lower levels of prestige, authority, notoriety, and remuneration.

• Difficulties for women with care responsibilities excelling in academia. They often make up for the strain on their time by decreasing their time invested in research activities, which is the activity most central in creating notoriety for oneself as a researcher, and instead prioritise teaching and administrative responsibilities.

• The motherhood penalty and the fatherhood bonus (see our article from DC thinktankers). Men are often rewarded when they have children, seen as more responsible and committed to work because of their family responsibilities a US study shows that men stand to gain a 6 per cent salary increase by becoming fathers. In contrast women on average suffer a 4 per cent decrease in their earning for each child they have. Another study showed that women were viewed unfavourably when requesting flex-time as less committed to work, while men were viewed more favourably as a result of such requests. Men were also granted flex-time requests at significantly higher rates than women.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Care responsibility shapes women’s experiences in the workplace Nearly all contributors cited care responsibility as a central factor in shaping women’s experiences in think tanks and the workplace in general. The preference for workers without care responsibilities, or those we perceive as less likely to have care responsibilities in the future, is manifested in the subtle gendered barriers and attitudes present in recruitment, retention and promotion.

It is worth noting, that this may be a factor that greatly affects think tanks capacity to recruit mid-career researchers. Unable to offer sufficient employee benefits and competitive salaries they are not attractive enough for researchers with families and care responsibilities.

Women-led organisations can offer some lessons on gender inclusion The input from our DC-based thinktankers focused on their experiences in womenled organisations and how that might shape the opportunities for women in those organisations. They believed that women-led organisations generally opened up more opportunities for women to advance and were generally better about recognising employees as more complete individuals that might have care responsibilities. Their experience with women-focused organisations was that there was a desire to maintain consistency with the research goals and policy recommendations that they were promoting.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that being led by women is not a silver bullet.

Women-led organisations were said to be more sensitive to care-givers’ flexibility needs as their leaders may have personal experiences that make them sensitive to genderdifferentiated needs for women; however, it is essential to recognise that it is the characteristics and practices of the women in positions of leadership rather than the simple fact of being a woman that makes the greatest differences.

Claudia Williams also hypothesised that women-focused organisations, like those she’s worked at, tend to be less hierarchical as a result of their social justice focus and as such leave more spaces for junior and mid-level employees to contribute to and be recognised within their organisations.

Useful strategies in promoting greater gender equity in think tanks Contributors pointed to the following interventions as important strategies for the achievement of gender equity: • No male-only panels: In some ways a gimmick, this is a simple and effective way of putting gender at the top of the think tank’s agenda. Committing to avoiding all-male panels and doing all there is possible to avoiding all-male publications (although this may be harder in the short term for some think tanks) can be a first step on a road to change. The following recommendations may involve greater commitments and investments.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

• Assessments: Not only counting the number of women researchers in the organisation [Editor’s note: although lack of data in this case is telling. We requested information to two large funders -the TTI and the TTF- but none had desegregated data on the numbers of women working in the think tanks they support, by region and/or country nor by level of seniority and role] but also assessing the gendered nature of your organisations. How do women researchers feel in the workplace? Is gendered commentary commonplace (i.e. maybe she’s too busy with her family to take another project, are you sure that she can make an unbiased decision? – questions that call into question the rationality and decision making abilities of women because of gender stereotypes). Are women considered for promotions when they come up? What issues do women researchers in your organisation identify as crucial to their gender experience in your particular cultural and political context?

• Work-life balance and well-being: In our article from DC thinktankers, Claudia Williams identifies work-life balance and organisational concern for workers’ well-being as central to success for women thinktankers. Healthy work-life balance is positive for all workers, but especially critical for individuals with care responsibilities. Supporting the well-being of employees so that they feel valued as individuals and not just because of their outputs, also helps create a work environment where employees feel appreciated, care more deeply about the fate of their organisation, and are therefore more willing to participate actively in the organisation. This can help close the so-called confidence gapfor women who are less likely to participate and engage actively in group discussions and public events by encouraging their participation in the organisation and reinforcing their value to the organisations. How many think tanks have the capacity (or willingness) to invest in human resources advice or teams?

• Mentorship and workplace supports: Cited by both the Peruvian and American researchers interviewed, mentorship and workplace supports in the context of a supportive and inclusive workplace can help women succeed in the workplace.

It can provide them with greater confidence in their work and help them to feel like a more integrated part of the organisation. Part of this mentorship process should be seen making concerted efforts to get women researchers involved in institutional activities, panels and other speaking engagements where men still tend to dominate (see Congrats, you have an all-male panel! and say no to #man panels). Claudia Williams also cited workplace supports as an important way for management to stay in tune with their staff and help maintain healthy work-life balances, good for all employees but especially important for retaining women with care responsibilities. Initiatives like Grupo Sofía in Peru may offer a mentoring opportunity; young members could benefit from the experience, networks and contacts of their more experienced ones.

• Gender sensitisation and training in unconscious bias: echoing the discussion on women-led organisations, having leadership that is gender-sensitised and trained in unconscious bias will help lessens many of the practices of subtle bias. A

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

gender-sensitised workplace makes it easier for employees to present themselves as dynamic individuals who, although privileging their professional identity in the workplace, have lives and responsibilities outside of the workplace. Workers, especially women, wouldn’t have to worry that by revealing their role as a carer or exhibiting emotion they will no longer fit within the model of an ideal worker.

There is an academic field that think tanks could tap into for inspiration.

• Telework and flex-time: an important component in helping workers maintain work-life balance is a certain level of flexibility on the part of employers through policies like telework and flex-time. These policies can help workers balance personal responsibilities with their work schedule and help women stay in the professional world during critical stages of their lives if they have small children or are caring for ailing parents. Many workers do point out that these policies can lead to an unhealthy blurring of professional and personal life where workers are making up for the time they spent caring by working late into the night and miss out on sleep and time for self-care. Therefore, when these measures are not used in conjunction with some kind of greater consideration for work-life balance, they are not more than a stopgap measure that helps keep women from dropping out of the workforce completely.

• Supporting staff development and funding employee benefits: Throughout this series, benefits and supports for workers, especially those with care responsibilities has been cited as an essential component of retaining and fostering women’s participation in think tanks. Claudia Williams discussed the difficulty of maintaining work life balance in organisations whose overhead costs are underfunded causing them to take on oppressive project loads to fill out their budgets, while Cynthia Sanborn proposed a possible strategy, important especially for smaller and start-up organisations, of working with donors who prioritise gender equity to help fund their overhead and staff development budget with the goal of not only better capacitation of staff but also improved gender equity.

Enrique Mendizabal cited other gender mechanisms that result from funding structures in his article, highlighting that in think tanks where thinktankers fundraise individually they are much less likely to be supported during difficult times and therefore to drop out of the workforce. In cases where think tanks hold researchers to strict fundraising targets associated with their seniority, workers with care responsibilities might pass on promotion opportunities to keep their targets more manageable. Further investigation into think tanks business models and strategies for think tanks to avoid overcommitting to project loads while maintaining sufficient budgets would be positive change for all workers, but with particularly large potential benefits for those with care responsibilities. The On Think Tanks topics page on funding strategies provides useful insights into different funding strategies for think tanks that may be helpful in orienting think tanks that are wary of the gender effects of their funding structure.

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Research and assessment is an essential first (next) step The women in think tanks series has provided a useful foundation for thinking about the role of women and equal opportunity in think tanks and the knowledge production sector in general, introducing perspectives from women thinktankers from a variety of contexts.

We hope that this can serve as a starting point for a more comprehensive discussion and greater attention to gender equity in think tanks.

• Data: Specifically, there is a conspicuous lack of data on gender breakdowns of staff within think tanks. Regional and/or country specific assessments are essential to better understand gender dynamics in relation to that particular context.

• Transparency: Having assessments and publishing gender diversity in annual reports or by some other scale is also an important part of think tank transparency.

It would be appropriate, too, to report on salary differences between make and female thinktankers. This information should be requested by funders themselves -at least those committed to gender equality.

• Research: At least: 1) Analysis of gender dynamics in different think tank business models is also essential for understanding (university-based or party-affiliated, fundraised by researchers or by leadership, etc). 2) Analysis by policy areas and disciplines is crucial in understanding where gendered differences are rooted. 3) Analysis of gender dynamics in the strategies and tactics that think tanks follow to achieve their objectives is also necessary. This kind of information is necessary in order to make focused and appropriate recommendations for action in improving gender equity. We may find that a large portion of gender inequities are stem from underrepresentation of women in economics, like our UK case, but if it’s not the case the way of treating the problem will change. Norma Correa, professor of anthropology at Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and also a member of the Grupo Sofia, suggested that assessing how many women are leaving think tanks for other fields (or dropping out of the workforce) and for what reasons would be helpful in determining what might not be working for women in think tanks, although a slightly more complicated research project than assessing those who are in think tanks currently.

• Networking: Spaces for networking, learning and sharing experiences are crucial for women in think tanks. They offer an opportunity to explore these (and other issues) in a supportive environment and launch (and test) solutions in collaboration. Grupo Sofía, in Peru, is one example of a model that could emerge elsewhere.

• Dissemination: We plan to follow this series with an event in Lima drawing experiences from individuals in think tanks, government and other sectors. The event will provide an opportunity to compile more experiences about women in think tanks in Peru and also to call for more research and data collection regarding women’s representation. We would be happy to support events organised elsewhere so please get in touch.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

There’s a deeper issue here, which is about how we model professionalism: and what we deny when we’re doing that.

RACHEL MOSS Author, Redefining the ‘Ideal Worker’: Rachel Moss Offers a Unique Perspective on Gender Performance in the Workplace.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

(...) certain feminine qualities empower women as leaders.

These qualities include the capacity to bend the rules and not be let down by rejection or adversity, being empathic and flexible, and having strong interpersonal skills. These characteristics ought to help shape women’s leadership as more horizontal and collaborative, instead of being based on domination and subjection.

TABITHA MULYAMPITI

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Strategies to Increase Women in Higher Education Leadership in Public Universities in Uganda

BY TABITHA MULYAMPITI

In a recent paper written with Catherine Kanabahita and Noor Muhidin, from the School of Women and Gender Studiesat Makerere University (Kampala-Uganda) we provide short and long term strategies to improve the representation of women in senior and management level positions on the international higher education sector, and policy research more widely, in Uganda. These strategies seek to embed a focus on gender equality as a strategic priority in universities’ planning and reporting processes. They are drawn from the theory and practice of organisational cultural change and of gender as a construct that perpetuates particular forms of masculine domination.

Background Economic globalisation and technological changes are transforming the way higher education can be understood. Universities face the challenge of reinterpreting how they teach, what their research priorities are, and the way they conduct research. Moreover, market-promoting policies are challenging higher education, as they are presented as the focal point or learning in a society. This presents the opportunity for universities to work in new forms of partnerships and alliances.

We ask whether universities will also take this context as an opportunity to make better use of women’s potential as professionals and academics. Women’s continued underrepresentation at senior levels, both in academic and administrative areas, is a matter of basic human rights, but also raises concerns in terms of productivity, as there is a large group (women) whose abilities are being under-utilized. This is possible because

SERIES

(continued)

WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

unquestioned work practices support disparities between men and women, often working in subtle and insidious ways.

In order to answer how this can be achieved, we draw from organisational change management theory. In this theory, the concept of leadership is offered as a replacement for management in order to understand cultural change within organisations. It defines the leader as the person who influences a group to attain the group’s goals.

On a theoretical level, we ask how gender is being treated in the construction of this new leadership wave, and how this concept can help to promote the changes needed in higher education organisations to achieve major equity between men and women across them, but especially in senior positions.

Findings The findings of the study are based on a case study on the increasing potential for women leaders in Ugandan Universities. Ten female professors were interviewed about their personal journeys. The specific research questions guiding the analysis were: • Who are the women who survive and occupy leadership roles in universities?

• How might their leadership roles be shaped by and a consequence of institutional climate?

• What strategies do they learn and adopt and how do they lead and manage fellow colleagues?

• What do these women say about the ways in which women might be increased?

Our analysis of their accounts paid particular attention to three main topics: • Are there feminine qualities for leadership?

• How has this affected their career paths?

• What is the importance of mentoring experience?

We found that many of the female professor’s narratives echoed the literature that suggests that certain feminine qualities empower women as leaders. These qualities include the capacity to bend the rules and not be let down by rejection or adversity, being empathic and flexible, and having strong interpersonal skills. These characteristics ought to help shape women’s leadership as more horizontal and collaborative, instead of being based on domination and subjection.

Our findings, however, challenge the idea that these characteristics are intrinsic to femininity, as not all women might possess them and they can often be found in men.

Also, even if they are valuable to leadership, these characteristics may not be valuable

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

for the market place. For example, employers, even in the education sector, might not appreciate being a risk taker or challenging known structures.

In fact, we found that the career paths of the women interviewed were, for the most part, quite traditional. Nonetheless, the difficulties they encountered on the way led some to be worn out once they reached their desired positions. These difficulties included discrimination, often subtle but not always, as well as the requirement for higher input of energy than their male counterparts to achieve the same goals.

Finally, we found that mentoring is critical in the career paths of female professors.

Although most women interviewed have had women mentors, a small percentage received successful mentoring from men. According to our findings, for women, receiving male mentoring is better than receiving none, but female mentors tend to be better because they can be more sensitive to difficulties women face in the workplace.

Recommendations Based on these findings we put forward a series of strategies to promote the organisational cultural changes that are required to increase women in leadership positions. These include: • Affirmative action programmes. Because of a history of discrimination, the Republic of Uganda supports affirmative action programmes constitutionally.

Wise appointments to key roles can help change the organisational culture of a University to one that encourages women’s participation.

• A task group for women in senior academic positions. Marginalized groups, such as women, use ‘resistance’ strategies in order to succeed in a hostile environment.

Appointing a specific Task Group that identifies and lobbies for the necessary required changes regarding gender equality would de-atomize these strategies, and make them part of a broader movement.

• A colloquium of senior women managers in higher education. A unified national system could help engage with institutions in far corners of the continent. Its activities could include establishing a training and support network similar for senior women.

• Networks for women in universities. Existing networks can help tackle these problems. As they are already present and structured, they can offer several opportunities that can benefit women from different sectors, such as offering opportunities for non-hierarchical mentoring between peers.

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Women in Think Tanks: The Interviews

At On Think Tanks, we’ve had the opportunity to interview several women working in think tanks around the world. Here is a selection of what they have to say: Laura Zommer Director of Communications at CIPPEC, Argentina Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Priyanthi Fernando Executive Director of CEPA, Sri Lanka Mónica Galilea former Director of Communications at CADEP, Paraguay Julia Day Impact, Communication and Engagement Manager at the STEPS Centre, UK

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

Sandra Polonia Rios Director of the Centro de Estudos de Integração e Desenvolvimento (CINDES), Brazil Lykke Andersen first (and former) Director at INESAD, Bolivia Carolina Cardona Junior Researcher at INESAD, Bolivia Carmen Rosa Graham Board member of Interbank, Fundación Backus and Ferreyros S.A.A, Perú Fabiola Leon Velarde Rector of Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Perú Leonora Merry Deputy Director of Communications for Health at the Nuffield Trust, UK Petra Edina Reszkető and Anna Orosz Budapest Institute, Hungary Roxana Barrantes Director of the IEP, Peru Cynthia Sanborn Director of Universidad del Pacífico’s research centre (CIUP), Perú María Balarín Associate Researcher at the Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo (GRADE), Perú Raquel Zelaya Rosales President of the Board of Directors and former Executive Secretary of ASIES, Guatemala Pamela Kabaso Director of the Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR), Zambia Rohini Nilekani Founder and Chairperson of Arghyam, India Euphrasia Mapulanga Knowledge Manager at the Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR), Zambia Carolin Gomulia Head of Communications and Strategy at the Institute of Justice and Reconciliation, South Africa

Visit On Think Tanks for more interviews

SERIES WOMEN IN THINK TANKS

READ THE SERIES AT: https://onthinktanks.org/series/women-in-think-tanks/

Design: Erika Perez-Leon