China must do more to support gender equality in science

Gender inequality in science has long been an issue of concern across the world, and China is no different. For instance, research that we published last year into elections for membership of prestigious Chinese scientific committees found that women are less likely to participate in elections and, when they do, face additional challenges compared with their male counterparts.

Specifically, we used data from the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering to reveal that male candidates enjoyed a higher likelihood of receiving fellowships than equally qualified female candidates.

We found that approximately 11 per cent of male candidates were elected, compared with only 6 per cent of female candidates. The reason appears to be that, whereas male candidates who had things in common with a committee member, such as hailing from the same city or having the same alma mater, significantly increased their chances of election, the same was not true for female candidates. This could not be explained by other factors, such as the quality of peer candidates or the gender composition of recruitment teams.

The findings suggest that gender differences in labour market outcomes can emerge even if men and women have the same professional networks. Reducing favouritism might therefore improve gender equality, but it is much easier said than done.

Moreover, this gender favouritism has far-reaching consequences. Female candidates for academy fellowships need significantly better objective academic achievements, such as higher publication and citation scores. Some highly talented women will therefore lose out to lower-achieving male colleagues regarding the prestige and opportunities that flow from the membership of prestigious academies – including the opportunity to be visible role models for young girls considering careers in science.

Moreover, Chinese academies are responsible for allocating research resources and shaping public projects. They could benefit enormously from the fresh perspectives, innovative techniques and greater managerial prowess that would be brought by a higher representation of accomplished women. This, in turn, would amplify knowledge advancement, improve public resource allocation and boost technological innovation in the wider economy.

Part of the explanation for the gender disparity is that cultural beliefs and stereotypes surrounding gender roles continue to influence interpersonal relationships in China, as elsewhere. For instance, certain Chinese folktales perpetuate the notion that male friendships are inherently more loyal than female ones, inadvertently fostering favouritism towards male acquaintances. But China must work harder to combat the effects of tradition.

Our findings emphasise the importance of recognising and addressing the role of interpersonal relationships and favouritism in professional settings. Reducing these should therefore reduce gender disparity.

Adopting blind recruitment processes in universities and scientific academies would be a good start. Removing identifying information from resumés and applications, such as names and addresses, would reduce the impact of social connections on hiring decisions and promote meritocracy. While this has become common practice in some countries, it is not yet widely adopted in China.

The diversity of recruitment and selection committees should also be increased, both in terms of gender and background. Diverse recruitment teams bring varied insights and experiences, allowing for a more comprehensive and objective assessment of applicants’ qualifications and potential. Ultimately, this approach strengthens a university’s or scientific organisation’s ability to harness the talents of individuals from all walks of life.

Training in unconscious bias is another important measure that recruiters should embrace. Such training helps to create a work environment that values diversity and fosters equal opportunities for all candidates, ultimately leading to a more diverse and talented workforce.

And organisations should regularly monitor and assess their recruitment outcomes to identify trends indicative of gender-specific favouritism or other biases. This entails collecting data on applicants, shortlisted candidates and successful candidates, including information on their gender, ethnicity and other relevant characteristics. Proactive measures can then be taken to address any underlying biases in the recruitment process.

Overall, these policy recommendations can help promote gender equality in scientific fields by reducing the impact of social connections on hiring decisions. By creating a more level playing field for men and women based on objective qualifications and achievements, organisations can ensure that they select the best candidates for scientific positions regardless of their gender or social positions.

Zhengyang Bao is a senior lecturer from the department of banking and finance at Monash University. Difang Huang is an assistant professor in the faculty of business and economics at the University of Hong Kong.