Women and Science in the Netherlands: A Dutch Case?

Abstract

ArgumentA recent comparative study of women in science has revealed that the situation in the Netherlands is worse than in other European countries. This raises the question whether there is a “Dutch case” concerning women’s standing in science. We argue that the cause is not to be found in a special brand of Dutch Protestantism, with its strong emphasis on motherhood and the family, and impact on labor patterns and social organization. Rather, we should take another look at religion, and especially at the specific Dutch segmentation of society along religious and political lines, called verzuiling, literally “pillarization.” From about 1880 until far into the 1950s the personal and social life of the Dutch (from schools to sports and ladies' organizations) was organized into four recognized pillars (a Protestant, Catholic, socialist and a liberal pillar), which at the top were represented in political parties. This article brings to light the often overlooked fact that between 1880 and 1945 state institutions, such as universities, were thoroughly pillarized, which strongly influenced recruitment and selection for those institutions. That is to say, no woman was appointed to the rank of full professor at any state university until after 1945. The Dutch case might also be explained by the many reorganizations and down-sizings of universities of more recent years that occurred simultaneous with the expansion of academic feminism. In addition, a newly configured “pillarization” has driven deep divides between gender studies scholars, equal opportunities officers, and women scientists.But even in the long-industrialized European countries, the story has not been one of automatic growth and progress. Thus … in the Netherlands … there too the situation for women academics has deteriorated over the past two decades. Where in 1970 there were 2.7 per cent women professors, by 1980 this was down to 2.2 per cent and by 1988 to 2.1 per cent. (Rose 1994)

Transparency in Academic Recruitment: A Problematic Tool for Gender Equality?

“…International benchmarks have repeatedly shown that the Netherlands trails behind the rest of Europe when it comes to the percentage of women professors (12%), even though Dutch women students outnumber and outperform men students (European Commission 2009;WOPI 2008). Although this low number suggests some peculiarity in the Dutch case (see Bosch 2002), the underrepresentation of women in senior academic positions also persists at the international level, regardless of the variation in history of science in different countries and despite the variety of equality policies (European Commission 2000; Etzkowitz and Kemelgor 2001;NSF 2009). The average proportion of women full professors across the EU as a whole is 20 percent, and even those countries with the highest proportion, such as Finland (23%) and Iceland (34%), are not even close to reaching gender equality in higher education (European Commission 2009).…”

The costs and benefits of ‘red tape’: Anti-bureaucratic structure and gender inequity in a science research organization

“…A large body of literature examines the gender gap in science in different national contexts (for example, Bosch, 2002;Etzkowitz et al, 2000;Fox, 1995Fox, , 2001Fox, , 2006Glover, 2002;Long, 2001;Schiebinger 2002;Sonnert and Holton, 1995;Xie and Shauman, 2003). In the US, women's overall representation in science has grown considerably since the 1970s, but the number of women holding advanced degrees, working in scientific careers, and publishing their work remains well below parity with men.…”

The support paradox: Overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs

“…While the number of female academics in the Natural Sciences is still very low in all Western countries, the Dutch situation still represents something of an exception (e.g. Bosch, 2002;EU, 2012) with hardly eight percent women professors in Natural Sciences. Therefore, the Dutch funding organization FOM started a program to encourage women physicists to stay within the scientific community.…”