This qualita8ve analysis on «leaky pipeline and interrelated phenomena» was extracted from the WP4 and WP6 interviews conducted in our two departments/ins8tutes SSH, the Ins8tute of Analysis of Contemporary Changes in History and of Society, and STEM, the Earth Life Ins8tute. The composi8on of the interviewees is as follows, 26 WP4
present postdocs (and some docs)/permanent lecturers and researchers, 29 WP6 movers (former UCL postdocs/docs, now in other sectors or research ins8tu8ons). We conducted semi-structured interviews of around 2h, during which ques8ons were asked about a) chronological and biographical events, b) everyday work and life experiences, and c) perspec8ves for their future. More specifically, five key areas were explored: 1) individual trajectory; 2) organisa8onal culture and everyday working life; 3) well- being and work-life balance; 4) career development; 5) perspec8ves on the future.
Interviewee type Ins8tute Female Male
WP4 postdocs IACCHOS 2 2
WP4 newly tenured IACCHOS 4 4
WP4 postdocs ELI 3 2
WP4 newly tenured ELI 4 4
WP6 movers IACCHOS 9 7
WP6 movers ELI 8 6
For the interview analysis for WP6 ‘Leaky Pipeline’, we propose in a first step to put into rela8on the summaries with four ideal-types, which were set up by Fusulier and del Rio Carral in 2012, which are essen8ally four types of work-ra8onales of the researcher:
• An « engaged » ra8onale: work before all things, with a total availability and a strong convic8on of the quali8es of the scien8fic and academic field; with a private life put on second place in rela8on to one’s work and career.
• An « op8mis8c » ra8onale: work is combined with other strong engagements (for example, an ar8s8c or sport-orientated passion, an enriching life in a couple or parental life…) The researcher experiences a kind of reconcilia8on of work/private life, which leads to her or him being op8mis8c with respect to her or his career and her or his private life.
• An « ambivalent » ra8onale: In contrast to the « op8mist », the researcher does not manage to reconcile. She or her lives in constant tension with her or his professional and private engagements, pulled amidst the two or mul8ple commitments, in doubt, while wan8ng to do utmost and best in all areas. • A « distant » ra8onale: The researcher con8nues to invest in her or his work, but
does not believe in it any more. She or he develops a strong cri8que with respect to the demands of produc8vity, mobility and compe88on, which seem absurd. She or he puts things into perspec8ve and thinks about reconver8ng to other professional fields and other existen8al dimensions. She or he is ready to leave the scien8fic career, if she or he may regret this decision (but which is not an existen8al crisis or drama as such!).
A Compara8ve analysis was done of the WP6 movers’ interviews with the WP4 current postdoc and newly tenured interviewees, whereby we analysed sub-group by sub-group (postdocs, newly tenured and movers) by following these steps of pre-analysis:
For the current postdocs:Extrac8ng from the narra8ves if they belong or come close to one or the other ra8onale or ideal-type (or a new one) and of giving one or two examples in terms of vigneme (1 page max.) per ra8onale/ideal-type; Puvng in rela8on these ra8onales to the variables « sex », « age », « marital and parental situa8on » and « scien8fic discipline/ins8tute SSH or STEM »; Verifying if there are specific ways of “engagement ”, “op8mism”, “ambivalence” or “distancing ” according to disciplines/ins8tutes (or not) and gender
For the newly tenured:Understanding retrospec8vely how these ra8onales have impacted their trajectory (for example, have they stayed in an « engaged » ra8onale or have they changed toward an « ambivalent » or even « distant » ra8onale; Grasping their current ra8onale; Extrac8ng their reasons for what in their eyes is a « winning trajectory in the scien8fic space » but also the difficul8es they encountered and how they managed (or not) to overcome them: Trying to model the winning « ra8onales/ideal types » of trajectories and to give one or two examples in form of short vignemes per ra8onale/ideal-type;Put into rela8on with the variables “sex”, “age”, “marital/couple status and parental status”, “scien8fic discipline/ins8tute SSH or STEM”.
For the movers: Understanding retrospec8vely how these ra8onales have impacted their trajectories (for example, have they remained in a « engaged » ra8onale, or have they become more « ambivalent » or even « distant »? ; Extrac8ng the reasons of « moving from the scien8fic sphere, but also the difficul8es encountered and how they managed (or not) to overcome them; Iden8fying their current situa8on (professional and private); Trying to model the « moving » types of trajectories and to give one or two examples in form of vignemes per type; Puvng into rela8on these trajectories (and current situa8ons) with the variables « sex », « age », « marital/couple and parental situa8on », « discipline/ins8tute SSH or STEM ».
We conducted an analysis specifically focussed upon gender and the mechanisms of the leaky pipeline and interrelated phenomena and discuss this in terms of four interrelated mechanisms opera8ng in the leaky pipeline:
• The masculine habitus of the scien8fic field, which operates as a masculine figure of « hero », who is engaged body and soul in his work: with a total availability for research, interna8onal mobility without taking into account private life, a spirit of compe88on, of puvng yourself forward in the public space and of self-affirma8on.
• The Ma8lda effect (versus the Mamhew effect for men) by which women are less visible than men, and receive less support to develop their careers, are charged with less pres8gious tasks…
• The co-opta8on logic in an « old boys club », which renders an entry more difficult for women into the leading networks and of gaining access to resources and more direct support systems by senior researchers (mentoring).
• The work/family balance, which is more disrup8ng for women.