Women are dramatically less likely than men to reach the upper echelons of R&D in the chemical industry. Research commissioned by the Royal Society of Chemistry has provided evidence that structural and cultural obstacles are unwittingly playing a part in this imbalance.

Once an almost exclusively male domain, in recent decades women have made significant inroads into the chemical industry. But the careers of male and female industrial chemists are proving consistently asymmetrical, despite employer commitment to equal opportunities.

Women tend to be less likely than men to pursue a technical career in the chemical industries and are significantly less likely to climb to senior positions in R&D. The reasons for this have not been fully investigated until now.

Employment climate for women

The RSC has pursued an interest in diversity issues for a number of years, with previous studies into women's employment and university chemistry departments. The latest study was carried out by Jessica Lober as part of her PhD research supervised by Professor Judith Glover at Roehampton University.

The RSC and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) sponsored study explored the employment climate for women in the chemical industry, and looked at what is being done to address
persisting inequalities. The study was based on interviews with nineteen employers.

In the last ten years the chemical industry has begun to recruit women chemists to its entry ranks in numbers that are close to matching the proportion of women graduating with chemistry degrees.

Female industrial chemists are certainly no longer a rarity and anecdotal evidence suggests these women received a warm welcome, and certainly a friendlier reception than that encountered by the
female pioneers to this once male bastion. Encouragingly, female retention in the industry is purportedly good. 

A glass ceiling?

In spite of these positive developments, female chemists are not yet well represented in senior R&D posts. Interviewees reported that whilst women constitute around a third of their chemistry workforce overall, there were 'hardly any', 'very few' or even 'none' at senior R&D level.

Chemical firms are aware of the issue and are doubtful that it is an historical problem. Employers are pessimistic about the likelihood that women will become proportionally represented in senior
management in the near future. 

But this disparity is attributed to choices made by women themselves. Companies cited a 'lack of ambition' amongst women or their failure to meet the required promotion criteria. The existence of a glass ceiling was not acknowledged.

The interviews conducted as part of the RSC study give a contrary picture. The research findings clearly indicate the existence of a glass ceiling. Institutional obstacles are preventing women reaching
their full potential.

Different paths

The tendency for men and women to pursue different career paths in industry is striking. Women are more commonly employed in development and applied research than in the more prestigious
basic research. Women often follow a management career track over the technical career track, but they rarely progress beyond project leader level to become group or department heads, especially in research departments.

Male industrial chemists, on the other hand, are found employed throughout R&D. They tend to remain practicing wet chemistry for longer and typically either continue to pursue a technical career route or switch to the management career track after clocking up considerable valuable experience at the bench.

Where male chemists do move on from R&D to gain experience of other functions in the firm it often leads straight to senior management positions, overtaking women who may have moved to the
management track at an earlier stage.

The new research highlights how this tendency for divergent career paths constitutes one reason why women are under-represented in the top jobs. The job opportunities women tend to select
throughout their careers cost them eventual promotion to senior R&D posts. But how do these different paths emerge?

Recruiting bias

The structural and cultural factors that steer women down certain career avenues over others start at entry level. Certain recruitment and selection practices act to reinforce the tendency for men and
women to choose different kinds of roles. A number of interviewees disclosed examples of practices which enable bias to undermine a supposedly transparent hiring process.

In addition to this, discrimination on the grounds of sex at interview still goes on. In interviews, one HR manager reported on her experience of interviewing alongside a hiring R&D manager as follows: "I interviewed a female applicant with a gentleman a couple of weeks ago and he asked her the question, 'when your little lad's sick, you're not going to be here'.. he was adamant that was fine because she'd look after the kids and I said you didn't ask it of the guy this morning and he said, well he won't be looking after the kids." The HR manager explained this sort of behaviour was entrenched.

Work-family balance

Beyond entry level, certain aspects of the work may all but prescribe the career paths women decide to take, given a great many must reconcile a demanding industrial career with caring and
household responsibilities on a daily basis. 

The work-family balancing act is especially difficult for those on the technical career track, due to the required long and irregular hours; many women opt for the managerial career track, the
demands of which are easier to plan around.

Also particularly difficult to reconcile with family life is mobility. Overseas experience is typically needed in order for a chemist to be considered a strong candidate for advancement. Regular
global travel is a requirement of the job for most senior R&D roles.

Negative stereotypes

The cultural legacy of the 'PhD glass ceiling' also counts against many female chemists. Data show that women are less likely to possess a doctorate than their male counterparts. Whilst they may be
excelling in their roles, the lack of a higher degree will hold them back as they will not be perceived as someone marked out as a high flyer.

Other negative stereotypes of women in the industry also threaten to hold them back; for example interviewees alluded to an insidious industry-wide perception that female chemists lack the inclination or 'guts' to take those critical 'winner takes all' risks in their work.

The research also uncovered evidence of male hostility towards women, bred by resentment over female take-up of 'family-friendly' or pregnancy-related work policies.

Tackling the issues

Employers tend to locate 'the problem' with women themselves. One R&D manager commented, "We're not finding that women are moving so well through the system. Whilst we're recruiting them, they're not moving into the management roles as rapidly as we might hope." The RSC research has highlighted how 'the problem' is far less straightforward than this.  Employers rely on tackling the issues via only one approach: improving the work-life balance for their employers.  Female (and of course male) industrial chemists now benefit from greater flexibility and understanding at work.  In fact, chemical firms have been held up as exemplars of good practice towards women's employment in nationwide award schemes.

It is vital that this good practice continues and expands, but this research begs the question: can the 'family-friendly' approach alone undo the present gender imbalance at senior levels? Indications are that the answer is no.

Tackling institutional obstacles

Discriminatory practices and other impediments that disproportionately affect women represent the root causes of the asymmetry and inequality between male and female chemists' careers in industry. At present many women feel they have little alternative but to abandon career paths which lead to the top jobs.

There is more that firms can do to improve the R&D employment climate for women. Only by tackling the institutional obstacles this research has revealed will women advance into the male dominated domains of the chemical industry.

In the meantime the industry is failing to exploit the scientific skills and creativity of its female workforce. With declining numbers of chemistry graduates, the need to maximise the potential of scientifically qualified men and women has never been more important. Can the chemical industry afford to keep looking the other way?

The interview research quoted is part of a larger study of female chemists' careers, funded collaboratively by the RSC and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)