Report on the MEXT-Commissioned Project in FY2003

Diverse Visions of Scientists and Engineers
in the 21st Century—For the Promotion of Gender Equality—

March 2004
Japan Inter-Society Liaison Association Committee for
Promoting Equal Participation of Men and Women in Scienceand Engineering (EPMEWSE)

iContents12
2.1

Preface1

Survey Results
Summary of the Results for Each Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 Basic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aﬃliated Academic Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Main Aﬃliation (Type of Organization) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Highest Academic Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Doctoral Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2 Working Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Working Hours Spent at the Workplace/Home and Hours Spent on Researchand Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Subordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annual Research and Development Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leaving/Changing Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3 Career Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reasons for Choosing Current Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future Goals of Career Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limited Term Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environment and Opportunities Necessary to Further Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.4 Balancing Work and Family Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Childcare Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Evaluation of Those Who Take Childcare/Family-care Leaves . . . . . . . .
Balancing Career and Family Lives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.5 Equal Participation of Men and Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proportion of Female Researchers and Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proportion of Women in Leadership Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gender Gap Regarding Compensation/Promotion Issues in the Science andTechnology Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ways to Promote Gender Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
5
5
5
6
8
10
10
11
12
13
15
16
16
20
20
21
23
23
24
27
28
28
28
30
31
33
33
34
35
36

ii

Contents
2.2

3
3.1
3.2

Detailed Analysis of Important Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Gender Gap in Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Childcare Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3 Limited-term Full-time Positions and Part-time Positions Including Postdocs

37
37
42
44

Issues and Recommendations
Current Situation and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47
47
48

Bibliography

49

Appendix
A1 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A2 Academic Societies Involved in This Survey Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A3 Basic Statistics by Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49
51
56
58

1

Chapter 1

PrefaceThis report summarizes the survey results conducted by the Japan Inter-Society Liaison Association Committee for Promoting Equal Participation of Men and Women in Science and Engineering(EPMEWSE) in FY2003.
The survey research project, “Diverse Visions of Scientist and Engineers in the 21st Century —For
the Promotion of Gender Equality—” was commissioned to EPMEWSE by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan. EPMEWSE was established by agroup of academic societies in the science and engineering disciplines in 2002 in order to promote
gender equality in the science and engineering fields. The purpose of this research project was tocapture the current status of gender equality in the science and engineering professions through an
extensive survey, to understand the current environment surrounding the communities of science andengineering professionals, to identify issues and to propose recommendations.
The Science and Technology Basic Plan for the second term, which was approved by the cabinet
in March 2001, emphasized eﬀective usage of human resources and developments of diverse career
paths. One of its focuses was to improve the working environment for female professionals in the science and engineering fields. Prof. Akiko Tsugawa (Tokyo Medical and Dental University) publisheda research report, “Making the Most of Female Researchers’ Abilities in Science and Engineering”[1] regarding this, and other recommendations [2, 3] have been also made on this topic.
We designed and conducted a survey recognizing that the first step toward a gender equal society
is to acknowledge the diverse values regardless of gender. We also tried to collect data not only
from science and engineering professionals at universities and former national research institutions,but also from corporations, in order to provide broader-based findings for making recommendations.
We would also like to note that we made use of the research done by Prof. Tsugawa’s team [1] asreference to design some of our survey questions.
We hope that this report will contribute to the realization of a truly gender-equal society, where
diverse values are respected and every person has the opportunity to exercise his/her ability to thefullest, regardless of gender.

2

Chapter 1 Preface
EPMEWSE Survey Preparation Working GroupMiyoshi Ayama (JSAP*)
Hisako Otsubo (MBSJ)
Junko Kyozuka (JSPP)
Takashi Kondo (JSAP)
Hiroko Tsukamura (JSCE)
Kay Domen (JSAP)
Mariko Kato (ASJ)
Akiko Kogo (ZSJ)
Kenichi Shida (SPSJ)
Noriko Chikumoto (JSAP)
Kazue Mizumura (PSJ)

Reiko Saito (SPSJ)Emi Tamechika (JSAP)
Kaori Tomita (JSBSS)
Akiko Matsumoto (CSJ)
Setsuko Washitani (ZSJ)
Yuri Ishimaru (JPS)Yuji Goto (PSSJ)Ken Takamatsu (PSJ)
Yoshiko Tsuji (SCEJ)
Keiko Nishikawa (CSJ)

EPMEWSE Survey Analysis Working Group
Masamichi Aoki (JGS)
Takayuki Oda (MatchSJ)
Yoko Kimura (MBSJ)
Kashiko Kodate (JSAP)
Reiko Saito (SPSJ)
Kay Domen (JSAP)
Akiko Kogo (ZSJ)
Takashi Kondo (JSAP)
Yoshiko Tsuji (SCEJ)
Kiyoko Fukami (JBS)
Akiko Matsumoto (CSJ)

Hiroshi Nakajima (JBS)
Yoko Matsumoto (ISIJ)
Miyoko Watanabe (JSAP)
Kaori Ota (MathSJ)
Mizue Yamauchi, Kissyo (SJWS)
Yoshiko Matsuda (JBS)
Yuriko Yamagata (PSSJ)Yasuko Ando (MgSJ)
Shoko Ono (CSJ)
Yuki Kunioka (BSJ)(Coordinator: Takashi Kondo)

Atuko Kyozuka (JSPP)
Yuji Goto (PSSJ)Emi Tamechika (JSAP)
Yoshikazu Toyama (JSAP)
Hiroshi Matsukawa (JPS)
Keiko Mitsunaga Nakatsubo (ZSJ)
Kazue Mizumura (PSJ)
Miyoko Watanabe (JSAP)
Yuko Ikeda (SPSJ)Mariko Kato (ASJ)
Noriko Chikumoto (JSAP)

English Version Working Group in JPS
Akane Agui
Kazuo Kitahara
Yoshihiro Taguchi
Tetsuo Hatsuta
Tomoko Kagayama(Coordinator: Kay Domen)

Atsuko Ito
Atsuto Suzuki
Takuya Hirano
Mamiko Sasao

Nozomi Nagano (PSSJ)
Yoshiko Matsuda (JBS)
Sanae Miyake (BMSJ)
Junko Ogawa (AESJ)
Mizue Yamauchi, Kissho (SJWS)
Kimiko Fukuta (JSDS)
Hiroshi Ooki (JSAP)
Hirosi Kawarada (JSAP)
Yuki Kunioka (BSJ)
Yukiko Goto (JSCB)
Michika Murata (JPS)(Coordinator: Takuya Hirano)

Akio Sugamoto
Hidetoshi Fukuyama
Mio Murao
Sukekatsu Ushioda

Hideto En’yo
Hiroshi Matsukawa
Eiko Torikai
Junichiro Inoue

Translated by Satoko Nielsen
Produced by the Physical Society of Japan (JPS)*Abbreviations
JSAP
SCEJ
SPSJ
JSBSS
CSJ
AESJ
JSPP
MathSJ
JBS
BSJ
PSSJ
PSJ
ASJ
ZSJ

The Japan Society of Applied Physics
The Society of Chemical Engineers, JapanThe Society of Polymer Science, Japan
Japanese Society for Biological Sciences in Space
The Chemical Society of Japan
Atomic Energy Society of JapanThe Japanese Society of Plant Physiologists
The Mathematical Society of JapanThe Japanese Biochemical Society
The Biophysical Society of Japan
Protein Science Society of Japan
Physiological Society of Japan
Astronomical Society of JapanThe Zoological Society of Japan

JPS
MBSJ
SJWS
JSCE
JSDS
JSCB
IEICE
ESJ
JFS
MgSJ
ISIJ
JGS

The Physical Society of JapanThe Molecular Biology Society of JapanThe Society of Japanese Women Scientists
The Japan Society for Comparative Endocrinology
The Japanese Society of Developmental Scientists
Japan Society for Cell Biology
The Institute of Electronics, Information, andCommunication Engineers
Ecological Society of Japan
Japanese Forestry Society
The Magnetics Society of JapanThe Iron and Steel Institute of JapanThe Japanese Geotechnical Society

3
The First Significant Study in the World
Masako Bando, EPMEWSE Chairperson
EPMEWSE was established on October 7, 2002 by academic organizations in the science field, in response
to suggestions by the presidents of The Physical Society of Japan (JPS), The Japan Society of Applied Physics(JSAP), and The Chemical Society of Japan (CSJ). The committee just completed the first major project, “Gender Equality Survey in the Science and Engineering Profession,” which was commissioned by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan and is summarized in this report. It is themost extensive gender equality survey in the world, in terms of the fields and the number of people surveyed,with responses from almost 20,000 members of academic organizations.
The survey results elucidate the day-to-day activities of people working in the science and engineering fields,such as their working environments and family lives. This survey also reveals the diﬀerences in the family
lives and working environment among various scientific and technological professions regardless of the field; inparticular, diﬀerences in the working environment between academic institutions and private companies. The“post-doctoral issue” is becoming a serious problem in the basic science professions and schools, and the survey
results clearly point out the issues associated with the limited-term system. Another noteworthy finding is thatthe rate of female workers’ success is drastically increasing in corporations in conjunction with the implementation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the childcare leave system. Furthermore, this trend appears
across the board. This confirms our findings from our previous survey of the members of JSAP and JPS in 2001
and suggests their validity in other fields. Meanwhile, the fact that it was the experienced female professionals
who feel the gender gap the most acutely indicates that the higher the position, the wider the gender gap becomes. These findings provide valuable basic data for making recommendations about government policies andpromoting gender equality in academic organizations on the other hand.
Looking further into the details of the survey results reveal more interesting details. The abnormally long
working hours of professionals in the science and engineering fields indicate their commitment to the advancement of science and engineering, but it also means that they do not have free time to enjoy their personal lives or
to volunteer for the society since most of their waking hours are spent on the job. Their family lives seem to besacrificed, too. In coming years, society needs to become more flexible and accommodate more diverse values
and career paths. Such a society would open up the possibilities not only to enhance development in science andengineering but also to encourage individuality regardless of gender. It would allow a new way of life for men
and women, so they could cooperate with each other and enjoy both work and family life. Balancing work andfamily life has traditionally been a problem mainly for women. A community where female professionals canlive full and successful lives will be a better community for all professionals in the science and engineering fields.
I am hopeful that these valuable survey results will help to strengthen each academic organization’s commitment
to promote gender equality and in turn lead to greater advancement in science and engineering.
After one year of energetic activity by JSAP as the managing group, JPS assumed the management of EPMEWSE. During the transitional period, the Steering Group of EPMEWSE continued the analysis of the survey
results, led by Dr. Takashi Kondo. This report is a significant achievement completed with the commendable
cooperation and leadership of Dr. Kashiko Kodate as the planning and execution representative and Dr. Takashi
Kondo, who made a tremendous contribution in leading the group that analyzed the survey data.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of each academic organization who participatedin this survey project and to the Lifelong Learning Policy Oﬃce of MEXT for their support in this project.

4

Chapter 1 Preface
Survey Project: “Diverse Visions of Scientists and Engineers in the 21st Century—For the Promotion of Gender Equality—”
Kashiko Kodate (Department of Science, Japan Women’s University),
Planning and Execution Representative, EPMEWSE
It is now becoming urgent for Japan, which strives to contribute more to the world in academic and scientificfields, to steer its science and engineering culture toward gender equality since the birthrate is dwindling, society
is aging, and our values are becoming more and more diverse. The number of women who pursue science andengineering studies is increasing in Japan, but the ratio of female professionals who are active in the science andengineering fields is still far below the international norm. To address this issue, EPMEWSE was established in
October 2002, in order to promote a gender-equal environment and networking in the science and engineering
fields, and to contribute to society as a whole.
This study was conducted as part of EPMEWSE’s activities. It was commissioned by MEXT in 2003 asa research project under the Lifelong Learning Policy Oﬃce. Most of the previous surveys focused on female
professionals, with the goal of raising their status to the same standard as males’. In contrast, this survey was conducted with cooperation of 39 academic organizations that belong to EPMEWSE, and a uniform set of questions
was asked of every member in a science or engineering profession. The purpose of the survey was to understand accurately the current situation, and to make recommendations regarding practical solutions and eﬀective
enlightening activities.
This report summarizes the results of this extensive survey, which represent 19,291 responses to 24 questions.
Due to the carefully designed survey questions and detailed analysis of the survey results by the Working Group,
the findings provide an overview of the current situation of the science and engineering profession. The valuable
data from this survey shows there is vast gender gap in the perception of the current social system: while many
men think that improving the working environment will lead solve the current problems, many women thinkthat a change in male (and society’s) mentality would be necessary. This survey examines the diﬀerences,similarities, and gender gaps from various viewpoints, such as the diﬀerent fields of medicine, biological, science,and engineering, and also between diﬀerent types of organizations, such as universities versus private companies.
It also provides specific recommendations to promote gender equality, as well as numerous data that would be
useful for future activities by EPMEWSE. I hope these valuable data will continue to be used eﬀectively andhelp the activities of EPMEWSE progress rapidly toward gender equality.
I would like to express my gratitude to people at the Lifelong Learning Policy Oﬃce of MEXT, who provided
us with this opportunity to analyze the current situation of the academic organizations by commissioning thisstudy to us.
This survey was made possible by the enthusiastic eﬀorts of Dr. Yoshikazu Toyama, the first vice chairmanof EPMEWSE, and Dr. Takashi Kondo, who worked day and night for a long time as the head of the Analysis
Working Group. This report is the result of the eﬀorts of the Survey Preparation and Analysis Working Groups
led by Dr. Takashi Kondo, Dr. Kay Domen, Dr. Yoshiko Tsuji, and Dr. Yuki Kunioka, especially of theirenergetic discussions and thorough evaluations. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to everybody
involved in this project.
Lastly, I would like to extend my gratitude to the survey respondents and the administration staﬀ of eachacademic organization.

5

Chapter 2

Survey Results
From August 20 through November 10, 2003, we sent questionnaires to the members of the 39 academic societies listed in Appendix A2 and received responses from as many as 19,291 members. We
used both electronic (web) and paper formats to distribute the survey. The majority of the members
responded in the web format, which accounted for 96.5 %*1 of the total responses.
The respondents were 83.7 % male and 16.1 % female (0.2 % did not indicate the gender).

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question
We asked 24 questions as shown in the Appendix A1. In this report, we will first summarize theresults of each question by gender in order to understand the overall trend. We present additional data
sorted by various categories when necessary.

2.1.1

Basic DataAﬃliated Academic Society
Figure 2.1 shows the actual numbers of male and female respondents that belong to each academic
society and the percentages of female respondents. For detailed numerical data, please see Appendix
A3, Table 4.1 (page 58). The highest percentage of female respondents from any society was barely
30 %*2 , suggesting that all of the societies that participated have a very small number of female
members. Table 4.1 also shows the percentage (and approximate number) of female members of eachorganization, if known. In general, the percentage of female respondents exceeded that of female
membership in each organization, indicating that female members showed more interest in answering
the survey than their male colleagues.
We compiled the survey results by classifying the participating societies into seven academic fields
as shown in Appendix A2. The field of life science and biology had the highest percentage of female
members, followed by civil engineering, chemical and material engineering, mathematics, electronics
and information, physics, and mechanical engineering, in that order.

*1 Excluding the responses from the Mathematical Society of Japan, which encouraged its members to use the paper form,

98.9 % of the respondents used the web format.
*2 Excludes the Society of Japanese Women Scientists (SJWS) and the Japanese Women Engineers Forum (JWEF).

6

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.1 Number of respondents by gender and percentage of female respondents in each society

Fig. 2.2 Number of respondents by gender and percentage of female respondents in each academic field

Current Main Aﬃliation (Type of Organization)
Out of all the respondents, 36.0 % were aﬃliated with corporations, 47.5 % with universities (national universities, public universities, private universities, and other schools), and 11.0 % were aﬃli-

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question
ated with public research institutions (such as those established by independent administrative institutions). The percentage of female respondents in each type of organization was 9.7 % at corporations,19.3 % at universities, and 22.7 % at public research institutions. Figure 2.4 shows the breakdownof main aﬃliations for each academic field. In every field, the percentage of female respondents was
lower in corporations. The percentage of female respondents from universities was noticeably highin the mathematics field, as well as in the life science and biology field, although to a lesser extent.
Table 4.2 of Appendix A3 (page 59) shows the breakdown of the current main aﬃliation for membersof each academic society.

Fig. 2.3 Number of respondents by main aﬃliation and gender ratio

Fig. 2.4 Percentages of main aﬃliations for each academic field

7

8

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Age Group
Figure 2.5 shows the number of male and female respondents and the percentage of female respondents for each age group. In this chart, we also plotted the average percentage of women who declareda science major (science, engineering, agriculture, pharmaceutical science, liberal arts with science
focus) as college freshman [4] for each age group. The numbers of male respondents were the highest
among the 30’s and early 40’s age groups, whereas the numbers of female respondents were highest
among the age groups of the late 20’s and early 30’s. The percentage of female respondents washigher in younger age groups, while the percentage of female respondents of this survey was higher
than the percentage of female science majors as freshmen in every age group. However, that gap
narrowed with the older age groups. Assuming that a similar proportion of each age group responded
to this survey, this may indicate that women who are in their late 30’s and older have dropped out of
the science and technology communities for some reason (Note that this survey was sent to current
members only, and does not include those who were former members of each organization).*3
Figure 2.6 depicts the age group distribution and percentage of female respondents for each academic field. The female ratios were higher in younger age groups across the board, but the age group
distribution diﬀered among the various academic fields: there were more, older generation respondents in the fields of mathematics, civil engineering, and mechanical engineering, but the respondents
were mostly younger in the field of life science and biology. See Appendix A3 Table 4.3 (page 60)
for age distribution of each organization.

Fig. 2.5 Age distribution of respondents and percentage of female respondents*3 Naturally, it is possible that the higher percentage of science majors in older age groups did not choose science orengineering field as their profession to begin with.

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.6 Age distribution of respondents and percentage of female respondents by academic field

9

10

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Highest Academic Degree
Over 70 % of the respondents had obtained a graduate degree, out of which more than half finisheda doctoral course. There was no noticeable gender diﬀerence in the academic background of the
respondents.

Fig. 2.7 Highest academic degree

Doctoral Degrees
It seems that there was no noticeable gender diﬀerence in the percentage of respondents having
doctoral degrees. However, more of the female respondents had higher academic degrees in almost
every age group, and the gender gap widened with the older age groups (Fig. 2.9). This implies that
it was important for women to obtain higher academic degrees in order for them to continue theircareers in the science and technology fields.

Fig. 2.8 Respondents with doctoral degrees and types of doctoral degrees

Fig. 2.9 Respondents with doctoral degrees by age group2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Marital Status
The gender gap in marital status was very wide with a higher percentage of men that were married.*4
As shown in Fig. 2.11, there was hardly any diﬀerence in the younger age groups, but the gender gap
widened with the older age groups. In corporations, the percentage of married women was extremely
low for the age groups of 50 and over, but there was no gender gap for the age groups of the early
40’s and under. This seems to be a direct result of the Equal Employment Act (enacted in 1985) andthe Childcare Leave Law (enacted in 1992). In contrast, no such diﬀerence was visible in universities
and public research institutions, and the gender gap appeared in the age groups of the late 30’s andover. The gender gap pertaining to marital status was particularly wide at universities.

Fig. 2.10 Marital status

Fig. 2.11 Percentage of married respondents by age group for each type of aﬃliated organization*4 According to the research by the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry (HLWM)[5], the percentages of married working

women and men in general were 40.5 % and 62.8 %, respectively. Our survey shows higher percentages of married men
and women. However, examining only the manufacturing sector of the research by HLWM found 49.8 % of working
women are married, which is closer to the results of this survey.

11

12

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Number of Children
Male respondents had more children than female respondents. Males’ average number of children
increased steadily with their age, peaking at two children. However, the average number of children
for women peaked at one child in the 40’s age group (Fig. 2.13). Comparing the female age groupof the 40’s, when most women finish having babies, among the organization types they belong to, theaverage number of children of women working for a corporation was approximately 1.2, close to thenational total fertility rate in 2001, which was 1.33. On the contrary, women working for universities
and public research institutions averaged less than 1.0. Since the average number of children among
respondents who have children was approximately 2 for both men and women, this diﬀerence stems
entirely from the diﬀerence between having children and not having children. Figure 2.14 shows thepercentage of respondents with children for each academic field. The gender gap is most noticeable
in the biology and life science and civil engineering fields.

Fig. 2.12 Number of children

Fig. 2.13 Average number of children by age group for each type of aﬃliated organization

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.14 Respondents with children by age group for each academic field

Current Employment Status
Whereas almost 70 % of male respondents were permanent full-time employees, the percentage wasonly 50 % for female respondents. Ratios of limited-term full-time employees, part-time employees,
and students were high with female respondents. The combined percentage of limited-term fulltime employees and part-time employees was very high in the younger generations that work foruniversities and particularly for public research institutions (Fig. 2.16). This, in turn, seemed to leadto the relatively high percentage of part-time and limited-term full-time employees in the life scienceand biology field (Fig. 2.17). This may reflect the government’s policy to invest heavily in life-science
research.

13

14

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.15 Current employment status

Fig. 2.16 Current employment status by age group for each type of aﬃliated organization (excluding students)

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.17 Employment status (excluding students) by gender for each academic field

Current Position
Figure 2.18 shows the distribution of positions by gender, and Fig. 2.19 shows the gender ratio foreach position. It is obvious that the higher the position, the lower the female to male ratio becomes.
We will discuss this in detail in the next section.

Fig. 2.18 Current position (percentage of all respondents by gender)

15

16

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.19 Gender ratio for each position

2.1.2

Working Conditions

Working Hours Spent at the Workplace/Home and Hours Spent on Research and Development
Most respondents, both male and female, answered that they work between 50 to 70 hours a week
and approximately 20 % of the respondents were working over 70 hours per week. Long working
hours appear typical in the science and engineering fields. Male respondents worked an averageof 58 hours, out of which 31 hours were spent on research and development. Female respondents
worked an average of 55 hours, out of which 35 hours were spent on research and development.*5
Male respondents worked longer hours at work on average but female respondents spent a larger
percentage of their working time on research and development. When broken down by gender and age
group, men’s working hours show an upward convex pattern, peaking in the early 30’s. In contrast,
for women, the pattern is concave with the minimum occurring in the late 30’s (Fig. 2.22). For
the age groups younger than 50, men work longer hours. The gender diﬀerence was greatest, atapproximately 7 hours (weekly), for the age group of the late 30’s. In contrast, working hours werelonger for women in the age groups over 50. As for the time devoted to research and development,
there was no significant gender diﬀerence for age groups of 30 and younger, but the gender gap tended
to widen for age groups of 40 and over, as men spent fewer hours on research and development. Thisis possibly because the gender gap in the positions (described in the next section) corresponds to adiﬀerence in the number of hours spent on management as opposed to research and development.
As for the working hours (including research and development) spent at home, the gender gap wasless significant. Both men and women reported working an average of 6 hours at home per week, ofwhich 4 hours were devoted to research and development. Sorted by age group (Fig. 2.25), the older
the age group was, the longer hours both men and women worked at home. For the age groups of 40
and over, both women’s working hours and research and development hours were 1 hour longer thanmen’s were.
According to the results sorted by academic field (Fig. 2.26), fewer hours at work coincided withlonger working hours at home, suggesting that many people take their work home when possible.
The time spent at work was by far the greatest in the life science and biology field, probably because*5 Dr.

Tsugawa’s research [1, p. 60] reports similar results: the average weekly working hours for researchers was 59
hours for men and 56 hours for women. A study by the Health, Labor, and Welfare Ministry [6] found that the averagemonthly working hours in the manufacturing sector was 170.5 hours for men and 145.4 hours for women. It is apparent
that the engineers and researchers who responded to our survey work much longer hours than found by these studies.

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question
long working hours are required for experiments, etc. Next to the field of life science and biology,
the fields with the longest working hours at work were those having a heavy reliance on experiments,
such as the chemical and material engineering, and physics fields.

Fig. 2.20 Hours at work

Fig. 2.21 Hours spent on research and development at work (subset of hours at work)

Fig. 2.22 Hours at work and hours spent on research and development by age group

17

18

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.23 Hours working at home

Fig. 2.24 Hours spent on research and development at home (subset of hours working at home)

Fig. 2.25 Hours working at home and hours spent on research and development by age group2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.26 Total working hours at work (top) and home (bottom) by academic field

19

20

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Number of Subordinates
Men clearly had more subordinates, as almost 60 % of women had no subordinates. We will discuss
this in detail in the next section.

Fig. 2.27 Number of subordinates

Annual Research and Development Budget
It is also obvious that men had larger annual research and development budgets. The diﬀerence
among academic fields was the most prominent in the answers to this question. As shown in Fig. 2.29,
the field of life science and biology received the largest annual budget on average, followed by thefields of chemical and material engineering, and physics, in that order. These findings reflect that
research and development budgets are mainly allocated to life sciences and nano-technologies. We
will discuss the gender diﬀerence in the annual budgets in detail in the next section.

Fig. 2.28 Annual research and development budget

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.29 Annual research and development budget—by academic field

Leaving/Changing Jobs
The number of respondents who have stopped working is relatively small, but the percentage offemale respondents who have left work exceeded 6 %, over double the rate of male respondents.
The percentage of respondents who changed jobs in the past was approximately 20 % for both men
and women. As for the subsequent employment status after leaving/changing jobs, 70 % of male
respondents have permanent full-time positions, but only 50 % of female respondents have permanent full-time positions, and the percentage of part-time or limited-term full-time positions washigh among women who left/changed jobs. Of those that had left/changed jobs previously, the moremen and women worked for universities than any other organization, but noticeably fewer womenthan men were employed by corporations. Almost half of both male and female respondents who
have left/changed jobs chose “to further my career” as the reason for leaving/changing jobs (multiple selections were allowed). The other reasons chosen most often were “unhappy with previous
workplace” and “concern for the future.” Many more female than male respondents chose “gender
discrimination,” “job relocation of my family member,” “marriage,” “childrearing” as the reasons forchanging jobs. There was not much diﬀerence among the age groups for these female-specific reasons(Fig. 2.34), indicating that the situation has not changed much over time.

Fig. 2.30 Ever considered leaving/changing work, or actually left/changed work

21

22

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.31 Subsequent employment status after leaving/changing work

Fig. 2.32 Organization type of employer after leaving/changing work

Fig. 2.33 Reasons for leaving/changing work (out of respondents who have left/changed work)2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.34 Reasons for leaving/changing work by age group (female only)

2.1.3

Career AwarenessReasons for Choosing Current Occupation
This is one of the very few questions to which men chose more options than women. For both
men and women, the top three reasons were all positive: “because I find this work attractive,” “tomake full use of my abilities,” and “for academic satisfaction/intellectual stimulation.” Noticeably
more men chose “to benefit society” and “to achieve status/fame” as reasons than women, whereas
overwhelmingly more women chose “free of gender discrimination” and “able to balance family andcareer” as reasons. Figure 2.36 shows the results sorted by each type of organization and position.
High percentages of respondents from all three types of organizations (universities, corporations, andpublic research institutions) chose “because I find this work attractive” and “to make full use of myabilities,” but the percentage of respondents who chose “to achieve academic satisfaction/intellectual
stimulation” was high with respondents who work for universities and public research institutions
but low with those who work for corporations. On the other hand, the percentage of respondents
who chose “to benefit society” was high with those who work for corporations and public research
institutions but low with those who work for universities. It is also interesting that more people inhigher positions chose “to benefit society” and “to make full use of my abilities.”

Fig. 2.35 Reasons for choosing the current occupation

23

24

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.36 Reasons for choosing the current occupation by current position

Future Goals of Career Paths
For future career paths, 45 % of men and 51 % of women wished to work for universities and 29 %of men and 20 % of women wished to work for corporations. Looking at the results sorted by current
aﬃliation (Fig. 2.38), most of the respondents currently aﬃliated with universities and public research
institutions wished to remain at the same type of institution, and most of the respondents currently
aﬃliated with corporations wished to work for corporations. Figure 2.39 shows responses to the question concerning the likelihood of achieving their position of choice, sorted by gender and age group.
Slightly more women than men responded “unlikely,” but still only 20 percent of women chose thisanswer. It seems that most of the respondents chose their desired position that seemed realistic from

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question
their current situation. Compared to men, more women chose “work in academic research” and fewer
women chose “leader of academic research laboratory,” “business management,” “business administration,” and “entrepreneur” as preferred careers. In order to compare these leadership-oriented answers (“leader of academic research laboratory,” “business management,” “business administration,”and “entrepreneur”) with the other answers, we analyzed the responses to this question by gender andacademic field in Fig. 2.40. Regardless of the academic field, women were less leadership-oriented
than men were. Noticeably more men in the life science and biology field compared to other fields responded “leader of academic research laboratory.” This seems to reflect the fact that this field receives
massive funding and researchers with large staﬀs and abundant funding are successful. However, it
is significant that even women in the field of life science and biology did not necessarily seem todesire leadership positions. We also asked which factors (multiple selections were allowed) were important to attain their desired positions. Many of both men and women chose “dedication,” “talent,”“physical strength,” and “personal connections,” but the percentages of women who chose “support
from family” and “social support systems” were noticeably higher than those of men. In contrast, thepercentage of men who chose “dedication” was noticeably higher than that of women.

Fig. 2.37 Career goals

Fig. 2.38 Career goals by current aﬃliation

25

26

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.39 Likelihood of achieving career goal by age group

Fig. 2.40 Career goals by academic field

Fig. 2.41 Important factors to attain the desired position

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Limited Term Contracts
Many of both men and women thought that limited-term contracts “should be introduced cautiously,” but women tended to be more cautious than men. Regardless of gender, while many thought
limited-term contracts would “stimulate/contribute to research development within the organization,”quite a few also expressed negative views, such as that limited-term contracts would “make it diﬃcult
to find next position,” “make life planning diﬃcult,” or to make it diﬃcult to “tackle/commit to large
projects.” Comparing men and women, slightly more women chose negative views. However, 15 %of female respondents felt the limited-term contracts would make it “easy to return to work after childrearing break, and the like.” The fact that many women also chose “age restrictions” as a negative
factor implies that quite a few women are trying to return to work through limited-term contracts after
leaving work due to family matters.

Fig. 2.42 Opinion of limited-term contracts (including post-doctoral positions)Fig. 2.43 Reasons for opinion of limited-term contracts

27

28

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Environment and Opportunities Necessary to Further Research and Development
The diﬀerences between men and women were the least apparent in their answers to this question,
indicating that there is little gender diﬀerence in professional awareness and commitment to work in
the fields of science and technology. Regardless of gender, the highest percentages of respondents
chose “research and development funds,” “facilities for research and development,” and “time forresearch and development,” followed by “long-term project environment” and “freedom in researchand development” as necessary to further research and development. A relatively higher percentage
of female respondents chose “understanding/cooperation of supervisors,” “presence of collaborating
researchers,” and “guidance by advisors” as necessary, compared to male respondents.

Fig. 2.44 Environment and opportunities necessary to further research and development

2.1.4

Balancing Work and Family Life

Childcare Leave
Most of the male respondents depended on their spouses for childcare, but female respondents
were taking charge of childcare, using childcare leave and day-care systems. Considering that half offemale researchers and engineers are married to men in the same profession [1, p. 64], it seems theperception that “family aﬀairs and childcare are the woman’s job” still persists even in the scienceand technology professions. Approximately 40 % of women had taken childcare leave, but less than
2 % of men had, and furthermore, the average length of men’s leaves was much shorter than women’swas. As for the eﬀects of taking the childcare leave (multiple selections were allowed), approximately
70 % of both men and women returned to the same position, but almost 30 % of women responded
that their “pay increases and promotions were delayed” as a result.*6 We will discuss childcare leavein greater detail in the next section.
*6 Although very few people responded “I lost my job” or “I left my job” to this question, special attention must be paid inthis aspect, because this survey does not cover people who actually lost/left work, since these people usually leave theacademic societies as well.

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.45 Main caregiver for pre-school age children during working hours

Fig. 2.46 Percentage of respondents who have taken childcare leave

Fig. 2.47 Duration of childcare leaves

29

30

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.48 Percentage of respondents whose spouses have taken childcare leave

Fig. 2.49 Eﬀects of taking childcare leave

Evaluation of Those Who Take Childcare/Family-care Leaves
To the question “how should the organization handle those who take leave to care for children or
sick family members,” slightly more men than women responded “strict, performance-based evaluations,” and slightly more women than men responded “deal with each case on an individual basis
according to the person’s ability and track record,” but overall, the diﬀerence between men and womenwas small. The most frequent answer was “deal with each case on an individual basis according to
the person’s ability and track record,” which approximately 50 % of the respondents chose.

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Fig. 2.50 Evaluation of those who take childcare/family-care leaves

Balancing Career and Family Lives
To the question, “what do you think is necessary to maintain a balance between work and childcare, caring for sick family members, and/or time for oneself,” most of both male and female respondents chose “supportive working atmosphere,” “more flexible working hours,” and “diverse working
styles.” Notably, among men “change in work-centered mindset” was chosen frequently. Both men
and women were longing for an improvement of the leave system as indicated by the large percentage of respondents who chose “diversified leave system” and “system to allow work at home during
leave.” Women also urged more social support for childcare and family-care, as shown by answers
such as “more daycare services,” “less distance between workplace and home,” “financial support forchildcare and elder care,” and “day care services for children who are ill.” In particular, gender gaps
were noticeable for the answers “more daycare services” and “day care services for children who areill.” A gender gap was also apparent for the answer, “change in mindset regarding gender roles.”Figure 2.52 shows the results categorized by “childless,” “with children (elementary school age
and younger),” “with children (middle-school age and over),” in order to compare the diﬀerences
between having children and no children, and among various age groups. The number of women withchildren who chose “less distance between workplace and home,” “home help,” “day care services
for children who are ill,” “more flexible working hours” was particularly high, implying that theburden of household chores and childcare weighs heavily on them. The fact that the percentagesof the respondents who chose these answers were similar regardless of the children’s age indicatesthat these problems still persist. The largest diﬀerence among generations was seen in the answer,“supportive working atmosphere,” chosen more often by respondents from the younger generation.
This suggests that a working atmosphere that supports the balance between work and family life is
becoming more important, as the social systems to support working parents improve.

31

32

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.51 Factors necessary to maintain a balance between work and childcare, caring for sickfamily members and/or time for oneself

Fig. 2.52 Factors necessary to maintain a balance between work and family life by presence
and age of children

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

2.1.5

Equal Participation of Men and Women

Proportion of Female Researchers and Engineers
Most men and women chose “diﬃcult to maintain family and career” as a reason for the small
female presence in the science and engineering fields. Also, many men and women chose “women’s
mindset” as a reason. More female than male respondents chose “men’s mindset,” “women hired lessoften than men,” “diﬃcult to attain managerial positions,” or “lack of role models,” whereas a higher
percentage of male respondents (20 %) chose “gender-based diﬀerences in aptitude”.
Albeit a minority, 13 % of female respondents also chose “gender-based diﬀerences in aptitude.”Figure 2.54 shows the degree of female presence in the three categories of member societies, grouped
into high, medium, and low. (See Appendix A2 for the classification criteria.) Regardless of gender,
the percentages of respondents who chose “educational environment,” “gender-based diﬀerences inability,” “gender-based diﬀerences in aptitude” were related inversely to the degree of female presence, whereas the percentages of respondents who chose “men’s mindset” and “diﬃcult to attainmanagerial positions” were proportionate to the degree of female presence. Members of societies
with fewer women tended to choose reasons that fault women (including “educational environment”),
while societies with more women tended to choose reasons that fault men (very often men determine
staﬀ promotions to managerial positions). This is interesting, although it is understandable that thehigher the female ratio is in an academic society, the more likely it becomes that both male and female
members tend to think that the reason for the lower female ratio in the science and engineering fields
is because of men.
In any case, the fact that “diﬃcult to maintain family and career” was the most frequent answer
among both men and women implies that the entire responsibility of domestic aﬀairs and childcare is
imposed on women.

Fig. 2.53 Reasons for low proportion of female researchers and engineers

33

34

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.54 Reasons for low proportion of female researchers and engineers by degree of female
presence (see Appendix A2 for classification criteria)

Proportion of Women in Leadership Positions
As reasons for the low proportion of women in leadership positions, both men and women frequently chose “diﬃcult to maintain family and career” and “many women leave work or take leave
mid-career.” However, most (over 60 %) of the female respondents chose “evaluators’ mindset or
tendency to give preference to men” as the reason. Women also gave “workplace environment” and“lack of role models” as important factors. The percentage of female respondents who chose “womenare less eager for promotions than men” was 16 %, about double that of male respondents. Meanwhilealmost 20 % of men chose “gender-based diﬀerences in aptitude” as a reason.

Fig. 2.55 Reasons for low proportion of women in leadership positions

2.1 Summary of the Results for Each Question

Gender Gap Regarding Compensation/Promotion Issues in the Science and Technology Fields
About half of men and three-quarters of women answered “there is a gender gap regarding compensation or promotions in the science and engineering fields.”*7 There was no apparent diﬀerencein the answer to this question among the respondents from diﬀerent types of organizations. For every option listed as a gender gap issue, the number of women who chose it was higher than thatof men (multiple selections were allowed), indicating a strong dissatisfaction with the current situation.*8 Most men and women chose “hiring,” “promotion to managerial positions,” and “promotions and pay raises” in that order as areas where the gender gap was most apparent. Compared tomen, noticeably more women chose “assignment of oﬃce chores ,”*9 “evaluation of achievements,”“sponsorship/support for research and development,” and “opportunities for further study/sabbaticaldomestically and abroad.” When comparing the results among the organizations they are aﬃliatedwith, the percentages of both men and women who chose “promotions and pay raises,” “evaluationof achievements,” “opportunities for further study/sabbatical domestically and abroad,” and “training
opportunities” as areas of discrepancy were higher in the corporations than the other types of organizations. On the other hand, a slightly higher percentage of respondents from universities chose“hiring.”

Fig. 2.56 Is there a gender gap regarding compensation/promotion in the field of science and technology?

Fig. 2.57 Areas of discrepancy within the field of science and technology*7 We examined the data relative to the respondents’ positions, but found no significant diﬀerences due to position regard-

less of compensation/promotion issues.
*8 Prof. Tsugawa’s research [1, p. 20] found a wider gap between men and women. It is probably because the diﬀerence

between the questions asked in this survey and Prof. Tsugawa’s survey: we asked “do you think there is a gender
gap. . . ?” whereas Prof. Tsugawa asked “have you experienced or heard that there is a gender gap. . . ?” Far fewer men
responded positively to these questions in Prof. Tsugawa’s survey. This may indicate that not many men have actuallyexperienced or heard of discrimination, although they believe that gender discrimination may exist.
*9 As described on page 16 women spent more hours on research and development than men did. However, women whochose “assignment of oﬃce chores” as area of discrepancy spent less time on research and development (32 hours on
average) compared to other women (35 hours on average). This is similar to men’s average of 31 hours.

35

36

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.58 Areas of discrepancy within the field of science and technology by type of aﬃliated organization

Ways to Promote Gender Equality
Again, for every option listed as an answer to this question, the number of women who chose it
was higher than that of men. Most women chose “change in men’s mindset.”*10 A high percentage of both men and women chose “improve the workplace environment.” Many of both men andwomen chose “men/women should balance family and careers,” but it is worthwhile to mention thata particularly high percentage of women chose “men should balance family and careers.” The otheranswers where a gender gap was apparent were: “improve the understanding/cooperation of supervisors,” “establish a time-limited period of aﬃrmative action for women,” “abolish job-related age
limits,” “increase opportunities for women researchers to network,” “allow married couples retain
their original surnames,” and “improve system of limited-term positions.”

Fig. 2.59 Ways to promote gender equality*10 We did not specify the meaning of the answer “change in mens’ mindset” in this survey. Balancing career and family

would be included in this, but further research is required.

2.2 Detailed Analysis of Important Issues

2.2 Detailed Analysis of Important Issues
2.2.1

Gender Gap in Positions

As described in Section 2.1.1 (p. 15, “Current Position”), when we compiled all the data it became
apparent that the higher the position is, the smaller the percentage of women is that hold those positions. We examined this trend further by taking age distribution in consideration. We used a positionindex in order to analyze the data quantitatively. The position index was the same used in the genderequality survey conducted by The Japan Society of Applied Physics in 2001 [7], and is defined asfollows: for each organization, job positions are aligned from lowest to highest between 0 and 10,
and based on the number of people in the organization, the aggregate median value is defined as the
position index. For example, if a corporation has entry-level employees, team/group leaders, section
head, department/division head, operations managers, and executive directors, and their respective
percentage in the number of employees to the total number of employees are 27 %, 23 %, 15 %, 2 %,and 7 %, then the position index for respective positions would be 1.4, 3.9, 6.3, 8.4, 9.2, and 9.6.
Figure 2.60 shows the position index for corporations, universities, and public research institutions,based on the actual position distribution data. This allows us to compare positions between diﬀerent
types of aﬃliated organizations and age groups.
Figure 2.61 shows the job position index by gender and age group for each type of aﬃliated organization. In all three types of organization, a significant gender gap occurred in every age group.
Since there are not many women over 50 years old in corporations, it is diﬃcult to discuss the gendergap for these age groups quantitatively, but we can see that women in their 30’s lagged behind men
in promotions by approximately two years and by 3 to 4 years in the 40’s age group. The gender gap
in corporations was smaller for the age groups under 40, relative to the other organization types. On
the other hand, the gender gap in the position index at universities was very wide, and women lagged
behind men in promotions by more than 5 years. If we look at just the averages, men were usuallypromoted to associate professor in their late 30’s and to professor in their late 40’s, whereas women
were promoted to lecturer in their late 30’s, associate professor in their late 40’s, and then do not
become full professors before their 60’s.

Fig. 2.60 Definition of job position index

37

38

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.61 Job position index by gender and age group for each type of aﬃliated organization

In order to examine the gender gap in positions at universities in more detail, we compiled theresults for each academic field (Fig. 2.62). In the field of physics, the gender gap began to appear
in the 40’s age group, and the job position index for women peaked at about 4. This indicates thatwomen in these age groups were not being promoted to associate professors. This tendency was also
apparent in the surveys described earlier, which were conducted by JSAP [7] and JPS [8] at about
the same time. Our survey confirmed that the issues surrounding job positions in the physics fieldat universities, pointed out by these earlier surveys, still persist. The “associate professor wall” forwomen also clearly exists in the chemical and material engineering field, where the gender gap starts
in the 30’s age group. In the field of life science and biology where the female presence is relatively
high, the gender gap is not as wide as in the preceding two fields, but a gender gap did occur acrossall age groups. The job position index for women peaked at 5+ (senior associate professor level)in the late 50’s age group. Even though female researchers in the life science and biology field areworking hard in a demanding environment with long working hours, a “professor wall” still exists
which is hard to overcome. It is interesting that there was no gender gap in the civil engineering field,
where the female presence was relatively high. Although the data are not very reliable due to thesmall sample size for the electronics and information field and mechanical engineering field where
the female presence is low, the gender gap in these fields was also narrow.
We also examined the number of subordinates and the size of the research and development budget
by gender for each type of aﬃliated organization, as shown in Fig. 2.63 and Fig. 2.64, to see if there
were any other gender gaps missed by the job position index.
With corporations, the number of subordinates for both men and women increased in proportion to
the age group, peaking at approximately 13 for men and approximately 9 for women. The increase2.2 Detailed Analysis of Important Issues

Fig. 2.62 Job position index at universities by academic fieldin the number of subordinates for women tended to lag behind men, as with the job position index,
but this lag seemed to be even bigger than for promotion. The results were similar for the researchand development budgets. With universities, the number of subordinates for women barely increased
for women in the higher age groups, and typically stayed at 3 to 4 subordinates, which is equivalent
to men in the 30’s age group. Therefore, the gender gap here is clearly wider than seen with the job
position index. The same can be said for the research and development budget.*11 The gender gap
at public research institutions was even more extreme. Although the gender gap in the job positionindex was narrower at public research institutions than at universities, the gender gap in the numberof subordinates and the research and development budget was clearly wider.*12*11 The data in Fig. 2.64 includes those from part-time and limited-term full-time respondents. However, the patterns ofdata solely from permanent full-time respondents are similar.
*12 At public research institutes, both the number of subordinates and the size of the research and development budget for

39

40

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.63 Number of subordinate staﬀ by type of aﬃliated organization

2.2 Detailed Analysis of Important Issues

Fig. 2.64 Annual research and development budget by type of aﬃliated organization

41

42

Chapter 2 Survey Results
To summarize the above, the survey results clearly showed a significant gender gap in the job positions of the science and engineering fields and that the gender gap was even wider in the distribution of
resources, such as subordinates and research and development budget, which are critical for researchand development projects.

2.2.2

Childcare Leave

In Section 2.1.4 (“Child Care Leave,” p. 28), we reported that approximately 40 % of women hadtaken childcare leave as opposed to just less than 2 % of men. In order to examine the current situationof childcare leave taken by women in detail, we compiled the percentage of women who had taken
childcare leave by age group for each type of organization (Fig. 2.65).*13 The vertical axis indicatesthe percentage of mothers who had taken childcare leave. For corporations, the percentage of mothers
who had taken childcare leave was extremely high for the younger age groups, as they probably took
advantage of the new Childcare Leave Law. The percentage was almost 90 % in the 30’s age group.
In contrast, the percentage of mothers who had taken childcare leave at universities or public research
institutions remained at some 50 % for the same age group, although it was higher with the younger
generations as well.*14 Considering that about 10 % of the women even in the older age groups had

Fig. 2.65 Percentage of women with children who took childcare leave, by type of aﬃliated organization

male researchers tend to be polarized with age, between the high-ranking researchers and ordinary researchers. The
proportion of female researchers in the high-ranking positions is extremely low at these institutes, and the distributionof the female researchers’ job titles mainly span from the low to medium ranks.
*13 As for men, the percentage of men who have taken childcare leave increased with the younger generation, but there wasno diﬀerence among diﬀerent types of organizations, other than that the percentage of men in their 20’s who have taken
childcare leave was higher for corporations than universities or public research institutes.
*14 According to a research [9] conducted by the former Ministry of Labor in 1999, 76.3 % of working women who worked
for companies with 500 or more employees and 71.4 % of working women who worked for companies with 100 to
499 employees had taken childcare leave in 1998. The high percentage of the women who have taken childcare leaveindicated in this survey was probably because many of the researchers and engineers who work in the private sector
work for large corporations. The percentage of the women who have taken childcare leave at universities and publicresearch institutes indicated by this survey is very low compared to the data from the survey conducted by the Ministryof Labor.

2.2 Detailed Analysis of Important Issues

Fig. 2.66 Length of childcare leave and its eﬀects (women only)

taken childcare leave at universities and public research institutions, it seems that the Childcare Leave
Law enacted in 1992 is not benefiting working women at universities and public research institutions
as much as at corporations.
As for the eﬀect of taking the childcare leave, almost all men answered that they were able to continue the same work as before, but approximately 30 % of women responded that their promotions orraises were delayed (Fig. 2.49). Figure 2.66 shows the relationship between the duration of childcare
leaves and the eﬀects. As childcare leaves become longer, the percentage of women who were able
to continue the same work as before decreased, whereas the percentage of women who claimed thattaking a leave delayed promotions or raises increased. If we look at the age distribution of the women
who thought their promotions or raises were delayed, they were mostly in their 30’s to early 40’s,
indicating that more than 30 % of women in these age groups who took childcare leave have such
perceptions.*15 This means that these issues have not been relegated to the past, but are still urgent
concerns at this very moment, facing working women who give birth to and raise children.
Options to have children as they wish and to take childcare leave as needed without any repercussions are critical to balancing work and family life. This survey made it clear that women working inthe science and engineering fields are under strong pressure to choose between work and family.*16
Furthermore, men are completely disconnected from these issues. These data seem to reflect an extremely unbalanced situation, which is far from the ideal gender-equal society where diﬀerent values
are respected regardless of the gender.

*15 Men who thought that their promotions/raises were delayed as a result of taking childcare leave were all in the higher

age groups, and there were hardly any men in their 30’s or 40’s who claimed any disadvantage associated with taking
childcare leave.
*16 Figure 2.13 on p. 12 indicates that it was diﬃcult for older generations to have children, especially for women that are
now 40 and over and working at universities or public research institutes, and for women of 50 and over working at
corporations.

43

44

Chapter 2 Survey Results

Fig. 2.67 Number and percentage of women who thought taking childcare leave delayed promotions/raises

2.2.3

Limited-term Full-time Positions and Part-time Positions Including
Postdocs

As the government promotes the Science and Technology Basic Plan, more and more researchers,
especially in younger generations, are working as limited-term full-time contractors (including postdoctoral positions) or as part-time employees. As described in section 2.1.3 (“Limited Term Contracts,” p. 27), there are positive aspects to these positions, as they oﬀer a way for people to return towork after taking childcare leave and they can revitalize research organizations. However, they alsopose many issues for young researchers who want careers as independent researchers. Problems associated with these positions include the lack of job security, poorer treatment under the social security
system, a shortage of discretionary research budgets, etc.
The analysis in this section focuses on the research budget for full-time positions with limited
contracts and part-time positions, mainly post-doctoral positions. Figure 2.68 shows the distributionof the annual research budgets for postdoctoral positions in each academic field. Overall, more than
20 % of the postdocs answered that they had no budget for their discretionary use. In particular, over
30 % of postdocs in physics were allowed zero research budget. Although they may have a separate
travel or supplies budgets, the fact that they answered “0” indicates that the respondents perceived
that they have no freedom to conduct their own research when cost is an issue.
Figure 2.69 compares the annual research budgets among permanent full-time, full-time withlimited-term contract, and part-time respondents, including postdocs. We compiled only the datafrom respondents in their 30’s. We chose this group because the size of their research budget is amatter of life and death for them, since postdocs of this generation are trying to obtain permanent
positions based on their accomplishments made in their 30’s. When comparing men and women,
women had smaller budgets than men in each category: permanent full-time, full-time with limitedterm contracts, and part-time. For both men and women, the budgets of full-time researchers withlimited-term contracts were smaller than that of permanent full-time researchers, and part-time researchers received even less, by a large margin. As much as 60 % of part-time researchers received
only a very small budget (up to 500,000 yen per year), and almost 40 % received no budget at all.

2.2 Detailed Analysis of Important Issues

Fig. 2.68 Annual Research Budget for Postdoctoral Positions in Each Academic Field

Fig. 2.69 Annual Research Budget among Permanent Full-Time, Full-Time with Limited-Term
Contract, and Part-Time 30’s Respondents

Only full-time researchers can apply for public grants for science and research projects.*17 Similar
constraints exist in many of the other governmental or private research support systems. The current
situation is nothing but unfair, where the mere position of employment determines whether or not a
research budget is available. This is a particularly dire issue for women who are already disadvantaged
in terms of research budgets compared to men.

*17 Technicians are not allowed to apply for budgets even if they are in full-time positions.

45

47

Chapter 3

Issues and Recommendations
3.1 Current Situation and Issues
The survey revealed the following circumstances and issues:• Regardless of the gender, most of the researchers and engineers chose their current occupations under their own initiative and with positive attitudes. Also, hardly any gender diﬀerence
was observed in their awareness of the requirements for research and development. Many
respondents wanted environments that foster long-term projects and freedom in research anddevelopment, in addition to the fundamental resources, such as funding, equipment, and time.
On the other hand, it is worthwhile to mention that many researchers and engineers thought
gender equality should be promoted through the “improvement of the workplace environment”
and “balancing family and career.” They seemed to be attending not only to work but also tofamily and community, which should be respected.
• There is clearly a gender gap in the treatment of men and women in the science and engineering
fields. We found gender inequality in the rank of their positions, but the gender inequality inthe allocation of basic resources necessary for research and development, such as the numberof subordinates and funding, was even greater. Women are relatively disadvantaged. Althoughvarious government policies to promote women’s participation in society have improved thetreatment of women at corporations, quite a few problems still remain, as shown by the dissatisfaction with the treatment after taking childcare leave and also by the gender gaps seen in
the number of subordinates and research and development funding. At universities and publicresearch institutions, the gender gap in positions was extremely wide, but the gender gap waseven wider in the allocation of research resources. It is hardly a rewarding environment for
female researchers’ hard work.
• One cause for the above gender inequality may be the social pressure imposed only on women
to reconcile family life with work. The current situation, where female researchers and engineers have far fewer children than men, seems almost abnormal. “Diﬃcult to combine family
and career” was chosen as one of the reasons for a smaller female presence in the science andengineering fields and in leadership positions. This is a result of the long-standing tradition
that made family aﬀairs and childbearing the responsibility of women, and locking in the rolesof men and women. We should pay attention to the fact that many female respondents chose“change in men’s mindset” and “men should balance family and careers” as requirements torealize a gender-equal society, and that they chose “evaluator’s mindset or tendency to give
preference to men” as a reason that fewer women are attaining leadership positions.

48

Chapter 3 Issues and Recommendations• The limited-term employment system has room for improvement. Unfounded age limits on
employment should be eliminated, considering that the limited-term employment system iscurrently (or may be) serving as an eﬀective way for researchers and engineers to return towork after taking a leave of absence due to childbearing, etc. However, limited-term or parttime employees are obviously receiving detrimental treatment compared to permanent fulltime employees in terms of research budget funding. This poses a problem, since it could limit
the opportunities for limited-term or part-time employees to have freedom of research.

3.2 Recommendations
Even within the fields of science and engineering, diﬀerent people have diﬀerent values and pursue
diﬀerent goals. Ideally, there should be diverse options available for both men and women. We would
like to make the following recommendations based on the above survey results, in order to achieve atruly gender equal society where diverse values are respected regardless of gender.
• Make it easy for employees to take leaves as needed to balance work and family lives, such as
for childcare. In particular, universities and public research institutions are urged to improvetheir environments. We also need to promote men’s commitment to family and society, in orderto balance the roles between men and women, since they are currently extremely unbalanced.
Encourage men to increase their contributions to family and society through various measures,such as childcare leave.
• Ensure that any gender discrimination from hiring and promotional decision making processes
is completely eliminated. People in leadership positions should realize that in fields where theratio of men and women is extremely unbalanced, such as in the science and engineering fields,
the small female presence itself could become a limiting factor for women trying to make fulluse of their abilities.
• Eliminate unfounded age limits on various limited-term (or part-time) positions. These positions should be available as important steps for men and women that want to re-challengethemselves.
• Improve the research funding system for part-time researchers to allow them the freedom to
conduct research independently. In particular, special attention should be paid to female researchers who would benefit from additional consideration since they are often disadvantaged
in terms of allocation of research resources.

49

Bibliography[1] Akiko Tsugawa: “Realizing Female Researchers’ Full Potential in the Science and Engineering
Field,” Science and Technology Promotional Budget Report for Fiscal 2001/2002 (March 2003).
[2] Council for Supporting Diverse Careers for Women: “Diverse Career Options Transform theSociety,” Report I (Support for Female Researchers) March 25, 2003.
[3] Gender Equality Conference Fundamental Issue Committee: “Support Measures for Women’s
Challenges” (April 2003).
[4] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology: “Basic Survey of SchoolsInstitutions of Higher Education” (2003).
[5] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare: “FY2001 Basic Survey of Working Women” (2002).
[6] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare: “Monthly Labor Statistics” (2001).
[7] Miyoko Watanabe, Emi Tamechika, Kay Domen, Yoshiko Okada: “Current Conditions and Issuesof JSAP Members—Report on the Survey by the Gender Equality Committee” Oyo Butsuri, 71(2002) 510. Detailed data available at http://www.jsap.or.jp/activities/gender/[8] The Paris Conference Preparation Committee Survey Analysis Group: “Report I on the JPS Member Survey—Research Environment for Female Physicists” Buturi 57 (2002) 345. Also refer tothe other reports on the same survey project: “Report II—Family and Career” Butsuri 57 (2002)
600 and “Report III—Research Activities of Female Physicists” Butsuri 57 (2002) 673. A booklet
that includes these articles, as well as the basic data from the survey results, is available from theJapan Society of Physics.
[9] Ministry of Labor, Women’s Oﬃce, Women’s Welfare Division: “FY1999 Basic Survey on Working Women” (2000).

51

Appendix
A1 Questionnaire
Questionnaire Adapted from Gender Equality Surveyof Science and Technology Professionals
1. Age  24 or under  25-29  30-34  35-39  40-44  45-49  50-54  55-59  60 or above
2. Gender  Male  Female
3. Marital status  Married  Single
4. Children How many children do you have?  None  1  2  3  4 or more
Their age(s) (mark all that apply):  Below school age  Primary school age  Junior High school age
 High school age  Undergraduate Working  Other
5. What is your highest academic degree?  Undergraduate  Master’s  Ph.D.  Other
6. Do you hold a doctoral degree? If you do, what type of degree is it? Mark both “course” and “noncourse” if appropriate.  I don’t have a doctoral degree  Course  Non-course(Note: “Course” doctorates are conferred upon those who complete graduate school courses, whereas“non-course” doctorates do not require enrollment in the graduate school.)
7. To which academic societies do you belong? Mark all that apply.
 The Mathematical Society of Japan  The Physical Society of Japan Atomic Energy Society of Japan  Astronomical Society of Japan Japanese Society for Biological Sciences in Space  The Japan Society of Applied Physics
 The Magnetics Society of Japan The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers
 Information Processing Society of Japan  The Chemical Society of Japan The Society of Chemical Engineers, Japan  The Electrochemical Society of Japan The Society of Polymer Science, Japan  The Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry The Japanese Biochemical Society  The Japanese Society of Plant Physiologists
 The Biophysical Society of Japan  Protein Science Society of Japan Physiological Society of Japan  The Japan Society for Comparative Endocrinology
 The Zoological Society of Japan  The Molecular Biology Society of Japan The Japanese Society of Developmental Biologist  Japan Society for Cell Biology
 The Japanese Geotechnical Society  The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers
 Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, Inc.  The Illuminating Engineering Institute of Japan The Japan Society for Precision Engineering  The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering Architectural Institute of Japan  The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan Japanese Liquid Crystal Society  The Society of Japanese Women Scientists
 Japanese Women Engineers Forum Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences  The Japan Institute of Metal Japan Association for Fire Science and Engineering  Japanese Society for Mathematical Biology
 Other
8. What is your current employment status?  Student  Full-time employee (permanent position)

52

Chapter 4 Appendix
 Full-time (with limited-term contract)  Part-time employee  Unemployed  Other
If you are employed on a limited-term contract, how many years is your term?  Less than 2 years
 Over 2 but less than 3 years  Over 3 but less than 5 years  5 years or more
Is your contract renewable?  Yes  No
9. What type of organization do you belong to? (If you have left work, please respond to questions 9-16
with your most recent position in mind.)  Corporation  National university
 Public university (municipal)  Private university  Other educational institution
 Public research institution (national research institution, corporation, foundation, etc.)  Other
10. What is your current position?
Corporation
 Entry-level employee  Team/group leader or senior researcher/scientist
 Section head or laboratory chief  Department/division head or director
 Operations manager/director  Executive director/oﬃcer or above  Other
University
 Undergraduate student  Graduate student  Research student  Post-doctoral fellow
 Technician  Research associate  Lecturer  Associate professor  Professor  Other
Public research institution
 Post-doctoral fellow  Researcher/scientist  Senior researcher/scientist
 Team/group laboratory chief/head  Division/department head or director
 Operations manager/director  Other
11. Hours spent at your workplace
11.1 How many hours per week do you spend at your workplace?
 Under 20  20-39  40-49  50-69  70-89  90 or over
11.2 How many of the above hours do you spend on research and development?
 0  1-9  10-19  20-39  40-49  50-69  70-89  90 or over
12. Hours spent working from home12.1 How many hours per week do you work at home?
 0  1-4  5-9  10-29  30 or above
12.2 How many of the above hours do you spend on research and development?
 0  1-4  5-9  10-29  30 or above
13. How many people do you supervise? (If you are with a university, how many people do you advise,
excluding undergraduates?)  0  1-3  4-6  7-15  16-30  31 or more
14. What is your total annual research and development budget, excluding personnel costs? If you are representing your research group or project team, please check the total amount allocated to your group/team.
 0 yen  Under 500,000 yen  500,000-1,000,000 yen  1,000,000-5,000,000 yen 5,000,000-20,000,000 yen  20,000,000-50,000,000 yen  50,000,000 yen or above
15. Why did you choose your current occupation? Mark all that apply.
 For academic satisfaction/intellectual stimulation  To make full use of my abilities
 Because I find this work attractive  To earn a high income  Job security
 Able to balance family and career  Free of gender discrimination  To benefit society
 To achieve status/fame  No other satisfactory work was available  Because I was oﬀered the job
 Parents/ friends recommended it  Near my home  No relocation required Flexible working hours  Other
16. Your future career path (For those who have left work, please respond as you would have in your mostrecent position.)
16.1 In the future, what type of position do you wish to hold? (If you wish to continue in your present
position, please respond as such.) Leader of academic research laboratory  Work in academic research  Business management
 Business administration  Work in research and development in the private sector  Education

Questionnaire Local government  Entrepreneur  Not sure  Other
16.2 Please choose up to 5 factors you consider important in achieving that position. Mark all that apply.
 Talent  Dedication  Physical strength  Eﬃciency  Time spent on work  Social skills
 Gender  Personal connections  Cooperation from or mentoring by one’s supervisors
 Support from family  System of hiring, evaluation and promotion  Social support systems
 Location of work  Don’t know
16.3 Please rate the likelihood of your achieving your desired position.
 Already achieved  Possible with some eﬀort  Unlikely  Don’t know
17. Have you ever considered leaving/changing your job or have you ever actually left/changed jobs?
 I have left work  I have changed jobs  I have considered leaving work
 I have considered changing jobs
 I have neither considered leaving/changing nor actually left/changed jobs
17.1 If you have ever left work or changed jobs, please mark the reason(s). Mark all that apply.
 To further my career  Better income  To avoid relocation required by previous employer Job relocation of family member  Workplace location  End of contract  Marriage
 Childrearing  Caring for sick family member  Concern for the future Gender discrimination  Diﬃcult personal relations  Unhappy with previous workplace Laid-oﬀ or dismissed  Other
17.2 f you have ever left or changed jobs, what was your subsequent employment status? Mark all that
apply.
 Full-time  Full-time (limited-term contract)  Part-time  Other
17.3 Into what type of field did you move? Mark all that apply.
 University  National /public research institution  School education-related
 Private enterprise (research and development)
 Private enterprise (survey research and consulting) Private enterprise (non-research related work)  Public administration  Other
18. What is your view on limited-term contracts (non-tenured positions), including post-doctoral positions?
 Should be introduced extensively  Should be introduced cautiously  Should be abolished Don’t know
Reason(s) for your view (mark all that apply) Easy to change jobs  Able to change jobs based on one’s achievements
 Stimulates/contributes to research development within the organization
 Facilitates life planning  Easy to return to work after childrearing break, and the like
 Cannot tackle/commit to large projects  Makes life planning diﬃcult
 Diﬃcult to find next position  Age restrictions
 Disadvantages in terms of social security/pensions and the like  Other
19. If you have children, please answer this question.
19.1 Who was the primary caregiver for your children during working hours before they reached school
age? Mark all that apply.
 Myself  My spouse  Cohabiting relatives  Relatives or friends  Day care center Babysitter
19.2 To what extent were you able to take childcare leave?
 Received suﬃcient leave  Received leave, but it was insuﬃcient  Did not receive leave
Reason(s) (mark all that apply) I received support and understanding from my workplace
 I wanted to look after my children myself
 I couldn’t find anyone to look after my children
 I received leave until my children entered day care
 I didn’t want to interrupt my career  I didn’t want my income to decrease

53

54

Chapter 4 Appendix
 I didn’t feel it was necessary  I was able to find someone to look after my children There was no leave system There was an adequate leave system, but my workplace environment prevented mefrom taking leave  Other
If you took leave, what was the average duration per each child, exclusive of maternity leave?
 Less than 1 month  1-3 months  3-6 months  6-12 months  12-24 months
 24 months or more
19.3 If you took childcare leave, what was the subsequent eﬀect on your working conditions? Mark allthat apply.
 Continued same work as before leave  Position changed  Working section changed
 Pay increases and promotions were delayed  I lost my job  I left my job
19.4 How much childcare leave has your spouse taken (average per child, excluding maternity leave)?
 N/A-Unemployed  Did not receive leave  Less than 1 month  1-3 months  3-6 months
 6-12 months  12-24 months  24 months or more
If your spouse did not take leave, what were the reason(s)? Mark all that apply.
 Too busy at work  Didn’t want income to decrease Didn’t feel it necessary  There was no leave system There was an adequate leave system, but my workplace environment prevented mefrom taking leave  We were able to find someone to look after our children  Other
20. What do you think is necessary to maintain a balance between work and childcare, caring for sick family
members, and/or time for oneself? Mark all that apply.
 Diverse working styles  Shortened working hours  Change in work-centered mindset
 Change in mindset regarding gender roles  Lessen distance between workplace and home
 More paid holidays  Support staﬀ for experiments  Home help  More daycare services
 Better care services for the elderly  Diversified leave system Financial support for childcare and elder care  Day care services for children who are ill Government subsidies for the workplace while employees are on leave Availability of replacement staﬀ during leave  System to allow work at home during leave Work-sharing system  More flexible working hours  Supportive working atmosphere Other  Nothing in particular
21. How should organization handle those who take leave to care for children or sick family members? Mark
all that apply.
 Reduce pay for duration of leave  Delay pay raises and promotions for the duration of leave Continue to delay pay raises and promotions subsequent to leave Give special consideration in the performance review to those who take leave Deal with each case on an individual basis according to the person’s ability and track record
 Strict performance-based evaluations  Other  I don’t know
22. What sort of environment and opportunities are necessary to further research and development? Mark allthat apply.
 Time for research and development  Facilities for research and development
 Research and development funds  Sponsorship/support for research and development
 Opportunity for further study domestically and abroad  Understanding/cooperation of supervisors
 Guidance by advisors  Freedom in research and development
 Environment fostering long-term projects  Presence of collaborating researchers Opportunities to educate students, entry-level employees, etc.
 Opportunities to present research findings  Evaluation of research achievements
 Appropriate evaluation of ability  Other’s expectations of success  Other
23. Mark all that apply.
23.1 Why to you think there are fewer women than men in the science and technology fields?

Questionnaire Educational environment  Home environment  Workplace environment
 Social gender roles  Prejudice  Gender-based diﬀerences in ability
 Gender-based diﬀerences in aptitude  Women’s mindset  Men’s mindset
 Lifetime employment system  Lack of role models  Diﬃcult to maintain family and career Women hired less often than men  Diﬃcult to attain managerial positions  Other
23.2 What do you think is the reason(s) for the low proportion of women in leadership positions?
 Evaluators’ mindset or tendency to give preference to men
 Women have shown inadequate achievements  Diﬃcult to combine family and career Many women leave work or take leave mid-career Women are less eager for promotion than are men  Gender-based diﬀerences in ability
 Gender-based diﬀerences in aptitude  Lack of role models  Workplace environment  Other
23.3 Do you think there is a gender gap regarding compensation or promotions in the science and technology fields?  Yes  No
If yes, in what area(s) (mark all that apply) Hiring  Promotion to managerial positions  Promotions and pay raises
 Allocation of research and development funds
 Sponsorship/support for research and development  Evaluation of achievements
 Assignment of oﬃce chores
 Opportunities for further study/sabbatical domestically and abroad Opportunities for presentation/self-promotion  Training opportunities  Other
24. What do you think is needed in future for women to participate fully in the science and technology fields?
Mark all that apply.
 Improve the workplace environment  Improve gender-equality systems
 Improve current evaluation systems  Strengthen social security/pension systems
 Improve the understanding/cooperation of supervisors
 Establish a time-limited period of aﬃrmative action for women Abolish job-related age limits  Increase opportunities for women researchers to network Change in women’s mindset  Change in men’s mindset
 Allow married couples to retain their original surnames  Women should balance family and careers
 Men should balance family and careers  Introduce system of limited-term positions
 Improve system of limited-term positions  Abolish system of limited-term positions
 No particular measures required

55

56

Chapter 4 Appendix

A2 Academic Societies Involveded in This Survey Project
The following 39 academic societies, including 21 full members and 17 observers of EPMEWSE,
and a guest collaborator have participated in this project. The labels shown in the parentheses areused to refer them in this report instead of their oﬃcial abbreviations.
Full Members (Name, [label used in the report/oﬃcial abbreviation])
The Japan Society of Applied Physics (Appl. Phys./JSAP)The Society of Chemical Engineers, Japan (Chem. Eng./SCEJ)The Society of Polymer Science, Japan (Polymer Sci./SPSJ)The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers (Elec. Info. Comm./IEICE)Japanese Society for Biological Sciences in Space (Bio. Space/JSBSS)
The Chemical Society of Japan (Chemistry/CSJ)
Atomic Energy Society of Japan (Atomic Energy/AESJ)Japan Society for Cell Biology (Cell Biology/JSCB)The Japanese Society of Plant Physiologists (Plant Physio./JSPP)The Society of Japanese Women Scientists (Women Scientists, or SJWS/SJWS)The Mathematical Society of Japan (Mathematics/MSJ)The Japanese Biochemical Society (Biochemistry/JBS)
The Biophysical Society of Japan (Biophysics/BSJ)
Physiological Society of Japan (Physiology/PSJ)
Protein Science Society of Japan (Protein Sci./PSSJ)
Astronomical Society of Japan (Astronomy/ASJ)The Zoological Society of Japan (Zoology/ZSJ)The Japanese Society of Developmental Biologists (Develop. Bio./JSDB)The Japan Society for Comparative Endocrinology (Comp. Endocr./JSCE)
The Physical Society of Japan (Physics/JPS)The Molecular Biology Society of Japan (Mol. Biology/MBSJ)

Observers (Name, [label used in the report/oﬃcial abbreviation])
The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers (Image Info. Tv/ITE)
Society of Automotive Engineers in Japan, Inc. (Automo. Eng./JSAE)
The Japanese Geotechnical Society (Geotech./JGS)
Information Processing Society of Japan (Info. Process./IPS)The Illuminating Engineering Institute (Illum. Eng./IEIJ)The Japan Society for Precision Engineering (Precision Eng./JSPE)
Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences (Earth Space, or SGEPSS/SGEPSS)The Electrochemical Society of Japan (Electrochem./ECSJ)Japanese Liquid Crystal Society (Liq. Crystal/JLCS)The Magnetics Society of Japan (Magnetics/MSJ)
Japan Association for Fire Science and Engineering (Fire Sci. Eng./JAFSE)The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering (Mechanic. Eng./JSME)The Japan Institute of Metal (Metal/JIM)
Architectural Institute of Japan (Architecture/AIJ)
Japanese Women Engineers Forum (Women Engineer, or JWEF/JWEF)
The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan (Iron Steel/ISIJ)The Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry (Anal. Chem./JSAC)

Guest Collaborator (Name, [label used in the report/oﬃcial abbreviation])
Japanese Society for Mathematical Biology (Math. Bio./JSMB)

Academic Societies Involved in This Survey ProjectIn the analysis of the questionnaire response, the above-mentioned academic societies are classified
into the following seven academic fields.
Mathematics field
Mathematics
Electronics and information fieldElec. Info. Comm., Image Info. Tv, Info. Process., Illum. Eng.
Physics field
Appl. Phys., Atomic Energy, Astronomy, Physics, Magnetics, SGEPSS
Chemical and material engineering field
Chem. Eng., Polymer Sci., Chemistry, Electrochem., Liq. Crystal, Fire Sci. Eng., Metal,
Iron Steel, Anal. Chem.
Life science and biology field
Bio. Space, Cell Biology, Plant Physio., Biochemistry, Biophysics, Physiology, Protein Sci.,
Zoology, Develop. Bio., Comp. Endocr., Mol. Biology, Math. Bio.
Civil engineering field
Geotech., Architecture
Mechanical engineering field
Automo. Eng., Precision Eng., Mechanic. Eng.

Additionally, the academic societies are classified by the ratio of woman respondent in a part of thequestion as follows.
Academic societies of which the woman respondent ratio is high (over 24 %)Illum. Eng., Biochemistry, Plant Physio., Zoology, Mol. Biology, Develop. Bio., Cell Biology,
SJWS, JWEF
Academic societies of which the woman respondent ratio is medium (10–24 %)Mathematics, Info. Process., Physics, Astronomy, SGEPSS, Chemistry, Electrochem.,
Polymer Sci., Anal. Chem., Iron Steel, Liq. Crystal, Bio. Space, Biophysics, Protein Sci.,
Physiology, Comp. Endocr., Math. Bio., Architecture
Academic societies of which the woman respondent ratio is low (less than 10 %)Elec. Info. Comm., Image Info. Tv, Atomic Energy, Appl. Phys., Chem. Eng., Metal,
Fire Sci. Eng., Geotech., Automo. Eng., Precision Eng., Mechanic. Eng., Magnetics

57

58

Chapter 4 Appendix

A3. Basic Statistics by Association
Table. 4.1 Respondents by Gender and Association
Association
Total
Mathematics
Elec. Info. Comm.
Info. Process
Image Info. Tv
Illum. Eng.
Physiics
Atomic Energy
Astronomy
Appl. Phys.
Magnetics
SGEPSS
Chemistry
Chem. Eng.
Electrochem.
Polymer Sci.
Anal. Chem.
Iron Steel
Liq. Crystal
Metal
Fire Sci. Eng.
Bio. Space
Biochemistry
Plant Physio.
Biophysics
Protein Sci.
Physiology
Comp. Endocr.
ZoologyMol. Biology
Develop. Bio.
Cell Biology
Math. Bio.
Geotech.
Architechture
Automo. Eng.
Precision Eng.
Mechanic. Eng.
Women Scientists
Women Engineers
OthersNumber of
Respondents
19291
502
2274
659
291
67
2492
402
259
3068
282
107
1932
842
205
447
178
161
69
271
49
48
1329
499
822
322
370
175
584
2878
480
330
20
455
2204
159
130
1172
48
33
5072

Respondents by Gender
Male
Female
N/A
16140
3104
47
440
60
2
2056
212
6
547
110
2
267
23
1
49
18
0
2234
252
6
372
30
0
211
46
2
2817
244
7
264
18
0
86
21
0
1638
293
1
804
35
3
174
31
0
382
63
2
142
36
0
142
19
0
61
8
0
245
25
1
48
1
0
39
9
0
998
329
2
354
145
0
676
145
1
267
54
1
288
82
0
140
35
0
427
155
2
2079
795
4
339
139
2
229
100
1
18
2
0
427
28
0
1872
327
5
153
6
0
123
6
1
1099
69
4
2
46
0
3
30
0
4124
938
10

% of Female
Respondents (A)
16.1
12.0
9.3
16.7
7.9
26.9
10.1
7.5
17.9
8.0
6.4
19.6
15.2
4.2
15.1
14.2
20.2
11.8
11.6
9.3
2.0
18.8
24.8
29.1
17.7
16.8
22.2
20.0
26.6
27.7
29.1
30.4
10.0
6.2
14.9
3.8
4.7
5.9
95.8
90.9
18.5

% of Female
Members (B)

A/B

5
2.3
4
1.7
14.3
4.5
2.3
7.3

2.4
4.0
4.2
4.6
1.9
2.2
3.3
2.5

3

2.1

8.4
3.8

1.8
1.1

7.1
10.5
1.1

2.0
1.9
10.7

12.8
19.6
18.7
14

1.5
1.3
1.6
1.3

14.2
14.9
20.2
20.1
12.9
19.3

1.6
1.3
1.3
1.4
2.3
1.6

1.5
9.2
0.6

4.1
1.6
6.3

1

5.9

Basic Statistics by Association

59

Table. 4.2 Respondents by Aﬃliation and Association
Association

Total
Mathematics
Physics
Atomic Energy
Astronomy
Bio. Space
Appl. Phys.
Magnetics
Elec. Info. Comm.
Info. Process
Chemistry
Chem. Eng.
Electrochem.
Polymer Sci.
Anal. Chem.
Biochemistry
Plant Physio.
Biophysics
Protein Sci.
Physiology
Comp. Endocr.
ZoologyMol. Biology
Develop. Bio.
Cell Biology
Geotech.
Image Info. Tv
Automo. Eng.
Illum. Eng.
Precision Eng.
Mechanic. Eng.
Architecture
Iron Steel
Liq. Crystal
Women Scientists
Women Engineers
SGEPSS
Metal
Fire Sci. Eng.
Math. Bio.
Others

Total

19291
502
2492
402
259
48
3068
282
2274
659
1932
842
205
447
178
1329
499
822
322
370
175
584
2878
480
330
455
291
159
67
130
1172
2204
161
69
48
33
107
271
49
20
5072

Corporation
6944
7
453
160
12
2
1494
139
1225
220
577
442
63
138
51
120
22
75
36
12
9
21
289
15
13
349
165
126
13
46
674
1242
63
20
3
16
0
64
21
1
1489

National
Univ.
5904
258
1035
77
121
26
739
75
466
185
724
212
85
161
54
609
253
379
159
171
77
289
1336
247
177
46
45
5
13
34
207
262
50
22
8
3
53
127
4
11
1614

Public
Univ.
604
34
73
2
7
4
75
3
63
37
60
10
5
9
7
77
31
50
23
41
7
41
120
23
16
4
9
2
3
2
25
46
4
4
4
0
4
5
0
2
182

Aﬃliation
PrivateOther
Univ.
Edu. Inst.
2412
249
152
19
374
43
15
0
28
4
6
0
307
43
24
7
283
35
148
9
232
37
52
10
21
0
61
2
23
1
280
3
48
0
134
10
40
0
107
4
58
0
124
2
417
3
72
0
46
0
18
3
34
4
7
1
23
3
21
3
96
20
264
42
10
1
13
3
16
0
7
0
14
0
14
2
7
0
4
0
731
60

PublicRes. Inst.
2113
7
387
118
71
7
292
25
113
30
220
57
27
63
34
201
136
148
58
25
18
86
606
93
67
11
15
4
2
18
69
70
23
6
10
3
33
51
10
2
691

Others

N/A

933
19
111
27
13
2
99
9
81
26
73
48
4
11
6
36
7
23
5
7
6
20
96
29
10
21
17
14
10
6
67
255
8
1
6
4
2
8
7
0
277

132
6
16
3
3
1
19
0
8
4
9
11
0
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
0
1
11
1
1
3
2
0
0
0
14
23
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
28

Total
19291
502
2492
402
259
48
3068
282
2274
659
1932
842
205
447
178
1329
499
822
322
370
175
584
2878
480
330
455
291
159
67
130
1172
2204
161
69
48
33
107
271
49
20
5072

Association

Total
Mathematics
Physics
Atomic Energy
Astronomy
Bio. Space
Appl. Phys.
Magnetics
Elec. Info. Comm.
Info. Process
Chemistry
Chem. Eng.
Electrochem.
Polymer Sci.
Anal. Chem.
Biochemistry
Plant Physio.
Biophysics
Protein Sci.
Physiology
Comp. Endocr.
ZoologyMol. Biology
Develop. Bio.
Cell Biology
Geotech.
Image Info. Tv
Automo. Eng.
Illum. Eng.
Precision Eng.
Mechanic. Eng.
Architecture
Iron Steel
Liq. Crystal
Women Scientists
Women Engineers
SGEPSS
Metal
Fire Sci. Eng.
Math. Bio.
OthersUnder 25
1093
6
27
2
7
2
212
6
97
22
121
31
11
14
2
28
16
43
9
4
14
22
169
8
4
4
9
2
0
2
57
126
1
4
0
0
1
7
1
0
115

25–29
2490
29
283
23
46
0
352
24
238
69
206
79
17
36
10
126
89
101
58
12
23
70
502
76
33
24
21
4
4
11
107
237
11
3
0
0
9
22
3
2
457

30–34
3196
60
455
43
63
3
406
36
355
106
292
139
30
71
22
191
101
138
51
49
24
106
616
102
52
58
32
9
8
13
120
299
14
11
2
3
25
45
8
4
781

35–39
3174
63
449
50
44
4
516
52
417
118
322
113
43
80
29
268
106
146
68
41
21
81
559
88
64
63
43
20
12
18
174
312
31
16
5
8
24
47
5
2
910

Age
40–44
45–49
2774
2016
61
69
342
230
68
50
33
23
4
10
552
321
55
30
396
252
97
76
297
192
109
106
30
25
74
61
33
25
215
166
68
45
101
71
39
31
52
63
17
18
73
62
433
270
72
44
50
42
78
80
52
40
36
31
8
10
19
16
172
138
277
258
26
24
5
8
8
6
9
2
13
8
47
30
6
7
3
3
782
647
50–54
1643
59
204
54
14
10
246
24
191
54
167
80
18
37
23
138
28
72
32
60
18
58
160
40
33
71
33
19
7
15
130
257
16
10
5
2
6
24
7
4
490

Table. 4.3 Respondents by Age and Association
55–59
1430
80
207
58
12
6
232
29
167
54
144
67
19
25
21
105
24
75
18
42
20
56
94
25
31
45
27
22
5
22
130
245
18
3
10
6
10
26
8
0
432

Over 60
1455
74
290
53
17
9
227
26
158
61
188
116
11
47
13
92
22
74
16
47
20
56
75
25
21
32
32
16
13
14
144
193
20
8
12
3
11
23
4
2
450

N/A
20
1
5
1
0
0
4
0
3
2
3
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
8

60
Chapter 4 Appendix