El liderazgo de la mujer en la investigación en comunicación en España

<jats:p>El objetivo de este artículo, basado en resultados del proyecto I+D+i “Mapas de la investigación en comunicación en las Universidades españolas de 2007 a 2018”, es ofrecer el estado actual de la presencia, acceso y liderazgo de las mujeres en la investigación académica en el campo de la comunicación. Los resultados muestran que la brecha de género subsiste en ciencias sociales y, en menor medida, en el campo de la comunicación. Las mujeres consuman en mayor proporción que los hombres su doctorado y aventajan a éstos en la autoría de contribuciones a congresos y presencia en la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación como asociadas, sin que esto tenga un correlato en la progresión de su carrera académica respecto a ocupar posiciones de liderazgo en la dirección de proyectos de I+D+i, tesis doctorales, grupos de investigación, puestos de responsabilidad en la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación o en la publicación de artículos en las revistas de mayor impacto de la especialidad.</jats:p>

section_content: When the European Commission published its first She Figures report in 2003, women were significantly under-represented among PhD graduates, researchers and at the highest echelons of the academic career, and they were a minority on scientific boards. 

The She Figures 2018 publication is a testimony to the progress achieved over the past years through a wide range of actions and policies. For example, Horizon 2020 supports research organisations who promote active change through gender equality plans. We have also reached our targets in the Horizon 2020 decision-making bodies: women now make up 55% of our advisory boards and 41% of our evaluation experts. It is my firm intention to continue these efforts in our next Framework Programme, Horizon Europe, to help accelerate the progress towards gender equality in research and innovation. 

She Figures 2018 paints a picture of overall improvement in the EU, suggesting that efforts are starting to pay off. Today, women are actually a majority among PhD graduates. The proportion of women in the senior academic ranks has also been on the increase in Europe and the EU has established itself as world leader in integrating the gender dimension in research. 

There is progress but it is slow. And we still have a long way to go to achieve full gender equality. For example, our data shows that women innovators are few and far in between. We cannot sit back and assume that having planted the seeds of gender equality, the positive trends will continue. As the past has shown us, gender inequality does not fix itself. What we need is a complete cultural change, which requires systematic and coordinated actions, education and strong political commitment by all actors involved. We have to keep an open mind and learn from other sectors that have gone before us. For instance, if voluntary targets do not deliver the results we need, it could be time to take a serious look at quotas for management positions in universities. 

Gender equality is not only a matter of concern for women; it must matter to all of us. If we want to take scientific excellence to the next level; if we want to deliver science-based solutions to the many urgent and pressing global challenges, we need all talents in play. There is still a long and bumpy road ahead of us but every single step we take is worth it. We can shatter the glass ceiling, we can fix the system that keep women from developing their talents fully. I therefore invite you all to act as ambassadors of change to close the gender gap. Together, we will succeed.
section_name: Foreword

section_content: Gender imbalance amongst researchers still remains as in 2015 only one third of the EU's researchers were women (Chapter 4). However, during the 2008-2015 period, the number of women researchers in the EU-28 increased at higher rate on average than men (3. 8 % for women and 3. 4 % for men). Women researchers' presence in 2015 was strongest in the government sector (where 42. 5 % of researchers are women) and in the higher education sector (42. 1 %) resulting in a more gender-balanced population of researchers at the EU level. On the contrary, in the business enterprise sector, women are still severely under-represented as they only represent 20. 2 % of the total number of researchers. 

Differences between women and men can also be observed in their working conditions as researchers (Chapter 5). At the EU level, the proportion of women researchers working part-time was higher than that of men; 13 % of women researchers and 8 % of men researchers were working part-time in 2016. Furthermore, 8. 1 % of women and 5. 2 % of men researchers worked under contract arrangements considered as 'precarious employment'. In terms of equal payment, there is still a considerable gender pay gap in scientific R&D occupations. Across the EU-28, women in R&D earned on average 17 % less than their men colleagues in 2014, and the gender pay gap was found to widen with age. Moreover, the presence of women researchers seems to have an inverse relationship with the R&D expenditure per researcher; most of the countries that spent more per researcher had some of the lowest shares of women researchers. 

As they moving up the academic ladder, women are less represented (Chapter 6). In the EU-28 in 2016, women represented 48 % of doctoral students and graduates, 46 % of grade C academic positions, 40 % of grade B and 24 % of grade A academic positions. The gap between women and men was wider in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics); while women made up 37 % of doctoral students and 39 % of doctoral graduates, they held only 15 % of grade A academic positions. In the EU-28, the proportion of women among heads of institutions in the higher education sector increased from 20 % in 2014 to 22 % in 2017. Furthermore, in 2017, women made up 27 % of the members of boards of research organisations, while when focusing on board leaders alone, the

proportion of women decreased to 20 %. 

In the EU-28, women were still under-represented in the writing of scientific papers (Chapter 7). Between 2013 and 2017, the ratio of women to men among authors of scientific publications in the EU was on average one to two. However, this ratio is slowly improving and it has been increasing by almost 4 % per year since 2008. The highest women to men ratio of authorship was observed in the fields of medical and agricultural sciences, where a little over eight women authors corresponded to 10 men authors. Moreover, women are still strongly under-represented among patent inventors; between 2013 and 2017 in the EU, the women to men ratio of patent inventors was on average just over one to three. A strong gender gap in the composition of the inventors' teams was also observed in the EU-28, where the most frequent composition of the teams was all men (47 %), followed by those with just one male inventor (33%). A final overall observation for EU countries was a slight gender gap in receiving research grants. The funding success rate was higher for men team leaders than women team leaders by 3. 0 percentage points. Chapter 3
section_name: Carlos Moedas European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation

section_content: Figure 3. 1 Proportion of women in the EU-28 among total employment, the population of tertiary educated professionals and technicians (HRSTC) and the population of scientists and engineers (S&E), 2017 and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and trends in the numbers of women and men in the EU-28 in the same populations, 2013-2017. 

Women to men ratio of authorships in all fields of R&D, international collaboration, 2013-2017

Figure 7. 4 Women to men ratio of authorships in all fields of R&D, for national and intra-EU28+ collaboration, 2013-2017

Figure 7. 5 Women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in all fields of R&D, international collaboration, 2013-2017 Women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in all fields of R&D, national and intra-EU28+ collaboration, 2013-2017

Table 7. 5 CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of all authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Table 7. 6 CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Table 7. 7

Women to men ratio of authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 Table 7. 8

Women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008 R&D, -2012 R&D, and 2013 R&D, -2017 Figure 7. 7 Figure 7. 7 Women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications based on all authorships in all fields of R&D, 2017 Women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications based on corresponding authorships in all fields of R&D, 2017

Table 7. 9 CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications (all authorships), by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Table 7. 10 CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications (corresponding authorships), by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Table 7. 11 Women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications (all authorships), by field of R&D, 2012 and 2017

Table 7. 12 Women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications (corresponding authorships), by field of R&D, 2012 and 2017

Figure 7. 9 Ratio of women to men average number of publications (all authorships) in all fields of R&D, per seniority level, 2013-2017

Table 7. 13 Ratio of women to men average number of publications (all authorships), by field of R&D and seniority level, 2013-2017

Figure 7. 10 Ratio of women to men average FWCI of publications (corresponding authorships) in all fields of R&D, per seniority level, 2013-2017

Table 7. 14 Ratio of women to men average FWCI of publications (all authorships), by field of R&D and seniority level, 2013-2017

Distribution of patent application by sex composition of the inventors' team (%), 2013-2016

Table 7. 17 CAGR (%) of the four-year proportions of patent applications by sex composition of the inventors ' team, 2005 ' team, -2016 Figure 7. 13 Figure 7. 13 1 Introduction

Equality between women and men is a core value of the European Union, enshrined in the European Treaties. The EU, through a large body of legislation, actively promotes gender equality in areas such as equal pay, work-life balance, health and safety at work, social security, access to goods and services, and protection from human trafficking, gender-based violence and other forms of gender-based crime (European Parliament, 2018a). The European Commission's 'Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016-2019' (European Commission, 2016a) is the current framework for the European Commission's work towards full gender equality. The strategy identifies five priority areas, which include the increasing economic independence and participation of women in the labour market, reducing gender pay, earnings and pension gaps and promoting gender equality in decisionmaking. Furthermore, the strategy emphasises the need to integrate a gender equality perspective into all EU policies, as well as into EU funding programmes. 

In the area of research and innovation, the EU is equally committed to advancing gender equality. More specifically, gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research is one of the key priorities of the European Research Area (European Commission, 2012) and their promotion is a clear objective and a legal obligation under the EU framework programme for research and innovation Reg 1291/2013). In Horizon 2020, gender equality is a cross-cutting issue (European Commission, 2013a), as the programme aims to promote gender balance in research teams, panels and advisory groups and to integrate the gender dimension in research and innovation (R&I) content. In addition, the Horizon 2020 'Science with and for Society' work programme also funds specific initiatives in support of the gender equality policy. 

Gender inequalities persist and a need to document them remains. The She Figures publication, released to give a more detailed picture of the labour force as a whole and the patterns of employment for women and men researchers across different sectors, such as the business enterprise sector. The 2009 edition introduced indicators on the gender pay gap and began to break down some of the data by age group (in addition to sex disaggregation). Amongst other things, the 2012 report added indicators on the mobility of researchers and the proportion of researchers with children. The 2015 report introduced indicators on part-time and precarious employment, on the adoption of gender equality plans by research organisations, on the intellectual output of women and men in the form of scientific publications and patent applications and on the integration of a sex and gender analysis into the content of published research. 

This She Figures 2018 publication includes new indicators to further assess gender inequalities. Some of these indicators provide insights on the early segregation in the education pathways chosen by young women and young men and their subsequent progress to the top educational levels. Another new indicator measures the propensity of women and men to work alone, in same-sex teams or in mixed teams, as patent inventors. Finally, an indicator on the integration of a sex and gender dimension in published research has been further developed by expanding its scope to cover additional species as well as humans, and the definition of the sex and gender dimension has been revised.
section_name: List of tables and figures

section_content: Twenty years ago, in 1999, the Council of the EU recognised that women were under represented in the fields of scientific and technical research, describing this as a 'common concern' at both the national and the European level. At this time, there were virtually no pan European statistics on what happened to women after they left university, despite fears that after attaining their degrees, women frequently encountered obstacles in their careers which contributed to their under representation in scientific posts. 

The EU therefore recognised that if governments were to develop effective policies in this area, harmonised sex disaggregated data on women in science and research was needed. Meeting in 1999, the Helsinki Group on Gender in Research and Innovation

appointed a sub group of Statistical Correspondents with responsibility for collecting national data and contributing to the creation of a source for European statistics on these topics. 

The end result of this process was the She Figures, first released in 2003 and updated every three years since then. By presenting statistical indicators on a wide range of related gender issues, the report enables readers to develop a comprehensive understanding of the current state of play as regards gender equality in research and innovation. 

In 2015, a She Figures Handbook was also produced for the first time. A new edition (European Commission, 2019) has been produced to accompany the She Figures 2018, which contains methodological information both on the collection of data and on the calculation of all the indicators used in the She Figures. The handbook serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it helps readers of She Figures to correctly interpret the results presented in the publication. Secondly, it provides guidelines and recommendations to assist the collection, processing and use of data on gender equality in research, innovation and science, with the potential to inform organisations at both the national and European level.
section_name: History of the She Figures

section_content: Most of the data for the She Figures indicators originate from Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the EU), which provides sex disaggregated data on education, research and development, professional earnings and scientific employment. Data on education, research and the labour market for countries outside the EU, when not available in Eurostat, were compiled from web-sites including the International Labour Organization (ILO), the OECD and the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). The Statistical Correspondents enrich this picture, by collecting primary data (broken down by sex) on senior academic staff, the heads of universities, funding applicants and beneficiaries, as well as the membership of boards of national research organisations. The expansion of the She In this edition of the She Figures, data are presented at the individual country level as well as the broader EU level for the current 28 EU Member States and the associated countries. Data availability differs between the countries, with availability for EU Member States, EFTA (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) and candidate countries (Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Turkey) usually being higher than for the rest of the countries examined (Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Faroe Islands, Georgia, Israel, Moldova, Tunisia and Ukraine). All tables and figures in the publication contain footnotes which indicate the respective data that were not available. 

Further information about data sources as well as the definitions of key terms used in She Figures 2018 are provided in Appendix 2.
section_name: Data sources and coverage

section_content: The structure of She Figures 2018 aims to follow the 'chronological journey' of researchers, from graduating in higher education programmes to acquiring decision-making roles while considering their working conditions and other aspects of their profession, and also highlighting the differences between women and men. More specifically,

• Chapter 2 deals with the tertiary education pathways that women and men choose, and it focuses more on doctoral education. It compares the numbers of women and men doctoral graduates, their choices for their field of education and the progress they have made in undertaking postgraduate education over the recent years. • Chapter 3 investigates the participation of tertiary educated women in science and technology occupations and their differences from men within various sectors of the economy and economic activities. • Chapter 4 discusses researchers' patterns of employment with regards to their sex across the sectors of the economy, fields of R&D and age groups. • Chapter 5 examines the working conditions of women and men researchers, their mobility during their PhD studies and subsequent careers, the magnitude of the gender pay gap in scientific R&D, and the extent of adoption of gender equality plans by research performing organisations. • Chapter 6 discusses the progression of women across the different grades of a typical academic career, and looks at women's presence among top-level positions (i. e. as heads of institutions or as members of the boards of research organisations). • Chapter 7 compares the contribution of women and men in scientific publications and patent applications, and at the relative success of women and men researchers in obtaining research funding. The extent of integration of a sex or gender dimension in the research content of scientific publications is also examined. • content of scientific publications is also examined. 17

The importance of doctoral education lies in the fact that it is both part of the education of many future academic researchers, and it produces actual research results. Gender gaps in doctoral education do not arise simply from the differences between the numbers of male and female doctoral students and graduates, but also from the different choices of field of doctoral education for men and women. The need to address these different choices has been recognised by the European Commission (2015 and 2017). These different choices are highlighted in the recent review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in the EU Member States by the European Institute for Gender Equality (2018). 

This Chapter (Chapter 2) deals with the women and men who graduate from doctoral education (doctoral graduates = ISCED 2011, level 8). It compares the numbers of women and men doctoral graduates, their choices of field of education and the progress in undertaking postgraduate education. It also compares the propensity of women and men to graduate from bachelor or equivalent level studies (ISCED level 6), to move from master or equivalent (ISCED level 7) to doctoral or equivalent level (ISCED level 8), and to graduate from doctoral level studies. At first glance, the existing pool of doctoral graduates is gender balanced in most countries, if no differentiation is made by field of study. 

Figure 2. 1 presents the proportion of women among doctoral or equivalent graduates in 2016. With a few exceptions, mainly for countries with a limited number of doctoral graduates, the proportion of women who graduated from top-level educational programmes ranged between 40 % and 60 %. This proportion exceeded 60 % in Montenegro (67. 9 %), Iceland (63. 9 %) and Slovenia (61. 3 %), while it was below 40 % in Armenia (37. 1 %). 

At the EU-28 level, women represented 47. 9 % of doctoral graduates in 2016. At country level, the proportion of women among doctoral graduates ranged between 45 % and 55 % in two thirds of the EU Member States. Among the Member States, the proportion was the highest in Slovenia (61. 3 %) and Cyprus (60 %), while it was the lowest in Luxembourg (40. 2 %), Malta (40. 5 %), Austria (42. 3 %) and Czechia (42. 7 %). 

The proportion of women among doctoral graduates increased in the decade 2007-2016. and 2016, almost reaching parity. The same trend can also be seen at country level. By 2016, the proportion of women among doctoral graduates was moving towards gender equality in all the countries where a clear unbalance had persisted in 2007. 

All the countries have now reached a proportion ranging from 40. 5 % to 60 %. The single exception to this was Armenia since the proportion did not reach the threshold of 40 % in 2016, although it had increased by seven percentage points since 2007. 

The countries with a rather low share of women among doctoral graduates in 2007 which then moved towards parity in 2016 were Georgia (from 26. 6 % to 56. 9 %) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (from 33. 1 % to 44. 9 %). In contrast, women were overrepresented among doctoral graduates in Cyprus in 2007 (68. 8 %) but this decreased in 2016 (60. 0 %). 

-2,7 -0,7 -0,9 -0,8 -4,1

Overall, the number of doctoral graduates grew between 2007 and 2016 in most countries and the growth in the number of women was faster than it was for men. 

Figure 2. 2 refers to the absolute numbers of doctoral graduates rather than to the shares of men and women among them. It presents the compound annual growth rate (CAGR), between 2007 and 2016, of the numbers of female and male doctoral graduates. This is an average annual rate of change in percentage terms. It should be noted that the text discusses the rates at full precision, even though they are presented with one decimal digit in the figure. The same applies to the whole chapter. 

The figure shows that in most countries the number of female doctoral graduates grew at a faster average annual rate than that of male doctoral graduates during this time period. At the EU-28 level, the average growth was 2. 3 % per year for women and 1. 4 % per year for men. 

Similarly, in 26 of the countries considered, the number of female doctoral graduates grew at a faster rate than the rate for male graduates, but in three countries it decreased at a slower pace. On the other side, among the seven countries, where the growth rate of male doctoral graduates was positive and surpassed that of female ones, the largest difference was observed in Serbia with 16. 4 percentage points. 

The highest annual growth rates can be seen in Albania for both women and men: the number of female doctoral graduates grew by 91. 9 % per year on average while that of male ones by 83. 5 % per year. The number of doctoral graduates declined for both sexes in seven countries, with Poland having the largest decrease rates (-4. 2 % for women from 2997 ones to 2030, and -6. 2 % for men from 3075 ones to 1734). The number of women doctoral graduates has increased, while it has decreased for men in four countries. These countries were Georgia, where the largest difference in annual growth rates in favour of women was observed, Moldova, Czechia and Greece. Attention must be paid to countries with low absolute numbers of graduates, where small changes in numbers can translate into large changes in percentage terms, for example Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, etc. 

The proportion of women among doctoral graduates still varies in the different fields of education. 

Table 2. 2 presents the proportion of women among doctoral graduates in the different fields of education in 2016. At the EU-28 level, the proportion of women ranges between 40 % and 60 % in most of the fields resulting in balanced proportions of women and men graduates with few exceptions. More specifically, women are under-represented among doctoral graduates in the fields of information and communication technologies (ICT) and engineering, manufacturing and construction (21 % and 29 % respectively), while women are 68 % of doctoral graduates in education. 

This same pattern is observed also at the national level. In most fields, gender equality has been reached in the majority of countries examined and no extreme values are observed even in the countries where the proportion of women is below the desired 40-60 % range. However, in education, the proportion of women among doctoral graduates ranged between 40 % and 60 % in only six countries: France (60 %), Spain (58 %), Hungary (55 %), Turkey (54 %), Croatia (52 %) and Luxembourg (40 %). In all of the remaining countries where gender distribution was unbalanced, the proportion of women among doctoral graduates was larger than 60 %. 

On the other side of the coin, women are strongly under-represented in ICT and engineering, manufacturing and construction, since only four countries had a proportion above 40 % in ICT, and only two countries had a proportion above 40 % in engineering, manufacturing and construction. In ICT, the four countries with a balanced proportion of women among doctoral graduates were Bulgaria (56 %), Serbia (50 %), Turkey (44 %) and Romania (43 %). In the field of engineering, manufacturing and construction the corresponding proportion was 42 % in Poland and Serbia. 

22 Source: Eurostat -Education Statistics (online data code: educ_uoe_grad02) and OECD (Graduates by field).
section_name: Structure of the She Figures 2018

section_content: At the EU level, both women and men doctoral graduates prefer natural sciences, mathematics and statistics to the other fields of education. 

Figure 2. 3 presents the distribution of female and male doctoral graduates across the broad fields of education in 2016. It shows how the population of female and male graduates is spread across the different fields. 

At the EU-28 level, 26. 6 % of the women and 28. 3 % of the men that graduated at doctoral level studied in the field of natural sciences, mathematics and statistics. This field was the most popular broad field for both sexes. The second most popular field for women was health and welfare (21. 5 % of female graduates) while for men it was engineering, manufacturing and construction (20. 2 % of male graduates). For both sexes, services (i. e. personal, hygiene & occupational health, security and transport services) were the least popular field (0. 6 % of female graduates and 0. 8 % of men). 

Data at national level reveal both similarities and differences between women and men. The two most popular fields for female graduates are natural sciences, mathematics and statistics, and health and welfare. In all the countries examined, apart from Slovenia, at least one of these two fields was among the two top choices for women. 2. 2), it is not a very popular option for women to pursue doctoral study (Figure 2. 3). In fact, in the majority of countries, women are more likely to attain their doctoral degree in engineering than in education. 

25
section_name: S H E

section_content: While women's share of doctoral graduates has increased in several narrow fields of STEM in several countries, they are still under-represented in most narrow fields of STEM. The average annual growth rate of female doctoral graduates was smaller than that of men in all narrow fields of STEM, and also in most countries. 

Table 2. 4 presents the average annual rate of change between 2013 and 2016 in the numbers of women and men who graduated at doctoral level in each narrow field. Again, careful attention should be paid to countries with low absolute numbers of graduates, where small changes in numbers can translate into large changes in percentage terms. 

In any of the fields, the number of female doctoral graduates grew at a higher rate than that of men in less than half of the countries where there are data available. In fact, the number of countries where the rate of change for women was positive and higher than that for men ranged from four countries (LT, HU, FI, SE) in environmental studies to 11 countries (BG, CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL, FR, AT, SI, RS, TR) in engineering and engineering trades. The highest growth rate in the number of female doctoral graduates (173. 9 %) was observed in ICT in Turkey, while the lowest growth rate (-100 %) was in mathematics and statistics in Latvia. 

The largest difference in average annual growth rates between female and male doctoral graduates (in favour of women) was in Serbia, in ICT (104. 4 percentage points). The second largest was much lower (47. 2 percentage points) in Slovakia in mathematics and statistics. The largest difference in favour of men (151. 4 percentage points) occurred in Hungary in architecture and construction. 

It must be noted that in many cases the numbers of both female and male doctoral graduates decreased. In such instances, the number of women decreased more slowly than it did for men. 

28 Ratio of bachelor graduates to bachelor entrants, by sex and broad field of study, 2016

Table 2. 5
section_name: Country

section_name: Country

section_name: Services

section_name: Total

section_name: Education

section_name: Arts and humanities

section_name: Social sciences, journalism and information

section_name: Business, administration and law

section_name: Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics

section_content: Engineering, manufacturing and construction 31

Women are more likely than men to graduate from bachelor level studies but less likely than men to continue to doctoral level. 

Table 2. 5 presents, by sex, the ratio of the number of people who graduated from bachelor level studies to the number of people who started their bachelor level studies in 2016. This is not a graduation rate. Finding a graduation rate would require following a cohort of entrants for a reasonable number of years -which would probably need to differ between fields -and then estimating the proportion of the cohort that graduated after these years. The ratio shown here is proxy of a graduation rate, that works for the purpose of this research. 

Taking everyone together, the proxy graduation rate was higher for women than men in all countries except Switzerland. Similar patterns can be seen in each broad field of study. The number of countries where the ratio of women was higher than men Table 2. 6 shows the ratio of the number of people who started doctoral level studies to the number of people who graduated from master level studies in 2016. This is a practical proxy for a ratio that would be based on following a cohort of master level graduates and computing their proportion who proceed, within a reasonable number of years, to doctoral level studies. 

As it can be seen, the pattern observed is the reverse of what was seen in Table 2. 5; in all countries the ratio for women is smaller than that for men, when taking all fields of study together. The situation is the same in most broad fields of study, women had a higher ratio than men in only a few countries. Finally, Table 2. 8 presents, by sex, the ratio of the number of people who graduated from doctoral level studies to the number of people who started doctoral level studies in 2016. The situation seems more balanced at this level. When considering all graduates together, irrespective of their field of study, women have a higher ratio than men in half the countries examined. In individual fields, the number of countries with a higher ratio for women than men ranged from eight in ICT (BG, ES, IT, LU, PT, RO, SI, TR) to 21 in natural sciences, mathematics and statistics (BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, IS, NO, MK). 

33

3 Participation in science and technology (S&T) occupations

Main findings:

▶ The number of women employed as scientists and engineers grew on average by 2. 9 % per year between 2013 and 2017. 

The number of tertiary educated women employed as professionals or technicians also grew over this period by 2. 2 % per year on average. Both these rates are faster than the respective rates for men ▶ Furthermore, tertiary educated women are equally likely or more likely than men to be working as professionals or technicians in most countries. On the other hand, women are still a minority in science and engineering occupations in most countries. 

▶ The proportion of employed women working in 'knowledge-intensive activities' (KIA) was higher than the corresponding proportion for men in all the countries examined. The difference between the two proportions at the EU-28 level was 15. 5 percentage points. However, KIA include public sector jobs such as health care, education and social work, where women's presence is long established. When KIA is narrowed to 'business industries' (KIABI), the situation appears more balanced, with the proportion of employed women working in KIABI exceeding the respective proportion of men in half the countries examined. 

▶ Women continue to have a lower share of total employment than men, and even when women have attained a tertiary level of education, in the majority of countries they are still more likely to be unemployed than men. 

▶ The proportion of female R&D personnel working as researchers is lower than the corresponding proportion for men in most countries, in the higher education, government and business enterprise sectors. On the contrary, the proportion of female R&D personnel working as other supporting staff is higher than the corresponding proportion of men. 

▶ The proportion of women researchers employed in manufacturing is smaller than the corresponding proportion for men in two thirds of the countries considered. Furthermore, in three major economic activity groups (manufacturing, services and 'other activities') a minority of the researchers are women. However, the opposite is true for 'pharmaceutical manufacturing'. 

The demand for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professionals is expected to grow by around 8 % between 2014 and 2025. This compares to an average of 3 % growth in demand for all occupations during the same period. Employment in STEM-related sectors is expected to rise by around 6. 5 % (CEDEFOP, 2014). An insufficient supply of STEM skills and a low participation rate of women in STEM studies are perceived as barriers that impede job-rich recovery and growth in the EU (Reingarde, 2017). As a result, the European Parliament has called on Member States and the European Commission to take measures to enhance the attractiveness and perceived value of STEM subjects and to encourage young people, including women, to take up STEM studies (Eur. Parl., 2015). Although more women than men obtain undergraduate degrees in the EU-28, the proportion of women declines at postgraduate level in science and technology and even more so in knowledge-intensive occupations: women make up only 32. 3 % of people employed in high-technology sectors ( 1 ). This under-utilisation of female talent is a missed opportunity for Europe's economy and for European society as a whole. All Member States now have laws that conform to EU gender equality directives. However, the low proportion of women in physical sciences -and in particular across STEM decision-making positions -calls for serious counteraction to create gender equality in science (Council of the European Union, 2015) and to stop the large-scale undervaluing of female knowledge and potential. 

Chapter 3 investigates the progress that women have made in participation in science and technology occupations as well as their differences from men within various sectors of the economy and economic activities. Women are under-represented, in comparison to men, in the population of scientists and engineers although they are over-represented among the tertiary educated employed as professionals or technicians. 

Although significant steps have been made towards gender equality in employment, women continue to hold a lower share (46. 1 %) of total employment than men (Figure 3. 1). Women form the majority of the tertiary educated population employed as professionals and technicians (53. 1 %), but only 40. 8 % of people are employed in science and engineering occupations. 

The number of women grew slightly faster than men between 2013 and 2017 in all employment categories shown in Figure 3. 1. Most progress occurred in scientists and engineers, where the number of women and men increased on average by 2. 9 % and 2. 2 % per year, respectively. However, the respective growth rates for women and men working as scientists and engineers during the period 2008 -2013 were 11 % and 3. 8 % (European Commission, 2016). The smallest difference in rates was observed in total employment where the rate for women was 1. 4 % while that for men was 1. 3 %. For the tertiary educated employed as professionals and technicians, average annual growth stood at 2. 9 % for women and 2. 5 % for men. 

Proportion of women in the EU-28 among total employment, the population of tertiary educated professionals and technicians (HRSTC) and the population of scientists and engineers (S&E), 2017 and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and trends in the numbers of women and men in the EU-28 in the same populations, 2013-2017. 

Notes: Proportions show percentages, whereas compound annual growth rate (CAGR) shows average percentage growth per year; The 'trends' represent the actual changes in the number of women and men each year (headcount in thousands). This differs from CAGR, which shows the average yearly change over the whole period; Break in time series for HRSTC and S&E: 2014; Others: Age 25-64. 

Source: Eurostat -Human resources in science and technology (online data code: hrst_st_ncat) and Eurostat -Labour Force Survey -Employment by sex, age and nationality (online data code: lfsa_egan).
section_name: Information and Communication Technologies

section_content: When reading She Figures, it is important to bear in mind that some data presented in this publication are measured in headcount and therefore fail to take into account part time employment among researchers. Headcount data mask variation in working hours, both within the population of female researchers, and also when comparing men and women in research. It is therefore essential to temper the positive image of women's progression in employment in science and technology by keeping in mind their greater likelihood of holding part time jobs. 

38 The proportions of tertiary educated women and men working as professionals or technicians are almost equal at the EU-28 level, but there is a considerable gender gap in some countries. 

The proportions of tertiary educated women and men that worked as professionals or technicians in 2017 are given in Figure 3. 2. At the EU-28 level there was gender balance, as 57 % of highly educated women and 57. 8 % of highly educated men worked as professionals or technicians. Both the proportions and the difference between them increased slightly since 2013 when they were 56. 5 % for women and 56. 6 % for men. 

In most counties the respective proportion of women exceeded that of men. The largest differences occurred in Lithuania (61. 7 % of women, 45. 3 % of men), Montenegro (65. 1 % of women, 53. 4 % of men) and Latvia (58. 3 % of women, 48 % of men). The largest differences in the opposite direction occurred in Italy (65. 7 % of men, 57 % of women) and Czechia (67. 4 % of men, 60. 8 % of women). The smallest differences were in Denmark and Belgium (0. 1 percentage point in both countries). 

40 In the majority of countries, fewer women than men are employed as scientists or engineers. 

Inequalities between genders stand out more in science and engineering occupations at both the EU-28 level and country level (Figure 3. 3). In the EU-28, the difference between the proportions was 1. 4 percentage points (4. 5 % were male S&E and 3. 1 % were female S&E). The gender gap has widened slightly since 2013, when the proportions were 4. 1 % for men and 2. 8 % for women. 

In 2017, six countries had a higher proportion of female S&E than males among the total labour force. The difference was the highest in Norway (6. 7 % female S&E, 5. 7 % male S&E) and Lithuania (4. 0 % female S&E, 3. 1 % male S&E). The highest difference in favour of men was in Finland (8 % male S&E, 3. 3 % female S&E), Luxemburg (7 % male S&E, 2. 3 % female S&E) and Switzerland (6. 8 % male S&E, 3. 3 % female S&E). Differences of less than 0. 5 percentage points can be seen in Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey. 41 Across all countries, women are more likely than men to work in knowledge-intensive activities. 

An alternative view on women in S&T occupations is provided in Figure 3. 4. It shows the proportions of women and men employed in knowledge-intensive activities (KIA) out of the total number of women and men, respectively, employed in all sectors of economy. At both the EU-28 level and country level, the proportion of women in KIA is higher than that of men. The difference at the EU-28 level is 15. 5 percentage points while at country-level it varies from 4. 7 percentage points in Luxemburg to 22. 4 percentage points in Iceland. Other countries with large differences were Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Poland. 

The relative over-representation of women in KIA can be partly explained by the fact that public sector jobs are included, such as in healthcare, education and social work where women have traditionally had greater shares than men. Source: Eurostat -Human resources in science and technology (online data code: htec_kia_emp2)

A smaller proportion of women than men are employed in KIA -business industries across the EU-28 though the picture is mixed at national level. 

As business industries are usually in the front line of innovation and development, it is worthwhile examining the employment of women and men in the sub-set of knowledge-intensive activities in business industries (KIABI). Figure 3. 5 presents the proportions of women and men who are employed in KIABI out of the total number of women and men employed in all sectors of the economy. 

At the EU-28 level, the proportion of men in KIABI exceeds women by 1. 2 percentage points as 14. 8 % of employed men and 13. 6 % of employed women are working in such activities. Women are more likely than men to be working in KIABI in half the 34 countries examined, with Montenegro, Cyprus and Bulgaria having the largest differences between the proportions of men and women employed in KIABI (5. 8, 5. 0 and 4. 0 percentage points respectively). The opposite can also be observed, most notably in Norway, Switzerland and the Netherlands, (with 6. 7, 6. 1 and 5. 9 percentage points difference respectively). 

In the EU, tertiary educated women are more likely to be unemployed than tertiary educated men. 

Figure 3. 6 presents the proportions of unemployed women and men out of the tertiary educated labour force, for 2017. At the EU-28 level, a small gender imbalance can be seen, as the unemployment rate for women was found to be 3. 8 % while the respective rate for men was 2. 9 %. 

The unemployment rate for tertiary educated women exceeded that of tertiary educated men in 27 of the 36 countries, with differences ranging from 0. 1 percentage points in Austria to 9. 4 percentage points in Turkey. The larger difference between unemployment rates, where the unemployment rate of men exceeded that of women, was observed in Romania with a difference of 0. 8 percentage points. Negligible difference (zero to one decimal point accuracy) between unemployment rates was found in Bulgaria and Iceland. 

The highest unemployment rates for tertiary educated women were observed in Greece (18. 6 %), North Macedonia (18. 5 %) and Turkey (16. 6 %) while the lowest ones were found in Germany (1 %), Czechia (1. 1 %) and Iceland (1. 2 %). 

Knowledge-intensive activities (KIA) and knowledge-intensive activities -business industries (KIABI) 43 45

The proportion of researchers among male R&D personnel in all sectors of the economy combined is higher than the corresponding proportion of women in most countries. 

The distribution of R&D personnel across occupations within all sectors (the higher education, government and business enterprise sectors) combined for 2015, is presented in Figure 3. 7. The largest proportions of women researchers were observed in North Macedonia (85. 4 %) and Slovakia (84. 1 %), while the lowest proportions were in Italy (45 %) and Czechia (48. 9 %). The proportion of women researchers among female R&D personnel falls behind the corresponding proportion of men for the majority of countries considered. The most striking differences in favour of men were found in Hungary, Greece and Denmark where the proportion of men working as researchers exceeded that of women by 23. 4, 13. 7 and 10. 1 percentage points respectively. Among the nine countries where the proportion of women researchers surpassed that of men researchers, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Kingdom and Iceland had the largest differences at 12. 7, 7. 5 and 7. 1 percentage points respectively. 

The reverse pattern can be observed in other supporting staff. The proportion of other supporting staff among women R&D personnel, with all sectors combined, exceeded the relative proportion of men in all but three countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania and the United Kingdom) where the proportion of women trailed that of men by 16. 0, 0. 9 and 0. 7 percentage points respectively. The highest and lowest proportions were found in Malta (39. 3 %) and Portugal (3. 3 %). 

As regards technicians, their proportion among female R&D personnel is larger than that among male R&D personnel in 11 of the 25 countries that provided data for this occupation. France had the largest proportion of women technicians (32. 3 %) while Moldova had the lowest (7. 0 %). 

In the majority of countries, the proportion of researchers among male R&D personnel in the higher education sector is larger than the respective proportion for women, while in the case of other supporting staff, the situation is reversed. 

Figure 3. 8 focuses on the distribution of R&D personnel across occupations in the higher education sector. The proportion of women working as researchers was particularly high in Slovakia (95. 8 %), the United Kingdom (94. 7 %) and Portugal (93. 1 %), while it was the lowest in Italy (47. 2 %) and Malta (52. 7 %). It can be seen that in all countries, except the United Kingdom, the proportion of men researchers exceeded that of women researchers, with the difference between the proportions rising above 25 percentage points in Hungary and Malta (28. 2 and 25. 9 percentage points respectively). 

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the proportion of women working as other supporting staff was smaller than that of men only in Armenia and Georgia. In these countries, the proportion for men exceeded that for women by 0. 8 and 0. 3 percentage points respectively. The largest proportions of women working as other supporting staff were in Malta (41. 8 %), the Netherlands (32. 9 %) and Switzerland (28. 3 %). 

The proportion of technicians among female R&D personnel in the higher education sector was larger than the respective proportion for men in most of the countries examined. The difference between the proportions in those countries ranged from 0. 2 percentage points (Romania) to 12. 4 percentage points (Hungary). For the countries where the proportion of technicians among female R&D personnel was lower than the respective proportion for men ranged from 0. 0 percentage points (Germany) to 6. 9 percentage points (Malta). The highest proportions of women working as technicians were observed in France (28. 2 %), Czechia (27. 0 %) and Austria (20. 5 %). 

46 48

In the government sector, men are more likely than women to be employed as researchers, while women are more likely to be employed as technicians or other supporting staff. 

Figure 3. 9 shows the distribution of female and male R&D personnel across occupations in the government sector. Similar to the previous figure, the proportion of researchers among the men R&D personnel exceeded the corresponding proportion for women in most countries, however, the proportion of researchers among women is larger in a bigger group of countries, namely Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Serbia, Turkey and Bosnia Herzegovina. The largest differences in favour of men were found in Chechia, France, Luxembourg and Germany, where they reached 21. 9, 19. 0, 17. 5 and 17. 0 percentage points, respectively, while the largest differences in favour of women were found in Serbia, Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina where they reached 9. 4, 14. 2 and 16. 1 percentage points, respectively. 

The highest proportion of women working as researchers in the government sector was in North Macedonia (89. 3 %) while the lowest was in Cyprus (36 %). 

The opposite pattern can be seen in other supporting staff, where the proportion of female R&D personnel exceeds that among male R&D personnel in most countries. The largest differences were observed in Luxembourg, Poland and Germany (16. 2, 14. 9 and 14. 4 percentage points respectively). The highest proportions of women working as other supporting staff were observed in Malta (47. 1 %), Germany (37. 5 %) and Luxembourg (36. 2 %). 

In most countries, the proportion of technicians among female R&D personnel in the government sector is higher than the respective proportion for men, with differences ranging from 0. 3 percentage points in Armenia to 12. 5 percentage points in Czechia. The highest proportions of women technicians were observed in Cyprus (40. 4 %) and France (38. 8 %). 

In the business enterprise sector, the proportion of researchers among female R&D personnel is smaller than that of men in the majority of countries. 

The distribution of R&D personnel in the business enterprise sector across occupations is presented in Figure 3. 10. As was the case in the higher education and government sectors, women are less likely than men in most countries to be researchers. The largest differences between the proportions of researchers in favour of men were found in Hungary, Moldova and Germany (26. 1, 17. 2 and 16. 0 percentage points, respectively). Unlike the other sectors, in business enterprise in nine countries (namely: Belgium, Austria, Serbia, Romania, Ireland, Slovenia, Latvia, Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina) the gap in absolute terms is very small (below 1. 2 percentage points). 

In almost half the countries, the proportion of women researchers is less than 55 %, with of its lowest values observed in Luxembourg (28. 7 %) and Moldova (29. 6 %). The largest proportions of women researchers were observed in North Macedonia (74. 3 %) and Turkey (68 %). 

As in the other sectors, the proportion of other supporting staff among female R&D personnel exceeded the respective proportion for men in all but two countries, with the largest differences in favour of women being observed in Moldova, Czechia and Malta (18. 7, 16. 5 and 13. 9 percentage points respectively). The highest proportion of women in the 'other supporting staff' category was observed in Moldova (65. 6 %), Serbia (39. 5 %) and Romania (33. 7 %). 

The proportion of women technicians in the business sector was lower than that of men in most countries, with the largest difference in favour of men in Malta (20. 3 percentage points) and the largest difference in favour of women been observed in Hungary (15. 0 percentage points). The largest proportions of women technicians were in Luxembourg (49. 6 %), Croatia (45. 0 %) and Portugal (44. 1 %). 

49 50 51

Within the business enterprise sector, the proportion of women working as researchers in manufacturing activities is lower than the corresponding proportion of men in a most countries. 

Research positions in the business sector are mainly found in manufacturing and services (more than 80 % of all research positions in the vast majority of countries considered). Figure 3. 11 shows the distribution of researchers across economic activities by sex. 

The largest proportions of women researchers in manufacturing out of all women researchers in BES were observed in Germany (69. 9 %), Croatia (65. 5 %) and Denmark (55 %). Croatia had also the largest gender gap in favour of women (22. 1 percentage points). The proportion of women researchers in manufacturing is lower than the corresponding proportion of men in 21 out of the 31 countries considered, with the largest difference in favour of men observed in Austria and Italy (16. 5 percentage points in both cases). 

The situation is more balanced in services, with half the countries having a higher proportion of women than men working as researchers. The largest gender gap in favour of women was observed in Austria with a difference of 16. 3 percentage points, while in Croatia there was a difference of 21 percentage points in favour of men. The share of 'other activities' among women researchers was larger than that for men researchers in 23 of the 31 countries for which data were available. 

In most countries, the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry is the only sector with more women researchers than men researchers. 

Table 3. 1 illustrates the proportion of women among researchers in the three main activity groups (Manufacturing, Services of the business economy and all 'other activities') as well as in two manufacturing 'sub-activities'. 

In manufacturing as a whole, the only country where women make up the majority of researchers is Croatia. However, in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry women form the majority of researchers in 21 of the 31 countries where data were available. Within pharmaceuticals, the largest proportion of women researchers were in Romania (83. 4 %) and Croatia (79. 1 %) while the lowest were in Iceland (33. 3 %), Malta (35. 7 %) and Switzerland (36. 9 %); attention must be paid to the small numbers of researchers in these last three countries. 

In the chemical manufacturing industry, 12 of the 31 countries with available data had more women than men in research positions with Romania (69. 9 %), Luxembourg (75 %) and Croatia (80. 8 %) again having the largest proportions of women. 

In services, women researchers were fewer than men in all countries. The highest proportions of women among researchers in this activity were observed in Latvia (38. 2 %) and Iceland (37. 9 %), while the lowest were in Finland (16. 8 %), Czechia (14. 1 %) and Luxembourg (9. 11 %). 

In the rest of the economy, Romania was the only country where women made up a larger proportion of researchers (51. 5 %) than men. 

52 53 Others: Starting with reference year 2012, it is not compulsory for countries to report data on technicians separately from other supporting staff. The numbers reported for each country refer to the most 'detailed' occupations for which data were provided. ':' denotes that data were not provided or that data for more ‚detailed' occupations are available. For BA and AM, occupation categories do not add up to total R&D personnel, possibly due to some R&D personnel not being classified by occupation. For UA, the number of ‚Technicians and other supporting staff' was calculated as the difference between ‚Researchers' and total R&D personnel, therefore it may include R&D personnel that have not been classified by occupation. 54 Others: Starting with reference year 2012, it is not compulsory for countries to report data on technicians separately from other supporting staff. The numbers reported for each country refer to the most 'detailed' occupations for which data were provided. ':' denotes that data were not provided or that data for more ‚detailed' occupations are available. For BA and AM, occupation categories do not add up to total R&D personnel, possibly due to some R&D personnel not being classified by occupation. For UA, the number of ‚Technicians and other supporting staff' was calculated as the difference between ‚Researchers' and 'total R&D personnel', therefore it may include R&D personnel that have not been classified by occupation. 55 Notes: Exceptions to the reference year: FR: 2013, Data unavailable for: EU-28, AL, AM, FO, GE, IL; Definition differs for: ME. Others: Starting with reference year 2012, it is not compulsory for countries to report data on technicians separately from other supporting staff. The numbers reported for each country refer to the most 'detailed' occupations for which data were provided. ':' denotes that data were not provided or that data for more ‚detailed' occupations are available. For BA, occupation categories do not add up to total R&D personnel, possibly due to some R&D personnel not being classified by occupation. For UA, the number of 'Technicians and other supporting staff' was calculated as the difference between 'Researchers' and 'total R&D personnel', therefore it may include R&D personnel that have not been classified by occupation. 

Source: Eurostat -Statistics on research and development (online data code: rd_p_persocc) and UNESCO Institute for Statistics -Human resources in research and development (online data code: Total R&D personnel by function and sector of employment).
section_name: Limitations of headcount employment

section_content: R&D personnel in the business enterprise sector, by sex and occupation, 2015 (headcount) 57

Main findings:

▶ In 2015, the proportion of the total number of researchers who were women remained at low levels (33. 4 %). There had been a slight decrease since 2009 when women accounted for 33. 6 % of researchers in the EU-27. However, when it came to the 2008-2015 period, the number of women researchers in the EU 28 increased at a higher rate on average than men (3. 8 % as against 3. 4 %). 

▶ In the majority of countries, women researchers are concentrated in the higher education sector (HES), while the business enterprise sector (BES) still has a disproportionately high share of men researchers. Across the EU, 62. 5 % of women researchers are employed in the HES, while 47. 9 % of men researchers work in the BES. 

▶ In the EU-28, gender balance in the population of researchers is currently almost at parity in the government sector (GOV) and in the higher education sector, as women account for 42. 5 % and 42. 1 % of researchers respectively in those sectors. 

▶ In the business enterprise sector, women are still severely under-represented as they make up only 20. 2 % of all researchers. However, between 2008 and 2015 in the business enterprise sector, the annual growth rate of women researchers was higher than that of men (6. 5 % for women and 5. 6 % for men in the EU-28). There was also an average annual growth in the number of women researchers in the HES (3. 1 %) and in the GOV (3. 4 %) during this period. 

▶ In the higher education and the government sectors, the majority of women researchers were in the under 35 and the 35-44 age group, while the majority of men researchers were in the 45-54 and the over 55 age group. 

▶ In the majority of the countries considered in the report, there were higher proportions of women researchers in the HES working in medical sciences and in social science. In contrast, in the GOV sector, women researchers were more likely to work in natural sciences or medical sciences. 

▶ Overall, the growth rate of women researchers in the HES and GOV sectors was positive in most fields of Research and Development (R&D) and in most countries. 

▶ In the BES, women working as researchers are better represented in the field of medical science as in most countries the proportion is over 40 %. However, women researchers are still under-represented in the field of engineering and technology, though their proportion among researchers has increased in these sectors since 2007. 

As seen earlier in Chapter 2, the distribution of doctoral graduates in the EU in all fields of study is gender-balanced. However, there are signs that women are still under-represented in the population of researchers. This Chapter presents a detailed description of women's presence as researchers, and the patterns of employment with regards to researchers' sex, across the main sectors of economy, their fields of Research and Development, and their age group. 

58 59 60

The proportion of women researchers in the EU remains low. As can be seen, in the EU-28, women represent very slightly over one third (33. 4 %) of the total population of researchers. This proportion has seen a minor increase since 2012, when women represented 33. 0 % of researchers. 

In about half the countries examined (46%), the proportion of women researchers was within the range of 40 % and 60 %, which is within the range generally considered as 'gender-balanced'. Inside the EU, Latvia and Lithuania are the countries with the highest proportions of women researchers (51. 0 % and 50. 7 % respectively). Likewise, outside the EU, the highest proportion of women researchers is observed in Tunisia (54. 6 %) and Armenia (52. 5 %). The Netherlands had the lowest proportion of women researchers (25. 4 %) followed by France (26. 1 %) and Czechia (26. 9 %). 

At the EU level, the number of women researchers grew faster than the number of men researchers between 2008 and 2015. At the EU level, the average growth rate of women researchers was higher than that of men researchers; the number of women researchers increased on average by 3. 8 % each year, while the number of men researchers increased by 3. 4 %. 

Overall, the pattern was similar in most of the countries considered. Between 2008 and 2015, the number of women researchers increased at a higher rate than the number of their male colleagues in most of the countries considered. The highest growth rates for both sexes were observed in Bosnia and Herzegovina (23. 7 % for women and 20. 4 % for men) and the Netherlands (12. 6 % for women and 13. 0 % for men). The number of both women and men researchers decreased on average in three countries; Romania (by 1. 3 % for women and -2. 1 % for men), Armenia (by -2. 8 % for women and -6. 1 % for men) and the Ukraine (by -4. 7 % for women and -5. 4 % for men). 

In Latvia, the average annual rate declined for women researchers (-0. 3 %) while it increased for men researchers (1. 8 %). In contrast, the average annual rate declined for men researchers while it increased for women researchers in five countries (MD, ES, LU, EE, FI). In Croatia, there was no change on the number of women researchers, while the number of men researchers decreased on average by 1. 9 % per year. 

61 62 63

In the majority of countries, women researchers make up a lower share of the 'economically active' population than men. 

The proportion of researchers among economically active women and men in 2015 is presented in Figure 4. 3. At the EU level, the proportion of women and men researchers was 8. 6 out of every thousand active women and 14. 5 out of every thousand active men respectively, resulting in a difference of 5. 9 points per thousand. 

The picture is no different at country level as more than three quarters of the countries examined had a higher proportion of male researchers in their labour force than females. The largest differences were seen in Finland (13. 4 points per thousand), Austria (12. 4 points per thousand) and Sweden (11. 6 points per thousand). On the female side, the proportion of researchers among active women was higher than the corresponding proportion among active men in nine countries, with the most important differences being seen in Turkey (1. 9 points per thousand), North Macedonia (1. 6 points per thousand) and Serbia (1. 2 points per thousand). The highest proportions of women researchers in the total active female population was found in Iceland (18. 6 points per thousand) and Norway (15. 0 points per thousand). However, the corresponding proportions of men researchers in those countries were 20. 2 points per thousand (Iceland) and 22. 4 points per thousand (Norway). 

In the majority of countries, women researchers are more likely to work in the higher education sector than in other sectors. 

The distribution of women and men researchers across the four main sectors of the economy in 2015 is presented in Figure 4. 4. 

The four sectors are: the business enterprise sector (BES), government (GOV), higher education (HES) and private non-profit (PNP). 

Women researchers in the EU are more likely to work in the HES in comparison to the other main sectors of the economy. The HES employed 62. 5 % of women researchers in 2015, followed by the BES with 24. 1 %. In contrast, men researchers are more equally distributed between the BES (47. 9 %) and the HES (43. 1 %). The GOV employed 12. 3 % of women researchers and 8. 4 % of men researchers in the EU, while in the PNP sector the corresponding proportions were 1. 1 % and 0. 6 % respectively. 

The pattern is similar in most of the countries where data were available. Women researchers are more likely to work in the HES in all but five of the countries considered. More specifically in France and the Netherlands, women researchers have a higher concentration in the BES, while in Armenia, Moldova and the Ukraine both women and men researchers have higher shares in the GOV. On the other hand, men researchers have a higher concentration in the BES in 17 countries and in the HES in 22 countries. 

No country had a particular high concentration of researchers in the PNP sector; the largest shares were found in Cyprus and Italy where 7. 0 % of men researchers and 5. 5 % of women researchers work in the PNP. 

64 65 66 67

In the higher education and the government sectors, gender balance was reached in the majority of countries. However, in the business enterprise sector, women researchers are still under-represented. 

The proportion of women researchers in each of the three main sectors (HES, GOV and BES) of the economy in 2015 can be seen in Figures 4. 5, 4. 6 and 4. 7. These three main sectors together employed more than 99% of all researchers in the EU. 

Women represent 42. 1 % of the researchers' population working in the HES in the EU (Figure 4. 5), and the corresponding proportion in the GOV sector is similar where women make up 42. 5 % of researchers (Figure 4. 6). The picture is different in the BES where women researchers are under-represented, making up a proportion of only 20. 2 % (Figure 4. 7). 

In the higher education and government sectors, the current population of researchers is gender-balanced in the majority of countries. The proportion of women researchers ranged between 40 % and 60 % in 31 out of 41 countries examined in the HES, and 32 out of 41 countries in the GOV sector (Figures 4. 5 and 4. 6 ). In the HES only one country (Armenia) surpassed the 60 % threshold, while this was true for two countries (Georgia and Estonia) in the GOV sector. In contrast, 10 countries (MT, CZ, FR, CY, EL, LU, DE, CH, HU, AT) had proportions of less than 40 % in the HES and nine countries (MT, TR, FR, DE, CH, BE, UK, CZ, LU) had proportions of less than 40 % in the GOV sector. 

As the higher education sector is the main source of employment for women researchers, it is not surprising that even in those countries where women researchers are under-represented in this sector, the proportion of women researchers is not particularly low there. In Malta, women hold the lowest share of higher education researchers (33. 1 %), followed by Czechia (35. 2 %). In contrast, the highest proportion of women researchers can be found in Armenia (61. 4 %), resulting in a difference between Armenia and Malta of 28. 3 percentage points. 

The variation in the proportion of women researchers is slightly larger in the government sector, with 34. 8 percentage points between the lowest share and the highest share for women researchers. The lowest shares can be found in Malta (26. 5 %) and Turkey (30. 4 %), while the highest shares can be found in Estonia (61. 2 %) and Georgia (60. 6 %). 

In the business enterprise sector, women researchers were under-represented in 35 of the 39 countries examined. More specifically, the proportion of women researchers was within the 40-60 % range in only four countries (MK, BA, HR, LV), while all the other countries failed to reach the 40 % threshold (Figure 4. 7). The disparities among countries were also notable in this sector. As can be seen in Figure 4. 7, the proportion of women in research populations was low in Luxembourg (12. 3 %) and Czechia (12. 8 %), while it reached up to 47. 8 % in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 57. 2 % in North Macedonia. 

68 69 71

In all sectors of the economy, the number of women researchers in the EU grew faster than the number of men between 2008 and 2015. 

The average rates at which the number of women and men researchers changed each year between 2008 and 2015 in the three main sectors of the economy (HES, GOV, BES) are presented in Figures 4. 8, 4. 9 and 4. 10. 

At the EU level, the average annual growth of women researchers was higher than that of men researchers in all three of the above sectors. More specifically, in the higher education sector, the number of women researchers grew by 3. 1 % on average per year, while the number of men grew by 1. 6 % on average per year (Figure 4. 8). Similar annual growth rates were also found for the government sector; 3. 4 % for women researchers and 1. 8 % for men researchers (Figure 4. 9). In the business enterprise sector, the average growth was higher for both sexes. The number of women researchers grew by an average rate of 6. 5 % per year, while the corresponding rate for men was 5. 6 % (Figure 4. 10). 

At the national level, the average annual rate of women researchers working in the higher education sector was higher than that of men researchers in the large majority of countries examined (35 out of 38). However, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was not positive in every country. In five countries (RO, HU, UA, AM, MD), the overall numbers of both women and men researchers declined, in Latvia the CAGR was negative only for women researchers, while the CAGR was negative only for men researchers in Italy, Slovenia, Spain, Poland and Croatia. 

In the government sector, although in most countries the CAGR for women researchers was higher than that for men (31 out of 38), a positive growth rate for both sexes was found in less than half the countries. More specifically, in 11 out of the 38 countries (CY, FR, UK, HR, EE, FI, SI, AM, UA, BG, MK), the CAGR was either less than or equal to zero for both sexes. 

In two countries (CZ, MT), the CAGR was less than or equal to zero only for women researchers, and in six countries (LU, PL, LV, ES, IE, MD) it was less or equal to zero only for men researchers. The largest decline in the number of researchers was found in Malta, where the number of women researchers decreased on average by 12. 5 % per year, while the rate for Maltese men researchers went up by 4. 0% on average. Among EU countries, the highest growth in the number of researchers can be seen in Sweden both for women (36. 5 %) and for men researchers (30. 4 %). 

The annual growth rate in the business enterprise sector was higher for women researchers than men in half the countries considered (19 out of 37). Positive rates for women and men researchers were found in 26 countries in total, while negative rates for both sexes were found in five countries (CY, ME, LU, RO, UA). Among EU Member States, the highest annual growth rate for men researchers was found in Bulgaria (21. 6 %), while for women researchers, the highest annual growth rate was in the Netherlands (24. 5 %). 

72

Women researchers are mainly concentrated in the younger age groups (under 35 and 35-44) in both the higher education and government sectors. 

In order to identify potential patterns in the age of the researchers, Figures 4. 11 and 4. 12 break down women and men researchers by age group; under 35s, 35-44, 45-54 and over 55, for the higher education and the government sector in 2015. 

In both sectors, the pattern is similar. In about half the countries examined, the majority of women researchers were in the under 35 and the 35-44 age groups, while the majority of men researchers were in the 45-54 and the over 55 age groups. It is noteworthy that the proportion of women researchers in the 35-44 age group is higher than men researchers in almost all the countries examined, with the only exceptions being Czechia and Cyprus in the HES, and Latvia, Cyprus and Slovakia in the GOV sector. 

More particularly, in the under 35s age group in higher education, women researchers have higher concentration in comparison to men in 21 out of the 26 countries considered. In the 35-44 age group, this number rises to 24 countries and decreases in the next age category (45-54) to 14 countries. In the oldest age group (over 55), no country had a higher share of women researchers than men researchers. 

In the government sector, women researchers have a higher share in the under 35s age group than men researchers in 19 out of 24 countries. This number increases to 21 countries in the next age category (35-44) and drops to 16 countries in the 45-54 age group. In the highest age category (the over 55s), the share of women researchers was higher than that of men researchers only in North Macedonia. 

The highest concentrations in the youngest category (under 35) in the HES can be seen in Austria for both sexes, where 57. 5 % of women and 51 % of men researchers were younger than 35 years old in 2015. In the GOV sector, the highest shares of the under 35 age group were in Czechia for women researchers (37. 8 %) and in Lithuania for men (38. 1 %). 

The highest shares of the oldest age category (over 55) can be found in Georgia for both sexes, both in the higher education and in the government sectors. 35. 3 % of women researchers employed in the HES and 59. 3 % of women employed in the GOV sector were over 55 in Georgia. The corresponding numbers for men researchers were 46. 5 % (HES) and 74. 9 % (GOV). 

75 76

Dissimilarity Index (DI)

The Dissimilarity Index (DI) indicates the percentage of either women or men (all scientific fields combined) who would have to move across different scientific fields to ensure that the proportions of women (out of the total number of women across all scientific fields) and men (out of the total number of men across all scientific fields) were equal in each scientific field. Note that this does not ensure parity of the sexes in each scientific field. 

The maximum value is 1, which indicates the presence of only either women or men in each of the scientific fields. The minimum value of 0 indicates that the frequency distribution of women across scientific fields is identical to the same distribution for men. 

Table 4. 1 shows the changes in the dissimilarity Index (DI) for researchers in the higher education and government sectors in 2012 and in 2015. When computing the DI, six fields were considered; natural sciences, engineering and technology; medical and health sciences; agricultural sciences; social sciences; humanities. For the calculation of the DI in the higher education sector, data from 'any other' field of research and development were also considered when available. For the GOV sector, no country had observations in this category. 

In the higher education sector, the values of the DI range from 0. 03 in Spain to 0. 36 in Armenia, while in the government sector the index ranges from 0. 04 in Croatia to 0. 41 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the ranges of the DI values are similar in both sectors for the large majority of countries, the distribution of both sexes has the same disparity in the HES and the GOV sectors across all the scientific fields. 

Between 2012 and 2015, the DI decreased in 11 countries in the higher education sector and in 16 countries in the government sector. A decrease in the DI indicates a higher similarity between men and women in the population of researchers across the scientific fields in these countries. The largest decrease in the DI in the HES was in North Macedonia (0. 25 in 2012 and 0. 16 in 2015) and in the GOV sector the largest decrease was in Greece (0. 28 in 2012 and 0. 14 in 2015). However, these sorts of differences are slightly more pronounced in countries where the index increased. For example, in the United Kingdom, the DI in the HES increased from 0. 09 to 0. 21. 

In 2015, the highest DI in the higher education sector was observed in Armenia (0. 36), Luxembourg (0. 32) and Finland (0. 27), while the lowest DI was observed in Spain (0. 03), Greece (0. 08), Romania and Turkey (both 0. 09). In the government sector, the highest DI was observed in Bosnia and Herzegovina (0. 41), Cyprus and Georgia (both 0. 35) and Estonia (0. 34), while the lowest values were found in Croatia (0. 04), Montenegro (0. 06), Portugal and Republic of Moldova (both 0. 07). 

77 78

Between 2008 and 2015, the proportion of women researchers increased still further in the higher education sector. 

The proportion of women researchers in the HES in 2008 and 2015, broken down by field of R&D, is presented in Table 4. 2. Overall, in most countries and in most fields of R&D with available data, the presence of women researchers increased during this period. It is noteworthy that the proportion of women researchers increased in all fields of R&D in 14 countries (BE, BG, DE, IE, ES, IT, HU, NL, PT, RO, SK, NO, CH, BA). 

In natural sciences, the proportion of women researchers increased in 26 (out of 34) countries. In three of those countries (EE, ES, IT), the increase resulted in a gender-balanced population of researchers as the proportion of women researchers in 2015 ranged between 40 % and 60 %, while the corresponding proportion in 2008 was below 40 %. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, the proportion of women researchers fell below the 40 % threshold in 2015 resulting in under-representation of women researchers. 

Although the proportion of women researchers increased in the fields of engineering and technology in 29 countries, only in Romania did this increase result in a gender-balanced population of researchers (43 %). In all other countries, women researchers are under-represented in this field. More specifically, the proportion of women researchers in 2015 ranged from 13 % in Malta to 38 % in both Spain and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

In the field of medical and health sciences, the presence of women researchers increased in 24 out of the 34 countries with available data. However, since gender parity already existed in this field in the majority of countries, the increase resulted in the over-representation of women researchers in three countries, namely Latvia, Lithuania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the other hand, in Malta, the researchers were gender-balanced in 2015 as the proportion of women researchers grew from 33 % to 47 %. 

In agricultural sciences, the proportion of women researchers increased in 26 countries in 2015 compared to 2008. In six of these countries (BG, ES, IT, HU, NL, MK), the proportion of women researchers surpassed the 40 % threshold resulting in a gender-balanced population of researchers, while in 16 countries (BE, DE, EE, IE, LV, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, NO, CH, RS, BA) the increase was within the 40-60 % range. 

In social sciences, the proportion of women researchers increased in the vast majority of the countries with available data (29 out of 34 countries). From this rise, women researchers were found to be equally represented to men researchers in seven countries (DE, IT, CY, MT, UK, TR, BA) in 2015 while in 2008 they were under-represented. However, in Croatia, the proportion of women researchers increased to slightly over 60 % in 2015. In some countries the number of women researchers decreased, for example in Montenegro the proportion declined below 40 %. 

In the field of humanities, the changes in the proportion of women researchers always resulted in more balanced populations with the exception of Lithuania where women researchers became even more over-represented. In the United Kingdom and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the presence of women researchers increased to above 40 %, while in North Macedonia the figure decreased from a high of 65 % down to 56%. 

79 80

The number of women researchers working in the higher education sector increased between 2008 and 2015, with very few exceptions. 

The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for women researchers in the higher education sector for each field of R&D in the 2008-2015 period is given in Table 4. 3. The CAGR of women researchers is accompanied by the annual changes in the number of women in each field of R&D. 

Overall, in each field of R&D, more than two thirds of the countries had a positive annual growth rate of women researchers between 2008 and 2015. More specifically, the CAGR of women researchers in this period was found positive or equal to zero in 23 countries in the field of humanities, 24 countries in the fields of agricultural sciences, in 26 countries in the fields of natural sciences, engineering and technology and medical sciences, and in 28 countries in the field of social sciences. 

In the field of natural sciences, agricultural sciences and social sciences the number of women researchers in the higher education sector was growing the fastest on average in North Macedonia (35. 6 % per year for natural sciences, 25. 5% for agricultural sciences and 36. 5 for social sciences). In the fields of engineering and technology, and humanities, the average annual growth rate was the highest in Luxembourg (22. 8 % in engineering and technology and 18. 9 % in humanities), while in the field of medical sciences, the highest CAGR could be seen in Poland (42. 0 %). 

In contrast, the average annual growth rate declined the most in Slovenia in natural sciences (-6. 5 %), in Poland in engineering and technology ( 14. 6 %), in Serbia in medical sciences (-13. 6 %) and in Sweden in agricultural sciences ( 5. 3 %). In Romania, the number of women researchers declined the most between 2008 and 2015 in the fields of social sciences (-5. 0 %) and humanities ( 15. 1 %). 

Women researchers seem more likely to work in the field of medical sciences or social sciences while men researchers seem more likely to work in natural sciences, and engineering and technology. 81 83

In the government sector, the proportion of women researchers increased in most fields of research and development. 

Table 4. 4 shows the proportion of women researchers in each field of R&D in the GOV sector for 2008 and 2015. An increase in the proportion of women researchers was found in at least half the countries with available data, in each field of R&D apart from engineering and technology field. It should be noted that in one country (Norway), there were more women researchers in all fields of R&D during that period. 

In the field of natural sciences, the proportion of women researchers increased in 22 countries. This growth resulted in a gender-balanced population of researchers in four countries (EL, IT, SI, FI). In Cyprus and Serbia women researchers were overrepresented in 2015 while in 2008 their proportion ranged between 40 % and 60 %. 

Between 2008 and 2015, the number of women researchers grew in the field of engineering and technology in 15 out of the 30 countries with available data. In three of those countries (RO, ME, RS) gender parity continues to prevail, while in Estonia, Bulgaria and Austria the proportion of women researchers rose above the threshold of 40 % in 2015. 

In medical science, the proportion of women researchers increased in 17 countries during the period 2008-2015. Since women researchers were already well represented in this field, gender parity was lost during that period in four of those countries (BE, BG, LU, SI) due to the continuous growth of the proportion of women researchers, men researchers became 'under-represented'. On the contrary, in three countries (LT, MK, RS) gender balance was reached as the presence of women researchers decreased in 2015. In two countries (DK, BA), the number of women researchers increased from previous under-representation to gender parity. 

From the 21 countries where the proportion of women researchers increased in the field of agricultural sciences, in ten countries this increase was within the gender equality range of 40-60 %. In one country (the UK), this growth resulted in a genderbalanced population of researchers as the proportion of women researchers surpassed the 40 % threshold in 2015. In four countries (BG, LV, PT, RS) women researchers were over-represented in 2015, while in 2008 women and men researchers were equally distributed across this field. 

In the field of social sciences, the presence of women researchers increased in 19 (out of 30) countries. This growth resulted in the over-representation of women researchers in three countries (CY, SI, MK) as the corresponding proportion surpassed the 60 % threshold. However, in Belgium, gender parity was achieved when the proportion of women researchers increased from 28% to 48 %. 

Women researchers working in the humanities grew in number in 17 (out of 32) countries. In Luxembourg and in the Netherlands, this growth corresponded to gender equality in the population of researchers, while in Iceland it resulted in an overrepresentation of women researchers. In contrast, gender parity was created in some of the countries where the proportion of women researchers decreased, for example in Greece and Portugal the proportion of women researchers declined to below 60%. 

84 85

The number of women researchers in the government sector grew between 2008 and 2015 in most of the countries examined. In agricultural sciences, the highest growth rate was found in Romania where the number of women researchers working in that field increased by 18. 9 % on average per year. 

In the government sector, most women researchers work in the field of natural sciences. 

The distribution of women and men researchers in the GOV sector across the main fields of R&D is presented in Figure 4. 14. 

It is of great interest that although women researchers in the HES have a higher concentration in social sciences, in the GOV sector, in contrast, most women researchers work in the field of natural sciences. More specifically, in 18 out of the 38 countries considered, women researchers made up a higher proportion in the natural sciences compared to other fields, while for medical sciences this was true in 14 countries. 

The same pattern can be seen for men researchers in the GOV sector. Despite their higher concentration in the field of engineering and technology in the HES, men researchers working in the GOV sector had a higher proportion in the field of natural sciences in 19 countries (out of 38) and in the medical sciences in eight countries. 

It is evident that in the GOV sector, women and men researchers have more similarities in the fields they most commonly work in than in the HES. However, in some countries, the distribution of women and men researchers had important differences. For example, in Cyprus, 38. 4 % of women researchers work in the field of natural sciences, while 42. 3 % of men researchers work in the field of agricultural sciences; while in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 58. 5 % of women researchers work in medical sciences, and 49. 6 % of men researchers work in the humanities. 

86 87 In the business enterprise sector, the number of women researchers decreased in particular fields of research and development in many countries between 2007 and 2014. Taking all fields into consideration, the presence of women researchers increased in about half the countries where data were available. In natural sciences, the proportion of women researchers grew in six (out of 14) countries, and the same was true for agricultural sciences. In engineering and technology, the proportion of women researchers grew in nine (out of 15) countries, and in medical and health sciences in seven (out of 16) countries. Lastly, the proportion of women researchers grew in social sciences in eight (out of 15) countries and in the humanities in four (out of eight) countries. 

Some of these increases led to a gender-balanced population of researchers for some countries in some fields of research and development. More specifically, in the field of natural sciences the proportion of women researchers rose from 39 % to 47 % in Greece; in medical sciences, the corresponding proportion increased from 21 % to 43 % in Cyprus; in agricultural sciences, it rose from 35% to 47% in Poland; in social sciences, the corresponding proportion of women researchers increased in four countries (HR, CY, PT, SI); in the humanities it increased in 6 countries (EL, FR, HR, HU, PL, PT) resulting in a gender-balanced population of researchers where previously there had been an under-representation of women researchers. 

On the other hand, there are countries where the decrease in the proportion of women researchers also led to gender-balanced population, as women researchers were over-represented in these countries. More specifically, in medical sciences, the proportion of women researchers decreased in three countries (MT, FR, SK); in social sciences the corresponding proportion decreased from 72% to 54% in Bulgaria and from 61% to 44% in Greece. 

However, gender balance was not always reached. In the field of engineering and technology no country achieved gender parity, and even in the country with the highest proportion of women, the Ukraine, only 38 % of engineering and technology researchers were women. 

88

▶ At the EU level, 13. 0 % of women researchers and 8. 0 % of men researchers in the higher education sector were working part-time in 2016. In most of the countries considered, the proportion of women researchers working part-time was higher than that of men. 

▶ In 2016, women researchers in the higher education sector were more likely than men to be employed under precarious working contracts with the respective shares in the EU being 8. 1 % and 5. 2 %. This pattern was found in two thirds of the countries examined. 

▶ The mobility of women researchers in middle or senior career stages increased between 2012 and 2016, although at the EU level, men researchers in these stages were still more mobile than women. 

▶ However, women researchers in early career stages are slightly more mobile than men at the EU level, though this pattern varies between countries. 

▶ Women employed in scientific R&D activities earned on average 17 % less than their male colleagues in 2014. In the economy as a whole, the gender pay gap was marginally lower, at 16. 6 %. Higher hourly earnings on average for men were also found at national level in the vast majority of countries in both the scientific R&D activities and in the economy as a whole. 

▶ The gender pay gap increases with age in the EU. The same pattern was observed in nine countries for scientific R&D activities, and in 13 countries for the total economy. 

▶ In 2015, R&D expenditure per researcher seems to have an inverse relationship with the proportion of female researchers. Most of the countries which spent high amounts per researcher had some of the lower shares of women in researchers. 

▶ 56 % of the 313 Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) in the EU that provided relevant information to the Monitoring the evolution and benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation (MoRRI) project had adopted gender equality plans in 2016. The corresponding proportion of research staff working for these RPOs was 79. 5 %. 

Surveys on academic researchers (Fumasoli et al, 2015) point to a feeling of career insecurity among young scientists as they cannot see a predictable career pathway towards a permanent position after obtaining their PhD. The precariousness of research careers makes them less attractive to new and talented PhD graduates. This lack of job security can also have a negative impact on the scientific output of researchers already in the system, especially women in the early stages of their careers. It can reduce many sorts of opportunities, including obtaining research funding, working with leading scientists, achieving tenure or long-term contracts, or having sufficient time for research. This Chapter investigates the propensity of women and men researchers to be employed with certain types of contract, their career mobility, the extent of the gender pay gap in scientific R&D, the adoption of gender equality plans by Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) and the levels of R&D expenditure in individual countries. It must be noted that whilst this chapter gives an insight into the relative quality of the working conditions for women and men researchers, it does not provide the contextual information necessary to assess the reasons why particular individuals are working in specific conditions. Furthermore, it does not offer a final value judgement as to the merits of different forms of employment. 

96 In almost two thirds of the countries, women researchers in the higher education sector are more likely than men researchers to be in part-time employment. 

Part-time work is an important feature of working conditions with noteworthy gender aspects. The predominance of women in part-time work is on the one hand often explained by gender stereotypes related to family responsibilities but is also linked to gender segregation in employment. On the other hand, part-time work might be seen as an instrument that increases the labour market participation -and therefore, to a certain extent at least -the economic independence of women (European Commission, 2014a). Different types of work flexibility may have fewer negative, gender-specific consequences, as a recent critical analysis of part-time work in the Netherlands shows (Vinkenburg et al, 2015). 

Figure 5. 1 presents the proportion of women and men researchers in part-time employment in the higher education sector by country of employment. Part-time employment was self-declared by the researchers who participated in the MORE 3 survey. Readers should note that this is based on weighted MORE Survey data, as opposed to the Labour Force Survey (LFS). It should be noted that there may be some comparability issues between MORE 3 and LFS data from Eurostat, due to: 1) the age classifications in use and 2) the part-time/full-time distinction. In terms of the first issue, the MORE Survey data cover researchers of all ages whereas the LFS data cover researchers aged 15-74. As such, there may be small differences due to the exclusion of the 75+ age group from the LFS rates. In terms of the second issue, the full-time/part-time distinction in the Eurostat LFS data is made 'on the basis of a spontaneous answer given by the respondent in all countries' (except for the Netherlands, Iceland and Norway, where other criteria are used relating to the usual number of hours worked). However, in the MORE Survey, the full-time/part-time distinction was made, based on the spontaneous answer of respondents, regardless of their country. Others: This indicator compares the part-time employment rate amongst women researchers and men researchers respectively (each calculated as a percentage of the respective total number of women and men researchers). It includes researchers at all career stages and in all fields of education; Countries are defined by researchers' country of current employment; Weighting applied to increase representativeness of sample. 

Source: MORE 3 Survey (Q2, Q31, Q33).
section_name: Annex 3.3

section_content: Two large-scale MORE 3 surveys were carried out (European Commission, 2017c). The EU Higher Education Survey, data from which are used in this publication, is a survey of more than 10,000 individual researchers currently working in higher education institutions (HEI) in the EU and three Associated Countries. The survey was conducted from May to June 2016, and observed researchers with EU and non-EU citizenship, and also researchers who were mobile outside the EU but then returned to work inside the EU. It did not include EU and non-EU researchers who were working outside the EU. The sampling and the survey strategy guarantee representative data at country level. 

At EU-28 level, 13. 0 % of women researchers and 8. 0 % of men researchers in the higher education sector were employed part-time. 

Women researchers have a higher share of part-time employment than men in 18 of the 31 countries considered, with the highest differences found in Switzerland (21. 9 percentage points), the Netherlands (19. 4 percentage points) and Germany (12. 9 percentage points). The same countries have also the highest part-time employment rate of women researchers in the higher education sector (45. 6 %, 34. 8 % and 31. 2 % respectively). The lowest proportion of part-time employment among women researchers can be found in Italy (1. 3 %), Slovakia (1. 6 %) and Poland (2. 1 %). 

On the opposite site, for countries where part-time employment rates are higher for men than for women researchers, differences between women and men employed as part-time researchers were much smaller; Luxembourg and Latvia had the largest gap with 7. 8 and 6. 1 percentage points respectively. The lowest difference between part-time employment rates of women and men, regardless of the pattern, was found in Italy (1. 3 % for women compared to 1. 6 % for men). 

In the higher education sector, women researchers are more likely than men to be employed under 'precarious' contracts. 

The existence and increase of precarious employment are subject to debate throughout the EU (European Parliament, 2016). 

Researchers with 'precarious working contracts' are those without contract, with fixed term contracts of up to one year, or with other non-fixed term, non-permanent contracts. This definition of 'precarious' working contracts differs from that of the Labour Market and Labour Force Statistics of Eurostat, which describes 'precarious' contracts as being for three months or less. Further details are provided at: http://ec. europa. eu/eurostat/web/labour-market/quality-of-employment. 

The most affected are junior academic positions or other positions relying on third-party funding. The provision of research jobs that are associated with precariousness is in sharp conflict with the EU-wide goal to provide attractive and secure positions in academia to fully exploit Europe's talent pool for the higher education sector within the ERA and Horizon 2020 initiatives (European Commission, 2017d). 

98 Others: The indicator compares the proportion of women researchers and the proportion of men researchers on 'precarious working contracts' (each calculated as a percentage of the respective total number of women and men researchers) in the higher education sector. Researchers with 'precarious working contracts' includes those with no contracts, fixed-term contracts of up to one year, or other contracts; Countries refer to researchers' country of current employment; Weighting applied to increase representativeness of sample. 

Source: MORE 3 Survey (Q2, Q31, Q32).
section_name: S H E

section_name: S H E

section_content: Women more mobile than men

Figure 5. 2 shows the proportion of researchers in the higher education sector employed on 'precarious' working contracts. 

Researchers were considered to be in precarious employment if they replied that they worked under the conditions listed in the previous paragraph. Self-employed researchers were not included in the category of precarious working contracts. 

In the EU, 8. 1 % of women and 5. 2 % of men researchers in the higher education sector worked under precarious contracts. 

As can be seen, women had higher proportions of precarious employment than men in two thirds of the countries considered, with Luxembourg (9. 1 %) and Greece (6. 4 %) having the largest differences. For women researchers, the highest proportions of employment under precarious contracts were found in Hungary (15. 0 %), Cyprus (14. 2 %) and Luxembourg (13. 7 %). 

The opposite can also be observed, although in fewer countries and with smaller differences. The highest difference among the countries where the proportion of men researchers working under precarious contracts was higher than the corresponding proportion of women was in Ireland (5. 8 percentage points). The lowest differences between sexes, regardless of pattern, were found in Croatia (0. 3 percentage points) and Romania (0. 5 percentage points). 

International mobility of researchers in the early stages of their careers follows no genderassociated pattern. 

Mobility is seen as a research policy instrument to foster scientific quality. Some of the perceived benefits of mobility for individuals include greater opportunities for collaboration, access to new kinds of research equipment and exposure to new disciplines. Barriers to greater mobility in Europe include administrative and social complexities such as the transferability of research qualifications, research grants and pensions, as well as transparent, open and merit-based recruitment (European Commission, 2014b). 

The difference in the proportions of women and men researchers who -during their PhD -moved for at least three months to a country other than that where they attained (or will attain) their PhD is shown in Figure 5. 3. The figure refers only to researchers in the early stages of their careers (i. e. R1 -first-stage researchers, and R2 -recognized researchers of the European Framework for Research Careers, see box below). A positive result indicates that men's rate of mobility is higher, whilst a negative result shows that women's rate is higher (Annex 5. 1 presents the individual mobility rates for each sex). 

Sex differences in the international mobility of early stage researchers vary according to country. At the EU-28 level, women seem to be slightly more mobile than men (18. 8 % of women compared to 17. 7 % of men), while at country level, the mobility of women researchers ranges from 32. 7 percentage points higher than that of men in Spain (70. 4 % of women compared to 37. 7 % of men) to 17. 8 percentage points lower in Denmark (31. 2 % of women compared to 49. 0 % of men). 

Figure 5. 3 Sex differences in the international mobility of researchers during their PhD, 2016

Notes: Data unavailable for: CY, EL, IS, LV, MK, MT, RO, TR, ME, AL, RS, BA, AM, IL, GE, FO, MD, TN, UA; CZ, HU (women); BG, LT, SI (men). Others: The indicator is calculated by subtracting the share (%) of internationally mobile women researchers from the share (%) of internationally mobile men researchers. In this context, 'internationally mobile' researchers are those who during their PhD studies have moved for three months or more to a country other than the one where they completed or will obtain their PhD;

The indicator covers researchers at career stages R1 and R2 in all fields of education; The country of the researcher is the country where they completed or will complete their PhD; Weighting applied to increase the representativeness of sample. 

Source: MORE3 survey (online database, flag GMD3). 

100

At senior stages of their careers, men researchers seem to be more mobile than women researchers. 

Figure 5. 4 explores the sex differences in the mobility of researchers at more advanced stages in their careers (i. e. R2, R3 and R4 of the European Framework for Research Careers). It presents the difference between the proportions of women and men researchers who reported that they have worked for at least three months in the last decade in a country other than the one where they attained their highest educational degree. A positive result indicates that men's rate of mobility is higher, whilst a negative result shows that women's rate is higher (Annex 5. 2 presents the individual mobility rates for each sex). The difference between the mobility of women researchers and men researchers in the EU was 3. 6 percentage points in favour of men (25. 1 % mobility for women and 28. 7 % for men). It is worth noting that this difference has decreased since 2012 when it was 9 percentage points (European Commission, 2016b). 

The mobility of women has also increased since 2012 at country level (European Commission, 2016b); women are more mobile internationally than men in more countries in 2016 than they were in 2012 (11 and 5 countries respectively). Moreover, sex differences in the countries where men researchers are more mobile than women have decreased since 2012. The largest differences in mobility between women and men researchers in favour of men for 2016 were found in Ireland with 11. 1 percentage points, Slovakia with 10. 9 percentage points and Poland with 10. 4 percentage points. The highest sex difference in mobility in favour of men for 2012 was in Cyprus with 25. 2 percentage points. Others: The indicator is calculated by subtracting the share (%) of internationally mobile women researchers (out of the total number of women researchers) from the share (%) of internationally mobile men researchers (out of the total number of men researchers). 'Internationally mobile' researchers are those who have worked abroad for three months or more at least once in the last decade. The indicator combines researchers at career stages R2-R4 (post-PhD) in all fields of education; The country of the researcher is their 'panel country' (i. e. the country identified as their country of current employment during the collection of researchers' contact details before the survey); Weighting and non-response calibration applied to increase representativeness of sample. 

Source: MORE3 Survey (flag GML1).
section_name: Men more mobile than women

section_content: The
section_name: The European Framework for Research Careers

section_content: Women more mobile than men

In the vast majority of countries, women working in scientific R&D earn less on average than men, with the gender pay gap being slightly wider than in the total economy. 

Equal pay between women and men for work of equal value is one of the main principles in the EU Treaties. However, the gender pay gap (GPG) persists (European Commission, 2010). The GPG is the consequence of various inequalities in the labour market, such as different working patterns, differences in institutional mechanisms and systems of wage setting. It is linked to a number of legal, social and economic factors which go far beyond the single issue of equal pay for equal work. 

It is acknowledged that closing the gender pay gap will have a positive impact on economic growth in the EU (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2017a) Table 5. 1 presents the unadjusted GPG for scientific R&D activities and for the total economy in 2014. This indicator is not adjusted for individual or other observable characteristics that may explain part of the earnings difference and it gives an overall picture of gender differences in remuneration. Positive numbers indicate higher earnings for men while negative results indicate higher earnings for women. 

At the EU-level, women's average gross hourly earnings were 16. 6 % lower than those of men in the total economy, and 17. 0 % lower in scientific R&D activities. In all countries considered, except Turkey, women earned on average less than men in the total economy, with the minimum GPG being 4. 5 % in Romania and the maximum being 28. 1 % in Estonia. Turkey was the exception with women earning on average 1. 3 % more than men in 2014. 

In scientific R&D activities, women had higher earnings than men in five countries: North Macedonia (GPG: -21. 8 %), Romania (-6. 7 %), Luxembourg (-3. 8 %), Bulgaria (-1. 4 %) and Serbia (-0. 8 %). However, in most of the countries where the average gross hourly earnings of men surpass those of women, the GPG was wider than that of the total economy. The most notable differences in the GPG between scientific R&D and the total economy are found in Turkey with 37. 0 percentage points and in North Macedonia with 31. 0 percentage points. Turkey, although it is the exception in its total economy, had the highest GPG (in favour of men) in scientific R&D (35. 7 %) followed by Ireland (30. 5 %) and Czechia (25. 4 %). In total, 10 out of the 35 countries examined had a GPG larger than 20. 0 % in favour of men. 

103
section_name: Men more mobile than women

section_content: The gender pay gap (GPG) is defined as the difference between the average gross hourly earnings of paid women and men employees expressed as percentage of the average gross hourly earnings of paid men employees. In nine countries, when age increased, the gender pay gap widened in favour of men in scientific R&D activities. The most prominent trend can be seen in Lithuania where the GPG was -27. 7 % for the under 35s, it increased to -15. 4 % for those aged 35-44, to 31. 7 % for those aged 45-54 and to 42. 6 % for the over 55s. The overall difference between the lower and higher age categories was 70. 3 percentage points. In the total economy, the same trend was true for 13 countries, some of which had confidential data in the economic activity of scientific R&D and could not be examined. 

A GPG that favours women is not common, either in the scientific R&D activity or in the total economy. The most notable exceptions of GPG for those working on scientific R&D activities can be seen in Lithuania (-27. 7 %) for those aged younger than 35, in North Macedonia (-30. 8 %) for those aged 35-44, in Serbia (-9 %) for those aged 45-54 and in Romania (-4. 6 %) for those aged 55 or more. 105

In most countries, the presence of women in research, and R&D expenditure per researcher, have an inverse relationship. 

Figure 5. 5 explores the relationship between the proportion of women researchers in full-time equivalents (FTE) with R&D expenditure per researcher, in 2015. Both variables cover all sectors of the economy (higher education, government, business enterprise and private non-profit). R&D expenditure is expressed in purchasing power standards (PPS), an artificial common currency used to eliminate the differences in price levels between countries -one unit of PPS buys the same volume of goods and services in all countries. R&D expenditure per researcher for each country was calculated as the total R&D divided by the total number of researchers in FTE. 

At the EU-28 level, R&D expenditure per researcher was 157 138 PPS, an amount surpassed only by one quarter of the countries considered (NL, FR, SE, IT, BE, LU, DE, AT, CH). As shown in Figure 5. 5 most of the countries that spend high amounts per researcher have a low representation of women researchers. In Austria, Germany and Luxembourg, countries that spend over 200 000 PPS per researcher, women represent less than 30 % of the FTE researchers' population. 

Conversely, in countries with low spending on R&D per researcher, women have the highest presence. For example, in the countries that spent under 80 000 PPS per researcher (BA, PT, BG, LV, RS, EL, ME, MK), the women's share in researchers ranged from 36 % (Greece) to 51 % (North Macedonia). Similar results were also found in 2012 (EC, 2016). 

The business enterprise sector, a sector in which women researchers are under-represented, spends the highest amounts per researcher on R&D. 

R&D expenditure per researcher (in PPS) for each of the three main sectors (higher education, government and business enterprise) is given in Figure 5. 6. At the EU-28 level, 203 299 PPS were spent per researcher in the business enterprise sector, whereas the amounts spent in the government and higher education sectors were 171 112 PPS and 92 249 PPS respectively. 

As can be seen in the table, in 25 of the 36 countries considered (all except IE, FR, CY, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, UK, MK and TR), the highest spending per researcher was in the business enterprise sector. Moreover, in the majority of countries (every country except DK, NL, SE and IS) the R&D expenditure per researcher is higher in the government sector than in the higher education sector, the Netherlands being the only country that spends the most in the higher education sector. 

Comparing these results with those in Figure 4. 7, it can be seen that in countries which are big spenders per researcher in the business enterprise sector (e. g. CH, LU, IT and DE), the proportion of women researchers in the same sector is very low, ranging from 12. 3 % in Luxembourg to 23. 3 % in Switzerland. An exception to this is Croatia which is the third highest spender in R&D per researcher in the business enterprise sector (~ 292 thousand PPS) and has a good gender balance in the population of the sector's researchers (42. 2 % women).
section_name: Gender pay gap

section_content: Units for measuring R&D personnel as proposed by the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) are: HC ( §329): Head count. The number of persons engaged in R&D at a given date or the average number of persons engaged in R&D during the (calendar) year or the total number of persons engaged in R&D during the (calendar) year. FTE ( §333): Full time equivalent. The full-time equivalent of R&D personnel is defined as the ratio of working hours actually spent on R&D during a specific reference period (usually a calendar year) divided by the total number of hours conventionally worked in the same period by an individual or by a group. That means that one FTE corresponds to one year's work by one person in R&D. The unit makes employees comparable, while taking into account any differences in the number of hours they work. 

106 Other: Values shown may differ slightly from the written analysis, which was conducted at a higher level of precision than the data presented here; HES: Higher Education Sector; GOV: Government Sector; BES: Business Enterprise Sector. 

Source: Eurostat -Statistics on research and development (online data codes: rd_e_gerdtot and rd_p_persocc). 

107

Proportion of RPOs that adopted gender equality plans, 2016

Notes: Data unavailable for: LU, IS, NO, CH, ME, MK, AL, RS, TR, BA, AM, FO, GE, IL, MD, TN, UA; For proportions based on up to 10 respondents, numerators and denominators are displayed in the figure; the EU-28 calculation does not include Luxembourg as no data were available. 

Other: A research performing organisation (RPO) is defined as a higher education institute (HEI) or a public research organisation (PRO); A Gender Equality Plan is a 'consistent set of provisions and actions aiming at ensuring gender equality'; The indicator is calculated as the proportion of the RPOs which responded positively to the survey question 'Does your organisation have a gender equality plan' out of the total respondent RPOs; Values shown may differ slightly from the written analysis, which was conducted on a higher level of precision than what is presented. 

Source: HEI and PRO surveys, MoRRI project (custom extraction of data). 

Half the research performing organisations (RPOs) in the EU that provided relevant information to the MoRRI project adopted gender equality plans. However, at the country level, the situation varies widely. 

In
section_name: Head count (HC) v. full time equivalent (FTE)

section_content: A Gender Equality Plan (GEP) is a set of actions aiming to:

• Conduct impact assessment/audits of procedures and practices to identify gender bias;

• Identify and implement innovative strategies to correct any bias;

• Set targets and monitor progress via indicators. 

(European Commission, 2012)

The European Institute for Gender Equality has developed the GEAR tool (https://eige. europa. eu/gender-mainstreaming/ toolkits/gear), a guide for research organisations and higher education institutions that plan to set up, implement, monitor and evaluate GEPs. The tool identifies the areas that may need to be addressed by the organisations, depending on their situation and it provides both the resources, instruments and activities for each area that the organisation can deploy, and also a set of good practice examples that they could borrow from. 

109

Proportion of research staff working in RPOs that adopted gender equality plans, 2016

Notes: Data unavailable for: LU, IS, NO, CH, ME, MK, AL, RS, TR, BA, AM, FO, GE, IL, MD, TN, UA; the EU-28 calculation does not include Luxembourg as no data were available; When the population of responding RPOs is up to 10 the actual numbers are presented in parentheses next to the proportion, so as to highlight results that are more prone to yearly fluctuations. 

Others: A research performing organisation (RPO) is defined as a higher education institute (HEI) or a public research organisation (PRO); A Gender Equality Plan is a 'consistent set of provisions and actions aiming at ensuring gender equality'; The indicator is calculated as the proportion of research staff that work in the RPOs which responded positively to the survey question 'Does your organisation have a gender equality plan' out of the research staff that work in all responding RPOs (excluding the RPOs that gave a 'Not known' response); The total number of responding organisations was 313. 

Source: HEI and PRO surveys, MoRRI project (custom extraction of data). 

International mobility rates of higher education sector researchers during their PhD, by sex, 2016

Notes: Data unavailable for: CY, EL, IS, LV, MK, MT, RO, TR, ME, AL, RS, BA, AM, IL, GE, FO, MD, TN, UA; CZ, HU (women); BG, LT, SI (men). Others: ':' indicates that data are not available; The indicator covers researchers at career stages R1 and R2 in all fields of education; 'Internationally mobile' researchers are those who during their PhD studies have moved for three months or more to a country other than the one where they completed, or will obtain, their PhD; The country of the researcher is the country where they completed or will complete their PhD; Weighting applied to increase representativeness of sample. 

Source: MORE3 survey (flag GMD3). 

One of the indicators produced was the share of RPOs with GEPs. In total, 313 RPOs employing approximately 320 000 research staff provided information. Figure 5. 7 presents the proportion of these 313 RPOs that had adopted GEPs in 2016. As it can be seen, at the EU level, 55. 9% of the responding RPOs had adopted GEPs. The proportion of RPOs with a GEP shows large variation between countries, ranging from under 20 % in Slovakia, Bulgaria and Czechia to over 90 % in Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom. This wide variation is partly due to the fact that in some countries it is legally obligatory for RPOs to have a GEP. The very small number of responding RPOs in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta do not allow drawing any conclusions from the 0 % reported for these three countries. 

Figure 5. 8 shows the proportion of research staff who are employed in the responding RPOs that had GEPs. The figure refers to the same 313 RPOs as figure 5. 7. As shown, nine countries have a high proportion (above 90%) of their research staff working in RPOs that have adopted GEP (SE, DE, BE, UK, FI, AT, ES, DK, IE). In the EU as a whole, the corresponding proportion was 79. 5%; more than half of the countries considered had a proportion lower than that. 

Since

International mobility rates of higher education sector researchers in post-PhD career stages, by sex, 2016

Notes: Data unavailable for: ME, MK, AL, TR, RS, BA, AM, FO, GE, IL, MD, TN, UA. Others: The indicator combines researchers at career stages R2-R4 (post-PhD) in all fields of education; 'Internationally mobile' researchers are those who have worked abroad for three months or more at least once in the last decade; The country of the researcher is their 'panel country' (i. e. the country identified as their country of current employment during the collection of the researcher's contact details before the survey); Weighting applied to increase representativeness of sample. 

Source: MORE3 Survey (flag GML1).
section_name: Gender Equality Plans

section_content: Total intramural R&D expenditure for the business, government and higher education sectors in million PPS, 2015
section_name: Women Men

section_content: ▶ There is a diminishing representation of women as a standard academic career progresses. In the EU-28 in 2016, women constituted 54 % of students and 58 % of graduates at the B. Sc. and M. Sc. levels (or their equivalent -ISCED 6 and 7). However, women made up 48 % of students and graduates at doctoral level (ISCED 8), 46 % of grade C academic staff, 40 % of grade B and 24 % of grade A academic staff. 

▶ The share of women was even smaller in STEM. There, women made up 32 % of students and 36 % of graduates at the B. Sc. and M. Sc. levels, 37 % of students and 39 % of graduates at doctoral level and 35 % of grade C, 28 % of grade B and 15 % of grade A academic staff. 

▶ At the national level, the proportion of women among grade A staff ranged from 13 % to 54. 3 %, exceeding 50 % in only one country. It is however encouraging that since 2013 the proportion of grade A women had increased in almost all countries examined. ▶ While 7. 4 % of women academic staff were at grade A, the corresponding proportion for men was 16. 7 %. 

▶ The highest proportions of women among grade A staff were observed in the humanities (32. 1 %), the social (28. 1 %) and the medical sciences (27. 5 %). The smallest proportions were observed in engineering and technology (12. 0 %) and in natural sciences (18. 1 %). 

▶ Women were better represented among grade A staff of a younger age. Among grade A academic staff, women made up 36. 2 % of staff less than 35 years old, 27. 5 % of staff aged 35 to 44, 25. 8 % of staff aged 45 to 54 and just 22. 6 % of staff aged 55 or older. 

▶ The proportion of women among heads of institutions in the higher education sector in the EU increased from 20. 1 % in 2014 to 21. 7 % in 2017. The respective proportion among the heads of universities or assimilated institutions accredited to deliver PhDs increased slightly over the same period from 14. 1 % to 14. 3 %. 

▶ Women made up 27 % of board members (including leaders) in the EU in 2017. This proportion ranged from 12 % to 54 % at the national level, while in nine of the countries examined it was 40 % or higher. 

There are striking imbalances between the number of women and men at the highest levels of academia in the great majority of EU countries. The overall numbers of women and their ratios to those of men in senior academic and decision-making positions are much lower than what would be expected given the growing numbers of women among higher education graduates in recent decades (EIGE, 2017b; OECD, 2018). 

Furthermore, data available across the broad STEM field level may hide discipline-specific causes of gender imbalances in career progression. For example, in the life sciences, where at the EU level, women make up the majority of graduates up to doctoral level, they are less successful than men in obtaining research grants (European Research Council, 2018, p. 57; van der Lee, 2015) and their numbers progressively decline at each progressive career stage (Helmer, 2017). 

This chapter discusses the presence of women in the different grades of an academic career, with emphasis on the highest grade (i. e. the highest post at which research is normally conducted) across the different fields of research and development and in top-level positions (i. e. as heads of institutions or as members of boards). 

115 Women make up less than 50 % of doctoral students, doctoral graduates and academic staff. In the top academic grade in particular, women are a clear minority and their position since 2013 has improved only slightly. 

Research identifies institutional and field-related research cultures that favour the advancement of men. Some of the issues stopping women's advancement to top decision-making roles include women's lower success rates in securing prestigious grants and the preponderance of part-time and short-term contract research positions among women's careers (Milojevic, 2018). In addition, implicit gender bias in performance assessment, gender stereotypes, gendered perceptions of leadership and leadership styles, the 'glass ceiling', and the 'gender pay gap' are among the factors that can influence the recruitment and promotion of women to grade A positions, evaluation committees and university oversight bodies and scientific committees responsible for research funding. 

As Figure 6. 1 shows, women were the majority of students and graduates at Bachelor's and Master's or equivalent levels (ISCED 6 and 7), in the EU in 2016. In fact, their share among graduates (58 %) was higher than that among students (54 %), pointing to the better performance of women rather than men in their studies. One should keep in mind however, that the students of 2016 are not the same people as the graduates of 2016. The gap between women and men has narrowed by two percentage points since 2013. The opposite picture was evident in doctoral students and graduates (ISCED 8). There were slightly fewer women than men in both groups, accounting for 48 % of each one. This represents a mild improvement since 2013 when women were 46 % of doctoral students and 47 % of graduates. 

The share of women among academic staff in the EU however, rapidly declines as they advance to higher positions in research organisations. In 2016, women were 46 % of Grade C staff, defined as the first grade or post into which a newly qualified PhD (ISCED 8) graduate would normally be recruited. This is slightly smaller than their share among ISCED 8 graduates. The share of women dropped to 40 % among grade B staff and to slightly less than a quarter (24 %) of grade A staff. Their gap with men has been reduced slowly since 2013, when the proportion of women in grade C was 44 %, in grade B it was 39 % and in grade A it was as low as 22 %. 

116 The share of women is considerably smaller in science, technology, engineering and mathematics than over all pooled fields of R&D, across the career path. 

In the field of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the gap between women and men is wider than the gap for all fields of R&D considered together. This affects all tertiary education levels and all the three higher grades. 

More specifically, as shown in Figure 6. 2, in the EU in 2016, women were 32 % of students and 36 % of graduates in STEM at ISCED 6 and 7 levels. These proportions are 23 percentage points lower than the respective ones over all fields of education. At ISCED level 8, women were 37 % of students and 39 % of graduates in STEM, eleven and nine percentage points respectively below their corresponding shares over all fields. 

The same picture of a wider gap between women and men emerges among academic staff. In the EU in 2016, women were 35 % of grade C staff, 28 % of grade B staff and 15 % of grade A staff in STEM. These shares are considerably smaller than the respective ones over all fields together. Even if the gaps remain large, the situation has, nonetheless, improved slightly since 2013, when the respective shares were 34 % (grade C), 26 % (grade B) and 14 % (Grade A). 

117 The proportion of women among grade A staff at the national level ranges from 13 % to 54. 3 %. The proportion is 40 % or higher in just five countries. 

Table 6. 1 shows the proportion of women among academic staff for each grade at the national level. Next to grades A-C, the table also shows grade D, which corresponds to academic posts that do not normally require a PhD, e. g. postgraduate students not yet holding a PhD degree who are engaged as researchers. Due to the variability in the application of the grading definitions in the different national systems, it is difficult to compare the proportions observed for grades B-D across countries. In the majority of the countries, however, Grade A either corresponds to the rank of full professor, or to the highest post at which research is normally conducted. 

As Table 6. 1 shows, women's share among grade A staff at the national level, ranged from 13 % to 54. 3 % in 2016. The largest proportions of women were observed in Romania (54. 3 %), Bosnia and Herzegovina (45. 1 %) and Latvia (41. 4 %). The smallest proportions were in Cyprus (13 %), Israel (14. 3 %) and Czechia (14. 6 %). 

The share of women among all academic staff, irrespective of grade, in the EU, was 41. 3 %, while at national level it ranged from 34. 4 % to 57. 4 %. The largest proportions of women were observed in Lithuania (57. 4 %), Latvia (55. 8 %) and Romania (54. 6 %). The smallest ones were found in Czechia (34. 4 %), Greece (35. 1 %) and France (36. 5 %). 

118 119 120

In almost all countries examined, the proportion of women in grade A positions increased between 2013 and 2016. 

The proportion of women among grade A academic staff increased slightly between 2013 and 2016, from 22. 1 % to 23. 7 % (Figure 6. 3). The proportion also increased in all countries examined in She Figures and where data are available for both 2013 and 2016. The only exceptions were Hungary, where the proportion fell from 24. 1 % to 20. 1 % and Spain, where it fell from 21. 8 % to 21. 3 %. The largest increases, exceeding five percentage points, were observed in Latvia (from 34. 4% to 41. 4 %), Slovenia (from 22. 5 % to 28. 9 %) and Romania (from 48. 4 % to 54. 3 %). 

Relatively fewer women than men among academic staff reach grade A positions in their career. 

Figure 6. 4 compares the proportion of women and men in the higher education sector that are in grade A positions. In the EU as a whole, 7. 4 % of women and 16. 7 % of men academic staff were in grade A positions. At the national level, the proportion of women academic staff in grade A positions ranged in 2016 between 1. 9 % and 27. 5 %. The highest proportions were observed in Iceland (27. 5 %), Malta (20 %), Slovenia (19. 3 %) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (18 %), while the smallest ones were found in Portugal (1. 9 %), Czechia (2. 4 %) and Ireland (2. 7 %). It should be noted however, that the large variations across countries could be partly attributable to differences in their respective grading systems. 

Comparing the situation between women and men it is observed that the proportion of women among grade A academic staff was smaller than the corresponding proportion of men in all the countries examined. The difference between the two proportions, everywhere in favour of men, ranged from 0. 2 to 18. 1 percentage points. The smallest differences were found in Romania (0. 2 percentage points), Malta (0. 9 percentage points) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (1. 5 percentage points), while the largest ones were observed in Iceland (18. 1 percentage points), Greece (14. 3 percentage points) and Italy (14. 1 percentage points). 

The under-representation of women among grade A positions affects every field of R&D, but the highest effect is in the fields of Engineering and Technology and Natural Sciences. 

Data on the proportion of women among grade A staff by field of R&D (Table 6. 2) show a clear differentiation between fields. In 2016, in the EU as a whole, women represented only 12. 0 % of grade A academic staff in engineering and technology and 18. 1 % of the grade A academic staff in the natural sciences. Their highest shares among grade A academic staff were observed in the humanities (32. 1 %), the social sciences (28. 1 %) and the medical sciences (27. 5 %). 

At the national level, the highest shares of women among grade A academic staff were found in the field of humanities in 13 of the 24 examined countries ( Women in grade A positions are relatively more likely than men of the same grade to work in the medical, agricultural, social sciences or the humanities, and relatively less likely than men to work in the natural sciences, or in engineering and technology. 

Figure 6. 5 shows how women and men in grade A positions are spread across fields of R&D. The field in which most grade A staff worked in 2016, in the EU as a whole, were the social sciences, which occupied 30. 2 % of women and 24. 2 % of men in this grade. The least popular field for both sexes were the agricultural sciences, where 3. 9 % of women and 3. 5 % of men worked in grade A positions. The second most popular field however differs between women and men. It is the humanities for women (22. 6 %) and the natural sciences for men (23. 2 %). 

At national level, the social sciences are the most popular field of both women and men in grade A in 10 countries (IT, LT, LU, NL, PT, SI, SK, UK, NO and CH), while the agricultural sciences were the least popular for both sexes in 19 countries (BE, DE, EL, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, LU, MT, AT, PT, SK, FI, SE, UK, NO, CH and IL). The share of women in grade A that work in each field ranged as follows across countries in 2016: from 3. 1 % to 37. 8 % in the natural sciences; from 3. 8 % to 26. 1 % in engineering and technology, from 2. 7 % to 33. 6 % in the medical sciences, from 0 % to 11. 1 % in the agricultural sciences, from 13 % to 64. 3 % in the social sciences; and from 6. 2 % to 37. 2 % in the humanities. 

It is also interesting to compare the proportions of women at grade A who had chosen a specific field with the corresponding proportions of men. At the EU level, relatively more women than men worked in medical sciences (19. 2 % of women, 15. 9 % of men), agricultural sciences (3. 9 % of women, 3. 5 % of men), social sciences (30. 2 % of women, 24. 2 % of men) and the humanities (22. 6 % of women, 15 % of men). In the two remaining fields women were less concentrated than men. In grade A positions, 7. 8 % of women worked in engineering and technology, as opposed to 18. 1 % of men and 16. 3 % of women who worked in the natural sciences and to 23. 2 % of men. At the national level, relatively more women than men in grade A positions worked in engineering only in Cyprus, and in natural sciences only in Croatia, Italy, Malta and Portugal. In the agricultural sciences there were relatively more women in grade A in 11 countries (DK, DE, HR, PL, PT, SI, FI, SE, UK, NO and CH), while in the medical sciences there were relatively more women in grade A in 17 countries (BE, DK, EL, ES, HR, CY, LT, MT, PL, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK, NO, BA and IL). At the other end, relatively more men than women in grade A worked in humanities only in Luxembourg, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Israel and in social sciences only in Cyprus. 

122 123 124

Women face greater difficulties than men in advancing to the highest academic positions in all the countries examined. Nevertheless, the situation for women has improved, albeit slightly, since 2013 in most countries. In comparison with 2013, the situation has improved, i. e. the GCI has decreased in most of the countries shown in Figure 6. 6. The greatest improvements were observed in Latvia (from 1. 63 to 1. 35), Cyprus (from 2. 84 to 2. 60), Slovenia (from 1. 63 to 1. 39) and Belgium (from 1. 95 to 1. 74). In four countries, the situation for women had deteriorated since 2013. These were Germany, where the GCI increased from 1. 34 to 1. 77, Hungary (from 1. 57 to 1. 94), Spain (from 1. 76 to 1. 85) and Israel (from 2. 32 to 2. 33).
section_name: in decision-making Main findings:

section_content: The Glass Ceiling Index (GCI) is a relative index comparing the proportion of women in academia (grades A, B, and C) with the proportion of women in top academic positions (grade A positions; equivalent to full professors in most countries) in a given year. The GCI can range from 0 to infinity. A GCI of 1 indicates that there is no difference between women and men in terms of their chances of being promoted. A score of less than 1 means that women are more represented at the grade A level than in academia generally (grades A, B, and C) and a GCI score of more than 1 indicates the presence of a glass ceiling effect, meaning that women are less represented in grade A positions than in academia generally (grades A, B, and C). In other words, the interpretation of the GCI is that the higher the value, the stronger the glass ceiling effect and the more difficult it is for women to move into a higher position. 

Women are least represented among grade A staff aged 55 years or more, but no other clear generational pattern is evident amongst younger age groups. 126 127 128

The proportion of women among heads of institutions in the higher education sector increased from 20. 2 % in 2014 to 21. 7 % in 2017. However, the picture is mixed at the national level, where several countries with high proportions experienced a decrease in women heads of institutions. 

The under-representation of women in leadership positions has broad implications for scientific advancement and for industries with a strong need for a technologically educated workforce. In recent years an increasing number of scientific institutions have been adopting a variety of measures to make improvements (Gvozdanović and Maes, 2018), such as leadership training, implicit bias training, Gender Equality Plans (see Chapter 5 of this publication) and the Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (Cameron et al, 2015). So far, these measures have not led to significant increases in the presence of women in senior decisionmaking roles. To speed up the pace of change, a number of scientific bodies and research organisations have been discussing introducing gender quotas along the different stages in academic career pathway (Wallon et al, 2015), while in September 2018 the EU Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, Carlos Moedas, called for quotas for management positions in universities and science labs (Moedas, 2018). It should be noted, however, that research also shows that unconscious gender bias in favour of men is not limited to male faculty members (Grogan, 2018). 

Figure 6. 8 shows the proportion of women among the heads of higher education institutions. Across the EU as a whole this proportion stood at 21. 7 % in 2017, which is 1. 6 percentage points higher than the proportion for 2014 (20. 2 %) (Annex 6. 4). In all the countries presented in the figure, women are less than half of the heads of institutions. The highest proportions were found in Sweden (41. 7 %), Latvia (37 %), Lithuania (32. 6 %), Slovenia (32. 4 %), Norway (31. 3 %), Croatia (30. 8 %), Estonia (30. 4 %) and Iceland and Switzerland (30 %), in other words mostly in Nordic, Baltic and Western Balkan countries. The lowest proportions (excluding Luxembourg which has only one higher education institution) were observed in Spain (8 %), Turkey (8. 5 %), Cyprus (10. 4 %) and Greece (11. 1 %). 

It must also be noted that although the situation has improved since 2014 in the EU as a whole, the picture is mixed at the national level (Annex 6. 4). Among the countries that currently have the highest proportions of women, Lithuania experienced a rise in this proportion from 27. 1 % to 32. 6 %, Slovenia from 30. 5 % to 32. 4 % and Croatia from 21. 2 % to 30. 8 %. On the other hand, among the 'top' countries of 2014, Sweden saw a drop from 50% to 41. 7 %, Iceland from 40 % to 30 % (this corresponds to only one position), Norway from 41. 3 % to 31. 3 % and Denmark from 32. 7 % to 26. 8 % (the drop in Denmark, was primarily due to a merger of various institutions between 2014 and 2017). 

129

The proportion of women among heads of universities or assimilated institutions accredited to deliver PhDs has slightly increased from 14. 1 % in 2014 to 14. 3 % in 2017. 

Table 6. 4 focuses on a narrower group of higher education institutions, namely the universities or assimilated institutions that are accredited to deliver PhDs. At the EU level, the proportion of women among institution heads was 14. 3 % in 2017, slightly larger than the 14. 1 % observed in 2014 (Annex 6. 5). At national level the proportion of women ranged from 0 % in Estonia, Cyprus, Iceland (small number of institutions in all these countries), Luxembourg and Malta (one institution in each country) to 37. 5 % in Norway. The proportion was higher than 30% in another three countries, namely Switzerland (33. 3 %), Latvia (31. 3 %) and Sweden (31. 3 %). Compared to the situation reported for 2014 (Annex 6. 5) 13 countries have experienced an increase in the proportion since then. These were EL, ES, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, AT, PL, PT, SK, UK and CH while the largest increase, by 25 percentage points, was observed in Switzerland. A decrease was experienced in 11 countries (CZ, DE, EE, NL, RO, SI, FI, SE, IS, NO and TR). The largest decrease was seen in Finland (26. 7 percentage points). Iceland experienced a drop from 33. 3 % to 0 %, but this only corresponds to one position. 

In 2017, women made up 27 % of board, members and leaders in the EU. 

Figure 6. 9 focuses on the presence of women on boards such as scientific or R&D commissions, councils, committees, foundations or academic assemblies, which usually hold a large degree of decision-making power. Gender equality is far from being achieved among the leaders of boards. Women represented 20 % of board leaders in the EU in 2017. At the national level, the proportion of women among board leaders ranged from 0 % (CZ, FR, HR, CY, MT, PT, RO and SK) up to 73 % in Bulgaria and 80 % in Spain. Seven countries in total (SE, IS, NL, LV, IE, BG and ES) had more than 40 % of women among board leaders. However, the fact that 15 countries either have no women or less than 20 % of women (the eight countries mentioned earlier -CZ, FR, HR, CY, MT, PT, RO and SK, together with EE, BE, IT, EL, CH, DE and PL), among board leaders shows that the pace of progress towards gender equality remains too slow. 131

Number 135

▶ Women are still under-represented in scientific authorship in the EU-28. The ratio of women to men in corresponding authorship for all fields of R&D combined is 0. 47 between 2013 and 2017, which is equivalent to 32 % of all publications having a woman as corresponding author. 

▶ The women to men ratio in corresponding authorship is slowly rising, with an annual growth rate of 3. 9 % between 2008 and 2017. 

▶ The highest ratio of female to male authorship based on all contributing authors within the EU-28 in the period 2013-2017 was observed in medical sciences and agricultural sciences. For corresponding authors, the ratio within the EU-28 in 2013-2017 was highest in agricultural sciences, social sciences and the humanities and arts ▶ Female authors seem to have a focus on national collaboration. International collaboration outside the EU-28 or the 44 countries in the scope of this study has the lowest ratio of female to male authorship. 

▶ The impact of scientific publications in female and male authorship seems to be almost equal, with a ratio of 0. 90 for EU-28 in 2017. If one focuses only on corresponding authors, the respective ratio is 0. 85. This is regardless of the level of seniority of the authors. 

▶ Women were strongly under-represented during 2013-2016 as patent inventors. The highest women to men ratio of inventorships was 0. 36 in Latvia. 

▶ Modest growth (+0. 4 %) is apparent in the proportion of women inventors for all technology domains combined at the EU-28 level during the 2005-2016 period. 

▶ A strong gender gap in the composition of the inventors' teams is observed in all countries. In the EU-28, the majority of teams are all male (47 %), followed by those with just one male inventor (33 %). 

▶ The difference between women and men team leaders in their research funding success rate was in favour of men in most of the countries examined. At the EU-level, the funding success rate was higher for men than for women by 3. 0 percentage points. 

▶ Between 2013 and 2017, 1. 79 % of all publications within EU-28 included a sex or gender dimension in its content. 

This chapter looks at gender equality not only in terms of gender-balanced participation in research and innovation output, but also at the integration of the gender dimension in the research content. More precisely, this chapter focuses on the contribution of women and men in research and innovation based on comparative measures that evaluate publication output, publication impact, patent output and the difference between women and men researchers in funding success. The ratio of publications with a sex or gender dimension in their research content (SGDRC) is also examined. 

In contrast to previous versions of She Figures, the contribution of authors in research is not based simply on corresponding authorship, but on all authorships. Corresponding authorship may often correlate with a leading role within the researcher team, but this is not true in all cases. However, some indicators are presented for both corresponding and all authorships, in order to present a more detailed picture of research output. This chapter comprises of four sections; gender gap in scientific output, gender gap in patent output, funding success rates and sex or gender dimension in research output. More specifically, the indicators that are highlighted in each sector are given below. 

Gender gap in scientific output:

• Women to men ratio of scientific authorship (for all and corresponding authors). 

• Women to men ratio of scientific authorship in different types of collaboration (i. e. international, inter-European, national) for all authors. 

136

• The ratio of scientific impact, as measured by Field-Weighted Citation Impact, of their respective publications. 

Gender gap in patent output:

• Women to men ratio of inventorships. 

Funding success rates:

• Funding success rate differences between women and men. 

Sex or gender dimension in research content:

• Percentage of scientific publications that include a sex or gender dimension in their research content

The data used to calculate indicators in each section are extracted from different external data sources. Data which describe the indicators in gender gaps in scientific output and SGDRC are extracted from Scopus; patent data are extracted from the European Patent Office (EPO) Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT) while funding data are derived from the Women in Science (WiS) database. Each data source is further described in the corresponding section.
section_name: The Glass Ceiling Index

section_content: Research funding organisations often rely on quantitative measures to evaluate individual and institutional excellence. The dimensions measured are usually the size and impact of scientific production, collaborations and seniority. Therefore, researchers tend to focus on the number and impact of publications they produce in order to secure or increase their funding (European Commission, 2009). 

As seen in previous chapters, women researchers have different patterns from men in the factors that are essential for their successful grant competitions; women are less internationally mobile than men in more senior positions (Figure 5. 4) and therefore they have fewer opportunities for international collaboration. In addition, women researchers are less likely to have higher positions (Figure 6. 6 and Figure 6. 8). Consequently, women are often caught in a vicious circle where fewer opportunities to improve their scientific performance result in less funding success and vice versa. 

The monitoring of research outputs by gender is therefore essential and it can provide important insights (European Commission, 2012). 

To compute the indicators for this section, information on the sex and country of authors must first be obtained. The sex is obtained using the name of authors, while the country is obtained using the affiliation address of authors as indicated in scientific publications. For the sex, researchers require access to the complete name of an author, including his or her full given name (not just the initials) and surname. For the country, researchers require access to a link associating each author of a paper with their corresponding affiliation address. 

For the calculation of indicators based on the field of Research and Development (FORD) classification, it is important to note that publications are not classified in mutually exclusive fields, instead some will be classified in more than one field. For example, publication P may belong in both mathematics (FORD 1. 1) and computer sciences (FORD 1. 2). Although publication P will contribute both in the publication count of mathematics and in the publication count of computer sciences, this publication will not be counted twice in the aggregated count of 'all' or 'natural sciences' (FORD 1) publications. 

An aggregate representing global values is given in the indicators of this chapter that are based on Scopus data.
section_name: Gender gap in scientific output

section_content: This indicator is approached in two ways -by assessing all contributing authors (all authorships) on each publication and by assessing corresponding authors (corresponding authorships) only. When all authors are considered, the indicator represents the sum of the ratios of the total number of women authors in each authorship byline over the corresponding number of men, divided by the total number of publications produced. When corresponding authorship is taken into account, the indicator represents the ratio of the number of publications with a woman as corresponding author over the number of publications with a man as corresponding author. In both cases, a score above 1 means that women produce a larger share of the country's scientific publications than men, whereas a score below 1 indicates the opposite. 

137 Parity between women and men The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For the EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

138

Women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in all fields of R&D, 2013-2017

Notes: Values represent the average yearly ratio for the period 2013-2017; EU-28 and world values are highlighted in the chart. Error bars represent +/-10 % of value and account for possible biases (unknown sex and/or wrong affiliations in Scopus publications). The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For the EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

Compound annual growth rate (%) of women to men ratio of authorships, by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Notes: '-' indicates that the value at the beginning or end of the period was unavailable for CAGR calculations either because no value was available for publications authored by men or the value obtained for publications by men was zero; the height of the bars in the trend column indicates relative annual values for women to men ratio of authorships and scaling is not the same across countries. The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For the EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data.
section_name: Women to men ratio of authorship

section_content: Compound annual growth rate (%) of women to men ratio of corresponding authorships, by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Notes: '-' indicates that the value at the beginning or end of the period was unavailable for CAGR calculations either because no value was available for publications authored by men or the value obtained for publications by men was zero; the height of the bars in the trend column indicates relative annual values for women to men ratio of authorships and scaling is not the same across countries. The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For the EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data.
section_name: Country

section_content: Women to men ratio of all authorships, by field of R&D, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 Notes: Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men; The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For the EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 EU-28 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 BE 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,4 BG 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,9 1,0 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,5 CZ 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 DK 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,8 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 DE 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 EE 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,4 1,0 1,1 0,7 0,9 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 IE 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,9 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,4 EL 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,5 ES 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,9 1,0 0,9 1,0 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,4 FR 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 HR 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 1,1 1,2 1,0 1,1 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,5 IT 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,4 CY 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,7 LV 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,6 1,3 1,3 0,7 1,0 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,7 LT 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 1,0 1,2 0,9 1,2 0,5 0,7 0,3 0,5 LU 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 HU 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 MT 0,3 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,8 0,3 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,2 0,7 NL 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 AT 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 PL 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,4 1,0 1,2 0,9 1,1 0,5 0,6 0,2 0,3 PT 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 1,1 1,2 1,1 1,2 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,6 RO 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 1,3 1,3 1,1 1,1 0,7 0,8 0,2 0,3 SI 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,5 0,5 0,3 0,3 SK 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 1,1 0,8 0,9 0,5 0,6 0,2 0,3 FI 0,5 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,9 1,0 0,8 0,9 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,5 SE 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 UK 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 IS 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,8 0,9 0,5 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,6 NO 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,9 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 CH 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,6 0,3 0,4 ME 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,6 1,1 1,0 0,5 1,0 0,7 0,6 0,3 0,5 MK 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,6 1,1 1,3 0,9 1,1 0,5 0,7 0,2 0,4 AL 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,9 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,4 RS 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,8 1,3 1,5 1,3 1,6 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,5 TR 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 BA 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 1,0 1,2 1,0 1,0 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,5 AM 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,1 0,4 FO 0,4 0,6 0,2 0,2 0,5 1,0 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,8 0,3 0,4 GE 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,6 0,8 0,4 0,5 IL 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,4 MD 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,6 0,1 0,2 TN 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 1,1 1,1 0,7 0,9 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,8 UA 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,6 0,3 0,5 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 EU-28 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 BE 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,6 BG 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 1,2 1,1 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,8 0,8 0,9 CZ 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 DK 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,6 DE 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 EE 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,4 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,9 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 IE 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,7 EL 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,7 0,7 ES 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 FR 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 HR 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,9 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,2 0,8 0,8 IT 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 CY 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 1,0 LV 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,0 3,3 1,9 3,6 2,3 2,0 4,2 LT 0,6 0,8 0,6 0,7 1,4 1,2 1,9 1,4 1,8 1,6 1,3 1,3 LU 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,6 0,6 HU 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,6 MT 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,3 0,5 NL 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,7 AT 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 PL 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,1 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,9 PT 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,1 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,9 RO 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,8 1,6 1,1 2,1 1,1 1,0 1,3 0,7 1,2 SI 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,8 1,0 SK 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 FI 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 1,0 SE 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,8 0,6 0,7 UK 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 IS 0,3 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,9 0,5 0,7 0,8 1,1 0,6 0,8 NO 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,9 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 CH 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,6 ME 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,5 0,7 1,1 1,5 0,3 3,1 MK 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,5 1,2 1,4 1,3 1,8 0,7 1,6 AL 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,7 0,5 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,2 0,3 1,2 RS 0,7 0,9 0,6 0,8 1,1 1,1 1,4 1,3 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 TR 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7 BA 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 1,0 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,6 AM 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,6 0,3 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,2 0,7 FO 0,5 0,8 0,4 0,4 0,5 1,4 0,7 0,9 0,2 1,4 0,0 0,3 GE 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,4 1,0 0,7 1,1 0,8 0,5 0,9 0,4 1,2 IL 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,7 0,9 0,7 0,7 MD 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,7 1,0 1,9 0,5 2,1 0,7 0,7 TN 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 0,9 0,6 0,8 0,6 0,6 1,0 1,0 UA 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,7 0,5 1,5 0,6 0,9, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 Notes: Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men; The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For the EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries.
section_name: Country

section_content: Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

144 [0, 100] [55, 45] [50, 50] [29, 71] [45, 55] [38, 62] [17, 83] [58, 42] [Women's proportion, Men's proportion] Parity between women and men W/M ratio [0, 100] [55, 45] [50, 50] [29, 71] [45, 55] [38, 62] [17, 83] [58, 42] [Women's proportion, Men's proportion] Parity between women and men [0, 100] [55, 45] [50, 50] [29, 71] [45, 55] [38, 62] [17, 83] [58, 42] [Women's proportion, Men's proportion] Parity between women and men Parity between women and men Error bars removed for visibility reasons; The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

148

Women's contribution to national and intra-EU collaborated research is greater than women's contribution to international research. 

Publications can be classified into different types based on the type of collaborations from which they result. In this study, various types of research collaborations are defined based on the affiliation of the contributing and corresponding authors. National collaborations (intra-country) are defined as publications for which all the affiliations listed are from the same country. Intra-EU-28 collaborations are defined as publications for which all the affiliations listed are within the EU-28. Intra-EU-28+ collaborations are defined as publications for which all the affiliations listed are countries within the ERA. Multi-authored research outputs, where at least one author is from an institution inside the country of interest and at least one author is from an institution outside the EU (for EU countries) or outside the country of interest (for Associated countries). 

Figures 7. 3 to 7. 6 show women and men's contributions to each of the above collaboration types. In general, within the ERA participating countries, when assessing all contributing authors, women contribute more to national collaborations than to international collaborations. Similarly, when assessing corresponding authors only, women contribute more to national collaborations and less to international collaborations, with their contributions to intra-EU-28 and intra-EU-28+ collaborations falling in between. In some countries, parity between women and men was reached for corresponding authors conducting national collaborations (assessed as countries for which the error bar crossed the point of parity; EE, HR, PT, BA, GE, TN. Note that error bars are not shown in the figure to facilitate ease of reading). In a few countries, women's contribution based on corresponding authorship surpassed men's contribution in nationally collaborated research (assessed as countries for which the error bar was above the point of parity; BG, LV, LT, ME, MK, RS). Readers should note that error bars are not shown in the Figure, to facilitate ease of reading. 

At the EU level, women to men ratio in international collaboration is increasing across all fields of R&D. 

Tables 7. 5 and 7. 6 display the annual growth rate for the women to men ratio of all (Table 7. 5) or corresponding (Table 7. 6) authorships in international co-publications by fields of R&D. The 'trend' column indicates the absolute annual values to give more insights into changes in the indicator over the period, as the CAGR mathematically only shows the change between the first and the last year. The height of the bars is not scaled across the whole table but only delineates trends for the regions or country. Positive growth is seen both in the EU-28 and globally across all fields of R&D. The growth rate for the EU-28 is equal or higher than the level of growth observed globally, in all fields of R&D, with the only exception being humanities and arts for corresponding authorship. 

When assessing all contributing authors, the highest growth in representation of women is observed in the fields of agricultural sciences (with a CAGR for 2008-2017 of 3. 7 %) for the EU-28 followed by social sciences (with a CAGR for 2008-2017 of 3. 3 %) (Table 7. 5). When assessing only corresponding authors, the highest growth in representation is observed in the field of social sciences (the CAGR for 2008-2017 was 4. 6 % for the EU-28), followed by engineering and technology (the CAGR for 2008-2017 was 3. 5 % for the EU-28) (Table 7. 6). 

149

CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of all authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Notes: '-' indicates that the value at the beginning of the period was zero or missing and CAGR could not be calculated. 

Other: Values of CAGR represent the average yearly change of the women to men ratio for the period 2008-2017 while bars in the ‚trend' column shows the annual values of women to men ratio; the scale in the ‚trend' column is not the same across countries and fields of R&D. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data.
section_name: Natural

section_content: CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Notes: '-' indicates that the value at the beginning of the period was zero or missing and CAGR could not be calculated. 

Other: Values of CAGR represent the average yearly change of the women to men ratio for the period 2008-2017 while bars the ‚trend' column shows the annual values of women to men ratio; the scale in the ‚trend' column is not the same across countries and fields of R&D. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data.
section_name: Country

section_content: Women to men ratio of authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 Notes: Values represent the average yearly ratio for the period 2013-2017; Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men. 

Other: The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 EU-28 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 BE 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 BG 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,9 CZ 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,5 DK 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 DE 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 EE 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,9 1,0 0,6 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,7 1,1 IE 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 EL 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,8 ES 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 FR 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 HR 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,8 1,4 IT 0,5 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,7 CY 0,2 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,9 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,8 1,9 LV 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,5 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,1 1,0 1,0 1,0 LT 0,4 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 1,0 0,7 0,9 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,5 LU 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,6 HU 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 MT 0,5 0,7 0,2 0,4 0,8 1,2 0,4 0,7 0,5 0,9 0,2 1,9 NL 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 AT 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 PL 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,8 0,7 0,9 PT 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 1,0 0,8 1,0 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,9 RO 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,9 0,4 0,6 SI 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,7 0,8 0,7 1,1 SK 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,9 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 1,0 0,7 FI 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 SE 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 UK 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7 IS 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,9 1,0 0,5 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,7 NO 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,8 0,9 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 CH 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 ME 0,5 0,8 0,4 0,7 1,1 1,2 0,5 1,1 1,0 0,8 0,2 1,3 MK 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,6 1,0 1,1 0,9 1,0 0,7 0,8 0,3 1,2 AL 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,5 0,8 1,0 0,7 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,8 RS 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,7 1,0 1,2 1,0 1,2 0,7 0,8 0,7 1,2 TR 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 BA 0,6 0,7 0,4 0,5 1,0 1,2 0,9 1,0 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 AM 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,2 0,6 FO 0,4 0,6 0,3 0,2 0,6 1,0 0,5 0,5 0,4 1,0 0,3 0,6 GE 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,9 1,0 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,5 0,6 IL 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 MD 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 1,2 1,1 1,0 1,0 1,2 0,8 0,2 0,4 TN 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,5 0,5 0,9 0,7 UA 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,5 0,8 0,6 0,4

Women to men ratio of corresponding authorships in international collaborations, by field of R&D, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 Notes: Values represent the average yearly ratio for the period 2013-2017; Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men. 

Other: The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 EU-28 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 BE 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,7 BG 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,8 0,8 0,2 0,6 CZ 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,3 DK 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6 DE 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 EE 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,8 0,3 0,8 IE 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,8 EL 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 ES 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 FR 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 HR 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,8 0,7 IT 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,5 CY 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,3 1,1 LV 0,3 0,5 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,4 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0 0,5 LT 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,3 0,6 0,5 1,1 0,5 3,3 LU 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,5 HU 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,6 MT 0,5 0,6 0,0 0,3 0,8 0,7 0,4 0,6 0,2 0,7 0,0 0,6 NL 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 AT 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 PL 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 PT 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,8 0,5 0,7 0,4 0,9 RO 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,4 SI 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,6 1,0 1,0 SK 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,6 0,3 FI 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,8 1,0 SE 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,8 UK 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 IS 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,9 0,5 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,8 NO 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,7 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 CH 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,5 0,7 ME 0,5 0,6 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,9 0,4 0,8 0,5 1,0 0,0 0,1 MK 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,7 1,1 1,0 1,0 0,0 0,3 AL 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1,0 0,6 0,5 0,6 1,0 1,2 0,0 0,4 RS 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,5 0,6 0,5 1,0 TR 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,6 BA 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,8 0,8 1,3 AM 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,6 0,5 0,2 0,6 0,4 0,7 0,0 0,4 FO 0,7 0,8 0,4 0,1 0,6 1,5 0,7 0,8 0,5 1,4 0,0 0,0 GE 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,7 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,4 0,7 0,1 0,4 IL 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 MD 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,9 0,7 1,2 1,8 0,9 1,6 0,0 0,0 TN 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,3 UA 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,6 0,5 0,8 0,7 0,5

Small increases in the women to men ratio of authorships can be seen between the periods 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 in all fields of R&D. 

Besides the annual growth rate disaggregated by fields of R&D depicted in the previous section, international co-publications were shown for two distinct time periods to exemplify the developments in the ratio of women to men's contributions to international co-publications (Table 7. 7 and 7. 8). With few exceptions the women to men ratio in international collaborations increased from the 2008-2012 period to the 2013-2017 period across all fields of R&D (for all authorships, Table 7. 7). Some of the changes were rather small and not visible due to rounding to only one digit, but the general trend is moving towards parity. 

In some countries, women's contribution to international publications exceeds that of men when assessing all contributing authors. However, for some countries, the total number of publications is rather small, so that individual publications may have strong effects. This is observed for the humanities and arts publications in Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and in Serbia, where there are occasional surprisingly high differences between the periods. It is also observed for medical sciences research from Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Observation of parity in this metric is greatly reduced when only assessing corresponding authors (Table 7. 8). 

In summary, data suggest that the international co-publication rate of women to men is moving towards parity across the board, while no clear pattern of 'fast movers' among fields of R&D can be observed. 

The ratio of field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) for publications by women to those by men shows similar performance by women and men authors

This indicator is the ratio of the average field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) calculated for publications by women compared to those by men when they are contributing authors or corresponding authors. This is calculated based on all contributing authors and attribution of the publication's FWCI is assigned using a fractional approach. A score above 1 indicates that women in each country produced publications that, on average, had a higher impact than men's publications whereas a score below 1 means the opposite. 

FWCI is a metric that reflects the citation impact of a publication based on the actual number of citations received by an article compared to the expected number of citations for articles of the same document type (article, review, or conference proceeding paper), the year of publication and the field of R&D. When an article is classified in two or more fields, the harmonic mean of the actual and expected citation rates is used. The indicator is therefore always defined with reference to a global baseline of 1. 0 and it intrinsically accounts for differences in citation accrual over time and differences in citation rates for different document types (reviews typically attract more citations than research articles, for example). It also accounts for subject-specific differences in citation frequencies overall and over time and for variations in the types of document. 

When assessing based on all contributing authors (Figure 7. 7), in 2017, 15 countries surpassed the global ratio of the average FWCI for women to men authorships, while also reaching or surpassing parity (including the error bars). However, it should be noted that small publications sets may result in an average value that is not a good representation of the entire publication set as highly (or very poorly) cited publications may have exceptional effects on the mean. The average FWCI for the EU-28, showing a ratio of 0. 90 in 2017, has not yet reached parity. 

When assessing based on corresponding authorship (Figure 7. 8), in 2017 six countries were observed to be above global value (MT, FO, CY, LU, IS, EL). These countries also reached or surpassed gender parity (including the error bars; not shown for ease of reading). At the EU-28 level, gender parity has not been achieved as the women to men ratio for the average FWCI was 0. 85. 

154 0,2 0,2 1,3 0,0 -0,2 -0,9 -0,6 EU-28 -0,2 -0,1 -0,1 -0,3 -0,4 -0,8 -0,6 BE 0,1 -0,1 1,0 -0,2 -0,9 1,3 1,4 BG -1,0 -1,3 -1,7 -0,6 -1,9 -2,9 2,7 CZ -1,0 -0,8 -1,3 -2,1 -1,9 -3,6 -0,7 DK -0,3 -0,3 -0,9 0,1 -1,7 -2,0 -4,8 DE -0,2 0,0 0,0 -0,8 -0,7 0,8 2,1 EE -1,2 -2,0 -0,3 -1,6 0,0 1,0 -1,2 IE 0,1 0,9 2,3 -0,8 2,5 0,6 1,5 EL 0,4 0,4 0,0 -0,3 1,7 -0,4 4,3 ES -0,7 -0,3 -0,1 -1,2 -0,5 -0,8 -0,3 FR 0,3 0,1 -0,3 -0,2 -0,8 0,7 0,5 HR -1,0 Table 7. 9 CAGR (%) of women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications (all authorships), by field of R&D, 2008-2017 Notes: '-' indicates that the value at the beginning or end of the period was unavailable for CAGR calculations either because no value was available for publications authored by men or the value obtained for publications by men was zero; trend: Shows the trend in the ratio using annual values (the scale is not the same across countries); The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

157 [2008] [2009] [2010] [2011] [2012] [2013] [2014] [2015] [2016] [2017] Notes: '-' indicates that the value at the beginning or end of the period was unavailable for CAGR calculations either because no value was available for publications authored by men or the value obtained for publications by men was zero; trend: Shows the trend in the ratio using annual values (the scale is not the same across countries); The percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies. For EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

158 Notes: Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men; Values with two decimal places have been used to delineate developments; '-' indicates where no value was available for publications authored by men or the value obtained for publications by men was zero; the percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies; for EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

159 Table 7. 12 Women to men ratio of average FWCI for publications (corresponding authorships), by field of R&D, 2012 and 2017

Notes: Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men; Values with two decimal places have been used to delineate developments; '-' indicates where no value was available for publications authored by men or the value obtained for publications by men was zero; the percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies; for EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

160

The citation impact for women and men is similar across fields. 

As can be seen in Tables 7. 11 and 7. 12, regardless of the field, year, or authorship type, the women-to-men ratio of FWCI in the EU-28 is approximately 0. 90 (with the exception of agricultural sciences in 2012, which was approximately 1. 0). The metric was also stable across the ten-year period in all fields of R&D with very little change in value (Table 7. 9 and Table 7. 10) for most of the countries, although in a few countries and fields, larger fluctuations are observed. However, this is due to the small number of publications in some countries, which means the metric can be swayed to a greater extent by outlier publications with a very high FWCI. 

The ratio of average publications is lowest at the highest level of seniority. 

Figure 7. 9 and Table 7. 13 show the women-to-men ratio of the average number of publications per individual at each seniority level, for 2013-2017. In the majority of the EU-28 Member States, the ratio for the most senior category (those authors who have more than 10 years publishing experience) is the lowest. For the middle category and the least senior category, the ratio of average publications is closer to parity, sometimes even surpassing the parity line. 

When it is disaggregated by fields of R&D, the picture is similar. Exceptionally, in the social sciences (GE, AM, BA, ME and LV), and in the humanities and the arts (IS, HU, BA, UA and RS), the ratio of average publications is higher for the most senior category, but this may be related to the overall low number of publications in this category resulting in a mean value that is not representative of the overall publication set. 

The data indicate that junior women authors publish almost as many publications as men authors, but as seniority increases, men authors widen the gap and become more productive than women authors. 

161 Notes: Countries are listed in protocol order; EU-28 and world values at the top; error bars were omitted for visibility reasons; the percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies; for EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia for EU-28 countries and 50 % for Albania and Faroe Islands for non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

162 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 EU-28 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 BE 0,9 0,7 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,1 0,9 0,9 BG 1,1 0,9 0,8 1,2 0,8 1,0 1,1 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,7 : 1,0 0,8 CZ 0,9 0,7 0,6 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,8 1,0 1,1 0,7 DK 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,8 0,8 DE 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 EE 0,8 1,2 0,6 0,9 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,7 0,7 IE 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,9 EL 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,1 0,7 ES 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 FR 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 HR 1,0 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,1 0,9 1,0 IT 0,9 0,7 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 CY 0,9 0,7 0,6 0,9 0,9 0,7 1,1 0,9 0,7 1,0 0,7 0,6 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,2 1,1 0,8 LV 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,9 1,1 1,2 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,7 0,9 1,0 1,6 0,5 1,3 0,3 LT 0,8 0,7 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,9 1,2 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 1,1 1,3 1,1 0,7 LU 1,0 0,8 0,7 1,2 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,4 0,7 0,7 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,6 HU 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,1 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,2 MT 0,9 0,9 0,5 1,1 1,2 0,4 1,1 0,9 1,0 0,8 1,7 0,6 0,6 1,0 1,1 1,6 1,0 0,8 NL 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 AT 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,1 0,9 0,8 PL 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 PT 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 RO 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,0 1,1 0,9 0,9 0,7 0,7 1,0 1,0 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,5 1,4 0,4 SI 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,1 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 0,9 SK 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,6 FI 0,9 0,7 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,8 SE 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 UK 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 IS 1,0 0,6 0,8 1,2 0,3 0,3 1,2 1,1 0,9 0,9 1,2 1,3 1,1 1,2 1,3 0,4 0,9 1,8 NO 1,0 0,8 0,8 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,9 CH 0,9 0,7 0,7 1,1 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,0 0,8 ME 1,2 0,8 0,7 1,2 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,5 1,1 1,2 0,9 0,4 0,9 1,0 2,1 1,0 1,3 : MK 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,7 0,9 1,0 1,2 0,6 1,0 1,1 0,9 1,1 1,0 1,1 : : : AL 0,6 0,6 1,3 : 1,1 0,7 1,0 0,8 1,5 0,7 0,7 1,5 1,1 0,5 0,4 1,4 : : RS 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,2 1,0 1,1 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,0 1,0 1,1 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,3 TR 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 BA 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,3 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,5 1,1 0,9 1,9 0,8 0,9 2,3 AM 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,1 1,1 0,5 0,9 0,9 0,8 : 1,0 0,9 : 0,9

1,1 : 0,4 IL 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,9 1,1 GE 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,8 2,0 0,9 0,8 0,6 : 1,3 : : 1,1 : : TN 0,9 0,9 0,6 0,9 0,9 0,6 1,0 0,9 0,8 1,0 1,0 0,6 0,9 0,8 1,0 0,6 1,2 0,8 UA 1,0 0,9 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 1,2 0,9 1,0 Notes: Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men. Other: ':' indicates that no men nor women were identified in that category; the percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies; for EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

163 Notes: Countries are listed in protocol order; EU-28 and world values at the top; error bars were omitted for visibility reasons; the percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies; for EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia for EU-28 countries and 50 % for Albania and Faroe Islands for non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

164

,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 0,9 1,0 0,8 0,9 1,3 PL 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,9 0,9 1,0 Notes: Cells are colour coded relative to parity (defined mathematically as 50 %-50 %). Blue = More men than women; White = Parity; Orange = More women than men. Other: ':' indicates that no men nor women were identified in that category; the percentage of authors to which a gender could be assigned varies; for EU-28 the percentage is above 85 %; with the lowest value of 48 % for Latvia in the EU-28 countries, and 50 % for Albania and the Faroe Islands in the non-EU countries. 

Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

165

Women authors with higher seniority have a similar FWCI to men authors. 

For the average FWCI of publications disaggregated by seniority level (Figure 7. 10 and Table 7. 14), the pattern is similar to that observed when assessing authorship regardless of seniority (Figures 7. 9 and 7. 10). Women authors at the most senior level have a similar level of average FWCI to men authors in most countries and the ratio of average FWCI is higher at the highest seniority level. 

In the EU-28, women authors at the highest seniority level reach parity in the average FWCI ratio. In general, the ratio of average FWCI is closer to parity than the average number of publications for all seniority levels. Overall, while junior women authors have a similar productivity to men authors (the ratio of the average number of publications) with a slightly lower impact, senior women authors publish less than men authors but have similar impact. 

Table 7. 14 displays the ratio of average FWCI per field of R&D. The picture is rather fragmented as several countries (especially the ones with rather low overall publication numbers) show very high numbers in some fields at all seniority levels. Readers should note that the metrics calculated for countries with smaller publication output and lower fidelity of gender assignment should be interpreted with caution. As already mentioned in the context of previous analyses, these extraordinarily high FWCI's may be the result of participation in highly impactful publications. It is easier for women authors to participate in these highly impactful publications, rather than playing a leading role as a corresponding author. This is especially likely given the results in Table 7. 14 and Figure 7. 10 which show that for all authorship, the effects of participation in impactful publications may be more pronounced than the impact of corresponding authorship.
section_name: Country

section_content: This indicator is the ratio between the number of inventions produced by women (women inventorships) over the corresponding number of men (men inventorships), or equivalently, the ratio of the proportion of women inventorships (in total inventorships) over the corresponding proportion for men. The absolute number of inventorships used in computing this indicator is based on fractionalised counts of patent applications between their corresponding inventors: for example, if a patent application involves 10 inventors, each inventor is attributed an equal fraction of the inventorship (i. e. 1/10 of the invention). A score above 1 indicates that women in a given country produced a larger share of the country's inventions than men, whereas a score below 1 means the opposite. 

A wide gender gap persists in patent output. 

Women are under-represented as inventors in both the EU-28 and worldwide. Several previous works already showed this gender gap. Sugimoto (Sugimoto et al., 2015) verified that women contributed less than 8 % of all inventorships for the entire period, but with an increasing trend (10. 8 % in 2013). 

A similar growth rate is also observed by a study from WIPO (WIPO, 2016); progress is observed in all indicators related to gender balance in the PCT system between 1995 and 2015. Overall, the authors noted that women increased their participation from 17 % to 29 %. This kind of progress is observed in most countries, in all technical fields and in both academic institutions and companies, although at different rates. 

For the UK-IPO (UK-IPO, 2016), the overall proportion of patents involving a female inventor (either working alone or as part of a team) increased by more than 500 % between 1975 and 2015. However, for the authors, the number of all female teams remains very low with only 0. 3 % of patents coming from all-female teams over the last 10 years. They concluded that the world of patenting remains male-dominated and even in 2014 there is a clear gender disparity with 73 % of all worldwide patent applications coming from all-male inventors, rising to almost 96 % when mixed teams are considered (i. e. 96 % of all patent applications worldwide in 2014 had at least one male inventor). 

In the light of known gender disparities in patenting, it is relevant to monitor this gap and the related trend by using patentbased indicators, taking into account the production of inventions by country, year and technological field (i. e. the section of the International Patent Classification, IPC, used to classify a patent). For this purpose, several patent-based indicators were computed by using raw bibliographic data derived from the European Patent Office (EPO) Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT). A standard strategy was used to determine the sex of each inventor, based on specific dictionaries of name-gender attribution that collected information covering countries worldwide. Using this method, it was possible to assign a sex to more than 97 % of the inventors. 

166 Other: Error bars represent the 90 % confidence intervals, accounting for potential biases due to the inability to infer the sex of inventors on some patent applications. It assumes that the attribution of a sex to an inventor's name is 100 % accurate (i. e. that the gender attributed to a given inventor name is always the correct one; in other words, that there are no misattributions). 

Source: Computed by using European patent applications (kind codes A1 and A2) in PATSTAT. 

167

Women are still strongly under-represented as patent inventors. Again, for both periods 2005-2008 and 2013-2016, women inventors are under-represented across all countries and time periods, pertaining to all the IPC sections, despite being partially limited in the fields of 'human necessities' and in 'chemistry and metallurgy'. An exception can be seen in Romania during the 2013-2016 period in the 'textiles and paper' section, where the women to men ratio is in favour of women. In Portugal (still in 'textiles and paper'), the ratio was close to parity in the period 2005-2008, but the value decreased during the 2013-2016 period. However, for these countries, as well as for the Associated Countries, the confidence interval has a range of values that could be equal to +/-0. 1 (Portugal and Romania), reaching to +/-0. 7 for Armenia. Confidence intervals account for potential biases due to the inability to infer the sex of inventors on some patent applications. 

Although the comparison of these low figures across two periods suggests that little change has occurred, the analysis of the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of the proportion of women inventorships is more revealing in this respect as shown in Table 7. 16. 

The proportion of women among inventors grew slowly at EU level. 

Table 7. 16 presents the compound annual growth rate of the proportion of women inventorships, representing the average yearly percentage of increases and decreases in the proportion. To obtain more robust estimates, this indicator is built using a four-year moving period, e. g. [2012] [2013] [2014] [2015] [2013] [2014] [2015] [2016], and so on. 

Modest growth is apparent in the proportion of women inventorships for all technology domains (combined) at the EU-28 level (0. 4 %). The highest increase can be found in domains such as 'mechanical engineering, lighting, heating, weapons and blasting', in which women remain considerably under-represented. More variations become apparent when considering growth figures at the level of individual countries. On the one hand, the proportion of women inventors grew on average the most during 2005-2016 in Serbia (17. 5 %), in North Macedonia (12. 7 %) and in Romania (9. 7 %). On the other hand, the largest annual decrease during the same period in the proportion of women inventorships can be seen in Armenia (-14. 3 %), Montenegro (-10. 8 %) and Bulgaria (-9. 5 %). However, it should be noted that the decrease observed in Bulgaria is in spite of the high growth of women inventorships in the 'performing operations and transporting' section. 

Overall, the observations about gender differences in patent inventions reveal that women are heavily under-represented as inventors, and that growth figures in this respect are modest. This under-representation of women in research and innovation activities and outputs is therefore more severe in 'innovation' (patent inventions) than in 'research' (scientific publications). What is interesting is to measure also the propensity of the two sexes in to work together; this could be derived by means of the sex composition in inventors' teams. 

168 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 BE 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 BG 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 z 0,8 z 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 CZ 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 z 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 DK 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 DE 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 EE 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,1 z 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,1 IE 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 EL 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,3 0,1 z 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 ES 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,4 0,5 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 FR 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 HR 0,4 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,5 0,5 z z 0,1 0,1 0,0 z 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 IT 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 CY 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 z z 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 LV 0,3 0,6 0,7 0,2 0,3 0,5 z 0,7 z 0,1 z 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 LT 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,1 0,5 0,3 z z z z z 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 LU 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 HU 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 MT 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2 z z z 0,0 0,1 z z 0,0 0,0 0,1 NL 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 AT 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 PL 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,6 0,3 0,5 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 PT 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,6 0,9 0,6 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,2 RO 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,6 0,5 2,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 SI 0,4 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,4 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,0 SK 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,1 0,1 z z 0,0 z z 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 FI 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 SE 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 UK 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 IS 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,0 z 0,3 z 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 NO 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 CH 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0

,2 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 MD 0,1 0,3 z 0,3 0,6 0,4 z z z 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 z 0,1 TN 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 z z z 0,0 z 0,1 0,0 0,0 z z UA 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 Source: Computed by using European patent applications (kind codes A1 and A2) in PATSTAT. The compound annual growth rate of the proportion of women inventorships computed on four-year moving periods (e. g. 2005-2008, 2006-2009, 2007-2010, and so on); Trend: Shows the trend in the proportion of women inventorships using four-year moving periods (the scale is not the same across countries); z = Not applicable (due to small population size).
section_name: Women to men ratio in inventorships

section_content: Source: Computed by using European patent applications (kind codes A1 and A2) in PATSTAT. 

170

A strong gender gap in the composition of the inventors' teams is observed in all countries. 

Each patent application can have one named inventor (a lone individual/inventor) or multiple inventors (working collaboratively as part of a team). The determination of the sex of each named inventor permits to identify mutually exclusive sets of applications, i. e. those referring to a female (or male) working alone, those developed by teams of the same sex and those referred by mixed sex teams. This last group can be further divided by considering the prevalence of one sex (more than 60 % of inventors are women or men) or balanced. In other words, these indicators shed light on the propensity of the two sexes to work alone, in same-sex teams or in mixed-sex teams, as well as on how such collaboration patterns vary between countries (figure 7. 12) and evolve over time (table 7. 17). 

Also, in this case the results show a strong gender-gap; in the EU-28 (2013 EU-28 ( -2016)), the majority of teams are those were all members are males (47 %), followed by those with just one male inventor (33 %). This phenomenon is almost stable when considering the compound annual growth rate from 2005 (-0. 016 the CAGR for the all-male teams and -0. 044 % for teams with just one male inventor). The proportion of mixed gender teams was 5 % for the 2013-2016 period, while teams composed mainly or totally of women accounted for 1. 6 % and 0. 7 % respectively. Female-only teams had the highest average annual growth from 2005 (2 %). 

At country level, the highest proportion of mixed teams with gender balance was in Georgia (14. 3 %) and in North Macedonia (12. 5 %) for the period 2013-2016. The highest proportion of mixed teams composed mainly of women is found in Latvia (14. 9 %), while that of mixed teams composed mainly of men in Moldova (30. 6 %) during the same time period.
section_name: S H E

section_content: Females-only team Team with at least 60% of females Mixed team Team with at least 60% of males Males-only team Table 7. 17 CAGR (%) of the four-year proportions of patent applications by sex composition of the inventors ' team, 2005-2016 Notes: 'z' represents that data are not applicable; CAGR: The compound annual growth rate of the proportion of type of team-working computed on four-year moving periods (e. g. 2005-2008, 2006-2009, 2007-2010, and so on); Trend: Shows the trend in the proportion of team-working types using four-year moving periods (the scale is not the same across countries). 

Source: Computed by using European patent applications (kind codes A1 and A2) in PATSTAT.
section_name: Male alone Female alone

section_content: This indicator presents the gender gap in success for receiving national, publicly managed research funding. The gender gap is given as the difference in the success rate of men team leaders minus the same rate for women team leaders. A positive difference means that men have a higher success rate, whereas a negative difference means that women have a higher success rate Other: Values were calculated from headcounts and only from the institutes that provided both applicants and beneficiaries; positive values represent that success rate is higher for men while negative values that success rate is higher for women. 

Source: WiS (Women in Science), DG Research and Innovation. Men have a higher success rate than women when applying for research funding as team leaders. 

Figure 7. 13 displays the difference between women and men team leaders in their research funding success rates in 2017, with the funding success rate calculated as the number of beneficiaries of a research grant over the number of applicants. 

At the EU-level, the funding success rate was higher for men than for women by 3. 0 percentage points. This funding success difference was in favour of men in most of the countries examined with the highest value to be found in Cyprus with 10. 7 percentage points. However, for six countries, the funding success rate was higher for women, with Malta having the highest difference of 15. 1 percentage points, while the gap was ranging close to parity (from -0. 5 to 0. 5 percentage points) for Portugal (0. 2), Norway (0. 1) and Germany (-0. 5). 

To further analyse this trend, Table 7. 18 presents the difference in research funding success between women and men across the different fields of research and development. In all fields of R&D, women are less likely to benefit when applying for research funds. In the field of medical sciences, the difference in funding success rate was in favour of women in only six countries (BG, DK, DE, EL, PT and IS). This number increased to seven countries in the fields of natural sciences (BG, DK, LU, MT, FI, UK, NO) and engineering and technology (BG, IT, FI, SE, IS, NO, CH); to eight in the field of agricultural sciences (DK, LT, HU, AT, FI, SE, NO, IL); to nine in the field of humanities (DK, LT, HU, NL, PT, FI, SE, NO, IL) and to ten in the field of social sciences (BG, DK, DE, EE, PT, RO, SI, UK, IS, NO). Studies that integrate a sex or gender dimension in their research content (SGDRC) account for approximately 1. 8 % of all research studies in the EU-28. 

Table 7. 19 shows the percentage of SGDRC for the 2013-2017 period and the overall annual growth rates and trend bars for 2007-2017. 

In the 2013-2017 period, 1. 79 % of all research in the EU-28 included a sex or gender dimension in its research content. This value is slightly over the percentage observed for research at the global level, which is 1. 66 %. However, both values show only moderate annual growth rates across the full 2007-2017 period and the trend bars do not display a clear trend, but rather an inconsistent trend over time. 

When assessing the numbers for the individual countries, the data show a diverse picture with the percentage of SGDRC ranging from 4. 51 % for Iceland to 0. 44 % for Moldova. The highest annual growth rates can be observed in countries with a relatively small overall output, namely Armenia and Montenegro, while some countries show a declining percentage, with the highest negative trend being in Tunisia and Romania. 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 Source: Computed by Elsevier using Scopus data. 

Medical sciences include the highest percentage of SGDRC in their research output. 

Table 7. 20 provides the data for percentage of SGDRC, disaggregated by field of research and development and period. The highest percentage of SGDRC was observed in medical sciences, with values around 3. 7 % for the EU-28. At the global and at the EU-28 level, social sciences show the second highest percentage of SGDRC, followed by agricultural sciences. These findings contrast with those presented in She Figures 2015, most likely as a result of the inclusion of non-human studies in this analysis (and exclusion in 2015), resulting in a large body of biological and veterinary research in the agricultural sciences being included in this analysis. 

The lowest percentage of SGDRC can be observed in engineering and technology, with only 0. 15 % in 2013-2017 for EU-28. 

For most countries, the trends remain similar to global and EU-28 trends, with medical sciences having the highest percentage of SGDRC and engineering and technology the lowest, albeit with some variation in various fields of R&D. Proportion of women in the EU-28 among total employment, the population of tertiary educated professionals and technicians (HRSTC) and the population of scientists and engineers (S&E), 2017 and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and trends of the numbers of women and men in the EU-28 in the same populations, 2013-2017 Proportion (%) of women among academic staff by grade and total, 2016 Table 6. 1 Table 6. 1 Table 3. 1

Evolution of the proportion (%) of women among Grade A positions, 2013 vs. 2016 Research funding success rate differences between women and men, 2017 Figure 7. 13 Figure 7. 5 Figure 4. 3

Research funding success rate differences between women and men, by field of R&D, 2017
section_name: Funding success rate differences

section_name: Acknowledgements

section_content: Since its first edition in 2003, She Figures has benefitted from the knowledge and expertise of many individuals. She Figures 2018 is the outcome of a co-ordinated working effort of an even larger group of committed women and men. I Country Research Funds BELGIUM Funds from Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) Funds from Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) BULGARIA National Science Fund DENMARK Independent Research Fund Denmark (IRFD; former reported as DCIR - Danish Council for Independent Research) Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD) The Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) GERMANY Funds from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinscha (DFG ; German Research Foundation ) Funds from BMBF ESTONIA Estonian Research Council Estonian Science Fund GREECE National Funding (National Strategic Reference Programme) SPAIN Funds from National R&D plan -DGIC INNCORPORA Funds from National R&D plan -DGICT -Granted Research Projects: Non-guided fundamental research projects ( 2011-2012 ) & R&D projects, complementary actions and RDI Programmes for Strengthening Centres and Units of Excellence ( 2013-2014 ) Funds from National R&D plan -DGICT -Fellowships : Ramón y Cajal, Torres Quevedo, Juan de la Cierva, FPI, and Técnicos de apoyo ; Ayudas para incentivar la incorporación estable de doctores and "Doctorados industriales" ITALY FIRST-PRIN (Research Projects of National Interest) -(Co-financing MIUR+Universities+RPO) FIRST-FARE (Framework per l'Attrazione e il Rafforzamento delle Eccellenze per la ricerca in Italia) -(Co-financing MIUR+Universities+RPO) FFO -Programma " Rita Levi Montalcini" (Programme for the recruitment of young researchers " Rita Levi Montalcini ") -(funded by MIUR) FIRST-SIR (Scientific Independence of young Researchers) -(Co-financing MIUR+Universities+RPO) CYPRUS Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) LITHUANIA State buget allocations from Ministry of Education and Science State buget allocations from Lithuaniana State Science and Studies Foundation LUXEMBOURG Fonds National de la Recherche European Commission -Horizon 2020 (h2020) HUNGARY National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (NRDIF; previously known as OTKA) MALTA National Research and Innovation Programme (Funds from Central Government Ministries & Departments, Extra Budgetary Units, Local Councils) Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) NETHERLANDS NWO -programmes/ thematic research NWO -individual talent programmes NWO -free competition NWO -research facilities NWO -other AUSTRIA FwF (Fonds zur Förderung der wissenscha lichen Forschung -Austrian Science Fund) ÖAW (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenscha en -Austrian Academy of Sciences) FFG (Austrian Research Promotion Agency) CDG (Christian Doppler Research Association) POLAND Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Government grants:"National Programme for the Development of Humanities";"Iuventus Plus"; "Diamond Grant") National Science Centre PORTUGAL Programmes of Advanced Training of Human Resources (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) ) ROMANIA HUMAN RESOURCES -Research projects to stimulate the establishment of young independent research teams BILATERAL CO_OPERATION COMPETITIONS -Mobility Projects(PM) P3-PM-RO-BE BASIC AND FRONTIER RESEARCH Exploratory research(PCE) P4-PCE BILATERAL CO_OPERATION COMPETITIONS -Mobility Projects(PM) P3-PM-RO-MD BILATERAL CO_OPERATION COMPETITIONS -Bilateral Co-operation Romania-France (Brancusi Integrated Action Program) -P3-PM-RO-FR RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION-Bridge Grant (Transfer of knowledge to the trade) (BG) P2-BG RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION-Experimental demonstration project(PED) RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION Solutions (SOL) P2-SOL RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION Checks innovation (CI) P2-CI INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE Complex projects completed in consortia (CDI) P1- PCCDI Country Boards Board for Economic Sciences Board for Pedagogical Sciences Board for Legal Sciences Board for Social Sciences Board for History Sciences Board for Psychiatric and Neurological Research Board for Cardiovascular Pathology Board for the study of antimicrobial resistance Board for the Malignant diseases Board for the Natural resourses Other Boards Minstry of Science Technology and Space -Chief Scientist Forum ISF -Call Committee BSF -Call Committee GIF -Call Committee BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA ISRAEL Country Boards BULGARIA Executive board (National Science Fund) CZECHIA Research, Development and Innovation Council (Government of the Czech Republic) IRFD (Independent Research Fund Denmark) DFIR ( Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy) German Science Council German Federation of Industrial Research Associations -Scientific Council German Rectors ' Conference -Executive Board German Rectors' Conference -Senate Board of the Estonian Research Council Supervisory Board of the Archimedes Foundation Estonian Academy of Science Hellenic Universities Rectors' Synod Hellenic Technological Insitutes Presidents' Synod Hellenic Research Institutes Presidents ' Synod The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) Governing Board Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) Governing Board Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT) Governing Board National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA) Governing Board Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO) Governing Board The Geological Survey of Spain (Instituto Geológico y Minero de España -IGME) Governing Board The Canarian Institute of Astrophysics (IAC) Governing Board National Institute of Aerospace Technology (INTA) Governing Board State Research Agency (AEI) Governing Board FRANCE ANR ( Agence Nationale de la Recherche/ French National Research Agency) CROATIA Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Presidency) Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) -Directorate-General for the coordination, promotion and enhancement of research Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) -National Committee of Guarantors for Research (CNGR) National Research Council (CNR) -Board of Directors National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) -Executive Board National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) -Board of Directors Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria (CREA) -Agricultural Research Council (CREA) -Board of Directors Italian Space Agency (ASI) -Board of Directors CYPRUS Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) Board of Directors DENMARK GERMANY ESTONIA GREECE SPAIN ITALY Country Boards Board for Economic Sciences Board for Pedagogical Sciences Board for Legal Sciences Board for Social Sciences Board for History Sciences Board for Psychiatric and Neurological Research Board for Cardiovascular Pathology Board for the study of antimicrobial resistance Board for the Malignant diseases Board for the Natural resourses Other Boards Minstry of Science Technology and Space -Chief Scientist Forum ISF -Call Committee BSF -Call Committee GIF -Call Committee BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA ISRAEL
section_name: Acknowledgements

section_content: (by WIPO) ISCED International Standard Classification of Education ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations KIA Knowledge-intensive activities KIABI Knowledge-intensive activities -Business industries LFS Eurostat Labour Force Survey M. Sc. Master of Science MORE Mobility and Career Paths of Research in Europe MoRRI Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation MS Medical sciences NACE Rev. 2 Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne, Rev. 2 ( Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, Rev. 2) NS Natural sciences OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PhD

section_name: Country Natural sciences

section_content: While women are under-represented as authors in research publications, they are slowly closing the gap over time. 

Figure 7. 1 shows that the yearly average ratio of women to men as contributing authors in EU-28 publications was 0. 55 during the 2013-2017 period. Therefore, on average, approximately one out of every three authors in the byline of a publication is a woman. This is consistent with our observations of the proportion of women among researchers (Figure 4. 1). The average ratio of women to men as contributing authors in publications increased from 2008-2017 at a compound annual growth rate of 2. 9 % (Table 7. 1). 

Figure 7. 2 shows that the ratio of women to men as corresponding authors in the EU-28 is 0. 47 on average during the 2013-2017 period. Worldwide, this ratio is 0. 46 during the same period. This indicates that approximately three out of ten corresponding authors of a publication are women. The EU-28 yearly average ratio for 2013-2017 increased from a yearly average ratio of 0. 38 during the period 2008-2012. The compound annual growth rate for this metric over ten years (2008) (2009) (2010) (2011) (2012) (2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) is 3. 9 % (Table 7. 2). 

Looking at the data disaggregated by country, all countries show a growing trend in the ratio of female to male authorship when assessing all contributing authors. Based on all contributing authors, no country reached parity between female and male authorship during the period analysed with the exception of RS. Among the countries analysed, women represent a higher proportion of the contributing authors across several Eastern and Southern Europe countries. A slightly different picture emerges when looking at corresponding authors. All countries show a growing trend in the ratio of women to men among corresponding authors with the exception of Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

Table 7. 1 and Table 7. 2 show that both for the ratio of women to men as contributing authors and the ratio of women to men as corresponding author, the greatest growth over the last ten years occurred in the field of social science. This trend is seen both at the aggregate level globally, at the EU-28, and at several of the countries analysed. The lowest growth rate in the ratio of women to men as authors is observed for the humanities and the arts in the EU-28 while globally the lowest growth rate for this metric is seen for the natural sciences. The lowest growth rate in the ratio of women to men as corresponding authors is observed for the humanities and the arts (with agricultural sciences following closely behind) in the EU-28, while globally the lowest growth rate for this metric is seen for engineering and technology. 

Women and men's contribution to research differs by research field. 

Disaggregating the data according to the six fields of R&D, reveals differences in the ratio of women to men leading or contributing to publications. As shown in Table 7. 3, in the EU-28 during the period 2013-2017, the average ratio of women to men as contributing authors of articles was highest in the fields of medical sciences and agricultural sciences. The lowest ratio was observed in the humanities and the arts, and engineering and technology. Among the six fields of R&D, a ratio close to or above parity is observed only in the fields of medical sciences and agricultural sciences with several countries reaching or even exceeding parity. 

Data based on corresponding authors (Table 7. 4) reveal slightly different trends from the data based on all contributing authors. When simply looking at corresponding authors, the highest ratio of women to men in the EU-28 is observed for the agricultural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities and arts, respectively. Engineering and technology have the lowest ratio of women to men among corresponding authors. 

142

section_name: Engineering and technology

section_name: Medical sciences

section_name: Agricultural sciences Social sciences Humanities and arts

section_name: Multidisciplinary

section_content: -18,0 -7,7 -9,5 1,7 -0,4 : : DK -0,1 7,2 -1,7 -9,9 -0,8 -8,3

The sex and gender dimension (SGDRC) is not yet satisfactorily integrated in research content. 

The European Commission seeks to promote the integration of the methods of sex/gender analysis into research design and process as a way of preventing bias in research, promoting a better quality of outcomes in science and technology, and achieving cross-cutting benefits. The indicator presented here reveals the changes over time in the quantity of research that:

• Addresses gender issues • Addresses women and female issues • Addresses men and male issues • Reflects, in some way, a consideration of both sexes as a proxy for gender dimension. 

The above categories are by no means meant to be mutually exclusive. This assessment also includes studies on nonhuman species, as these studies can be models for providing a better understanding of human conditions. 

A query-based approach was used to identify the body of research that addresses the 'gender dimension. ' The term 'gender dimension' was developed within the European Commission and means integrating sex and/or gender analysis into research. According to Gendered Innovations (European Commission, 2013b), 'sex' refers to the basic biological characteristics of females and males and 'gender' refers to cultural attitudes and behaviours that shape 'feminine' and 'masculine' behaviours, products, technologies, environments and knowledge.
section_name: BG

section_content: These notes are intended to provide the reader with a brief reference guide about the coverage, identification and definition of groups, units and concepts presented and used in this publication. 

For more detailed methodological notes on the data presented in She
section_name: Methodological notes

section_name: Statistical terms and classifications

section_content: The, 1997). 

The equivalents to ISCED 2011 levels 6-7 and 8 are the ISCED-97 levels 5A and 6 respectively used in previous publications. 

The number of graduates refers to those graduating in the reference year and not to the number of graduates in the population. 

The number of graduates also refers to non national students graduating in the country, but does not include national students graduating abroad.
section_name: Students and Graduates

section_content: The ISCED-F 2013 classification (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2014) distinguishes 29 narrow fields of education and training organised in 10 broad groups: education; humanities and arts; social sciences, journalism and information; business administration and law; natural sciences, mathematics and statistics; information and communication technology; engineering, manufacturing and construction; agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary; health and welfare; and services. In other words, the student and graduate population analysed in this publication covers all fields.
section_name: Science and Technology (S&T) fields of education and training

section_content: The International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) is the International Labour Organization classification structure for organising information on labour and jobs. ISCO is a tool for organising jobs into a clearly defined set of groups according to the tasks and duties undertaken in the job. The first version of ISCO, adopted in 1957 and named ISCO-58, was followed by ISCO-68 and ISCO-88. Many current national occupational classifications are based on one of these three ISCO versions. ISCO was updated in 2007 to take into account developments in the world of work since 1988 and to make improvements in the light of experience gained in using ISCO-88. The update did not change the basic principles and the top structure of ISCO-88 (i. e. the ten major groups). However, significant sub structural changes were made in some areas. The updated classification is known as ISCO-08. The ILO provides a correspondence

• HRSTO: HRST Occupation -people who are employed in S&T occupations as 'Professionals' or 'Technicians and Associate Professionals' (see ISCO definitions for explanation of S&T occupations) • HRSTC: HRST Core -people who are both HRSTE and HRSTO.
section_name: International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)

section_content: An activity is classified as knowledge intensive if tertiary educated people employed (according to ISCED97, levels 5 to 6 or ISCED11, levels 5 to 8) represent more than 33% of the total employment in that activity. The definition is based on the average number of employed persons aged 15-64 at aggregated EU-27 level in 2008 and 2009 according to the NACE Rev. 2 at 2-digit (see 'NACE categories' below), using the EU Labour Force Survey data. 

There are two aggregates in use based on this classification: total Knowledge-Intensive Activities (KIA) and Knowledge-Intensive Activities -Business Industries (KIABI). Further reference can be found at Chapter 3.
section_name: Knowledge intensive activities (KIA and KIABI)

section_content: With the new ISCO-08 classification, S&E are defined as people who work as: • Science and engineering professionals (ISCO-08, Code 21) • Health professionals (ISCO-08, Code 22) • Information and communications technology professionals (ISCO-08, Code 25).
section_name: Scientists and Engineers (S&E) in employment

section_content: The Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) provides an international definition for R&D personnel ( §5. 6): 'R&D personnel in a statistical unit include all persons engaged directly in R&D, whether employed by the statistical unit or external contributors fully integrated into the statistical unit's R&D activities, as well as those providing direct services for the R&D activities (such as R&D managers, administrators, technicians and clerical staff). '. 

R&D personnel has three categories: • Researchers ( §5. 35):'Researchers are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned'. • Technicians and equivalent staff ( §5. 40): 'Technicians and equivalent staff are persons whose main tasks require technical knowledge and experience in one or more fields of engineering, physical and life sciences or social sciences and humanities. They participate in R&D by performing scientific and technical tasks involving the application of concepts and operational methods, normally under the supervision of researchers. Equivalent staff perform the corresponding R&D tasks under the supervision of researchers in the social sciences and humanities'. • Other supporting staff ( §5. 43): 'Other supporting staff includes skilled and unskilled craftsmen, secretarial and clerical staff participating in R&D projects or directly associated with such projects'. 

It must be noted that from the reference year 2012 onwards, it is not compulsory for countries to report technicians separately from other supporting staff when providing data for their R&D personnel to Eurostat.
section_name: Researchers and R&D personnel

section_content: The Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) defines six main fields of R&D (FORD). These are adhered to in this publication, unless indicated otherwise. The following abbreviations have been used: The breakdown of researchers by field of R&D is based on the field where they work and not according to the field of their qualification. 

Indicators about scientific publications were also produced by the above FORD. Scientific publications in Scopus are assigned to several major and minor subject areas. Major subject areas are defined according to 27 All Science Journal Classification
section_name: Main fields of Research and Development (FORD)

section_content: The Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) identifies and defines five sectors of the economy: the higher education sector (HES), the government sector (GOV), the business enterprise sector (BES), the private non-profit sector (PNP) and the 'Rest of the world' sector. The definitions for the first four sectors are:

HES ( §3. 67): 'It comprises all universities, colleges of technology and other institutions providing formal tertiary education programmes, whatever their source of finance or legal status, and all research institutes, centres, experimental stations and clinics that have their R&D activities under the direct control of, or administered by, tertiary education institutions'. 

GOV ( §3. 60): 'The Government sector consists of the following groups of resident institutional units: all units of central (federal), regional (state) or local (municipal) government including social security funds, except those units that provide higher education services or fit the description of higher education institutions provided in this manual. It consists also of all non-market NPIs that are controlled by government units that are not part of the Higher education sector'.
section_name: Sectors of the economy

section_content: 'The Business enterprise sector comprises all resident corporations, including not only legally incorporated enterprises, regardless of the residence of their shareholders. This group also includes all other types of quasi-corporations, i. e. units capable of generating a profit or other financial gain for their owners that are recognised by law as separate legal entities from their owners and set up for purposes of engaging in market production at prices that are economically significant. It comprises also the unincorporated branches of non-resident enterprises that are deemed to be resident because they are engaged in production on the economic territory on a long-term basis and all resident NPIs that are market producers of goods or services or serve business'.
section_name: BES ( §3.51):

section_content: The Private non-profit sector comprises all non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH), as defined in the SNA 2008, except those classified as part of the Higher education sector. For completeness of presentation it comprises also, households and private individuals engaged or not engaged in market activities, as explained in the section "Criteria for the classification of institutional sectors for R&D statistics" earlier in this chapter'. 

The 'Rest of the world' sector is not referred to in this publication.
section_name: PNP ( §3.75):'

section_content: Researchers in the business enterprise sector are categorised using the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, Rev. 2 (NACE Rev. 2). For a full listing of the NACE Rev. 2 categories please see https://ec. europa. eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/KS-RA-07-015
section_name: NACE categories

section_content: The units of measurement of personnel employed on R&D as proposed by the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) are:

• HC ( §5. 58): Head count. The number of persons engaged in R&D at a given date or the average number of persons engaged in R&D during the (calendar) year or the total number of persons engaged in R&D during the (calendar) year. • FTE ( §5. 49): Full time equivalent. It is defined as the ratio of working hours actually spent on R&D during a specific reference period (usually a calendar year) divided by the total number of hours conventionally worked in the same period by an individual or by a group. 

Data in this publication are presented in HC, unless indicated otherwise.
section_name: Units -Head Count & Full Time Equivalent

section_content: The Frascati Manual (OECD 2015) defines intramural expenditures on R&D ( §4. 10) as all current expenditures plus gross fixed capital expenditures for R&D performed within a statistical unit during a specific reference period, whatever the source of funds. 

189
section_name: R&D expenditure

section_content: Statistics on researchers/academic staff have been collected by sex, grade, main field of R&D and age group (for latest reference year only) using the Women in Science (WiS) questionnaire. The statistics on the seniority of researchers/academic staff are collected at the national level through Higher Education and R&D Surveys or directly from higher education institutions as part of their own monitoring systems and from administrative records. It is important to note that these data are not always completely cross country comparable as the seniority grades have not yet been implemented following the publication of the revised Frascati Manual guidelines (OECD 2015). Furthermore, since it was not always possible for countries to provide data on the preferred reference population in the She Figures 2018 -that is for researchers in the HES as defined by the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) -some countries provided data for an alternative reference population, namely 'academic staff' (see definition in UNESCO -Institute for Statistics et al, 2017) in the HES. 

The grades presented in this publication are based upon national mappings according to the following definitions:

• A: The single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted within the institutional or corporate system; • B: All researchers working in positions which are not as senior as the top position (A) but definitely more senior than the newly qualified PhD holders (C); i. e. : below A and above C; • C: The first grade/post into which a newly qualified PhD graduate would normally be recruited within the institutional or corporate system; • D: Either postgraduate students not yet holding a PhD degree who are engaged as researchers (on the payroll) or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a PhD.
section_name: Seniority grades of researchers/academic staff

section_content: Two 'She Figures 2018' indicators present the mobility rates of researchers, based on data from the MORE 3 Survey of Higher Education Institutions (European Commission, 2017c). One focuses on mobility during PhD for researchers in the early stages of their careers (R1 and R2 combined) and another focuses on mobility in the last 10 years for researchers in the post PhD phases of their careers (R2-R4). 

The precise categories of mobility are as follows:

• 'International mobility during PhD' applies to researchers who have moved abroad for at least three months during their PhD to a country other than the one where they completed (or will obtain) their PhD. In She Figures 2018, the The MORE3 Survey applies the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015) definition of researchers (see above).
section_name: Internationally mobile researchers

section_content: Two indicators based on the MORE3 Survey focus on the employment status of researchers in the HES. 

'Part time employment' covers respondents who self reported any of these three statuses: 'part time: more than 50 %'; 'part time: 50 %'; 'part time: less than 50 %'. It should be kept in mind that part-time employment is sometimes the choice of the researchers while sometimes it has been forced upon them. The indicator does not distinguish between these two cases. 

'Precarious employment' includes:

• Researchers who indicated that they have a fixed term contract of one year or less;

• Researchers who indicated that they have no contract;

• Researchers who indicated that they have an 'other' non-fixed term, non-permanent type of contract (often associated with student status), unless they stated explicitly that they had a contract of indefinite duration. 

190

This definition of 'precarious' employment differs from that of the Labour Market and Labour Force Statistics which describes as 'precarious' contracts with duration of three months or less (http://ec. europa. eu/eurostat/web/labour-market/quality-ofemployment).
section_name: Part time and precarious employment

section_name: Gender equality plans

section_name: Other data considerations

section_content: Data referring to the labour force refer to all persons aged 15 and over living in private households and include the employed and the unemployed. Data referring to HRST refer to the age group 25-64.
section_name: Age groups

section_content: For some countries with small populations, raw data relating to small numbers of people have been reported. The percentages and indicators have not always been included (mostly growth rates) and this is identified in the footnotes to the indicators. The reader is therefore asked to bear this in mind when interpreting the most disaggregated data, in particular for Cyprus, North Macedonia, Luxembourg and Malta, and, in some cases, for Estonia, Iceland, Latvia and Serbia.
section_name: Small numbers

section_content: EU totals estimated by DG Research and Innovation (as noted in the footnotes) are based upon existing data for the reference year (n) in combination with the next available year if the reference year is unavailable, in the following sequence (n-1, n+1, n-2, n+2 etc. . . ). 

191

The aggregates were estimated by DG Research and Innovation only when at least 60% of the EU population on a given indicator was available. These estimates are intended as an indication for the reader only.
section_name: EU estimates

section_content: In some cases, the row or column totals do not match the sum of the data. This may be due to rounding error.
section_name: Rounding error

section_content: All figures and tables display data up to the precision level of two decimal places. However, when needed, the text discusses the data at full precision.
section_name: Decimal places

section_content: Data from Eurostat, ILO, UIS and OECD were downloaded in April 2018. Updates from Eurostat until September 2018 were also incorporated. The planned data collection period of the WiS questionnaire was April-May 2018, however data were not finalised until December 2018. 

192
section_name: Cut off date

section_content: Country names available in this publication have been abbreviated in accordance with the ISO Alpha-2 codes, with the exceptions of Greece and the United Kingdom, in the tables, figures, and footnotes, as follows:
section_name: Country codes

section_content: Country names available in this publication have been abbreviated in accordance with the ISO Alpha-2 codes, with the exceptions of Greece and the United Kingdom, in the tables, figures, and footnotes, as follows:

193

Ranked according to the values of indicators on women. Country codes listed in the order presented above, which is based on the original written form of the short name of each country.
section_name: Country Codes

section_content: The following flags have been used, where necessary: -= data item not applicable 0 = real zero or < 0. 5 of the unit : = data not available x = data included in another cell c = c onfidential data z = not applicable
section_name: Flags

section_content: The following list provides country -specific metadata for the reference population used in producing statistics on the seniority of researchers/academic staff using the Women in Science ( WiS) questionnaire. The first column identifies the reference population used in producing She Figures 2018 by country. When available, the preferred reference population was researchers in the HES as defined by the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015). Otherwise, data on academic staff in the HES as defined by the UOE 2017 manual were used instead. Countries listed in the tables and figures throughout this publication are displayed in one of the following ways:

• Ranked according to the values of indicators on women. 

• Country codes listed in the order presented above, which is based on the original written form of the short name of each country.
section_name: Researchers/academic staff

section_content: The following flags have been used, where necessary: -= data item not applicable 0 = real zero or < 0. 5 of the unit : = data not available x = data included in another cell c = confidential data z = not applicable
section_name: Flags

section_content: The following list provides country-specific metadata for the reference population used in producing statistics on the seniority of researchers/academic staff using the Women in Science (WiS) questionnaire. The first column identifies the reference population used in producing She Figures 2018 by country. When available, the preferred reference population was researchers in the HES as defined by the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015). Otherwise, data on academic staff in the HES as defined by the UOE 2017 manual were used instead. 

194
section_name: Researchers/academic staff

section_name: No comments

section_content: Academic staff usually do a mixture of teaching and research. The data reported cover only the academic staff that engage (fully or partly) in research. However, there exist cases (especially in ISCED level 5B) where staff only engages in teaching; this staff is not included. In essence, the academic staff reported in the WiS questionnaire corresponds to Higher Education Researchers, as defined in the Frascati Manual. Research associates working in certain projects only undertake research.
section_name: No comments

section_content: No comments 198
section_name: No comments

section_content: The following list details each of the national funding bodies which have provided data for both applicants and beneficiaries of research funds. For the funding success rate, only those funds that have data available for both applicants and beneficiaries have been used in the calculation. 

201
section_name: Research funds

section_content: A scientific board of a research organisation is defined as 'A publicly or privately managed and financed group of elected or appointed experts that exists to implement scientific policy by, amongst other things, directing the research agenda, resource allocation and management within scientific research. ' An institution is assimilated to a university if it is accredited to deliver PhD degrees. 

206 Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Equality between women and men is a core value of the European Union, actively promoted in all aspects of life by the European Commission. What is the situation in Research and Innovation? Are women participating and contributing to it to the same extent as men? Or is the so-called 'leaky pipeline', the phenomenon of women dropping out of research and academic careers at a faster rate than men, still prevalent?

The She Figures 2018 presents the latest available official statistics on the footprint of women in the research landscape. The data follow the 'chronological journey' of researchers, from graduating from higher education programmes to acquiring decision-making roles, while considering their working conditions and intellectual outputs. The publication highlights also the differences between women and men in all these respects. 

Produced in close collaboration between the European Commission and the Statistical Correspondents of the EU Member States and Associated Countries, She Figures 2018 is recommended reading for policymakers, researchers and anybody with a general interest in these issues.
section_name: Boards

section_name: Studies and reports