Has crystallography lost the plot on gender equity, or has it been penalised because of its historically greater equity?
| dc.contributor.author | Edwards, AJ | en_AU |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-08T00:10:48Z | en_AU |
| dc.date.available | 2021-09-08T00:10:48Z | en_AU |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-12-03 | en_AU |
| dc.date.statistics | 2021-08-31 | en_AU |
| dc.description.abstract | Crystallography as a science has a history that predates the discovery of the phenomenon of X-ray diffraction, having been an issue for students of mathematics, chemistry, biology, geology and physics—for example, Pasteur’s key observation of the chirality of crystals [1]. Could it be that this scientifically broadly based activity has contributed to the remarkable success of crystallographic studies in modern science? Is it this broad-based interest that saw the atypical evolution of crystallography in the 20th century as a science based in mathematics and physics in which women were welcome and, indeed, became key players as the science expanded into molecular and macromolecular studies? Whether by accident, or virtue, the prominence of women in crystallography compared to other physical sciences in the late 20th century was a fact clearly observed by many of our members—some of us still practising in the field today. At the most recent International Union of Crystallography (IUCr) meeting, it was notable that the representation of women at the conference, in particular the numbers of women presenting plenary lectures (none) and keynote and invited lectures, appeared to be diminished with respect to what appear to be healthy numbers of women practitioners in crystallography. It is currently fashionable in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) for significant attention to be paid to gender balance within educational and scientific organisations. Concepts such as “male champions of change” are being advanced as a “solution” to the perceived “problem”. This author questions the validity of such an approach where an acknowledged outlier field is undergoing an apparent reversal from a situation of greater to one of lesser gender balance and indeed equity. Is something else at play here? Could it be that in the atypical gender balance evident in crystallography in the late 20th century, in the “primary subject areas” across which crystallographic endeavours are distributed, a perceived (whether real or not) level of feminisation of crystallography has actually led to the diminution of respect and career prospects for practitioners of crystallography for either gender? The relegation of crystallographic appointments in university chemistry departments to the status of service or peripheral activity, delivered in many instances by practitioners of limited experience and subject to limited tenure, has occurred widely in chemistry departments and anecdotally is now reported to be underway to some extent in the biological areas of crystallography. Is our science actually being diminished and downplayed by the primary subject areas because it has been "feminised” to a modest extent? It is up to us as the professional scientific crystallographers to understand what the drivers are that may have been reversing what was our more desirable gender balance. It is especially important to enquire and understand why our science itself has been so diminished as to be in many cases only a handmaiden to the main game. It is critical for the future of our science that we reflect on these questions of status and equity and act collectively to ensure our science is properly valued. | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.citation | Edwards, A. J. (2017). Has crystallography lost the plot on gender equity, or has it been penalised because of its historically greater equity? Paper presented at CRYSTAL 31, the 31st Biennial Conference of the Society of Crystallographers in Australia and New Zealand, Pullman Bunker Bay, Western Australia, 3 – 7 December 2017. Retrieved from: https://crystal31.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SCANZ-Crystal-31-2017-Book-of-Abstracts-FINAL.pdf#page=56 | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.conferenceenddate | 7 December 2017 | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.conferencename | CRYSTAL 31, the 31st Biennial Conference of the Society of Crystallographers in Australia and New Zealand | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.conferenceplace | Pullman Bunker Bay, Western Australia | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.conferencestartdate | 3 December 2017 | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://crystal31.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SCANZ-Crystal-31-2017-Book-of-Abstracts-FINAL.pdf#page=56 | en_AU |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://apo.ansto.gov.au/dspace/handle/10238/11623 | en_AU |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_AU |
| dc.publisher | Society of Crystallographers in Australia and New Zealand | en_AU |
| dc.subject | Crystallography | en_AU |
| dc.subject | Physical chemistry | en_AU |
| dc.subject | Women | en_AU |
| dc.subject | Sex | en_AU |
| dc.subject | Scientific personnel | en_AU |
| dc.title | Has crystallography lost the plot on gender equity, or has it been penalised because of its historically greater equity? | en_AU |
| dc.type | Conference Abstract | en_AU |