Does the Scientific Diaspora Have a Masculine Character?

February 23 | 2022

A new study shows that female and male scientists who have emigrated abroad collaborate differently with their Russian-speaking colleagues.

Irina Antoshchuk

 

Photos: Male scientists who have gone abroad have more opportunities to manage and organize processes and to gain advantages. (Photo by Headway on Unsplash)  

 

A Brief Story of the Scientific Diaspora

Since the 1990s, the issue of “brain drain” from Russia and the countries of the former USSR has been a subject of constant interest to scientists, officials, and journalists. For many years, a great number of studies have looked at the scientific diaspora, its relations with Russia, and the optimal models for how Russian-speaking scientists abroad should collaborate with their compatriots.

We have learned much about the Russian-speaking scientific diaspora:

Establishing contacts and cooperation with the Russian-speaking scientific diaspora is seen as one of the most affordable and effective ways to solve the “brain drain” issue.

(Read more about this in the postScientific Diaspora: A Valuable Resource or a Dangerous Competitor?”)

 

Gender Is Outside These Studies’ Focus

However, one topic receives extremely little attention: gender, gender relations, and gender specificity in the scientific diaspora.

We are accustomed to the masculine character of Russian émigré scientists; we rarely see and hear about female scientists who began their careers in the post-Soviet space and now work abroad. With rare exceptions, studies are insensitive to the gender characteristics of intellectual migration and transnational academic careers. The gender aspects influencing the formation and development of the scientific diaspora thus remain in shadow.

In this article, I would like to show why the gender dimension is unexpectedly important for understanding the development, consolidation or fragmentation of the scientific diaspora and its interaction with Russia and other post-Soviet countries.

To begin, we answer the question of what we already know about the gender composition of academic migration from Russia and the Russian-speaking scientific diaspora.

 

Men Are “Leaking” Abroad

Most papers assessing the extent of the brain drain since the 1990s do not provide a gender analysis of intellectual migration flows. The small number of works that do make us think that it has a “male” face.

Males dominate among immigrant scholars, while females make up only a small share of the total.

But in general the share of émigré female scientists is significantly lower than the share now working in Russian science.

Female scholars rarely decide to undertake a transnational migration for study/work. Taking into account that scholars who have left Russia are largely (more than 70%) representatives of the exact and natural sciences, in which the share of women is not high, we conclude: in the Russian-speaking scientific diaspora, male scholars are numerically predominant—that is, there is a pronounced gender imbalance.

 

Are Women Excluded from the “Asset” of the Scientific Diaspora?

Few data are available on this issue. The data we have found say that in the active part of the scientific diaspora, the share of women focused on interaction with Russian science is very small. It is apparently even lower than the share of women among immigrant scientists in general.

 

Megagrants

The female part of the scientific diaspora rarely collaborates with Russian scientists within the framework of a megagrant program:

Information about the winners of earlier competitions is not publicly available—except in the case of the 1st competition (2010), where all representatives of the diaspora who received grants were men.

 

Conferences

At conferences and round tables where the issue of interaction with the scientific diaspora is discussed, men prevail as organizers, as creators of the discussion agenda, and as speakers.

 

Surveys

In a survey of Russian-speaking scientists abroad (2015), the largest number of them were representatives of the exact and natural sciences; women accounted for only 11% of respondents. In a survey of representatives of socio-economic sciences, their share is noticeably higher (40%), but it is still less than the share of men.

 

Associations

Women are a minority in associations of Russian-speaking scientists abroad, but they might be more active in these associations’ work.

For example, many women in RASA (the Russian-American Science Association) speak at annual conferences and are members of its   coordinating committee. Although the presidency of RASA was long in men’s hands, the leading positions (president and vice-president) are currently held by women.

 

The question arises: Are female scientists really less active and interested in collaboration with former compatriots? How do men and women differ in their collaboration with the diaspora? What models of collaboration do they choose?

We will try to answer these questions using the example of a study conducted by Russian-speaking scientists in the field of computer science in the UK. As material for the analysis, we will use the list of their publications (298 people, DBLP computer science bibliography, 1990-2018). 

 

Diaspora Knowledge Networks

The scientific diaspora can be presented both as a group of individual immigrant scientists living abroad and as diaspora networks that connect those scientists who pursue common professional goals and carry out joint projects. Through networking communication, they combine their efforts and resources to achieve common goals to advance their interests.

Diaspora knowledge networks (DKNs) are usually transnational associations of highly skilled immigrants from a country; they have a common website and mailing list, an articulated mission and membership, and undertake various initiatives of collaboration with their parent country.

This concept includes:

Thus, the focus of my analysis is on ties and collaboration between Russian-speaking scientists in the UK and their former compatriots in Russia, the CIS, and other countries.

 

Men undertake closer collaboration with Russian-speaking colleagues living in different countries

Among Russian-speaking scientists in the field of computer science (RCS), males are expectedly predominant (80.2%). At the same time, the level of involvement of men and women in diaspora collaboration is approximately the same. To be more precise, it is equally high: the vast majority of women (79.7%) and men (84.5%) collaborate with Russian-speaking colleagues.

 

Co-authors

But the intensity of diaspora collaboration and its value differ substantially depending on gender.

 

(A comparative analysis of median (Mdn) and interquartile range (IQR) values and the Mann-Whitney test were used to identify gender differences)

  

  • On average, men publish more works with former compatriots than do women
  • On average, men have more Russian-speaking co-authors than women
  • Russian-speaking co-authors hold a more important place in men’s networks of scientific contacts than in women’s networks

 

Hierarchy

A scientist’s position in the academic hierarchy matters greatly.

In temporary positions (postgraduate and postdoctoral), men and women show almost the same intensity of collaboration with the diaspora.

However, in permanent positions (ranging from a lecturer to a professor), men are more actively involved than women in diaspora knowledge networks.

  • Men have more Russian-speaking co-authors than women
  • Men publish more works in exclusively “Russian” teams than women
  • The importance of diaspora contacts (their share of the professional network) is much higher for men than for women.

For women, British contacts are more important

Geography

Men and women mainly collaborate with Russian-speaking colleagues who also work in the UK. But for women, British contacts are more important—they represent a surprisingly high share of diaspora ties.

Men’s diaspora contacts are more diverse:

  • ties with Russian-speaking scientists in the UK predominate
  • Russian-speaking colleagues in other developed countries are more important in their network of scientific relations than they are for women
  • For men, colleagues in Russia are comparable in importance to colleagues from developed countries. Women, meanwhile, very rarely collaborate with Russian scientists.
  • Both men and women have extremely few ties with their counterparts from the CIS countries

 

Men hold more influential positions in diaspora knowledge networks

The knowledge of male scholars holds more advantageous positions in terms of information exchange and knowledge circulation:

  • Men have more diaspora ties than women
  • Men are in closer contact with their Russian-speaking counterparts than women
  • Men are more likely to fill structural gaps and act as a bridge between network participants than women

Thus, male scholars hold the central positions in the diaspora knowledge network. They maintain closer ties with Russian-speaking researchers; they also act as intermediaries between colleagues and ensure network connectivity. Consequently, they have more opportunities to manage and benefit from processes.

 

“Male” Character of the Diaspora

Women

The majority of female scientists were involved in collaboration with Russian-speaking colleagues, as were most men. However, women are inclined toward less intensive collaboration.

Moreover, this collaboration tends to become less valuable as one moves up the career ladder. The more women integrate into the academy of other countries and grow professionally, the more they enlarge their professional networks with non-Russian scientists.

Furthermore, women interact mainly with former compatriots in the country where they live now; their ties to Russia are scarce.

 

Men

On the contrary, male scientists support intensive and active collaboration with Russian-speaking colleagues, increasing their number of contacts and joint publications as their career progresses. Collaboration with Russian-speaking colleagues thus plays a more important role in their scientific activity than it does for women.

Men are involved more extensively in collaboration with Russian scientists and this collaboration heavily influences their collaboration with Russian-speaking colleagues in Great Britain.

Men are more active representatives of the scientific Russian-speaking diaspora; they participate more in Russian initiatives and express greater interest in joint projects with Russian scholars than do women.

 

* * *

  • Why is diaspora-based collaboration gender-marked? How does it take a “male” character?
  • Why do women and men start from identical levels of diaspora collaboration but men’s engagement increases as they move up the career ladder?
  • Why do women prefer to work with Russian-speaking researchers in Great Britain but are less interested than men in collaboration with Russian colleagues? Do they appear to be excluded from these “male” networks and collaboration?

These questions are becoming the topics of a new discussion.

 

Irina Antoshchuk is a Ph.D. student at the University of Amsterdam and St. Petersburg State University.

Conference

School of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Almaty Management University

Almaty, 31 October 2 November 2024

 

Academic freedom is a cornerstone of scholarly and research activities worldwide. The globalization of higher education and science necessitates a shared understanding of academic freedom principles globally, particularly in Eurasian countries. Despite the universality of academic freedom, the commitment to its protection and promotion varies and is shaped by the intricate interplay of legal, socio-political, and cultural contexts. A country’s legal regulations and policy frameworks significantly impact how the protection and promotion of academic freedom are understood and implemented.

The quality of democracy and freedom protection in a country also affects the level of academic freedom there. This effect is evident in the rapid challenges all political systems face, such as managerialism and consumerism in higher education. It is even more pronounced in undemocratic regimes with breaches of institutional autonomy and ideologization of higher education.

Equally striking is how the global academy interprets academic freedom when it encounters local traditions that are not universally democratic. In this regard, the operation of campuses of leading universities in authoritarian countries and the debates about the principles and conditions of their operation deserve additional interest.

These observable diversities raise the question of whether global academic freedom can be discussed as a universal concept and how to distinguish the diversity of academic freedom manifestations from aberrations. It also raises the question of how to protect and promote academic freedom as a principle while considering the legal, socio-economic, and cultural contexts in which it is practiced.

For a conference exploring the complexities of academic freedom in a global context, with a particular focus on Eurasian countries, here are some potential topics that could be addressed:

  • The cultural and social context of academic freedom in practice, the contextualization of academic freedom, its cultural and political interpretations, and the universality of academic freedom.
  • Academic freedom in democratic vs. authoritarian regimes, the balance between the social-economic dimension of academic freedom and political rights’ dimension,
  • Legal framework of academic freedom, comparative analyses of legislation, the impact of legal tradition on the application of academic freedom in different countries,
  • Globalization and academic freedom, including academic freedom on international campuses, academic exchange, and academic freedom strategies for maintaining academic standards and freedom in diverse political landscapes.
  • Managerialism and academic freedom, balance between financial sustainability and scholarly independence. Academic integrity and academic freedom
  • Effect of the social and political crises for the academic freedom, academic freedom for persecuted scholars: issues and supports of the scholars in exile
  • Ethnic and moral considerations in upholding academic freedom, including ethical dilemmas scholars faced due to the conflict between national and international academic standards.

The conference is organized by CISRus (Center for Independent Social Research) with generous support of Almaty Management University (AlmaU) and in information partnership with Ghent University.

The conference will be conducted in English. We welcome applications for individual contributions, which should include the title, a brief description (up to 200 words), and a short academic biography of the presenter (approximately 100 words). Presentations will be organized in either thematic panels or roundtable discussions. The organizing committee reserves the right to determine the presentation format (panel or round table) for each selected participant.

Please send your applications to the email: freeacademia.conference@gmail.com

 

Application Deadline: July 25, 2024

The Conference Committee is ready to provide accommodation for all participants for the days of the conference and has some capacity to contribute to the ticket costs as well. Please indicate your need for accommodation and travel expenses with your application.

 

The conference committee:

Dmitry Dubrovsky (Research Scholar, Department of Social Science, Charles University; Professor, Free University)

 Aleksandr Vileikis (Professor, School of entrepreneurship and innovation, AlmaU)

Elizaveta Potapova (Senior Researcher, Public Policy and Management Institute, Lithuania)

Irina Olimpieva (Director CISRus, Research Professor at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University)

 

About AlmaU:

Almaty Management University – is a world-class, entrepreneurial, socially responsible university. More than 35 years in the education market, the oldest private university in the country, the 1st business school of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a pioneer of business education in the CIS.

The School of Entrepreneurship and Innovation (SEI) is a leading and internationally accredited (BGA&AMBA) entrepreneurship school with a commitment to excellence, innovation, and global perspective. SEI AlmaU offers a range of cutting-edge entrepreneurship programs designed to prepare students for successful careers in diverse fields.

 

Information for traveling:

Kazakhstan has adopted a policy allowing dozens of countries to enter without a visa. Please contact your local Kazakhstani embassy for further details. For guests who may require a visa, AlmaU will issue a letter of invitation confirming their participation in the conference. Participants will also receive information about housing and traveling to Almaty.

 

Біз сіздермен Алматыда кездесуді асыға күтеміз !

We are looking forward to meeting you in Almaty!

You May Also Interested

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

65 − 63 =