PhD graduates - their career paths and access to funding

1. PhD graduates career paths
access to funding
1

2.  Different patters of financing the PhD project: In Norway,
53% women and 45% men took advantage of financial support
of the research Council, in Poland – one half less (23% women
and the same number of men). Financing by industry or
enterprises was more popular in Norway, although it was still
a marginal phenomenon.
 The course of the doctoral studies: Norwegian female and
male doctoral students almost equally often (54% and 62%,
respectively) stayed abroad in association with their research.
In Poland, the respective numbers were two times lower.
 The traditional image of professional career at the beginning
of doctorate was definitely dominant among the Polish
graduates. In Norway, the group of those wanting to work in
non-academic research institution was much bigger.
2

3.  The comparison of the plans preceding commencement of work on
their doctoral dissertation and the situation of Ph.D. graduates five
years after they earned their degree shows that their plans were
realistic. In Poland, as well as Norway, similar numbers of people got
employed by institutions, in which they wanted to work when starting
their studies.
 The employment statuses of those working in both countries are
significantly different. In Poland, only one half have permanent job
positions – almost as many are occupying temporary positions. In
Norway, 71% women and a much greater number of men (86%) have
permanent positions, while a much lesser number is hired on
temporary ones.
 While in Poland the percentages of women and men were similar,
when it comes to their status at work, in Norway, men occupied
permanent positions much more often than women.
3

4.  The comparison of Polish and Norwegian results shows that the
concept of earning Ph.D. as opening to get a satisfactory job is
closer to the function of PhD studies in Norway, and has been
popularized in the recent years.
 In Norway PhD studies treated as the way of securing highly
qualified human resources for economy, and not only the way of
increasing of the number of people engaged in scientific work.
 The traditional image of academic career was definitely dominant
among the Polish graduates. About 70% of both women and men
wanted to stay at the university – in Norway, this group was also the
most numerous, but it was much smaller (47% women, 40% men).
 In Norway, the group of those wanting to work in non-academic
research institution was much bigger than in Poland. In both
countries, men expressed this intent more often than women.
4

5.  The comparison of the plans preceding commencement of work on
their doctoral dissertation and the situation of PhD graduates five
years after they earned their degree shows that their plans were
realistic.
 In Poland, as well as Norway, similar numbers of people got
employed by institutions, in which they wanted to work when
starting their studies.
 In Poland, 71% of women and 72% of men indicated working for
universities, 29% of women and 28% of men – for other types of
institutions.
 In Norway this distribution is different: 46% of women and 38% of
men found jobs at the university/institution, where they earned their
PhD, while more than half (50% of women and 55% of men) worked
in other institutions.
5

6. Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Poland; R2: 0.085 ;df: 10 ;f: 5.774
Est. Sig.
(Intercept) 52.734 ***
Men -4.149
Social Sciences 19.538 *
Natural Sciences 2.671
Engineering and technology -3.696
Medical sciences -13.806 .
Men:Social Sciences -1.060
Men:Natural Sciences 14.702
Men:Engineering and technology 31.316 *
Men:Medical sciences 5.846
6

7. Norway; R2: 0.014 ; df: 10 ;f: 0.672
Est. Sig.
(Intercept) 18.333 **
Men 4.943
Social Sciences 8.992
Natural Sciences 12.470
Engineering and technology 18.431 .
Medical sciences 13.246
Men:Social Sciences -3.518
Men:Natural Sciences -5.311
Men:Engineering and technology -8.656
Men:Medical sciences -5.424
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
7

8. Poland; R2: 0.045 ; df: 10 ;f: 3.439
Est. Sig.
(Intercept) 77.564 ***
Men -8.302 *
Social Sciences -8.516 *
Natural Sciences -12.132 **
Engineering and technology -9.016 .
Medical sciences -18.223 ***
Men:Social Sciences 10.145 .
Men:Natural Sciences 13.182 *
Men:Engineering and technology 4.515
Men:Medical sciences 10.271 .
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
8

9. Norway; R2: 0.021 ; df: 10 ;f: 1.045
Est. Sig.
(Intercept) 74.265 ***
Men 5.046
Social Sciences 0.735
Natural Sciences -4.528
Engineering and technology 3.676
Medical sciences -3.212
Men:Social Sciences -3.826
Men:Natural Sciences -0.572
Men:Engineering and technology -8.397
Men:Medical sciences -4.670
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
9

10. 58.8
75.3
0
20
40
60
80
Were your expectations to the doctoral period fulfilled
In retrospect, were your expectations to the doctoral period fulfilied?
Percentofverylargeandlargedegreeanswers
Country
Norway
Poland
In retrospect, were your expectations to
the doctoral period fulfilled?
10

11. In retrospect, were your expectations concerning
the doctoral period fulfilled?
11

12. When you started your doctoral period, which
career did you see for yourself? (Academic)
12

13. Do you have a permanent job employment at
present?
13

14. Where is your main workplace?
(in the same institution at which I earned my PhD)
14

15. Where do you have your main position?
(Universities/colleges)
15

16. Have not got a relevant job
16

17. To what degree have you used the knowledge you
obtained during your doctoral period in your
present position?
19

18. gender equality in science
concerning careers and access to funding
24

19.  Women less often applied for grants in general, even in the
disciplines where they constitute a large part of employees.
 The fact can be due to the lower positions which they occupy.
 However, we can argue that the group of women with doctoral
degrees working in research, development and higher education
is large enough to submit more applications.
 We might assume (what we know also from some studies) that
women face structural barriers in their academic institutions and
also non academic restrains (conflict between work and family
etc.).
 Women’s situation as grant and stipends receivers is slowly
changing. Recently they are more often present among
beneficiaries.
 It is necessary to remember that there is almost no institution
using quota for women grant receivers or criterion of gender to
equalize or to favor women.
25

20. MECHANISMS HAMPERING PRESENCE OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIA IN
RECRUITMENT – MENTORING - PROMOTION
• Stereotypes shaping candidates’ aspirations and conceptions
of life careers
• Private life of scientists: partnering patterns, careers of
academic couples
• Difficulties in reconciliation of work and private life
• Women’s absence in decision-making bodies in science
26

21. WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP POSITION IN SCIENCE: POLISH CASE
Women are almost absent on the top administration positions in the best
higher education institutions.
Women as decision makers in higher education institutions (% of total in
each category in the institutions) in 2012
Higher education
institutions:
Presidents
N=10
Vice-presidents
N=42
Deans
N=117
Vice-deans
N=365
1-10 positions in
the national ranking 10.0% 9.5% 15.4% 26.6%
Higher education
institutions:
Presidents
N=10
Vice-presidents
N= 21
Deans
N= 37
Vice-deans
N= 60
80-90 positions in
the national ranking 10.0% 38.1% 18.9% 40.0%
Source: Author’s calculations
27