{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025819265143992055, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019860973187686196, 'mean_word_length': 5.420382165605096, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Women in Science-Based Employment: What Makes the Difference?

Despite 20 years of official concern, women scientists in the United Kingdom are still unrepresented in the higher echelons of U.K. science, engineering, and technology and limited in their opportunities for advancement. The author attributes this to the organization and structure of scientific work, together with male “ownership” of science (even where women are a sizeable minority), rather than to the choices women make. Conflict with childbearing and child raising is significant in science more than in law and medicine because external funding sources and large, rigid laboratory organizations disparage and hence disadvantage part-time scientists. Perception is another factor. Women scientists are not seen as equally committed to their work or as eager for advancement. Industrial employment, which should be freer of some of the problems in academic or research science, nevertheless shows restrictions on women’s advancement, too.