Paper short abstract:

The paper contributes to the science studies literature on gender by analysing gender balance differences across departments and how they may be accounted for.

Paper long abstract:

The lack of gender balance among university professors has been explained through the accumulative disadvantages theory (Cole and Singer 1991) or 'the Matilda-effect' in science (Rossiter 1993). Such theories help understand aggregate gender patterns in academia. However, there are huge and often paradoxical variations in gender balance, not well explained by this and similar theories. This paper uses other science studies perspectives to demonstrate the need for an approach that highlights the importance of contextualized action "from below". We analyse statistical data about gender balance at all levels of Norway's largest university (NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology), a survey of heads of departments, and interviews with scientific staff. STEM disciplines are often seen as much more gender unbalanced than the human sciences. However, we find larger variations within such fields than between them. Further, we observe a huge diversity with respect to performances relevant to gender balance. We suggest to describe this as the difference between 'gazelles' (rapid increase of women), 'turtles' (slow increase of women), 'rhinos' (low and and no increase of women), 'lionesses' (women-dominated departments) and 'zebras' (gender-balanced departments). These analytical categories have been developed as communication devices when investigating gender balance, inquiring into the effects of critical mass (Etzkowitz et al. 2000) to contribute to lasting change in gender balance. We also use these terms to theorize about inclusion measures and the importance of local motivation to address gender balance issues, providing new input to the science studies understanding of the dynamics of gender.