For the first time in Sri Lanka a countrywide survey was carried out to gather information on the status quo of the woman engineer living and working in Sri Lanka. This article is the second part of a series published in the newsletter of the Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (IESL) to share the results obtained in the survey which were initially announced to the audience of the AGM of the WEF (Women Engineers’ Forum) of IESL in March 2018. Part 1 can be found on the page 7 of  SLEN paper Newsletter April-May 2018 which covered the findings of the Section 1 and 2 of the survey that comprised of:

Section 1 – Identifying the status

Section 2 – Perception of engineering as a profession and the place of women in engineering

Section 3 – Identifying inhibitors

Section 4 – Engineering education

Section 5 – Identifying work place issues and barriers

Section 6 – Identifying a wish list

This article covers the findings of Sections 3 and 4 of the survey.

Section 3 - Identifying inhibitors

Based on anecdotal evidence some inhibitors hinder the advancement of women engineers’ careers. Comprised of six questions based on such inhibitor statements, this section aimed to find which of them apply to the woman engineer working in Sri Lanka.

Table 8 summarises the responses with the most significant percentage of the response in bold digits underlined. According to these results a very high 71% of the participants believe that women engineers have to face more opposition than men in leadership positions. Also a significantly high 77% feel that some men are not comfortable reporting to women. In terms of how harder the woman engineer has to work in comparison to her male counterpart to get ahead in their workplaces, 53% believe they have to while 28% say not, and 18% stay neutral. International research shows that although women engineers are smart people, they still have to put in more time, and deliver better quality to earn the status, reputation, or appreciation a man gets by doing less. A majority of this sample in Sri Lanka feels the same as 58% are in agreement with that sentiment while 22% do not share that view.However, as far as pay parity is concerned, majority of the women engineers - 56% - do not think they get paid any less for the same work than their male counterparts with only 25% thinking that there is no pay parity. When asked if they agree with the notion that an assertive woman is perceived to be strong-willed while a man is expected to be assertive, there is nearly asmuch agreement (48%) as there is neutrality (48%), while6% disagree.

Table 8: Responses to prevalence of inhibitors to career progression

Section 4: Engineering Education

The questions in this section aimed to assess whether the women engineers recollect being treated differently by academics when they were still students. There were two sets of questions in the survey, the first set consisting of the seven questions below and the second set consisting of the final five questions repeated with the word male replaced with female:

• ·      Were female students a minority when you were an engineering student?
• ·      If “Yes” what approximate percentage (P%) of females were there?
• ·      Have you been taught by male(female) engineering academics?
• ·      If “Yes” did you see any difference (positive or negative) in the way any male(female) academic treated you compared to how he(she) treated your male colleagues?
• ·      If “Yes” was it positive/negative or have you come across both?
• ·      If negative do you think this is a common occurrence?
• ·      If negative do you think it was intentional?

The responses, which are not displayed here due to economics of space, clearly showed that there is no significant difference in if or to what extent the male and female academics were perceived to be intentionally treating the female students differently (whether positively or negatively).

Based on the results of these two sections of the survey, the following observations and conclusions can be made:

· Compared to similar surveys done elsewhere in the world, all the inhibitors, with the only exception of lack of pay parity, have a significantly higher prevalence here. The percentages of women engineers that feel that there is no opposition to women in leadership roles, or there is no reluctance by men to report to women are considerably lowfor this Sri Lankan sample. These two inhibitors in particular can significantlyretard a woman’s career progression not only while attempting to gain a leadership position but also when performing the duties in a leadership position thus painstakingly gained.

· Although it is somewhat accepted that the females have to make up by brain what they lack in brawn when it comes to physical work, their having to work harder to get ahead, put in more time, and deliver better quality to earn similar appreciation are not acceptable in an equitable working environment. The sample has a significant number from the academic sector and as such the result would have skewed even more (showing a higher prevalence of the inhibitor) if not for them; the recognition in the academic sector is widely believed to be independent of gender.

· The transparency of the pay scales in the government, semi-government, and academic sectorsin Sri Lanka could be the reason for the participants’ impression that women do not get paid less for the same work. However, in surveys carried out elsewhere it has been found that, although the participants felt that way, the reality was actually different. Comprehensive confidential remuneration surveys carried out by the respective Engineering professional institutes of those countries year after year have revealed that the women engineers’ salaries are lower than that of their male counterparts’ of the similar rank. It will be helpful to find out if such discrepancies prevail in Sri Lanka too by analysing the remuneration packages in the private sector where that decision is taken through negotiations between the employee and the employer.

·  Given that all engineers have to be assertive in leadership roles, it is imperative that the women engineers too need to project that characteristic. In an environment where assertive women are seen as bossy or aggressive, they can be held back from pay and career progression. Solutions to this problem cannot be found if the negative treatment of assertive women is accepted simply as a result of deep-rooted stereotypes. Instead, through proper mentoring by women in leadership positions, juniors canbe trained to adapt their actions by assessing a situation and presenting themselves dominant and self-confident while at the same time displaying their qualities of communal characteristics, thereby tapping into and getting the best of both worlds. Mentees exercising such self-monitoring elsewhere have shown to progress in their careers faster than assertive men! Mentoring process can also help look from another angle and ask the question“Are some women who act assertively are in fact abrasive?”.

·  There is opportunity for women engineers to overcome many inhibitors through the right interventions such as training, mentoring, and timely guidance; the change of some of the seemingly hard-wired negative conventional attitudes, stereotypical outlooks, and archaic thinking of the engineering community at large can significantly help to remove the inhibitors that are now in the way of career progression of female engineers in Sri Lanka.

·  The few cases of perceived differential treatment (both positive and negative) towards female students are very likely to have been caused by unconscious biases of both male and female academics. The principal author has carried out a separate survey/research on gender-neutral teaching in 2017 where it was revealed that such unconscious bias does prevail - albeit in very small numbers - in tertiary academia but as the name implies, remain unobserved until systematic querying brings such biases into awareness.

To be continued…..

Authors:

Dr. Achela Fernando (Adjunct senior lecturer, Griffith Engineering, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia);

Eng. Mrs. Mangala Wickramanayake (Coast Conservation Department, Sri Lanka); and

Prof. Niranjanie Ratnayake (Emeritus professor, Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa.)

Comments and feedback on this article will be entertained until 31st December 2018. Please send them to a.fernando@griffith.edu.au.