Society has historically been shaped by white men in their own image and for their own benefit
Listen to the series Science beyond the suit (in Slovene):
E2 Locked Doors
E6 Unfiltered
Dr. Jana Javornik is the guest of Episode 1, 2, 4, and 5 of this podcast.
Jana Javornik, photo: personal archive
author
Zarja Muršič
edited by
Klara Škrinjar
When it comes to the position of women in science, a paradox is the first association that comes to mind for sociologist Jana Javornik. She finds it absurd that in the 21st century we still talk about women as a separate subgroup within the scientific sphere. Although they represent more than half of the human population, they are often treated in discourse as a separate demographic category that requires special strategies for support and development.
Jana Javornik is a British-Swedish-Slovenian social scientist, professor, and researcher of the welfare state, public policy, labor and labor relations, inequality, and the ethics of artificial intelligence. She is also a visiting researcher at the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana. In the conversation she highlighted a deeply rooted historical perspective that dates back at least to the time of English biophysicist Rosalind Franklin and her crucial but often overlooked contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA. "History still too often views women in science as appendages, as mere assistants to male scientists. In this narrative, He is seen as the 'superman' who created the space in which such serious activity as science can take place," says Jana Javornik.
Did you have any role models when you embarked on your research career?
The short answer to that question is no. I come from a family with no tradition of scientific activity. My path into science was neither organic nor direct. I have always meandered between different spheres and my entry into science or academia was largely accidental, following an invitation. Therefore, I do not have classic role models in the sense of specific female scientists but I have gradually developed certain models – both of how science is done and how it should not be done. When you spend several decades in this environment, you form an image of the scientist or academic you want to become. At the same time, you begin to distinguish between the type of academy you want to be part of and the type you want to withdraw from. As an active agent in this space, I therefore try to help shape an environment that is as close as possible to my ideal model.
I imagine that for you this space would be based on equality, equity and fairness in science. Perhaps you could explain this a little more as I know you have already discussed this several times in your contributions and that you are sensitive to the difference between equality and equity?
That is a very good question. We often get stuck in conceptual confusion, which is a reflection of a specific space and time, the evolution of theory and concepts. Equality is not the same as social equity, but it is its first and necessary condition. When talking about women in science or, more broadly, about social gender equality as the basis for sustainable and inclusive development, it is important to emphasize the following. Equality is a principle according to which everyone in a given social community—in this case, regardless of gender—has formally and legally guaranteed equality. It is therefore a matter of legal equality, which in itself does not yet mean full social equality.
The term "equality" is often used in English, but it lacks a social dimension. Only by ensuring human rights in practice, through multifaceted approaches and public policy measures, can we achieve what we call social equality. Of course, this must be accompanied by the responsible recognition and regulation of functional differences, whether between biological sexes or between multiple gender identities. To sum up: the term gender equality combines equal rights, equal opportunities, equal treatment, equal dignity, and equal responsibilities, regardless of gender. This principle is complemented by equity, which means adapting measures, resources, and opportunities to the personal circumstances, needs, and talents of individuals. This is key to true inclusion and active participation for all. Active participation goes a step further than inclusion, it involves actively supporting the development of a sense of belonging to a particular community. Social systems—in this case, science—are generally designed to reward certain groups. They often stem from deeply rooted discriminatory and exclusionary practices. The principle of fairness, together with the concepts of social justice and inclusion, therefore contributes to reducing socially reproduced gender differences, especially those that can be avoided, corrected, or eliminated. It is about relieving the burden of socially, geographically, and culturally shaped beliefs, patterns of behavior, and practices that are reflected as stereotypes and prejudices in relationships between people based on ethnicity, religion, age, physical abilities, and other personal circumstances.
And class affiliation too?
Yes. Thank you for the addition.
So, I imagine that what you really want is science based on the principles of social justice and inclusion, i.e., science that takes all of this into account. You have already mentioned what such an approach brings to science but perhaps you could expand on that a little. What specifically does such science bring to research itself? Why does it make science richer—or does it make it richer at all? Why, in your opinion, does it make science better?
Let's return to the basic question of what science is: it is the production of knowledge, i.e., what we know. We do this in structured environments—in forums, institutions, and systems that make up the scientific space. Historically, this system was primarily designed by white men. Therefore, its structures and rules inevitably reflect a single, dominant perspective, which is still often considered superior in the development of scientific thought. If we understand science as the production of knowledge, the multiplication and summation of perspectives is a necessary condition for its development. We can only achieve diversity of perspectives by consciously opening up the scientific space and including different views and voices in it.
Why, for example, is the perspective of women in science important? Precisely because women in the scientific space can ask questions that the dominant perspective may not even notice. They enter a system that they did not create themselves and therefore critically question it – along with existing scientific knowledge, methods, and conclusions. It should be emphasised that women are not a homogeneous group. I am referring to intersecting identities and the fact that social hierarchies of power, presence, and voice do not end with the binary division between men and women. Even within this division questions remain open about the inclusion and influence of women of different ethnicities, ages, class backgrounds, and other social circumstances and positions. Intersectional discrimination still significantly marks contemporary science. This is perhaps a longer answer to the question of how to make science not only more inclusive but also more equitable. Inclusive science means science that reflects the diverse social structures, demographic groups, and populations that make up human society.
This will probably also increase trust in science...
If science studies and reflects diverse communities, diverse bodies, and experiences, this will strengthen trust in it. Scientific knowledge or narratives created by science are based on diversity and variety — in short, on an ever-wider range of experiences and perspectives. In this way, science is becoming more accessible to the entire population and less reliant on a narrowly defined population sample.
“Inclusive science means science that reflects the diverse social structures, demographic groups, and populations that make up human society.”
Can you think of any examples where these goals have been achieved in practice? In other words, examples of overcoming discrimination and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, for example from the United Kingdom?
In the scientific field, pressing problems remain — even in 2025 —institutional sexism, misogyny, sexual harassment and abuse, ableism and mentalism, pay gaps, the cult of beauty and thinness, attacks on reproductive rights, which consistently put women in all their diversity at a disadvantage. This brings us back to the initial question of what it means to be a woman in science, or rather to the reflections of structures of superiority and subordination that are deeply inscribed and mirrored in this space. It is often expected that science will be different from mainstream society. How should it be, when it is made up of the same people, patterns and expectations?
Examples of how to tackle these problems systematically—these are deep-rooted, historically entrenched patterns, dating back to the French Revolution, when public spaces began to gradually open up to women—stem primarily from legal requirements and public policy measures. These form the basis for the prohibition of discrimination and the requirement for equal treatment and equal opportunities. On this basis, "softer" but still structural approaches are then developed, such as strategies, action plans, and similar mechanisms.
In the UK, I recently participated in the preparation of the EDI Caucus – a caucus for the integration of the principles of equality, diversity, and inclusion into scientific work processes. It is a forum or network of scientists from various scientific disciplines and research institutions which together developed a comprehensive five-year work program. It is funded by the British Research Council and we act as an intermediary structure that directs funds to specific programs and projects aimed at achieving equality, diversity, and inclusion in the British scientific system. Instead of individual projects applying directly to the agency, the EDI Caucus as an intermediary scientific structure, takes on the tasks of announcing and evaluating projects with the aim of improving the processes of science production and shaping inclusive and fairer science policy. The five-year program began under the previous government and focuses on issues of ethnic diversity, class structures, sexual orientations and identities, and gender. I find it particularly important because it identifies and addresses the necessary changes both among science policy makers and directly within scientific institutions. The starting point is the belief that these changes can be shaped most professionally, sustainably, and in the long term by the research community itself. As part of this process numerous studies and pilot projects are underway to explore ways of changing funding, reporting, and application procedures, with the aim of improving opportunities and possibilities for more equitable participation of diverse social groups in science. One particularly painful issue in the UK is the timing of application deadlines. These often open immediately after public holidays or vacations — in other words, at times when the academic community finally has some time to rest and recharge. Or, more realistically, for different forms of scientific creativity, contemplation, and reflection. However, as these processes are reorganised in a way that also raises the issue of unequal distribution of roles based on gender, those without additional obligations respond to such opportunities much more easily and quickly. As a rule, these are men. This is one of the examples of structural inequalities that we have identified and want to change systematically, also with the help of the EDI Caucus.
Another topic we would like to discuss is the pandemic. Several studies now show that male scientists continued to publish articles and advance their careers during this time, while women — not all, but in most cases — took on the bulk of caregiving responsibilities at home. As a result, their productivity and career advancement did not keep pace. This issue in itself is a topic for a completely different interview. We have similar examples in Slovenia where there are equal numbers of female and male doctoral students, but men still dominate in technical fields. The cracks begin to show as careers progress – leading positions at universities, rector positions, and director positions at research institutions are still predominantly held by men. Why does this happen?
I would not interpret this as a strict cause-and-effect relationship between caregiving and career lag or slower advancement for women, although this is one of the important factors. In science, it is not only women with caregiving responsibilities who lag behind, but women in general. We call this statistical discrimination. Women enter science and the labor market in general with the built-in assumption that at some point they will take on care responsibilities — that is, become mothers. That they will later be squeezed into the care sandwich is "self-evident" to this assumption. Most women are socially expected to be "condemned" to the role of mother, regardless of whether they actually fulfill it or not. This prejudicial burden stems from a centuries-old social contract — the assignment of social roles and work to women and men. Not only the church but also white sociologists played an important role in reinforcing this sexist social agreement between the sexes. Talcott Parsons, for example, justified the "natural" role of women with their biological ability to give birth and the "dependence" of children on their mothers' care. Although these theories are well known, the role of male sociologists in reinforcing such social norms is often overlooked.
In practice, this means that women are seen as less productive workers because they are assigned caregiving responsibilities. This is also reflected in science. It is not just a highly intellectual pursuit, as many portray it., It requires a tremendous amount of hard work, including mundane and routine domestic tasks such as administration, report writing, promoting universities and programs, assisting with doctoral applications, and the like. Women in academia are more likely to take on tasks that do not directly contribute to career advancement but are essential to the functioning and maintenance of institutions or groups. This includes administrative work, membership in committees, commissions, and programs, such as Athena SWAN and the Race Equality Charter in the UK, which are necessary for the life of the institution but are extremely time-consuming and unappreciated or unrewarded. The entrenched expectations of what belongs to women and what belongs to men are also reflected in how science is done. These social differences are often mirrored at home. In couples where both partners have scientific careers, it is usually the man in heterosexual relationships whose career recovers more quickly and who advances more rapidly, regardless of how successful his partner is.
What about the economic return? Women in academia often perform administrative tasks and, as you mentioned, this work is largely undervalued in the system of measuring performance and advancement. In academia, "monetisation" is often linked to publications, citations and published articles, which directly influence career advancement. Of course, new, more inclusive methods of evaluating scientific work are being developed that also recognise other types of contributions, but tradition still prevails. These are patterns that have been reproduced throughout history—in science, economics, and at home. The question is how to break them, as this requires a conscious restructuring of values, performance measurement systems, and opportunities for the equal inclusion of all.
This is an important concept – I call it the cultural heritage of androcentrism, or male-centrism. Society has historically been shaped by white men in their own image and for their own benefit. Others who do not fit this ideal type – the white male – are deviations that need to be regulated and moulded accordingly. Social structure is never the product of humans as neutral beings. It angers me when they write that the masculine grammatical form is "neutral." No, men are not neutral beings or the standard — and that is precisely what this reinforces. Humans are not neutral beings — they have been raised and shaped by sexist norms for millennia.
These social norms are also reflected in the labor market and in science, where productivity, belonging, success, and efficiency are defined by classic criteria such as presence at work, number of hours worked, publications, funds raised, and citations. These still prevail in the assessment of career advancement. Let's not overlook the fact that if we want to maintain a household and an academic career, it takes a tremendous amount of energy and time. Both are limited resources. If you devote most of your time to maintaining your household or institution, you simply don't have enough time left for "higher," more valued, appreciated, and more frequently monetised activities. But society would not exist without housework and maintenance — I mean this both metaphorically and literally. There are only 24 hours in a day. The result is unfair competition for time, which women cannot spend equally on scientific work. In addition, there are informal norms: if a woman in science says "no," it is treated differently than if a man says "no" and often has concrete consequences. Research also shows that men are often more adept at declining invitations that are not instrumental to their careers. The consequences are gender-specific. Those who do not follow traditional norms often experience various "penalties" – both formal and informal – which further perpetuate and reinforce existing inequalities.
So, on the one hand, we have the division of labor at home. Women are usually expected to do the laundry, take care of the children, cook dinner, go grocery shopping, and so on — taking care of family members, children, parents. All these responsibilities are also reflected in academia, where women are often expected to provide a supportive environment that enables "geniuses" – men – to make great discoveries. Throughout history, as you mentioned earlier with Rosalind Franklin, women have often been overlooked despite their important contributions. In addition to the administrative burden, they also took on part of the research work, incorporating their knowledge and insights into projects. Without their work, many things would probably have remained undiscovered – for example, we might still not know the structure of DNA today, or many discoveries would be missed.
A classic example is Ada Lovelace, an English mathematician and author of the first algorithm. Her detailed notes to Charles Babbage, the first programmer, with whom she corresponded for 42 years, are well known. She had an extraordinary breadth of mind and recognised the potential for building the first computer. However, like many women, she had problems with PR. Due to entrenched social structures, she was unable to adequately present her scientific findings. It was not until a century later that Alan Turing recognised the importance of her work. Even today, few people highlight Ada — a woman — as the "great-grandmother" of the idea of artificial intelligence. This is a result of entrenched practices of control and exclusion of women in which their basic function is often limited to reproduction, including through established mechanisms of social control. Some forms of which are still reflected today.
While the number of female and male doctoral students is roughly equal in many places, the ratios in the "knowledge industry" soon change. This is not merely a consequence of care work. What we see in 21st-century science is the result of "a thousand cuts." – I use this analogy deliberately because I want to emphasise that we cannot blame institutional sexism, misogyny, and ingrained beliefs alone for inequality, but that it is the result of various factors, including toxic work environments, disproportionate expectations, and rewards.
The result is scientific fields and areas in which there are far too few women; there are fewer women among full professors, almost none among rectors, directors of research institutes, and ministers of science. This is not a problem unique to Slovenia, but a global phenomenon. Science policy is also a male-centered reflection of the understanding of gender roles and intersecting identities.
When, in your opinion, did women begin to become more involved in the public sphere?
There is a consensus that more pronounced changes began after the French Revolution when concepts such as justice and equality appeared in public discourse. Despite the gradual entry into the public sphere, especially in science and politics at the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, the universal cultural heritage of a male-centered world is still strongly present in the 21st century. Sociologist Georg Simmel summed this up well when he wrote that it is "objectively (...) equally male." Until the end of the 20th century, the dominant trend in sociological intellectual production overlooked the role of women outside the family. Sociologist Maca Jogan has been working for decades on the question of how to think about and explain gender inequalities. Her diagram, which she presented to us as students in the 1990s and has published and updated several times, graphically illustrates social superiority and subordination. How it is objectively – that is, socially "true" – how men decide what is valuable, while women are erased from the public sphere, their existence limited to functions such as procreation and maintaining social order.
In order to reinforce the image of women as "breeding and nurturing machines," various cultural and moral mechanisms had to be engaged, including disciplines ranging from law, religion, and art to ideologies. These roles and images were then passed down from generation to generation as norms, internalised and institutionalised. These structures remained resilient until the 20th century. It was only with the emergence of gender-sensitive social sciences, often linked to a feminist perspective, that the idea of a "natural" male-centered world began to be revealed and deconstructed and the diversity of the actual "natural" state began to be explored and revealed. The erosion of the male-centered principle accelerated in socialist societies after World War II and with the beginnings of the welfare state, and in capitalist societies about a decade later. And so we return to the initial question: who is the author of automated scientific knowledge, machine learning, and artificial intelligence? Automated scientific knowledge simply captures the existing body of knowledge created primarily by one group—white men. And so, historically created and centuries-old inequality and male-centredness are reproduced through new technologies and approaches to scientific research.
What kind of future would you like to see for science? If you had the opportunity to not follow the current trend, what would be the ideal future for science?
I would like to see fair science that approaches the principles of meritocracy. This stems from a genuine recognition of the quality and contribution of each individual. I want better science and a better, more sustainable academy, in which we return to fundamental principles, not to the exclusion of those who think differently, see differently, act differently, or publish differently. Science that encourages participation, collaboration, teamwork, co-creation with different audiences. Multidisciplinarity connects and opens up a safe space for different perspectives. Modern science must become better, more sustainable, and more durable — including in the measurement of scientific output and productivity. We have a lot of work ahead of us in breaking down deeply entrenched models of evaluation, where quality is equated with quantity. The publish or perish system – must be changed so that scientific production does not focus solely on the quantity of publications and the reproduction and recycling of old knowledge, but on high-quality, in-depth, socially relevant work that is responsible and the result of sustainable, ethical, and morally uncontroversial practices.
At the same time, science must open up to the outside world and renounce academic capitalism and classism (class determinism) with its tendency toward excessive production and consumption. We must meaningfully and responsibly involve the wider environment in production, not just the economy, and support and reward this institutionally. Science that is financed from public funds must be relevant, inclusive, and sustainable. We scientists are a large, powerful intellectual collective, a "power house" with knowledge that we must use to closely monitor political actions. It is our duty to engage our knowledge socially to prevent the "slow death" of society and the environment. We must change and collectivise into a community if we are to remain relevant.
The production of podcasts and other content was financially supported by ARIS through the 2025 Public Call for the (Co)financing of Science Popularization Activities.