Gender Equality and Modernity in Portugal. An Analysis on the Obstacles to Gender Equality in Highly Qualified Professions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of research is highly interesting and compelling. Nonetheless, the text only presents a descriptive and non-critical methodology, with conclusions that are not properly supported. The structure of the article does not show a typical scientific design even for the Social Sciences, since some sections as the description of the methodology are missing. The state of the art is also missing and the way the article deals with related works is biased whereas the use of references is not reflective enough. For the discussion there are little references to results of a similar object of study, so that the analysis performed is weak and unclear. More than a research article, this is an essay, but if this is the case, it needs a more critical approach as is traditional in Gender Studies and have a completely different structure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-Line 84: there is a mention to the labour market. But this idea could be developed deeply in the text.

-Line 113. There is a mention to salaries. Which is the gender gap in Portugal?

-Line 131: Which are the criteria for determining 'qualified professions'?

-Line 132. You cite the legislation, but there are not specific references to the Acts or regulations about it.

-Line 179: explain the concept 'male scientific domains of education'.

-Line 189 and 190: there is a reference to 'in adolescence there is a clear decrease in the number of girls 189 opting for these areas of study'. Explain if the system of education provides on particular positive actions to this problem.

-Line 204. There is a mention to 'Plan for Equality'. Which is the year of approval? Which are the parties? And the instruments for enforcement?

-Line 237: Regarding 'discriminatory practices are the main factors that keep women out of the profession'.  Define 'discrimination' according to the Portuguese regulations and legislation.

-Line 256: You are mentioning 'horizontal segregation'. Define this term according to the Portuguese regulations and legislation.

-Line 300. You explain that 'the idea of gender (and ethnic) quotas remains highly controversial'. Which are the main arguments in favor and against quotas in Portugal? How are these quotas implemented in the labour market and in the companies?

-Line 309: Again, there is not a definition of 'discrimination' and 'injustice'.

-Line 385: Which is your concept of 'justice'?

-Is the harassment and violence at work a factor of inequalities in Portugal? There is not any mention to it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper discusses reasons for the limited effects of gender equality policy in Portugal based on a literature survey. The paper provides a very interesting contribution to the discussion about limited effects of gender equality polices in Europe and beyond. The authors identify two main reasons for the slow pace of change towards gender equality: the gender ideology of the dictatorship and the absence of a women’s movement. It would be helpful for readers if the main research question and the underlying hypotheses are explicated. Furthermore, it is helpful to add some information about the selection of studies included in the literature study.

The authors arrive at a rather pessimistic conclusion. Due to the absence of a women’s movement top down gender equality policies proved to be rather ineffective in changing traditional gender stereotypes. However, the authors describe the recent institutionalisation of women’s, gender, feminist studies. It would be interesting to know the author’s perception of the potential of WGFS to support bottom up initiatives towards a cultural change/gender equality. What would be needed to initiate an emancipatory movement?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

We have to acknowledge the efforts to improve the manuscript explaining that this is a review and not an empirical article although we can still read such label in the template above and maybe that's why the confusion came in the first place. I believe the title saying that it is "an analysis on the obstacles to gender equality in highly qualified professions" is obscure in this regard and not accurate at all I’m afraid. In any case, we have a reflection on these obstacles according to contributions made by other scholars.

Here, the authors try to reflect about a socio-historical and cultural process and explain "several factors that hinder the recognition of women’s competence and merit at work as well as their career opportunities" but without a proper technique. Indeed, even in review articles we need method and organization which is missing in the text.

Problems remain in the manuscript structure which is not clearly explained as it should be and the mixing of different aspects of analysis without scientific connection made the manuscript still weak in the reflections made. Why abortion legislation or feminist studies in Higher Education are linked to glass ceiling neglecting women efforts in the three professional fields analyzed here in Portugal: science, engineering and medicine? Shouldn't be better to go deeper in these fields, their differences and similarities in problems women faced? Why science and education are considered the same in some moments in the text? We find important conceptual flaws that must be solved.

Overall, the approach of quoting sources without following research questions or objectives or at least a review method leads to assumptions that are incomplete in any case. The authors state: "we have identified a tendency to “naturalise” inequalities, reducing their causes to uncontrollable factors such as tradition, a reminiscence of the past, the dictatorship, and the organisation of the professions." What does this mean, a tendency in the sources quoted? Sources chosen without any method or review strategy declared are not reliable for such conclusions.

A review article should be clearer in the concepts and the structure, in the strategy followed and last but not least, in the critical contribution that doesn´t get solved in the new final remarks. 

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1

We have to acknowledge the efforts to improve the manuscript explaining that this is a review and not an empirical article although we can still read such label in the template above and maybe that's why the confusion came in the first place. I believe the title saying that it is "an analysis on the obstacles to gender equality in highly qualified professions" is obscure in this regard and not accurate at all I’m afraid. In any case, we have a reflection on these obstacles according to contributions made by other scholars.

Our article reviews findings of several studies conducted in Portugal on the professions mentioned in the abstract. We could say that, to our knowledge, we have covered the main and most recent existing qualitative studies. Clarifications introduced in the beginning of the introduction (Lines 38 to 49) and in section 3, aim at eliminating any confusion and justify the analytic approach announced in the title.

Here, the authors try to reflect about a socio-historical and cultural process and explain "several factors that hinder the recognition of women’s competence and merit at work as well as their career opportunities" but without a proper technique. Indeed, even in review articles we need method and organization which is missing in the text.

In the beginning of the introduction, we added a paragraph to present the organization of the article, its basic assumption and aims. In section 3, by giving more details on the method and findings of the reviewed articles, the identification of common orientations in the discourses of women engineers and doctors and their contrast with the discourses of women politicians were further deepened. The final remarks integrate findings previously reviewed on attitudes and practices in the family with the situation of women professionals, reflected in their discourses, within the common ideological framework of gender equality presented in the introduction.

Problems remain in the manuscript structure which is not clearly explained as it should be and the mixing of different aspects of analysis without scientific connection made the manuscript still weak in the reflections made. Why abortion legislation or feminist studies in Higher Education are linked to glass ceiling neglecting women efforts in the three professional fields analyzed here in Portugal: science, engineering and medicine? Shouldn't be better to go deeper in these fields, their differences and similarities in problems women faced? Why science and education are considered the same in some moments in the text? We find important conceptual flaws that must be solved.

We eliminated the discussion on the role of women’s movements and associations but not the link with women’s studies. In our opinion the delay in the development of a social consciousness on gender equality, caused by the absence of a strong women’s movement can only be countered by research and training on women’s, feminist and gender studies.

By reviewing the main and most recent qualitative studies existing on these professions, we think this article presents a unique contribution to understanding the integration of women in engineering and medicine in Portugal by highlighting common aspects of gender discrimination in the two professions.

As for science and education to be “considered the same” we suppose the reviewer is referring to the abstract where science and education were put side by side as they share the same period of development. Both fields also concentrated strong expectations of modernization in the transition to democracy. Finally, women made a huge contribution to their development, as stressed in the introduction.

A review article should be clearer in the concepts and the structure, in the strategy followed and last but not least, in the critical contribution that doesn´t get solved in the new final remarks. 

Following these comments, and besides the changes referred to above changes were introduced in the final remarks aimed at articulating findings presented in sections 2 and 3, under the common framework of a traditional gender ideology identified in the introduction. In the last part of the final remarks, and following the position of other researchers, we argue that the development of women’s studies, by offering tools to face discrimination and reflect on it, is a way of deepening gender equality. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors worked to address feedback on the original version of the manuscript. That is to be commended. However, I still have concerns about the newly revised version.

Overall, I still am unclear about the primary goal of this paper. It seems like it’s trying to do too many things, and consequently, none of them feel as though they have been thoroughly/adequately accomplished. I also am unsure what this paper adds to the scholarly conversation. It feels very descriptive and in need of more analysis. It is good that the authors clarified that this is supposed to be a “review” article. But this actually reads like a combination of a review of scholarship about gender inequality in Portugal, along with a “report” on the state of gender inequality in the country (leaning more towards the latter). The authors’ own unique argument and analysis is missing.

Some examples of the lack of clear focus:

The title and various points in the paper suggest that this paper is about gender inequality in professional work. Why then, the discussion about gender inequality in the division of household labor? One may argue that disparity in division of labor can contribute to gender inequality in the paid workplace, but that did not seem to be the argument. And if that was meant to the be the argument, then I would expect to see an equally thorough discussion of all the other factors that may contribute to inequality in the various professions.

Section 3 starts by saying that the authors are going to discussion gender inequality in three fields – sciences, engineering, and medicine. They do that (though the line between sciences and engineering is not clear), but then they move to discussion gender inequality in politics. Was politics also supposed to be discussed? If so, why was it not mentioned in the introduction of this section? Things like this should be resolved in a revised version of a manuscript.

Section 4 (final remarks) introduced a lot of new information in detail that seemed disconnected from the information presented in the body of the paper. A conclusion section should recap key arguments and then do some thinking/discussion about broader implications – it is not the place to be presenting lots of new information in such detail. I didn’t understand how it was all supposed to fit together and what I was really supposed to be taking away from the paper. For example, how does discussion about abortion legislation help me to better understand challenges faced by women in highly qualified professions?

The writing quality and organization needs significant improvement. This goes beyond English-language issues (which the authors did acknowledge that they would seek editing help for). Individual paragraphs are often long and lack a clear topic sentence and focus. Transitions between paragraphs and sections need to be improved. For example, the first section (Introduction) ends with a paragraph about sexual harassment in the workplace. There is no real conclusion to the section, and then the next section jumps to a discussion about gender inequality in the division of household labor. The link/transition is lacking.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2

Overall, I still am unclear about the primary goal of this paper. It seems like it’s trying to do too many things, and consequently, none of them feel as though they have been thoroughly/adequately accomplished. I also am unsure what this paper adds to the scholarly conversation. It feels very descriptive and in need of more analysis. It is good that the authors clarified that this is supposed to be a “review” article. But this actually reads like a combination of a review of scholarship about gender inequality in Portugal, along with a “report” on the state of gender inequality in the country (leaning more towards the latter). The authors’ own unique argument and analysis is missing.

The aim, basic assumption and organization of the paper are presented in the initial paragraph of the introduction. The presentation of the findings included in the end of section 1, in sections 2 and 3 stress the common line of traditional thinking about gender representations in interpersonal relations, in family roles and at work.

Furthermore, to analyze discourses found in qualitative studies presented in section 3, we introduced the essentialism vs resistance dimension highlighted by Nogueira (2009) which expresses traditional gender ideology vs resistance. Findings presented in section 2 and 3 support our argument as discussed in the initial paragraph of the final remarks.

Furthermore, by reviewing the main and most recent qualitative studies, existing on the professions we think this article presents a unique contribution to understanding the integration of women in engineering and medicine in Portugal. This contribution enhances common aspects of gender discrimination in the two professions that reproduce gender traditional ideology.

The title and various points in the paper suggest that this paper is about gender inequality in professional work. Why then, the discussion about gender inequality in the division of household labor? One may argue that disparity in division of labor can contribute to gender inequality in the paid workplace, but that did not seem to be the argument. And if that was meant to the be the argument, then I would expect to see an equally thorough discussion of all the other factors that may contribute to inequality in the various professions.

The discussion in division of household work contributes to gender inequality in the workplace as the findings of the reviewed articles clearly show. Since we consider traditional ideology the main determinant of both attitudes about gender roles in the family and the difficult integration of women in male dominant professions, a common line of thinking about work and family had to be highlighted.

Section 3 starts by saying that the authors are going to discussion gender inequality in three fields – sciences, engineering, and medicine. They do that (though the line between sciences and engineering is not clear), but then they move to discussion gender inequality in politics. Was politics also supposed to be discussed? If so, why was it not mentioned in the introduction of this section? Things like this should be resolved in a revised version of a manuscript.

The justification for the inclusion of politics is in the opening of section 3 (Lines 228-239). Moreover, we intended to show that it is particularly relevant to the argument of this review article to contrast the type of discourses of women engineers and doctors with that of women in politics.

Section 4 (final remarks) introduced a lot of new information in detail that seemed disconnected from the information presented in the body of the paper. A conclusion section should recap key arguments and then do some thinking/discussion about broader implications – it is not the place to be presenting lots of new information in such detail. I didn’t understand how it was all supposed to fit together and what I was really supposed to be taking away from the paper. For example, how does discussion about abortion legislation help me to better understand challenges faced by women in highly qualified professions?

Following this comment, we eliminated all information on women’s movements and associations. The new reformulation of the final remarks is focused on the findings reviewed in the previous sections.

The writing quality and organization needs significant improvement. This goes beyond English-language issues (which the authors did acknowledge that they would seek editing help for). Individual paragraphs are often long and lack a clear topic sentence and focus. Transitions between paragraphs and sections need to be improved. For example, the first section (Introduction) ends with a paragraph about sexual harassment in the workplace. There is no real conclusion to the section, and then the next section jumps to a discussion about gender inequality in the division of household labor. The link/transition is lacking.

Two additional sentences were added in the end of the first section (Lines 151-155) to establish the transition between studies on sexual harassment and studies on the division of household work.

As for the writing quality, the larger delay conceded this time to correct the article allowed us to seek the contribution of an English-speaking professional to do the reviewing of the writing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for a positive comment on our previous reply.

The present version of the paper includes further clarification of assumption and methods in the introduction (Lines 38-49, see also Lines 228-239 for the justification of the professions under analysis).

Arguments and presentation of findings were also improved in section 3 which was rearranged according to the essentialist-resistance type of discourses to improve clarity in the presentation of the qualitative data.

The reformulation of the conclusion is thoroughly supported by the findings reviewed in sections 2 and 3 under the framework of a traditional gender ideology identified in the introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has improved in general terms and in my humble opinion is better organized now. I still believe that it would be better to be more transparent in the research methodology, in this case, a literature review, stating all the sources, databases and research strategies used.

Author Response

In the paragraph introduced in the beginning of the article (Lines 38-49) we say that "This paper reviews previously published studies by several Portuguese researchers…As for the type of data we also indicate up front that we will be using statistics and qualitative data. The choice of the qualified professions under analysis is justified in Lines 187-190.

In trying to understand the impression of lack of transparency we reviewed the whole paper, one more time, searching for any omission or incorrect referencing of national / European databases, as well as data sources such as surveys, qualitative studies, or data bases for statistics. The same thorough checking was applied to the list of references.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this revised manuscript. I suggest continued revision for writing quality and style/presentation. 

There seems to be a conflation of "essentialist" thinking w/ individual-centered thinking (re discrimination). Maybe both are applicable in this case, but they're not necessarily the same thing. 

Author Response

We followed the reviewers’ suggestion with respect to the revision for writing quality. As for the discussion on the classification of the discourses we used Nogueira’s (2009) definition (lines 349-357), as other studies with women career engineers in Portugal have done (Saavedra et. al., 2014). Essentialist thinking in this case does reflect a self-centered way of thinking but also the adaptation strategy of denying discrimination. These two aspects converge in demonstrating the absence of consciousness on gender equality which was particularly relevant for the argument pursued in this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx