A research blog from the Centre for Resarch Ethics & Bioethics (CRB)

Tag: MINDtheGEPs

Facts and figures lead the way: addressing gender (in)equality in academia

According to EIGE’s gender equality index 2025, it will take more than 50 years to reach full equality in the European Union at the current pace of change. The research sector is included in this data and Elsevier’s report on gender and diversity in research sends a clear message: gender inequality in academia is a fact; not a feeling. If we want to address inequalities, pay gaps, uneven gender distribution in leadership positions and decision-making, actions need to rest on facts and figures.

One way to design and structure action is through gender equality plans, also known as “GEPs”. The Horizon 2020 MINDtheGEPs project collected qualitative and quantitative data from 7 different research organisations in Italy, Poland, Serbia, Spain and Ireland, and designed actions that have been formalized and sustained through such GEPs, which are now a formal requirement for receiving Horizon funding.

The efforts resulted in a book – Gender (in)equality in research and science – that offers a comparative analysis of gender inequalities in science and research across different organisational and European national contexts, based on this data. Together, the authors examine how organisational cultures and policies affect equality, and explore the logics that shape gendered careers, lived experiences and the way we do science. Inequality in the workplace is not just about advancing careers. There are organisational and professional structures, some specific to academia, encompassing cultures and traditions that can both help and hinder career development. Women are underrepresented in decision-making processes in research performing organisations.

Despite an increasing number of women entering research careers and earning PhD degrees, few of them end up in leadership roles or as full professors. MINDtheGEPs designed actions aiming to deconstruct the gendered bias that men make better leaders, and has worked to introduce gender equality targets in decision-making. Training initiatives have been designed to target these challenges, develop skills development and change organisational culture.

The book puts emphasis on data that in turn can drive the development of policy. It is divided into three parts. The first paints a quantitative portrait of the macro and meso contexts, and gendered policy perceptions in research organisations in Italy, Poland, Ireland, Spain and Serbia. The second part is based on qualitative data, focusing on the context where research careers are built. The book addresses the lived lived experiences of precarity, glass ceilings, the balance between work and raising a family, and how excellence is defined and experienced. The third part contextualises critical issues and trajectories, covering the experience of being a researcher, mentoring, and provides a proposal for gendering science and changing the system. This is where you can find my contribution – a chapter focusing on good practice for developing gender equality plans – which is written together with Claudia Colonnello and Federico Luigi Marta from the Rome-based social research institute Knowledge and Innovation (K&I), and Federica Turco from the Univeriity of Turin. The book is edited by MINDtheGEPs coordinator Cristina Solera and Manuela Naldini from the University of Turin’s Research Centre for Women’s and Gender Studies (Cirsde). They provide an introduction to how gender (in)equality can be studied in scientific and research contexts. 

There is another important reason to strive for gender equality in science and research: it leads to better science. Research teams with a mix of genders produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Through a train-the-trainers approach, MINDtheGEPs has educated colleagues on how to view research results through a gender lens, understanding how gender can have an influence on individuals, society, and science. By embedding gender analysis in research (and publication), we can mitigate at least some aspects of bias and discrimination. In short, incorporating different perspectives can enrich scientific inquiry.

Want to read more? Here is a link to the MINDtheGEPs book: Gender (in)equality in research and science.

Josepine Fernow

Written by…

Josepine Fernow, science communicator and coordinator of the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, develops impact strategy for European research projects.

Solera, C., & Naldini, M. (Eds.). (2026). Gender (in)equality in research and science. Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/9781035345717

This post in Swedish

Can positive action improve a meritocracy?

Despite political efforts to change the situation, gender imbalance is still evident in European universities and research institutions. A powerful tool for change is positive action. The tool may seem to be at odds with the meritocratic values that distinguish academia. Resistance to such measures may seem particularly well-motivated in science, which is supposed to be value-neutral and only let academic merit be the decisive factor behind researchers’ success in the competition for employment and research grants.

However, merits can be assessed and measured in different ways and merit systems may, for historical reasons, favor men over women. There are still societal expectations that the woman should take the main responsibility for children and aging parents, as well as for other household tasks. This pattern is reflected in working life, where female researchers can be expected to also take care of the academic housework. Dual household work reasonably gives women worse conditions in a competitive work environment that rewards productivity and quantity. Can the merit system then be said to be value neutral? Or does it prevent important changes not only to the gender distribution, but also to the system itself, which possibly favors quantity over quality, certain types of research questions over others, and self-absorbed competition over good collaboration?

Meritocracies, like everything else in this world, are changeable. They can change without ceasing to be meritocracies. Positive action could give the academic merit system a push in a possibly better direction, with better ways of assessing scholarly merit, soon helping to render the tool redundant. We therefore need to approach the question of positive action with our eyes open to both opportunities and risks.

The European project MINDtheGEPs (gender equality in research) recently published a policy brief, intended to support thoughtful implementation of positive action in European research. The tool can be used in three important areas: when awarding research grants and fellowships, when hiring full professors, and in the composition of evaluation committees. The policy brief provides an overview of common arguments for and against in the debate about positive action in European research organizations, divided into these three important areas. It is instructive to see the arguments side by side, as well as the counterarguments against the counterarguments. Because is it really self-evident that positive action must undermine a meritocracy?

Read MINDtheGEPs’ policy brief here: Gender quotas & positive action: An attack on meritocracy? There you will also find case studies of positive action at two Italian universities.

MINDtheGEPs hosts a series of Open Forums to discuss gender equality in the academic and research & innovation sectors, to facilitate knowledge exchange and mutual learning among scholars, practitioners and professionals supporting gender equality policies and measures. On 20 March 2024, their next Open Forum, they will share and discuss the contents of their latest policy brief – exploring the contentious topic of positive action, assessing arguments for and against, and drawing insights from MINDtheGEPs’ Gender Equality Plan development.

Pär Segerdahl

Written by…

Pär Segerdahl, Associate Professor at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics and editor of the Ethics Blog.

Solera C, Cipriani N, Holm Bodin A. (2023) Gender quotas & positive action: An attack on meritocracy? Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1002437

This post in Swedish

We challenge habits of thought