Universities – whose name derives from the Latin ‘universitas’ meaning ‘the whole’ – must foster inclusive environments where diverse perspectives are valued, and all academics receive equal support regardless of gender, background or identity. Despite institutional efforts to address inequity as populations have become increasingly diverse over the years (GOV.UK, 2022), systemic biases persist, often limiting early-career researchers’ potential and reinforcing hierarchical norms that hinder genuine equality.

This article explores barriers associated with gender discrimination and highlights the importance of fostering inclusive academic environments by advocating for institutional change, exposing systemic barriers and encouraging active solutions.

Understanding gender discrimination

Gender discrimination in academia is complex and multifaceted, manifesting through unconscious bias, entrenched systemic barriers, and restricted access to leadership roles (Etzkowitz et al., 2020; Heilman and Caleo, 2018; Mott, 2022). The concept of intersectionality adds another critical dimension, as gender discrimination often intersects with race, ethnicity, class and other social factors (Roos and Gatta, 2009; Johnson, 2018; LERU, 2019).

Discrimination operates at multiple levels (Ovseiko, et al., 2016; Easterly and Ricard, 2020):

• Individual: everyday biases and microaggressions affecting women’s confidence and visibility.
• Institutional: policies and evaluation systems that undervalue women’s work.
• Structural: broader societal inequalities shaping access and opportunity.

Hidden biases in academia

Discrimination often manifests in everyday interactions and institutional policies that subtly reinforce traditional power structures. Three critical areas illustrate these systemic barriers:

1.The grant gap

Women researchers on fixed-term contracts face structural barriers when seeking independent funding. Even when senior figures contribute minimally, their names are considered essential for credibility – reinforcing unequal power structures and perpetuating gender disparities in research funding.

Evidence shows that women hold only 5% of senior academic positions compared to 19% of men, and female principal investigators receive 43% lower grant awards than their male counterparts. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where early-career women researchers struggle to establish the track record needed for advancement (Wellcome Trust, n.d.; Dias Lopes and Wakeling, 2022; Zhou, 2024; Oxford University Research Services, n.d.).

2. Authorship attribution bias

Despite contribution-based authorship principles, female early-career researchers frequently face pressure to cede primary authorship to senior colleagues. This contradicts the principle that those who design, conduct and write research should receive appropriate recognition.

Research shows that senior male academics disproportionately occupy top authorship positions even when junior researchers contribute more (Ross, 2022; Larivière et al., 2021). Women who lead intellectual work are often relegated to ‘ghost authors’, with their contributions erased by higher-ranking figures claiming credit (Geddes, 2022; Larivière et al., 2021).

3. Exclusion from decision-making

Early-career researchers who establish valuable collaborations are systematically excluded from subsequent leadership roles. Despite laying the groundwork, their influence is diminished in favour of senior academics, creating a cycle where emerging researchers remain in supportive rather than leadership positions (Morley, 2022).

While women occupy 45% of academic jobs, only 28% of academic managers and 21% of professors are women. Without structural changes, women will continue to struggle to gain recognition as independent investigators, leaders (British Council, 2022; Babcock et al., 2017; Guarino, 2017) and members of relevant committees (Bagues et al., 2017). 

Gendered language in academia

Biases manifest through everyday language that describes similar behaviours differently based on gender:

• Women navigating uncertainty are seen as ‘manipulative’, while men are viewed as ‘strategic’.
• Women asserting ideas are ‘bossy’, while men are ‘confident leaders’.
• Women expressing concerns are ‘too emotional’, while men are ‘passionate’.
• Women leading projects are ‘controlling’, while men demonstrate ‘strong leadership’.

These linguistic double standards create additional barriers for women seeking advancement (Oswald, 2023; Newman et al., 2008; Hamilton and  Manias, 2006).

Recommendations for institutional transformation

Based on collaborative experiences across international academic settings, we offer these recommendations:

1. Recognise expertise over seniority in funding decisions through transparent evaluation criteria.
2. Ensure authorship reflects actual contributions rather than institutional rank.
3. Empower women early-career researchers in decision-making processes.
4. Establish structured mentorship programmes focused on developing leadership skills.
5. Implement transparent leadership selection processes based on demonstrable competence.
6. Track and report progress on gender and diversity indicators.

Success stories in institutional change

Success stories in institutional change implementation is already underway in various institutions:

• EU grants require gender-balanced teams and early-career researcher involvement.
• Transparent authorship policies ensure fair credit allocation.
• The UK’s Aurora Mentorship Programme develops women’s leadership skills.
• Multidisciplinary collaborations create co-leadership pipelines.
• Open Access Initiatives with authorship attribution increase integrity and diversity.
• UK’s Athena SWAN Framework promotes explicit equity targets.
• EU METEOR project is designed to empower researchers of diverse nationalities, genders, ages, ethnic backgrounds and roles by enhancing their transversal skills.

From awareness to action

For academia to thrive, institutions must actively dismantle biases that limit the contributions and recognition of women and marginalised groups. Change begins with awareness but must be sustained through advocacy and structural reforms that empower all researchers to succeed based on merit rather than hierarchy.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of CONNECT2030 – Gender equity for Agenda 2030 funded by Open Societal Challenge N. 263 and METEOR – Methodologies for teamworking in eco-outwards research funded by European Commission N. 101178320. The team is grateful to colleagues, line managers, external partners and internal community in special the OU Athena for their useful feedback.

Join the movement

Join the METEOR project in reshaping academia by exploring our resources for inclusive collaboration. Visit meteorhorizon.eu to access practical tools, participate in upcoming workshops, and connect with a growing community of change-makers committed to building a more equitable academic future.