Introduction

In recognition of International Women’s Day on 8^th March, the recent International Day of Women and Girls in Science on 11^th February, and the upcoming International Women in Engineering Day on 23^rd June, this two part blog post focuses first on the overt and covert challenges that women in STEM face. The second post highlights some of the actions that the higher education sector could take to build more inclusive futures.

Women have made extraordinary contributions to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), yet they remain underrepresented in STEM higher education and industry, especially in senior leadership roles. While progress has been made in increasing STEM participation, structural barriers still shape women’s STEM experiences. Evidence suggests (Reggiani, Gagnon, and Lunn, 2024) that it’s not just the easily measurable exclusions or overt discriminations, but also the often subtle and systemic inequalities embedded within everyday practices.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion work is not simply about fairness. Inclusion is vital for innovation and economic growth. Studies have demonstrated that more inclusive workplaces can contribute to more innovative research (Hofstra et al., 2020). Yet women remain significantly underrepresented in STEM. Even from as early as age 10, girls start to believe that STEM is not where they belong (Moote et al., 2019). In the UK, women constitute only 27.6% of the STEM workforce (WISE, 2024). In UK universities, out of professors in SET (science, engineering and technology) subjects, only 26.3% are women and 73.7% are men (Advance HE, 2024). Here at the University of Manchester, promotion gaps (30.4% of professors are women overall, but only 13.8% of professors in the Faculty of Science and Engineering are women) and pay gaps (mean gender pay gap of 15.5%) exist for women and other underrepresented groups.

Recruitment and labour market

For women in STEM in academia, gender bias can begin at the hiring stage and continue throughout their careers. Research analysing letters of recommendation for postdoctoral fellowships in geosciences, for example, found that women were significantly less likely to receive excellent endorsements compared to men (Dutt et al., 2016). Similarly, a randomised study using identical applications found that candidates with male names were rated as more competent, more hireable, and deserving of higher salaries than those with female names (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). These biases accumulate over time, shaping pay, promotion, and career trajectories.

One of the overlooked barriers for women is the unequal distribution of invisible labour. Women, especially women of colour, often carry disproportionate responsibilities for mentoring, pastoral care, committee membership, interview panels, and diversity initiatives (El-Alayli et al., 2018; Guarino and Borden, 2017; Trejo, 2020). These tasks are vital for the success of universities but are usually undervalued in promotion criteria. This participant quote from my own research with the  EPSRC funded STEM Equals project is revealing:

“I think one of the problems obviously in our department is that there are more men. So my colleague … is on almost every interview panel within the department because they need a woman to be on it. … I think that’s probably put a lot of pressure on her to have to do things that some of the men then don’t have to do.”

How many universities track the burden of time that interview panels place on underrepresented academics? Even practices meant to ensure more equitable hiring, for example, diverse interview panels, can lead to disproportionate burdens on some women in STEM.

Within the labour market more broadly, there is a well-documented motherhood penalty and fatherhood bonus. Full-time working mothers in the UK earn about 11% less than women without children, while fathers receive a wage bonus of around 21% (TUC, 2016). Caring responsibilities can introduce additional discriminations and systemic barriers. From my own research with the STEM Equals project, a participant discussed the challenges she faced after returning from maternity leave:

“Participant: Coming back was really difficult because I got given … more work than when I had left. … I feel like it came from … staff kind of saying, ‘Look, we’ve had to do all this while she was away on her break’. … [Also] we are allocated lab space depending on how many students we have. … The space [I had before maternity leave] was given to someone else who could then progress even more.

Interviewer: So, that helped their career and hindered your career?

Participant: Yes.”

Women who take maternity leave may lose access to resources, opportunities, or momentum in their careers.

Evaluation, recognition and funding

Bias can also influence student evaluations of teaching (SET). Studies have consistently shown that student evaluations of teaching are biased against women, including in quantitative assessments of their teaching and in abusive, sexist comments in qualitative evaluation responses (Boring, Ottoboni, and Stark, 2016; Heffernan, 2022a; Heffernan, 2022b). Some universities screen out or censor the overtly sexist qualitative responses from students but leave those same students’ biased quantitative responses in, impacting women’s overall evaluations. In some universities, student evaluations are still included in promotion criteria. Heffernan (2022b:225) “argues that many universities are failing to protect their staff from this abuse, and the prejudice nature of SET results, which will continue to have a negative impact on the career progression of marginalised academics – a major flaw in a sector that prides itself on diversity and inclusion.” Students also tend to request more special treatment from women academics and react negatively when those requests are denied (El-Alayli et al., 2018). This creates additional labour for women, reducing opportunities for research productivity and impacting career progression.

Gender inequalities extend into scholarly recognition, research funding, and research facilities. For example, research has shown that women engineers receive fewer citations than men despite publishing in higher-impact journals (Murphy, 2017). In some STEM disciplines, women are underrepresented among peer reviewers and journal editors, limiting their influence over research agendas (Lerback and Hanson, 2017; Liu et al., 2023). Funding disparities reinforce these gaps. In the UK, over a ten year period (2007-2017) approximately 90% of EPSRC grants were awarded to projects led by men, with significantly higher total funding compared to projects led by women (Weale & Barr, 2018). Even how much lab space is allocated to a scientist can be impacted by gender bias (Wadman, 2023).

Harassment

Reports of harassment, bullying, and sexual misconduct remain prevalent in STEM academia (Corbett et al., 2024), including in my own research, where it has been raised in participant experiences in multiple funded STEM research projects on which I have worked. In fact, I am finalising an article about this topic with colleagues from the NERC funded EDIAL project. This participant quote from the STEM Equals project highlights the issue not just of women experiencing abuse, but of inadequate reporting processes:

[After enduring a campaign of abuse, bullying, and harassment] “I asked to put in a complaint, and I was told not to [by my PhD supervisor]. I was told it would be too much pressure and strain on my mental health. … He said, ‘Let’s try and solve this informally’.”

It’s not enough to have robust policies to protect against harm if informal conversations and practices pressure students and staff from reporting. Such experiences can drive talented individuals away from STEM altogether, contributing to attrition rates that disproportionately affect women and other underrepresented/historically excluded groups.

– Read for Part 2 about possible actions to address these challenges

Dr Jessica Gagnon is a lecturer in the Manchester Institute of Education. She is a sociologist and her research is focused on equity, diversity, and inclusion, including in STEM. Her funded research includes: EPSRC funded IGNITE+, RSC and SIN funded LGBTQual+ project, NERC funded EDIAL, SLiC funded See Yourself in STEM, and EPSRC funded STEM Equals.

Related