Journal of Gender Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjgs20

Gender equality in higher education and research

Rodrigo Rosa & Sara Clavero

To cite this article: Rodrigo Rosa & Sara Clavero (2022) Gender equality in higher education
and research, Journal of Gender Studies, 31:1, 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446

Published online: 23 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33775

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjgs20
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES
2022, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 1–7
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446

EDITORIAL

Gender equality in higher education and research

Higher education and research are key instruments for empowerment and social change.
Universities can be powerful institutions for promoting gender equality, diversity and inclusion,
not only in the higher education context, but also in society at large. Nevertheless, universities
remain both gendered and gendering organizations (Rosa, Drew, & Canavan, 2020). The persistence
of gender imbalances and pay gaps at both the top and the bottom levels of the academic hierarchy;
gender segregation across academic disciplines and activities; the lack of integration of gender
perspectives in teaching and research; and the extent of sexual harassment and assault on campuses,
largely silenced and denied until the recent #MeToo movement, reveal the extent to which gender
still structures, in very significant ways, the divisions of academic labour and capital (Caprile et al.,
2012; European Commission, 2019; Hearn, Strid, Humbert, & Balkmar, 2020; Heijstra, Einarsdóttir,
Pétursdóttir, & Steinþórsdóttir, 2017; Husu, 2020; Kachchaf, Ko, Hodari, & Ong, 2015; Paoletti, Quintin,
Gray-Sadran, & Squarcioni, 2020; Schiebinger, 1999). Between 2016 and 2019, women just slightly
increased their representation at professorial level in the EU (from 24% to 26%) and the proportion of
women among the heads of higher education institutions (HEIs) stood at 23.6% in 2019 which is 1.9
percentage points higher than the proportion for 2017 (21.7%) (European Commission, 2019, ,
2021a).
The discussion about the experiences of tackling gender inequality in higher education and
research is timely for two main reasons. First, while men remain at the centre of power in academia,
gender binary systems are being politically challenged as never before by the rights of gender
minorities, thus subverting hegemonic gender patterns. Nonetheless, the overriding gendered
inequalities that result from different normative assignments to men and women should not be
underestimated. Although the idea of a single dominant form of masculinity is being increasingly
contested (Aboim & Vasconcelos, 2021; Hearn, 2020), it is through both institutional and cultural
practices that gender comes to uphold a social order where women, as well as the feminine, remain
subordinate (Acker, 1990). Second, the Covid-19 pandemic and the prevention measures imposed
have enhanced existing gendered inequalities and amplified enduring privileges and disadvantages
in society at large, including in higher education and research (Gewin, 2020). In the competitive
context of the neoliberalised university, where gender equality policies are routinely jeopardized by
a ‘merit’ system conceptualized as gender-neutral but essentially masculinist (Ivancheva, Lynch, &
Keating, 2019; Rosa & Clavero, 2020), social distancing and strict lockdowns, as well as the closures of
educational institutions and childcare centres, can hinder academic careers by reinforcing barriers to
combining paid work and private life. Recent studies show that when academics faced a reorganiza­
tion of working time and space amidst lockdowns, women published fewer papers as first/corre­
sponding authors and co-authors than men (King & Frederickson, 2021; Barber, Jiang, Morse, Puri,
Tookes & Werner, 2021; Kasymova, Place, Billings, & Aldape, 2021) and that their voices have been
heard less in the scientific response to the pandemic (Saglamer, Drew, & Caglayan, 2021, p. 6). The
articles gathered in this Special Issue shed new light upon a multitude of challenges for gender
equality in academia today, and hence contribute to exploring further avenues for preventing higher
education and research from rolling back the progress achieved to date.
In tackling gender inequalities in higher education, one mechanism that is being increasingly
promoted is the implementation of Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) (European Commission, 2021b).
GEPs cover a wide range of thematic areas, depending on contextual/institutional factors and
assessment of need, such as recruitment, selection and career progression, work-life balance,
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 EDITORIAL

leadership and decision-making, organizational culture, gender in research and education practice,
and gender-related harassment and assault. Despite the diversity of positive experiences in imple­
menting GEPs in universities across Europe (Rosa et al., 2020), the potential of GEPs to generate
institutional and cultural change in universities is a contested matter. On the one hand, GEPs have
been criticized for their overt instrumental rationale (with the ascendancy of efficiency arguments
justifying policy interventions) and also for the predominance of conservative frameworks informing
understandings of gender equality and the actions designed to achieve that goal (Lätti, 2017). On the
other hand, there is a question of how GEP initiatives can respond to current changes in the higher
education sector, marked by corporatization, marketization and globalization. The emergence of
new far right movements alongside new feminist movements (Grosser & McCarthy, 2019), new
constructions of masculinities and the resurgence of patriarchy (Gilligan & Richards, 2018; Hearn,
2020), the consolidation of intersectional perspectives on gender inequality and discrimination in
organizations (Woods, Benschop, & van Den Brink, 2021), and the increased engagement of men in
gender equality (Subašić et al., 2018), testify to the increased complexity of environments in which
GEPs are being designed and implemented.
This Special Issue gathers a host of approaches that build bridges between different fields in
gender studies. It addresses, from a critical standpoint, the gender mechanisms that underpin the
(re)production of inequality in academia, drawing on contrasting perspectives, such as feminist
institutionalism, social constructivism, poststructuralism, matricentric feminism, feminist perspec­
tives on care, interdisciplinary feminist epistemology, transnationalism and intersectionality. It con­
tributes to current academic debates and policy practice on advancing gender equality in HEIs
through original articles that present, analyse and discuss several areas of intervention to be
addressed by policy mechanisms such as GEPs in the post-pandemic era. Using a wide range of
both quantitative and qualitative methodological strategies, the assembled papers feature research
on university policies, transnational and multi-institutional communities, care work, parenthood and
the entanglement of various identity layers in different national contexts. It also covers a testimonial
on ground-breaking gender equality policy initiatives and a critical review of literature on work-life
balance in academia.
In Sexual and Sexist Harassment in Spanish Universities, Lombardo and Bustelo take a feminist
institutionalist framework to elucidate opportunities and resistances emerging from formal and
informal institutions in the implementation of the ‘Protocol against sexual and sexist harassment’
at Madrid Complutense University. Through a combination of content analysis, interviews and a
survey involving the university community, the authors show how the success of a policy against
sexual harassment is dependent on a combination of factors. On the one hand, there were factors
facilitating the implementation of the sexual and sexist harassment protocol at Madrid Complutense
University, such as the Chancellor’s governing unit, gender expert university colleagues, feminist
students’ associations, and EU funds. On the other hand, the authors show that the implementation
of the protocol was impeded by a scant awareness of the prevalence of harassment in daily
university life, and the concomitant acceptance by the academic community of the phenomenon
as a ‘normal’ practice.
In Navigating UnChartered Waters, Drew shows how the extension of the UK Athena SWAN (AS)
Charter to Irish HEIs in 2015 provided a catalyst for change towards gender equality in that country.
The paper charts its rate of adoption by Irish HEIs as well as its impact on the sector. Drawing on the
experience of Trinity College Dublin as an institutional case study, the author examines prevailing
critiques of the AS Charter and demonstrates how some of the identified shortfalls have been
overcome in the Irish higher education sector, most notably through linking AS awards to sectoral
and research funding. By demonstrating AS ability to adapt to conditions outside the UK, the author
concludes that gender equality policies in the wider European Research Area can benefit from
exploring the AS contextually embedded systemic approach. While recognizing that this
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 3

accreditation system can be further strengthened by promoting the integration of sex and gender
analysis in research and education, Drew shows that AS is the single most comprehensive and
systemic scheme in Europe to further promote gender equality in a post-COVID environment,
In Fostering Collaborative Approaches to Gender Equality Plans and Initiatives in Higher Education
and Research, Thomson, Palmén, Reidl, Barnard, Beranek, Dainty and Hassan argue that collaborative
approaches to institutional change in Higher Education, Research and Innovation might be particu­
larly valuable as the levels of readiness, expertise and experience with such interventions widely vary
across institutions and member states. GEP implementation for institutional change relies not only
on the structures of stable governance frameworks, legislation, resources and external incentives,
but also on the individual agency and activism of a few passionate individuals in institutions often
with no collective force or voice to systematically challenge the status quo. Drawing on the
experiences of seven transnational and multi-institutional communities of practice (CoPs) for gender
equality, the authors show how those CoPs supported change agents, who leveraged membership
to respond to challenges in promoting gender equality initiatives. Being part of collaborative, co-
designed CoPs for learning, knowledge sharing and institutional change provided external support
to change agents’ activism and allowed them to build legitimacy around gender equality work. CoP
members leveraged this support through learning opportunities, knowledge transfer, sharing prac­
tice, political support, and solidarity from the CoP stakeholders. Findings also show that when CoPs
were transnational, multi-institutional and interdisciplinary, their heterogeneity did raise some
challenges in relation to the divergence of members’ contexts and geopolitical idiosyncrasies. The
authors recommend considering this when designing CoPs that transcend national and institutional
boundaries.
In The Trouble with Work-Life Balance in Neoliberal Academia, Rosa carries out a critical review of
literature focusing on how work-life conflict has been studied. After mapping the challenges of
combining work and private life in the neoliberalised university the author conducts a systematic
review of the literature on work-life balance (WLB), which has been a cornerstone of GEP design and
implementation as it is recognized as ‘a key component of the transformation of an organisation’s
culture for advancing gender equality’ (European Commission, 2021b, p. 32). Drawing on a sample of
143 articles specifically addressing work–life issues in academia following an exhaustive search using
the ISI Web of Knowledge database, Rosa observes that despite the rich literature about how
university staff and students combine academic, familial and professional responsibilities, there is
a paucity of research addressing work–life interface from a critical standpoint that discusses the
gender mechanisms underlying the social construction of WLB conceptions and perceptions. Even
when it is critically addressed and reformulated through a gender lens, work–life is equated generally
to work-family interface; personal-life being reduced to family-life (caring for children and/or ageing
parents). The author stresses the dearth of research addressing work–life interface from a critical
standpoint while the few gender-theoretically-informed studies show that the pervasive neoliberal
climate counteracts equity initiatives. Rosa highlights the fact there is a lack of literature applying
intersectionality and focusing on diversity and intra-gender variations. Whereas the presented
inequities are likely to be amplified as research into Covid-19 observes its gendered consequences,
the author contends that the main challenge for research on WLB in neoliberalised academia is to
expose the gendered conditions under which this ‘balance’ is defined and pursued at both individual
and institutional levels. The paper presents a set of recommendations that researchers may consider
to address under-studied gendered aspects of work–life interface in academia. It proposes that
further research takes an approach that merges intersectional analyses of intra-gender variations and
work–life experiences resulting from the overlapping dynamics of different forms of inequality, and a
framework to investigate how job resources, working conditions, public policy, organizational
cultures, workplace policies, care services and institutional governance impact on an individual’s
perception of what they are entitled to claim as well as the scope of alternatives in exercising those
claims.
4 EDITORIAL

In Women and Care Practices in Canadian Universities, Gaudet, Marchand, Bujaki and Bourgeault
assess care practices and how they offer a new understanding of equity in academia. Academics are
routinely engaged in care activities for their students, colleagues, institutions, and families, yet care is
often overlooked in the performance-oriented culture of academia. Drawing on interviews with
female professors, the study explores the extent, variety, and lived experiences of care practices in
academia. It shows how female academics perform caring for undergraduate and graduate students
and for colleagues through academic tasks. Although these care tasks are at the heart of their daily
work at universities, they are invisible. They prevent women from sufficiently attending to their self-
care and from speaking out about their health because the performative culture creates a code of
silence around vulnerability issues. Taking into consideration these findings, and also the fact that
they exclusively interviewed women academics in permanent positions, the authors encourage
future studies to broaden their research sample in order to perform an in-depth intersectional
analysis with the aim of identifying how different inequalities interact with gender and the differ­
ential impact on care. The authors highlight that acknowledging care as a value and practice may
reduce gender inequalities within an organization by improving its responsiveness to the needs of
different community members, and recommend rethinking how universities, as bureaucracies,
develop responsiveness strategies to the vulnerabilities of their employees and students.
In Gender Mainstreaming in Swedish Academia, Peterson and Jordansson examine how Swedish
HEIs conceptualized and organized the 2016 Swedish government directive to gender mainstream
their operations. The directive provided the general guidelines for the programme Gender
Mainstreaming in Academia (GMA), which was to be implemented by the HEIs between 2017 and
2019. The authors explore how gender mainstreaming, as a broad policy approach on a macro-
political level, has been translated into more tangible articulations in locally specific ways in the
unique environments of 13 Swedish HEIs. The analysis draws on qualitative interviews with 72
people at these HEIs responsible for, or in other ways participating in, the development of tailor-
made gender mainstreaming plans, which served as the starting point for the GMA programme.
Peterson and Jordansson investigate how the informants translated gender mainstreaming, as a
broad policy strategy, into more specific conceptual and practical terms to fit their local contexts.
They focus on how these gender mainstreaming translation processes were organized and who was
invited to participate in the process. The results highlight how the organization of the translation
process, the appointment of translators and the local translation of the GMA programme were
guided by different principles, most often resulting in an integrationist rather than transformative
translation of gender mainstreaming. The authors observed that gender mainstreaming was merged
with the closely related concepts and practices of diversity and equal opportunity, which do not
necessarily challenge the structural and cultural power relations in organizations. These translation
principles were connected to the different logics guiding the organization and formation of mostly
temporary committees, and in some cases failed to give gender-equality experts authority and
influence over the translations. Appointing administrators who lack gender expertise to be part of
the translation process integrated and embedded the GMA programme into the organization, as a
‘technocratic tool’, thereby risking defusing the transformative potential of the GMA programme,
which instead was shaped by local strategic priorities focused on neoliberal efficiency goals. The
authors conclude that one avenue for future research is to design studies in line with ideas and
principles for participatory research, co-creation of knowledge and/or feminist participatory action
research, which would empower practitioners involved in the translation and implementation
processes at the HEIs.
In Gender Back on the Agenda in Higher Education, Morris, Hinton-Smith, Marvell and Brayson focus
on experiences of those who are committed to developing gender in the higher education curricu­
lum to shed light on ‘gender work’ and the challenges it faces in the contemporary UK context.
Drawing on a case study institution, which included documentary analysis of course materials and
semi-structured interviews with students and staff, the authors address the lack of gender main­
streaming in this context while considering the impacts of the socio-political milieu alongside the
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 5

intensification of neoliberal management practices and poor working conditions. Far from being
‘mainstreamed’, gender is continually positioned as peripheral, optional and of questionable value in
the neoliberal episteme. The paper echoes work which locates feminist and gender work as operat­
ing beneath the radar of mainstream institutional practice in contradiction to stated institutional
commitments to gender equity. Notwithstanding complex multi-faceted challenges facing higher
education practitioners, the authors take hope and inspiration from the committed and thoughtful
participants they spoke to who care deeply about their students, bringing creativity, commitment
and passion to their work. As a starting-point for ensuring gender equality remains firmly on the
higher education agenda, they recommend working collaboratively and in solidarity to share
interdisciplinary perspectives and expertise and to make the case for institutional support and
resource.
In Sojourning as a Wife, a Mother and a Daughter, Phan employs a critical autoethnography, as a
Vietnamese student (and mother) pursuing a doctoral degree in New Zealand, to explore the
navigation between cultures to adapt to the host country while sustaining the bond with
Vietnamese heritage. Based on theories of transnationalism, space and place, Phan explores her
own spatial production and place-making processes and focuses on the way she grew to become ‘a
cultural translator’ for other family members, making the home a space of cross-cultural exchanges
and inter-generational legacy inheritance. Gender family roles (motherhood and daughterhood) and
status as a doctoral student are entangled in a complex network of different cultures, lifestyles and
social structures. The paper highlights how the author experienced border crossing as an essential
part of her motherhood and daughterhood, and her reconfiguration of family organization, which
entailed the negotiation of different languages, cultures, identities and roles. By focusing on how
motherhood experiences are influenced by the societal and cultural practices in both home and host
countries, and the concomitant neutralization of cultures and generations, the paper gives voice to
the marginalized and often overlooked challenges that international doctoral students who are
mothers must face, such as the explicit and implicit pressures of childrearing, challenges in cross-
cultural communication, differences in educational values and medical practices, the inheriting and
fracturing of cultural origins, the mediation between cultures, and intergenerational mix-and-match
communication.
In Go the Extra Mile, Bonache, Carballo, Chas and Delgado examine the fears and barriers towards
parenthood experienced by Spanish early career academics in a context in which research excellence
and parenthood are often perceived as mutually exclusive. Drawing on data collected via an online
survey, this article contributes to the literature showing that both women and men are affected by
gender-based biases that maintain them in traditional gender roles, complicating men’s integration
into childcare practices and upholding the maternal wall in working women. Findings suggest that
while the factor that most influenced the decision to become a parent was the financial solvency to
support a child, followed by professional stability and being able to balance work and family time,
early-career women perceive more barriers to their academic career after having children and spend
more time thinking about how to integrate professional development and parenthood than men do.
Nonetheless, being able to stay at home and raise a child was more decisive for men than for women,
suggesting that traditional roles linked to fatherhood are changing and men today are more
involved in childcare than in previous generations. Finally, the authors stress that further research
is needed to determine if there are differences in the perception of academic career barriers between
men who wish to be actively involved in fathering and men who do not.
In Never the Right Time, Eren looks at pregnancy and maternity planning and how these pose a
challenge at different tertiary education levels. Using in-depth individual interviews with women
from four universities in Dublin, the paper discusses how women evaluate maternity-related issues in
the field of physics and the physical sciences from undergraduate to postdoctoral level, and how this
affected their career progress. Findings indicate that compared to their male counterparts, the need
to continually publish, the absence of paid parental leave, contracts of short-term duration, lack of
clear institutional policies on maternity, lack of pregnancy/maternity-friendly environments and the
6 EDITORIAL

non-extension of contracts, put many female early career scientists at an academic disadvantage,
resulting in a ‘leaky pipeline’. Moreover, responses from the participants revealed that traditional
gender responsibilities were not compatible with women’s identity as scientists or with their
scientific career aspirations. By offering a wider understanding of how job instability intersecting
with maternity, gender and gendered family responsibilities cause young women to re-evaluate their
progression in academic science, the paper suggests that the key to solving this is for academic
institutions to establish policies for early-career researchers which encourage the best researchers to
continue in academia rather than perpetuate gender-based sacrifices.

References
Aboim, S., & Vasconcelos, P. (2021). What does it mean to be a man? Trans masculinities, bodily practices, and reflexive
embodiment. Men and Masculinities, 1097184X2110085. doi:10.1177/1097184X211008519
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Barber, B. M., Jiang, W., Morse, A., Puri, M., Tookes, H., & Werner, I. M. (2021). What explains differences in finance
research productivity during the pandemic? The Journal of Finance, 76(4), 1655–1697.
Caprile, M., Addis, E., Castaño, C., Klinge, I., Larios, M., Meulders, D., . . . Roivas, S. (2012). Meta-analysis of gender and
science research. Luxembourg: European Union Publications Office.
European Commission. (2019). SHE figures 2018. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2021a). She Figures 2021. The path towards gender equality in research and innovation (R&I).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/
publication-detail/-/publication/61564e1f-d55e-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1
European Commission. (2021b). Horizon Europe guidance on Gender Equality Plans (GEPs). Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
Gewin, V. (2020). The career cost of COVID-19 to female researchers, and how science should respond. Nature, 583(7818)
PMID: 32690964, 867–869.
Gilligan, C., & Richards, D. A. J. (2018). Darkness now visible: Patriarchy’s resurgence and feminist resistance. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Grosser, K., & McCarthy, L. (2019). Imagining new feminist futures: How feminist social movements contest the
neoliberalization of feminism in an increasingly corporate-dominated world. Gender, Work, and Organization, 26
(8), 1100–1116.
Hearn, J., Strid, S., Humbert, A., & Balkmar, D. (2020). From gender regimes to violence regimes. Social Politics.
doi:10.1093/sp/jxaa022
Hearn, J. (2020). Men and masculinities in academia. Towards gender-sensitive perspectives, processes, policies and
practices. In D. Eileen & S. Canavan (Eds.), The gender-sensitive university. A contradiction in terms? (pp. 97–109).
London: Routledge.
Heijstra, T. M., Einarsdóttir, Þ., Pétursdóttir, G. M., & Steinþórsdóttir, F. S. (2017). Testing the concept of academic
housework in a European setting: Part of academic career-making or gendered barrier to the top? European
Educational Research Journal, 16(2–3), 200–214.
Husu, L. (2020). What does not happen: Interrogating a tool for building a gender-sensitive university. In D. Eileen & S.
Canavan (Eds.), The gender-sensitive university. A contradiction in terms? (pp. 52–66). London: Routledge.
Ivancheva, M., Lynch, K., & Keating, K. (2019). Precarity, gender and care in the neoliberal academy. Gender, Work, and
Organization, 26(4), 448–462.
Kachchaf, R., Ko, L., Hodari, A., & Ong, M. (2015). Career–life balance for women of color: Experiences in science and
engineering academia. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(3), 175–191.
Kasymova, S., Place, J. M. S., Billings, D. L., & Aldape, J. D. (2021). Impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the productivity of
academics who mother. Gender, Work, and Organization, 28(S2), 419–433.
King, M. M., & Frederyckson, M. E. (2021). The pandemic penalty: The gendered effects of Covid-19 on scientific
productivity. Socius. doi:10.1177/23780231211006977
Lätti, J. (2017). Individualized sex equality in transforming Finnish academia. European Educational Research Journal, 16
(2–3) Special Issue: Gender and Work/Life Interferences in Scientific Careers, 258–276.
Paoletti, M., Quintin, S., Gray-Sadran, J., & Squarcioni, L. (2020). Sexual violence on campus Objectification, awareness-
raising and response. In D. Eileen & S. Canavan (Eds.), The gender-sensitive university. A contradiction in terms? (pp. 67–
78). London: Routledge.
Rosa, R., & Clavero, S. (2020). The challenge of neoliberalism and precarity for gender sensitivity in Academia. In D. Eileen
& S. Canavan (Eds.), The gender-sensitive university. A contradiction in terms? (pp. 16–27). London: Routledge.
Rosa, R., Drew, E., & Canavan, S. (2020). An overview of gender inequality in EU universities. In D. Eileen & S. Canavan
(Eds.), The gender-sensitive university. A contradiction in terms? (pp. 1–15). London: Routledge.
 JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 7

Saglamer, G., Drew, E., & Caglayan, H. (2021). Putting a gender perspective to Covid-19 & higher education. EWORA
webinar, 6 November 2020, summary report. European Women Rectors Association.
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Subašić, E., Hardacre, S., Elton, B., Branscombe, N. R., Ryan, M. K., & Reynolds, K. J. (2018). “We for She”: Mobilising men
and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 707–724.
Woods, D. R., Benschop, Y., & van Den Brink, M. (2021). What is intersectional equality? A definition and goal of equality
for organizations. Gender, Work, and Organization, 1–18. doi:10.1111/gwao.12760

Rodrigo Rosa
ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal
rodrrosa@gmail.com http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2476-0827
Sara Clavero
Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5482-7108