overcoming gender bias essay

Preventing Gender Bias

• Posted November 29, 2018
• By Leah Shafer

Despite gains in gender equality, ingrained biases about males and females still exist — and can have grave consequences. Stubborn beliefs cultivated from an early age such as “girls are bad at math,” “girls are better at cooking,” or “boys don’t cry,” pave the way to sobering statistics about the number of female leaders in business and politics, and disturbing truths about the frequency of sexual harassment.

By talking about gender biases early, parents can blaze a trail toward equity long before girls and boys are engaging in romantic relationships, choosing college majors, or entering the workforce. Here, we provide tips for parents to deconstruct gender stereotypes and prevent bias . These strategies come from developmental psychologist Richard Weissbourd and Leaning Out: Teen Girls and Leadership Biases , a report from Making Caring Common at the Harvard Graduate School of Education .

To Create a Bias-Free Home

• Check your own biases. Be mindful of the language you use, the way you treat people of different genders, and even the perspectives you hold on your own abilities and traits.
• Have open discussions at home about the way chores are divided up. Set expectations that both kids and adults are expected to have a turn at everything: cooking, cleaning, yardwork, and taking out the trash.
• Ask children for their feedback about these family practices. Do they think boys and girls are being held to the same expectations? Are parents dividing work up equally — and if not, do kids understand why?
• Provide children of both genders with books and movies that feature nontraditional gender roles. Talk about female politicians, athletes, and scientists, and male teachers, dancers, and homemakers.
• Encourage kids to try all types of extracurricular activities, and talk about why they might feel more comfortable in some pastimes than in others. Help them distinguish whether they enjoy an activity because they’re surrounded by people like them, or because of the activity itself.

To Teach Kids about Gender Bias

• Show children how biases and gender expectations have changed over time. Share times when you felt you were treated unfairly. Invite them to interview a grandparent or older person of a different generation. Ask kids to think: Has our country changed its expectations of men and women? What challenges do women still face today?
• Talk to kids about the stereotypes they encounter at school, on television, or while shopping. When you both see or hear something degrading, ask kids to interpret it. Do they find it harmful? Unsurprising? Explain to kids how stereotypes can be so ingrained in our society that we don’t always notice them.
• Explain the importance of listening to and appreciating both genders as matter of basic decency. Ask kids to think about what might be challenging about being a person of another gender, or a person who is transgender. Work on developing empathy. “Perhaps nothing more commonly erodes children’s capacity to care and to lead efforts to promote equality and justice than the biases they hold and confront in others,” write the authors of Leaning Out.

Tips for Boys, Specifically

• Intervene immediately when you hear boys making demeaning comments about girls. Explain why some common words and phrases used to describe girls are offensive.
• Help boys understand that it is their responsibility to stand up for girls and counteract stereotypes, and brainstorm strategies for them to use when they hear a friend make a degrading comment.
• Encourage boys to talk about their feelings and worries, and praise them for expressing empathy and care.

Tips for Girls, Specifically

• Make it clear to girls that they can and should be leaders — in the classroom, in clubs and sports, and in their careers. Offer opportunities for them to practice public speaking, give and receive feedback, make decisions for themselves, and collaborate with diverse groups.
• Talk to girls about what worries or scares them about being a leader, and discuss strategies for dealing with disapproval or criticism.
• Familiarize girls with female leaders in politics, business, and STEM fields.
• Support girls’ involvement in activities that can build their confidence. Ensure that they have multiple sources of self-worth that don’t involve their physical appearance. Remind them that they deserve respect from those around them.

Additional Resources

• Making Caring Common’s full report on teen girls and leadership bias.
• Strategies for educators on reducing and preventing gender bias.
• Advice for parents on reducing and preventing misogyny and sexual harassment.
• Teaching Tolerance's lessons on female identity and gender expectations.
• Teaching Tolerance's lessons on exploring gender bias.

Part of a special series about preventing sexual harassment at school.  Read the whole series .

Illustration by Wilhelmina Peragine

Usable Knowledge

Connecting education research to practice — with timely insights for educators, families, and communities

Related Articles

Creating Trans-Inclusive Schools

The Unique Challenges Facing Women in Education

White Men Talking

More From Forbes

Why gender bias still occurs and what we can do about it.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Gender stereotypes clash with the societal view of how leaders should act. Photocredit:

Ginni Rometty is current chair, president and CEO of IBM, an empire worth $113.9 billion, with over 350,000 employees. After seven years in the role, she seemingly stands testament to the fact that gender is no barrier to executive success. But what if I told you the role was only ever within her grasp because she had already spent 32 years at the company? And that research has shown women are most successful in CEO roles only after they have proven themselves with a long history of demonstrated loyalty and relationship building?

For decades we’ve seen headlines discussing gender bias in the workplace. We know mixed gender leadership teams boost companies’ profitability – so why is bias still an issue? Positive discrimination schemes and equality laws have been brought in to alleviate the problem with some degree of success, but barriers to female leadership remain. While the U.K.’s Equality Act of 2010 means both a man and a woman must be paid equally if they are doing the same job, data from the Office of National Statistics shows that the gender pay gap in the U.K. stands at 8.6% for full-time employees across all industries – due to the fact that more men make it to senior leadership roles.

The stubbornness of this problem lies in the fact that it is rooted in our societal beliefs about men, women and leadership. We believe men should be ‘agentic’ (assertive, decisive, strong) and women should be ‘communal’ (warm, caring, sympathetic). These gender stereotypes clash with the leadership prototype, i.e. the societal view of what a prototypical leader should be. The leader prototype shares characteristics with the male stereotype: self-reliant, assertive, dominant and competitive. This prototype is widely shared and, if I asked you to close your eyes and picture a leader, most people would automatically picture a tall, white, middle class man. Conversely, women are seen as caring, sympathetic and sensitive to the needs of others.

The problem arises when women are considered for leadership positions. Leaders are expected to behave in an agentic manner, which means women in leadership positions must behave counter-stereotypically. Yet behaving counter-stereotypically runs the risk of ‘backlash’ – the idea that people who behave counter to gender stereotypes are deemed less likeable and therefore less hireable.

One solution is for women to display both agentic and communal traits, a balancing act that helps female leaders garner the respect of their colleagues. Successful senior women are demanding and caring; for example, setting high standards while also providing support to achieve those standards. They are authoritative and participative, showing that they are in charge while also encouraging others to have a voice. But this is a difficult tightrope to walk and we cannot expect individual women to solve a problem that is a societal issue.

Below are four steps to overcoming gender bias that address the wider system rather than expecting individual women to solve this problem:

Awareness.  Decision makers, both male and female, must increase awareness of their own biases and try to recognize when these views are affecting their hiring and promotion processes. If you want to gauge your own level of bias, try taking the Implicit Association Test, available for free on the internet (hosted by Harvard University) where you can test gender bias, racial bias and other types of biases. But awareness is not enough! These biases occur subconsciously, which means we cannot correct them through conscious effort alone.

Attitude.  We need to accept both men and women in counter-stereotypical roles. The expectation that women should be communal makes it difficult for them to ascend to leadership roles. The expectation that men should be agentic makes it difficult for them to choose caregiving roles. Breaking gender stereotypes means that we need to allow all members of society the freedom to choose the roles most suited to them.

Analysis.  Collect data on your organization to reveal the true picture. Find out the gender balance among all applicants compared to successful applicants. Look at the gender balance in your short lists. Examine performance reviews by gender and role to see if there is gender bias occurring at that level (e.g. a finance company found that women were receiving systematically lower performance reviews in male-dominated roles). The data will help you figure out where to concentrate your efforts.

Systemic change.  The only way we will create meaningful change is to create systems designed to eliminate bias. For example, ensuring there is gender balance when shortlisting candidates. Or assessing candidates in a gender-blind way (assuming, of course, that the pool of applicants is gender-balanced – if it is not, then removing gender from CVs might only exacerbate the existing imbalance). Governmental policy is one of the most powerful systemic ways of creating change. Canada’s Quebec province instituted a paternity leave policy that gave men five weeks of ‘use it or lose it’ paid leave after their baby was born. The percentage of fathers taking paternity leave more than doubled , from 32% before the policy change to 76% afterwards. Those men became more involved fathers and equal partners, thus challenging gender stereotypes.

But you do not have to be a government policy maker to make a difference. One of my personal favorite examples of overcoming gender bias in the workplace comes from a manager who noticed that, on her male-dominated team, the women never spoke up during team meetings. To solve the problem, she introduced a rule that every time a man speaks, another man cannot speak again until a woman has spoken. At first the meetings were awkward, with men bursting to interrupt and women wondering what to say. But with time, the female employees began to attend the meetings having prepared contributions. In turn, the male employees grew more respectful and less inclined to speak over their female colleagues.

Changing the systems – whether they are government policies, hiring and promotion systems, or simply the way you run your meetings – are the key to creating real change. We focus too much on the role of the individual in perpetuating or solving these issues, blaming men and burdening women. While it is important for us to take individual responsibility, we must also acknowledge that these issues are rooted in the way we view the leader prototype and gender stereotypes. Thus, change will only happen with a combination of systemic change and individual behavioral and attitudinal change.

We are all part of the problem: female decision makers are just as biased as men. And we are all part of the solution: men are in positions of power where they can (and do) help the women in their organizations rise to the top. The more we can work together to create positive change, the faster that change will happen.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

How to end unconscious gender bias? An author explains

Unconscious gender bias is impacting women in business. Image:  S O C I A L . C U T/Unsplash

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Kate Whiting

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Social Justice is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, social justice.

Listen to the article

This article was first published in March 2022 and updated on 29 July, 2022.

• This is an edited version of an interview with Jessica Nordell for the World Economic Forum's Book Club Podcast .
• The journalist and author discusses her new book, The End of Bias: How We Change Our Minds.
• As part of her research, she carried out her own computer modelling to see how daily interactions add up to fewer women breaking through the glass ceiling.
• Nordell explains the cumulative impact of gender bias at work – and ways to reduce it.

When Jessica Nordell was starting out as a journalist, she ran a little experiment. She created a new email address and signed off using just her initials, JD Nordell.

Within hours of becoming JD, an article she’d been pitching for weeks with no response from editors was accepted.

“I was pitching into the void, sending out queries to different editors. And there was radio silence. I got desperate with this one particular essay I had worked so hard on,” she says.

“So I created this gender-neutral, slightly masculine-leaning name and the piece was accepted within a couple of hours. I was really shocked, I wasn’t expecting the trick to work.”

The simple name change was a game changer for Nordell – not only did it kick-start her career in journalism, it also set her on the path to writing her book The End of Bias: How We Change Our Minds.

“My interest really started with gender bias, looking at how women are perceived, misperceived, and what the consequences are for women at work, in healthcare and different parts of life,” she says.

“As that journey progressed, it became quite clear to me that the underlying mechanism was really the same across different kinds of bias, whether we're talking about race and ethnicity, or disability, mental health, status, religion. Bias can apply to all of these social identities.”

The global gender gap

The impacts of gender bias are part of the reason it will take another 132 years to close the global gender gap, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2022.

In the labour force, gender parity stands at just 62.9% , the lowest level since the first report was compiled. Unemployment rates have increased and remain consistently higher for women. And although the share of women in leadership has been growing over time, women have not been hired at equal rates across industries.

"On average, more women have been hired into leadership in industries where women were already highly represented," the report notes.

The World Economic Forum has been measuring gender gaps since 2006 in the annual Global Gender Gap Report .

The Global Gender Gap Report tracks progress towards closing gender gaps on a national level. To turn these insights into concrete action and national progress, we have developed the Gender Parity Accelerator model for public private collaboration.

These accelerators have been convened in twelve countries across three regions. Accelerators are established in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico and Panama in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank in Latin America and the Caribbean, Egypt and Jordan in the Middle East and North Africa, and Japan and Kazakhstan in Asia.

All Country Accelerators, along with Knowledge Partner countries demonstrating global leadership in closing gender gaps, are part of a wider ecosystem, the Global Learning Network, that facilitates exchange of insights and experiences through the Forum’s platform.

Have you read?

In these countries CEOs and ministers are working together in a three-year time frame on policies that help to further close the economic gender gaps in their countries. This includes extended parental leave, subsidized childcare and making recruitment, retention and promotion practices more gender inclusive.

If you are a business in one of the Gender Parity Accelerator countries you can join the local membership base.

If you are a business or government in a country where we currently do not have a Gender Parity Accelerator you can reach out to us to explore opportunities for setting one up.

Here Nordell explains bias, how we can seek to reduce it, and shares what she has learned.

What is bias?

“We live in a culture and absorb information from that culture about which categories are relevant, which categories are salient and what those categories mean. And we absorb a lot of associations and stereotypes and kinds of cultural knowledge about those categories. And then when we encounter a person who fits one of those categories, all of that information stored in memory comes flooding into our minds and begins to influence the way that we interact.

“And it can be as seemingly minor as, ‘Do I respond to this email by this person or not?’, to lethal consequences in healthcare and criminal justice and policing and more. So it's these very fleeting mental glitches that have enormous consequences for people in the world.

“Over the course of this project, I was constantly wondering, ‘Where did these things come from?’ Where do these ideas of male superiority and white supremacy come from? Is it possible to trace it back to a source, a particular moment in time when these ideas were invented?’”

In the book, you outline a study on the impact of the introduction of television on a remote village. What did the researchers find?

“There was a tiny village in British Columbia, Canada, that had no television signal because of where it was positioned between mountains. It had never experienced television up until the 1970s. A sociologist found out that a new transmitter was going to be introduced and rushed to interview the inhabitants about their habits, beliefs and attitudes. And she interviewed children about what jobs they thought boys and girls should be able to grow up to have.

“Two years after TV was introduced, she and her team went back – and the findings were pretty interesting. They found that elderly people had become more isolated. There were fewer civic events in the town and children had become more aggressive. And they also found that gender stereotyping in children had increased.

“Children were now more likely to say boys and girls were more suited to different jobs, so girls to librarians and boys to doctors. And children thought that boys and girls had different temperaments: girls were nice and sweet and boys were more aggressive and forceful. It was really only one TV station, but it was enough to significantly change people and their attitudes.”

You can find a higher definition version of this chart here .

You also conducted your own research into the cumulative effects of gender bias on women’s careers. What did you find?

“Bias research tends to look at a particular moment in time, and a particular situation. But I was curious to know how all of these small interactions add up. You can see, for instance, that people might prefer a man's résumé to a woman's résumé. But how do all of these interactions accumulate over time? A person has many experiences of bias over a day, over a week, over a career.

“I teamed up with a couple of computer scientists to build what's known as an agent-based model, which is a particular kind of computer simulation. We created a virtual workplace that was very simplified: people just do a project, are evaluated and are then assigned points based on whether the project was a success or a failure. And then every so often, they get promoted if they're the people who have the highest number of points at their level.

“We ran the simulation without bias. And then we introduced into the simulation a handful of really common patterns that women experience at work. There's a lot of research that shows that women's work is slightly devalued compared with men's. Research also shows that women are more penalized for failures than men and less rewarded for successes. There's evidence that women are more penalized for having personalities seen as not nurturing or not communal.

“In our simulation, when women noticed unfairness, we built into the simulation that they would complain slightly, and then they would be docked a certain number of points for not being a team player, which is something that a lot of women will recognize as a very common criticism.

“What we found was that if we just introduced a very small amount of this bias, we ended up with a very large disparity at the top level of the organization after a number of promotion cycles.

“So even with just a 3% difference in the way women and men were evaluated, we ended up with an organization that was about 87% men at the top. What this demonstrates is that just these small momentary interactions that we might call microaggressions, which we might downplay as not being very important, actually have very serious consequences over the long term.”

What about the intersections between gender and race?

“That's a really important point. The way that bias affects women is very different depending on what other identities those women inhabit. So for instance, Asian women tend to be more penalized for not acting in what's perceived as a feminine way. They are stereotyped as being more feminine. And then if they violate that stereotype, they experience a really severe backlash. Black women, for instance, experience the most amount of discrimination at work of any group.”

So how do you start to overcome bias in the workplace?

“It’s ubiquitous and harmful. But most people don't think that it really applies to them. Research shows 90% of people think they're more objective than average. I would have put myself into that category going into this project, I thought I was probably a little less biased than most people. But I found that was absolutely not the case. It's a tricky question – how do we get people on board with the fact that this needs to be changed when they might not be aware or able to accept the fact they could be contributing?

“There are a number of different things [that can help]. There are technical interventions, things like trying to become more standardized and objective with the criteria we use to make decisions. So, for example, instead of winging candidate interviews with a bunch of questions and assessing whether they’re a culture fit, actually going into an interview with a set of standardized questions designed to find out whether this person is able to perform the kind of tasks and roles you're looking for. That's one way of decreasing the likelihood of homophily, which means ‘love of the same’ – we're very likely to be drawn to people who remind us of ourselves.

“But I found those kinds of interventions are really only as powerful as the commitment of the leadership of the organization, because any technical intervention can be overridden, undermined, or the funding for that initiative can be cut. What seems to make a difference is if the people at the top of an organization believe this is a problem that is fundamental to the working of the organization. If they believe that tackling bias, creating a fair system where everyone can thrive, where everyone feels able to participate and have input and impact and feel psychologically safe is important, then these other interventions have more teeth.”

How important is it for people to see themselves represented?

“If you can see someone who is like you in a role, it’s a way that you can imagine yourself into that role. A fascinating thing happened at MIT [the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] about 10 years ago, when a department made a really big effort to recruit more women. In a department of 70 people, they had one or two women. So they tried a lot of different things and ended up bringing in a cohort of six women, and then, over the years, increasing the number of women that were hired.

“The goal was to create a more inclusive environment for women, and create an environment where they can really do their research and thrive. But what they didn't expect was the impact this would have on the students. What they found was that after a certain amount of time of having these women start to be part of the mix, women students started being drawn to this department at much higher rates. You started seeing them in the hallways, you started seeing them interacting with the professors. Now I believe the proportion of women in that department is greater than the proportion of women overall at MIT.

“It's a remarkable demonstration of the impact of being able to see yourself, being able to see someone like you in a certain role. I had a conversation with an African American faculty member who is part of that department as well. He had a very similar experience when he was an undergraduate studying engineering – he didn't imagine that he could become an engineering professor. One day, he walked past a professor’s office and saw him sitting with his sneakers on the desk and listening to music that the student was familiar with. And in that moment, he thought, ‘Oh, I could be that, this could be my future too.’ So those images are incredibly important.

“One of the faculty members I talked to was describing this phenomenon in maths. There are a number of ways to prove that a mathematical object exists, but one of them is to just show an example of it – that's called an ‘existence proof’ – and she said, ‘You know, maybe I'm sort of an existence proof, maybe these students need an existence proof that this kind of life is possible.’”

What impact has the pandemic had on bias?

“We're in this moment of what people are calling the Great Resignation . One of the reasons people leave jobs is when they perceive an environment as unfair. If they experience bias in the workplace, if they see it as unfair, it decreases how engaged they are, it makes them less committed, it increases their likelihood of wanting to leave. The pandemic created this perfect storm for people to say, ‘This isn't working for me, why should I stick around in a workplace that doesn't value me?’ If employers are smart, they will see that addressing these problems at work is really important – it's really important to allow people to feel committed and to actually want to stay in these environments.”

How much did writing the book teach you about yourself?

“I started writing this book thinking that I was writing a pure science book. That I was going to look at the research, use all my powers of scientific thinking and analysis to look at what worked, and then bring it to as many people as possible and put a dent in this problem.

“I did not expect it to affect me as deeply as it did. I didn't see how deeply I had internalized these biases, particularly sexism. I'm a very vocal feminist, I have no problem speaking up, I feel very confident as a woman. And yet I found that the more deeply I investigated the origin of patriarchal ideas, I could see the ways they had affected how I thought about myself, and the kinds of assumptions I made about other women. And that was a spiritually devastating realization.

“But seeing what's happening in your own mind is the first step of having agency, because when I was able to see how these ideas had really infected me, then I was able to systematically question them and hold them up to the light. The way I had internalized ideas about white supremacy and racial hierarchy was also very shocking to me, in a similar way to how I thought about sexism. As I really thought about it, as I really investigated, I saw that I had been absolutely affected and infected by these ideas as well.

“The process of really looking deeply, analyzing, questioning and then ultimately choosing a different way changed my life. It affected the way that I was able to relate to others and to myself – and the way I was able to see the world. In a lot of ways, writing this book was a life-changing experience. And I hope that readers can use the book as a step in their own journey, wherever they are in their own journey, of tackling these issues.”

• Find all our podcasts here .
• Subscribe: Book Club Podcast , Meet the Leader , Radio Davos.
• Join the World Economic Forum Podcast Club on Facebook.
• You can follow the Book Club on Twitter here or on Instagram here

What’s the best way to tackle COVID and climate change? Anthropology, says the woman who predicted the global financial crisis

Women need a global sisterhood and men need to read more fiction: elif shafak on the forum's book club podcast, 24 cognitive biases that are warping your perception of reality, don't miss any update on this topic.

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

It’s financial literacy month: From schools to the workplace, let's take action

Annamaria Lusardi and Andrea Sticha

April 24, 2024

Bridging the financial literacy gender gap: Here are 5 digital inclusion projects making a difference

Claude Dyer and Vidhi Bhatia

April 18, 2024

Weekend reads: Climate inaction and human rights, the space economy, diversifying genetic data, and more

Julie Masiga

April 12, 2024

These 2 internal biases cause us to fall for misinformation - here's why

Alex Edmans

Inclusion in US financial services is at an all-time high – and tech can take us further

John Hope Bryant

April 11, 2024

Jude Kelly has led a festival celebrating women for 14 years. Here's what she has learned

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Gender bias in academia: a lifetime problem that needs solutions

Anaïs llorens.

1. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Athina Tzovara

2. Institute for Computer Science, University of Bern, Switzerland.

3. Sleep Wake Epilepsy Center ∣ NeuroTec, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Ludovic Bellier

Ilina bhaya-grossman.

4. Department of Bioengineering, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Aurélie Bidet-Caulet

5. Brain Dynamics and Cognition Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, CRNL, INSERM U1028, CNRS UMR 5292, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.

William K. Chang

Zachariah r. cross.

6. Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Research Hub, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Rosa Dominguez-Faus

7. STEPS Program, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.

Adeen Flinker

8. NYU School of Medicine, New York, USA.

Yvonne Fonken

9. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Mark A. Gorenstein

10. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Chris Holdgraf

11. The Berkeley Institute for Data Science, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Colin W. Hoy

Maria v. ivanova, richard t. jimenez.

12. Department of Brain and Cognitive Science College of Natural Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Julia WY. Kam

13. Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Celeste Kidd

Enitan marcelle, deborah marciano.

14. Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Stephanie Martin

15. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.

Nicholas E. Myers

16. Department of Experimental Psychology and Oxford Centre for Human Brain Activity, Department of Psychiatry, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Karita Ojala

17. Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Center for Experimental Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

18. Department of Psychology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

Pedro Pinheiro-Chagas

19. Laboratory of Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience, Stanford Human, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Stephanie K. Riès

20. School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences and Center for Clinical and Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Ignacio Saez

21. Department of Neurosurgery, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Ivan Skelin

22. Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.

Katarina Slama

Brooke staveland, danielle s. bassett.

23. Departments of Bioengineering, Electrical & Systems Engineering, Physics & Astronomy,Psychiatry, and Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

24. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501 USA.

Elizabeth A. Buffalo

25. Department of Physiology and Biophysics and School of Medicine, Washington National Primate Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Adrienne L. Fairhall

26. Department of Physiology and Biophysics and Computational Neuroscience Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

Nancy J. Kopell

27. Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.

Jack J. Lin

28. Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, Department of Neurology, University of University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.

29. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Henry Samueli School of Engineering, Irvine, CA, USA.

Anna C. Nobre

Dylan riley.

30. Department of Sociology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1980, USA.

Anne-Kristin Solbakk

31. Department of Psychology, Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.

32. Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital - Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.

33. RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Rhythm, Time and Motion, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

34. Department of Neuropsychology, Helgeland Hospital, Mosjøen, Norway.

Joni D. Wallis

Xiao-jing wang.

35. Center for Neural Science, New York University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA.

Shlomit Yuval-Greenberg

36. School of Psychological Sciences and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 6997801, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel.

Sabine Kastner

37. Princeton Neuroscience Institute, and Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.

Robert T. Knight

Nina f. dronkers.

38. Department of Neurology, University of California, Davis.

Despite increased awareness of the lack of gender equity in academia and a growing number of initiatives to address issues of diversity, change is slow and inequalities remain. A major source of inequity is gender bias, which has a substantial negative impact on the careers, work-life balance, and mental health of underrepresented groups in science. Here, we argue that gender bias is not a single problem but manifests as a collection of distinct issues that impact researchers' lives. We disentangle these facets and propose concrete solutions that can be adopted by individuals, academic institutions, and society.

Despite increased awareness of the lack of gender equity in academia, change is slow and inequalities remain. We disentangle the different aspects of gender bias impacting woman researchers throughout their lives. We expose the different issues and discuss potential solutions that can be adopted by individuals, academic institutions, and society.

2. Introduction

The past decades have seen tremendous scientific progress and astonishing technological advances that not long ago seemed like science fiction. Yet, such scientific progress stands in stark contrast to progress in improving the participation of underrepresented groups in academia, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, known as STEM. A report from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published in 2017 highlights the gender disparities encountered in science: Out of 16 NIH directors, only 1 was a woman; in the top 10 research institutes in the USA, the percentage of women with tenure among all professors was at most 26%, and in some cases even below 20%. Women occupied 37% of the NIH intramural research program tenure-track body, but only 21% attained tenured status, with women of color occupying only 5% of tenured positions (addressing gender inequality in the NIH intramural research program). The numbers show similar trends for PhD programs in the US. According to the Society for Neuroscience, the percentage of women applicants in PhD programs has increased in the recent years, from 38 % in 2000-2001 to 57 % in 2016-2017, with a matriculation rate of 48% for women in 2016-2017. By contrast, women represented only 30% of all faculty for PhD programs.

The statistics are similar in Europe. The European Research Council (ERC-Equality of opportunity in ERC Competitions) reported that only 32% of its panel members and 27% of its grantees in the Horizon 2020 program were women. In the Netherlands, 44% of PhDs were awarded to women in 2018, yet only 22% of the tenured faculty were women. A similar trend is reported in Switzerland, where close to 40% of fixed term professorships in 2017 were held by women, but for tenured positions the fraction of women dropped to 25%.

These statistics confirm the gender disparity that exists in higher academic positions, despite an almost equal representation across disciplines at earlier career stages (see Gruber et al., 2020 for a thorough investigation of gender disparities in psychological science). A putative cause of this phenomenon is gender bias, i.e., prejudice based on gender (encompassing the identity and the expression of that gender). Gender bias can be explicit or implicit. Explicit bias is a conscious and intentional evaluation of a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor ( Eagly and Chaiken, 1998 ). Implicit bias reflects the automatic judgment of the entity without the awareness of the individual ( Greenwald and Banaji, 1995 ). These types of bias emerge from different sources such as stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination ( Fiske, 1998 ), which reflect general expectations about members of a given social group. Gender stereotypes are broadly shared and reflect differences between women and men in their perspective and manner of behavior. Importantly, gender stereotypes also impact the way men and women define themselves and are treated by others, which in turn contributes and perpetuates such stereotypes (see Ellemers, 2018 for review). Gender bias impacts all women, with even more impact on women whose gender intersects with other identities that are often discriminated against, including but not limited to race and ethnicity (see Quick Take: Women in Academia), socio-economic status, religion, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disabilities ( Armstrong and Jovanovic, 2015 ). Moreover, it has been shown that gender stereotypes influence the enrollment of women in STEM in many countries ( Miller et al., 2015 ; Hanson et al. 2017 ). As such, properly tackling this issue requires both structural and cultural change. Many of the biases and solutions presented in this article can apply to and be amplified in other minority groups (see our discussion of intersectionality), but a comprehensive assessment of those issues is beyond the scope of this paper. Indeed, pervasive gender biases do not start at the academic level, but they are deeply rooted in many societies and even appear early in life, impacting young girls’ career aspirations and lifetime educational achievements ( Makarova et al., 2019 ). For instance, in many cultures, it is a long-standing stereotype that boys are better at math than girls ( Else-Quest et al., 2010 ), which, in turn, impacts young girls’ performance on math tests ( Spencer et al., 1999 ) despite no intrinsic or biological difference ( Kersey et al., 2019 ; Shapiro and Williams, 2012 ). Parents’ and teachers’ expectations can also show biases that influence children’s attitudes and performance in math ( Gunderson et al., 2012 ). This gender stereotyping through interactions with parents, educators, peers, and the media has a negative effect on girls’ interest and confidence in their performance in STEM subjects, potentially reducing interest in research careers in STEM later in life ( Cheryan et al., 2015 , 2017 ).

Here, we will focus on gender bias at the university level, which forms a further bottleneck for gender equity in STEM. The women-to-men ratio progressively decreases with advancing degrees and career stages. Despite remarkable progress made over the last three decades to mitigate gender bias ( Eagly, 2018 ), equity is still far from being reached in academia. Multiple studies have systematically documented bias in every aspect of academia ( Fernandes et al., 2020 ), including journal article and innovation citations ( Dworkin et al., 2020b ; Hofstra et al., 2020 ), publication rates ( West et al., 2013 ), patent applications ( Jensen et al., 2018 ), hiring decisions ( Nielsen, 2016 ), research grant applications ( Burns et al., 2019 ), evaluations of conference abstracts ( Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013 ), symposia speaker invitations ( Schroeder et al., 2013 ), postdoctoral employment ( Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 ), prestigious science awards ( Lunnemann et al., 2019 ), and tenure decisions ( Weisshaar, 2017 ). These forms of bias are intertwined, and evolve and accumulate along the career path (see Figure 1 ). Their combination can lead to a gradual abandonment of scientific careers by many women, the numbers of which decrease as career stages progress.

Expression of the accumulation of the different facets of gender bias throughout a woman researcher’s career organized according to when they begin to have an impact. Each line represents one aspect of the gender bias and covers the career stages it is prevalent in. The dot represents the peak in time of a given aspect.

Given the prevalent and deep-rooted nature of gender bias in academia, we aim to unravel different forms of bias, evaluate their manifestation over the career-span, and provide suggestions towards resolving gender disparity. We explain how pervasive gender bias affects different components, dimensions and roles of academics, and how these barriers to women’s advancement differ across each stage of career development. Our goal is to assemble information regarding the different facets of gender bias in a digestible format for the neuroscientific community. We aim to launch a discussion around the multifaceted and deeply rooted issues surrounding gender bias in academia and, in particular, in the field of neuroscience. We discuss problems faced by women in science, which are often taking place behind closed doors, providing information and increased awareness of central issues to academics and institutions seeking a balanced and fair environment. We also recommend both tested and untested concrete solutions to help mitigate the negative consequences of bias along three axes: at the individual (i.e., actions we can take as colleagues, friends, or mentors), institutional (i.e., policies and regulations), and societal levels (i.e., legislative action concerning society at large).

Changes in society and culture are often slow and difficult to implement, but without ongoing awareness, gender equality cannot be achieved. Solutions to the problem of gender bias have been difficult to achieve for many reasons, and some may be more tenable in certain circumstances than others. Here, we present exemplary policies from progressive institutions that have been effective in alleviating gender bias mostly in STEM, and specifically in neuroscience. We also describe quantitative tracking tools ( Table 1 ) that contribute to identifying and mitigating bias. As several manifestations of bias do not yet have concrete solutions with demonstrated results, we also propose some untested suggestions that may prove useful, and which future research could address ( Table 2 ). It is our hope that this article will continue the conversation toward resolving gender bias and bring us closer to tangible results.

Tools and Resources for Addressing Gender Bias in Academia

Summary of the different actions suggested throughout the manuscript to mitigate gender bias by section and level of responsibility. Each action is classified by its current status (tested/recommended, tested/debated or implemented) and supported by some examples of highlighted advocates. Note that many solutions for the individual are difficult to quantify, and so are left blank.

3. Gender biases are amplified through career stages

Though gender stereotypes are already strongly shaped in childhood ( Makarova et al., 2019 ), college or university study is a further bottleneck to gender equity. Even in their first year beyond high-school, women are 1.5 times more likely than men to leave the STEM higher education pipeline ( Ellis et al., 2016 ). In more advanced university degrees and career stages, the women-to-men ratio progressively decreases, referred to as the “scissors effect.” In most countries, the point where the effect begins is at the start of the university years with equal numbers of women and men enrolled. The gap widens (like an open pair of scissors) by the end of the postdoctoral career stage (European commission report 2015, GARCIA Project). In the United States, the gender gap continues to grow between the postdoctoral and associate professor years with women transitioning to principal investigator positions at about a 20% lower rate than men ( Lerchenmueller and Sorenson, 2018 ). Similar data have been reported for other agencies and countries, highlighting the widening gender gap across the career stages ( Burns et al., 2019 ; McAllister et al., 2016 ; Pohlhaus et al., 2011 ). Although the percentage of women among undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers has increased in the past few decades, women remain largely underrepresented in STEM faculty positions ( Beede et al., 2011 ; Field of degree: Women-NSF). Possible factors contributing to the increasing gender gap as careers progress will be reviewed in the following sections, where we will disentangle the various aspects contributing to each factor and propose concrete solutions to close the gender gap.

4. Gender bias hinders scientific productivity, authorship and peer-review

Women are systematically underrepresented as first and last authors in peer-reviewed publications relative to the proportion of women scientists in the field ( Dworkin et al., 2020b ; West et al., 2013 ). The discrepancy is particularly evident for senior author positions, as well as single-authored papers and commissioned editorials, i.e., positions typically reflective of senior roles ( Holman et al., 2018 ; Schrouff et al., 2019 ; West et al., 2013 ). Moreover, an overall increase in gender differences in productivity has accompanied the steady increase of women in STEM over the past decades. This difference in productivity between men and women is mostly explained by a higher female than male dropout rate while the yearly difference in productivity between genders is relatively small ( Huang et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, a study of peer review based on 145 journals in various fields reported that women submit fewer papers than men ( Squazzoni et al., 2021 ). The underrepresentation of women increases with the impact factor of the journal ( Bendels et al., 2018 ). Neuroscience is no exception, as women authors are less likely to submit to high-profile journals, including senior women. In 2016, only around 20% of neuroscience papers sent to Nature had a woman as corresponding author (Promoting diversity in neuroscience, 2018). But even when women do submit to such journals they face gender bias. Indeed, several studies where the identity of the authors was experimentally manipulated demonstrated that conference abstracts, papers, and fellowship applications were rated as having higher merit when they were supposedly written by men. These effects were even stronger in scientific fields viewed as more “masculine” ( Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2013 ; Krawczyk and Smyk, 2016 ). Furthermore, a recent study of 9,000 editors and 43,000 reviewers from Frontiers journals demonstrated that women are underrepresented as editors and peer reviewers ( Helmer et al., 2017 ). Additionally, all editors, regardless of whether they are men or women, display a same-gender preference (homophily), which at the moment favors men in part because there are more men in the field ( Murray et al., 2019 ).

In addition to publications, a screening of approximately 2.7 million US patent applications indicated that there was also discrimination in the patent review process, leading to relatively few approved patent applications registered by women inventors ( Jensen et al., 2018 ). Many of these effects were larger in fields with a generally higher representation of women, such as life sciences, than in technology areas ( Hunt et al., 2013 ; Sugimoto et al., 2015 ; Whittington and Smith-Doerr, 2008 ). Though gender bias in authorship has been explicitly acknowledged for years (Women in neuroscience: a numbers game, 2006), it has changed minimally over the last decade ( Bendels et al., 2018 ; Holman et al., 2018 ; 2018 ). Although the publication gap is decreasing, it is wrong to assume that there will be a proportional representation anytime soon without further active interventions ( Bendels et al., 2018 ). In some disciplines, such as math, computer science, and surgery, gender parity in publications is unlikely to be reached in this century due to the current slow rates of increased representation of women ( Holman et al., 2018 ). Other fields, such as psychology, have seen relatively greater increases in publications by men authors over time, further widening the gender gap ( Ceci et al., 2014 ). Given that publishing, particularly in high-profile journals, is critical for hiring decisions and career advancement, this inequality in authorship will continue to contribute to the increasing gender disparity across academic ranks ( Fairhall and Marder, 2020 ).

Suggestions for decreasing gender bias at an individual level:

Increasing awareness for all scientists, editors and reviewers regarding gender bias in authorship could help mitigate this issue. All scientists could seek out education in gender bias, and proactively consider how to adjust their own behavior to ensure equity in their reviews.

Suggestions for decreasing gender bias at the institutional level:

Finding alternatives to single-blind review is needed to increase the transparency of the peer review process ( Barroga, 2020 ; Lee et al., 2013 ). One proposed solution to mitigate gender bias in the review process is adoption of double-blind review, hiding the authors’ name ( Rodgers, 2017 ). Double-blind review has been introduced in several fields, such as ecology and computational sciences, and has been successful in reducing biases due to geographic location or university reputation ( Bernard, 2018 ; Budden et al., 2008 ; Mulligan et al., 2013 ; Snodgrass, 2006 ; Tomkins et al., 2017 ). It is also standard usage in the top journals in sociology, political science, and history and was introduced in some neuroscientific journals such as eNeuro. However, the efficacy of double-blind review in reducing gender bias is still unclear. An early study found that introducing double-blind peer review significantly increased the number of first-authored papers by women ( Budden et al., 2008 ), whereas later studies found no effect on review gender bias ( Cox and Montgomerie, 2019 ; Tomkins et al., 2017 ). It is possible that more recent blind reviews were compromised by the use of preprint servers that list authors’ full names. Another proposed solution is an open peer review as currently implemented in Frontiers journals where the names of the authors and the editor and reviewers are made public upon publications. One last alternative would be a hybrid peer review system combining open discussion between scientists and peers while preserving the anonymity of the latter ( Bravo et al., 2019 ; Lee et al., 2013 ). Such a system could consist of a pre- or post- publication discussion platform that allows referees, editors, and authors to interact providing feedback on a paper.

Importantly, academic journals need to pay attention to potential sources of gender bias in order to be able to identify ways to mitigate them. One way to encourage review and editorial panels to improve accountability and transparency is to make demographic information regarding authors and reviewers publicly accessible ( Murray et al., 2019 ). This is already implemented by PEERE, an European protocol designed to be an equitable way to get more data on the peer review process ( Table 1 ; Squazzoni et al., 2017 ). Moreover, an increasing number of publishing groups are publicly releasing statements in support of diversity in authors, citations, and/or referees ( Sweet, 2021 ; 2018). As a recent example, Cell Press is encouraging authors to evaluate their citation lists for biases, as well as to ensure diversity in their research participants, authors and collaborators ( Sweet, 2021 ). It is also the case of eLife which sets a twice-yearly report about actions taken to improve transparency, promote equity, diversity and inclusion in the publishing process as well as in their editorial board. Such initiatives are setting a positive example that could be followed by more publishers across all academic fields.

5. Gender differences in the number of citations

Citation metrics have emerged as a critical index of productivity in the biological and cognitive sciences. Citation counts influence hiring and tenure decisions, grant awards, speaker invitations, and career recognition. As an example, a study in the field of astronomy showed that in 149,000 publications, a paper whose lead-author was a woman received 10% fewer citations on average than similar papers with a man as leading author ( Caplar et al., 2017 ). In top neuroscience journals, that number is even greater; papers with women as first and last author receive 30% fewer citations than expected given the number of such papers in the field ( Dworkin et al., 2020b ).

Furthermore, recent research reveals that contemporary citation practices skew these metrics in favor of men, undervaluing woman-led research of equivalent quality and potential impact. In particular, men undercite women scientists relative to men scientists, and their rates of self-citation are higher than those of women ( Dworkin et al., 2020b ; King et al., 2017 ). Additionally, men are more likely to use promotional language, such as positive words (e.g. “unprecedented” or “excellent”) in the title or abstract, which in turn leads to more citations and an inflation of the h-index ( Cameron et al., 2016 ; Kelly and Jennions, 2006 ; Lerchenmueller et al., 2019 ; Woolston, 2020 ). It is also possible that citation bias is exacerbated by the use of social media platforms such as Twitter. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrates that papers that were tweeted received more citations at the end of one year than papers that were not tweeted ( Luc et al., 2021 ). Women academics have disproportionately fewer Twitter followers, “likes”, and re-tweets than men academics, controlling for their social media activity levels and professional rank ( Zhu et al., 2019 ).

Suggestions at the individual level:

At the individual level, all authors should be more aware of which articles they cite in their work. In particular, articles that already have a high number of citations are seen as “seminal” thus exacerbating biases that may not reflect quality. In the case of multiple possible citations, they should seek to balance the number of citations between genders according to a chosen model of research ethics. In the distributional model, citations would be distributed in a manner that is proportional to the percentages in their field, while in a diversity model, citations would be distributed in a manner that seeks to proactively counteract a history of inequality ( Dworkin et al., 2020a , 2020b ). Practically, efforts to diversify one’s reference list can be supported by algorithmic tools that now exist to predict the gender of the first and last author of each reference by using databases that store the probability of a name being carried by a woman ( Zhou et al., 2020 ). This tool already exists in neuroscience ( Table 1 ) and we recommend wide implementation across academic fields.

Suggestions at the institutional level:

One proposed solution is to increase diversity in review and editorial panels ( Murray et al., 2019 ) as implemented by Progress in Neurobiology and Elife among other journals. As a notable example, Progress in Neurobiology, has an editorial board with 80% women associate editors. This can help mitigate bias, but may not be sufficient, as even women might be biased against other women. One option is to develop alternative citation metrics that account for the influence of self-citation and gender bias. One example of these metrics are the m-index, which is the h-index adjusted for career age, or the m(Q)-index, which adjusts for career age and excludes self-citations ( Cameron et al., 2016 ).

We also suggest that journal editors incorporate existing quantitative tools that analyze the gender ratio of a reference list by probabilistically inferring the gender of authors in a list of citations (see Table 1 ). Journals could then require authors to either eliminate any possible bias or provide a detailed justification for their deviation from the expected distribution. We also recommend the implementation of additional algorithmic tools in scientific journal submission websites to identify under-cited articles by women authors in a subfield, or to notify authors of citation biases in their submissions. Lastly, journal editors could consider increasing limits on the number of citations to accelerate the diversification of reference lists. As an example, Neuron modified their guidelines to exclude reference sections from the maximum character limit in research article submissions.

6. Scientific funding and awards are heavily biased

Funding is crucial to a researcher’s scientific progression and career advancement, including gaining tenure and broad professional recognition ( Charlesworth and Banaji, 2019 ; Duch et al., 2012 ). While the funding landscape is slowly evolving towards gender parity, women still face substantial challenges as they compete for limited resources. Some funding agencies collect data on the distribution of funding across genders. For instance, the percentage of NIH research grants awarded to women has been steadily growing over the past two decades: increasing from 23% in 1998 to 34% in 2019 (NIH Data Book—Data by Gender, 2020), with similar patterns observed for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Department of Agriculture, and the European Research Council (ERC) ( Charlesworth and Banaji, 2019 ; ERC consolidator grants 2019 - statistics, 2019). However, despite this positive trend, progress still needs to be made as women scientists typically hold fewer grants and receive smaller awards compared to men scientists (National Institutes of Health, 2020; 2019).

Interestingly, while women receive more NIH research career grants at an early career stage than men (54%), the percentage of grants awarded to women progressively drops for grants associated with later career stages (research project grants: 34%; research center grants: 26%; NIH, 2020). Similar data have been reported for other agencies and countries, highlighting the widening gender gap across career stages: women are awarded fewer larger grants and are less likely to have them renewed than men ( Burns et al., 2019 ; McAllister et al., 2016 ). Possible factors contributing to this increasing gender gap might be publication and citation practices, family circumstances, and other barriers resulting from implicit and explicit gender stereotypes ( Pohlhaus et al., 2011 ). Moreover, the percentage of women submitting research grant proposals as a PI is less than expected relative to their representation in all fields but engineering ( Rissler et al., 2020 ).

The funding gap is also apparent in the amount awarded, with men typically asking for more funds ( Waisbren et al., 2008 ) and obtaining larger grants than women (National Institutes of Health, 2020). A recent study found a median gender disparity in NIH funding of $39K per year awarded to first-time principal investigators, while no significant differences by gender were found in the performance measures (i.e., median number of articles published per year, median number of citations per article, and the number of areas of research expertise in published articles prior to their first NIH grant; ( Oliveira et al., 2019 ). The differences were even more pronounced for funding acquired by investigators at prominent U.S. universities (median gender difference of $82k). Although the gender gap is smaller regarding R01 awards (median difference $16k), men receive more of them (after controlling for other performance measures; (National Institutes of Health, 2020; Pohlhaus et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, data from the NIH also show that the most dramatic differences in funding amounts were observed for research center grants (average difference of $476k), again highlighting increasing disparity at later career stages.

Although the proportion of women who receive career awards for their scientific contributions has steadily increased over the past decades, women still receive substantially fewer prizes than men, and less money ( Ma et al., 2019 ). Across 13 major STEM disciplines, only 17% of professional award winners were women ( Lincoln et al., 2012 ). This number is lower than expected based on overall representation by women in the STEM fields (38% for junior faculty and 27% for senior), likely indicating review bias with professional efforts and accomplishments of women not receiving the same recognition. Gender disparity is even more dramatic for more prestigious awards. For instance, women represent only 21% of Kavli Prize winners, 14% of recipients for the National Medal of Science, 3% for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 3% for the Fields Medal in Mathematics, and 1% for the Nobel Prize in Physics ( Charlesworth and Banaji, 2019 ; RAISE Project 2018).The year 2020 was a unique year in Nobel Prizes, with two women winning the prize for Chemistry and one woman the prize for Physics. Despite this positive step, gender equity is still lacking, and active efforts need to be continued to ensure that women will keep being represented in prestigious awards in the years to come. Gender bias in distinguished recognition perpetuates the falsehood that only men can aspire to the highest levels of academic achievement, thus sending a harmful message to younger generations of aspiring scientists. Furthermore, disparities in funding and recognition tend to have a subsequent snowball effect. Indeed, grant funding drives scientific productivity, which in turn drives promotions; promotions drive increases in salaries and stature; stature drives recognition. Gender bias at each of these collective steps serves to further hamper the advancement of women in their academic careers.

Suggestions at the Individual level:

The process of applying for certain career transition awards across scientific disciplines, such as NIH K awards or the Burroughs-Wellcome career award, forces both the applicant and the mentor to envision the candidate in the role of a faculty member, something that can have a profound effect on the candidate’s internal model of self and the attitude of the mentor.

Suggestions at the Institutional level:

Solutions could emerge directly from funding agencies in all scientific disciplines if they commit to actively monitoring for gender differences and ensuring gender equity in grant application rates, success rates and amounts awarded. To ensure fairer funding, we suggest that agencies introduce a gender target for grant applicants, success rates and amounts awarded. This could consist of a defined percentage of women researchers or amount of funding allocated to them at different career stages. Crucially, funding agencies should hold themselves accountable for attracting more female applicants, by changing the procedures used in their competitions to create more equitable outcomes ( Niederle, 2017 ; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2011 ). Further, it has been shown that having a target representation among women leads to increased numbers of applications by women; this brings stronger candidates to the competition, with little reverse discrimination -i.e. discrimination in favour of women- ( Niederle et al., 2013 ). Importantly, in contrast to some affirmative action approaches, this approach preserves the performance and the quality of the competition ( Balafoutas and Sutter, 2012 ).

This step could be enhanced by alerting the committee to potential gender bias (that both male and female reviewers are susceptible to) and even prefacing grant reviews with bias training. In addition, women are particularly underrepresented as leaders on large projects and/or international collaborations, and adjusting this imbalance could help establish overall gender equity in research funding. Finally, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have successfully increased the number of female grant recipients by creating funding mechanisms that dispense awards focusing on the merit of the scientific proposal instead of the merit of the principal investigator ( Witteman et al., 2019 ).

Moreover, monitoring implicit bias by making the demographics information of former grantees accessible to funding committees could help pinpoint the disparities and distribute the resources more equitably ( Choudhury and Aggarwal, 2020 ). To reduce bias in the amount of requested funding, we suggest that submission portals implement artificial intelligence tools to provide researchers with recommendations on amounts of funding given their career stage and type of research. This suggestion follows the findings of Bowles and colleagues, who have shown that women ask for as much as men when ambiguity about bargaining range is reduced ( Bowles et al., 2005 ).

Importantly, department chairs and deans must commit to an equitable distribution of institutional resources across genders. Additionally (but not as an alternative), department chairs could actively encourage, support and provide the means (for example through release time, workshops, etc.) to all faculty members to pursue applications for career awards and large grants such as program projects and center grant funding (see Gender Equity Guidelines for Department Chairs).

7. Teaching evaluations reflect biases and gender-role expectations

Gender biases are ubiquitous in the classroom, affecting both the students and their professors ( Fan et al., 2019 ). At the student level, what professors integrate in their course syllabi shapes students’ knowledge and perception of academia. Women are under-cited as well as under-assigned in syllabi: 82% of assigned readings in graduate training in international relations across 42 U.S. universities are written by all-men authors ( Colgan, 2017 ), and only 15 of the 200 most frequently assigned works in the section “politics” of the Open Syllabus Project are authored by at least one woman ( Sumner, 2018 ).

At the professor level, large-scale studies have found that women instructors receive lower than average scores on their student evaluations in comparison to men and that gender bias can be so substantial that more effective instructors are rated lower than less effective ones ( Mengel et al., 2018 ). These findings have been substantiated in experimental studies, where the gender identity of the instructor in online courses was manipulated, with the instructors receiving lower ratings from both male and female students when they were believed to be women ( Khazan et al., 2019 ; MacNell et al., 2015 ). Men are perceived by all genders to be more knowledgeable and to have stronger leadership skills than their women counterparts ( Boring, 2017 ), even when there are no actual differences in what students have learned. This bias towards masculine traits during student evaluations of teaching (SETs) can have an important impact on the career of women scientists, as it is commonly used as a measurement of teaching effectiveness for promotion and tenure decisions. Apart from bias in the perception of women as teachers, women also tend to have higher teaching loads compared to men, and less time for research ( Misra et al., 2011 ), which can negatively impact their research productivity.

We propose the use of existing tools ( Reinholz and Shah, 2018 , see Table 1 ) that can help faculty to build their syllabi and bibliographies in a more gender-balanced way ( Sumner, 2018 ). In particular, faculty could provide historical examples of successful women scientists to reinforce female role models, ensure that the resources they give to their students are gender balanced ( Table 1 ), and use more inclusive language (i.e. ‘folks’ instead of ‘guys’, ( Bigler and Leaper, 2015 ).

The necessity to improve fairness and objectivity in teaching evaluations is critical to balance the odds for promotion across genders. A study conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, suggested abandoning the SETs as the principal measure of teaching effectiveness, and implementing instead other types of assessment, such as observing the teaching and examining teaching materials and portfolios ( Stark and Freishtat, 2014 ). Moreover, improvement in the phrasing of the SETs is also required. Simple changes to the language used (e.g., explicitly asking students to be aware of their biases) had a positive impact on the assessment of women professors ( Peterson et al., 2019 ). Prefacing SETs with counter-stereotype content could further decrease bias that is evident during the evaluation itself ( Blair et al., 2001 ).

8. Academic hiring, tenure decisions and promotions favor men

Evaluation criteria for hiring and promotion commonly used in academia are also susceptible to gender inequality. These biases are common across all hiring stages, encompassing lab manager positions ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ), postdoctoral fellowships ( Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 ), as well as tenure track positions ( Steinpreis et al., 1999 ).

Strikingly, despite experimental and observable data in STEM fields reporting favorability toward women in hiring decisions compared to equally qualified men, women remain heavily underrepresented in tenure track positions (National Research Council et al., 2010; Williams and Ceci, 2015 ). This discrepancy has multiple potential sources related to different dimensions of gender bias. Gender biases in recruitment can occur even before applicants are evaluated ( Nielsen, 2016 ). In neuroscience and STEM in general, most departmental or unit leaders are men ( Gupta et al., 2005 ; McCullough, 2019 ). Consequently, men are more likely than women to define the unit’s strategic research foci and/or teaching needs, draft the job profile, and outline the announcement, thereby determining the focus of the search. Defining a profile in a broad or narrow manner directly impacts the number and quality of eligible candidates. Narrow profiles can be used to legitimize the selection of a specific candidate ( van den Brink, 2010 ) and often penalize women, as men’s social networks benefit from a higher proportion of scientific leaders ( Greguletz et al., 2019 ; James et al., 2019 ). The practice of some academic institutions limiting open recruitments presents an added barrier for women. A study in Denmark showed that, at the University of Aarhus, about 20% of associate and full professor positions were filled via a closed recruitment procedure ( Nielsen, 2015 ); such procedures are likely to propagate bias, as closed recruitment frequently results in a single applicant ( Nielsen, 2015 ).

The evaluation and selection phase of the hiring process contributes to the persistence of gender imbalance ( Rivera, 2017 ). Since men continue to be overrepresented among tenured/tenure-track faculty, evaluation committees and interview panels tend to have skewed gender composition ( Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 ). Gender bias during hiring is amplified by the role of “elite” male faculty, who employ fewer women in their labs and have a disproportionate effect on training the next generation of faculty; these processes in turn, affect hiring at high-ranking research universities ( Sheltzer and Smith, 2014 ). Moreover, studies performed in Italian and Spanish academic institutions across several scientific fields show that when promotion committees are composed exclusively of men, women are less likely to get promoted ( De Paola and Scoppa, 2015 ). Each additional woman on a 7-member promotion committee increased the number of women promoted to full professor by 14% ( Zinovyeva and Bagues, 2011 ). Another important factor in reducing gender bias in committee decisions is committee member awareness of implicit bias. Indeed, as shown in a recent study in France conducted across scientific disciplines, committee members who believe that women face external barriers in their performance and evaluation are less biased towards selecting men ( Régner et al., 2019 ).

The biases that affect search criteria also influence the evaluation of the applicant’s curriculum vitae. When faculty believe the applicant to be a man, they tend to evaluate the CV more favorably and are more likely to hire the applicant ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ; Steinpreis et al., 1999 ) than when faculty believe the applicant to be a woman. Consequently, only women with extraordinary applications tend to be considered, narrowing the pool of potential women candidates to be interviewed.

Another source of bias during hiring comes from recommendation letters. Their content and quality significantly differ based on the gender of the applicant ( Dutt et al., 2016 ; Madera et al., 2009 ; Schmader et al., 2007 ). For example, letters in support of women are typically shorter, raise more doubts, include fewer ‘standout’ adjectives (e.g., superb, brilliant) and more ‘endeavor’ adjectives (e.g., hardworking and diligent), regardless of the gender of the recommender. Altogether, subtle gender biases throughout the academic hiring process, from job posting to evaluation, increase the risk of creating self-reinforcing cycles of gender inequality ( van den Brink et al., 2010 ; Nielsen, 2015 ).

We recommend that individuals writing job announcements be made aware concerning gender bias issues both explicit and implicit. Individuals evaluating applications should also be trained on topics relevant to gender equity, gender bias, and bias mitigation ( Bergman et al., 2013 ).

Bias awareness workshops could help scientists to improve job advertisements, and assess applications more objectively ( Carnes et al., 2015 ; Schrouff et al., 2019 ). This approach is already in place in some academic institutions (e.g., in the University of California system) and could be more widely adopted and made mandatory for all academic members. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has successfully increased diversity by implementing workshops for faculty search committees that raise awareness about unconscious bias and provide evidence-based solutions to counter the problem ( Fine et al., 2014 ). These types of workshops can be broadly implemented across institutions and fields. Finally, numerous studies show that reminding evaluators of their internal biases at the evaluation stage of the hiring process reduces the impact of bias ( Carnes et al., 2015 ; Devine et al., 2017 ; Smith et al., 2015 ; Valantine et al., 2014 ).

Efforts should also be made to increase diversity in search committees. Increasing representation of women is necessary for reducing bias ( Schrouff et al., 2019 ; Smith et al., 2004 ), despite not being sufficient on its own (see Discussion ). At the same time, institutions should ensure that women in underrepresented departments are not overloaded with administrative obligations, time-consuming committees, or any other assignment tasks that do not enhance promotion prospects ( Babcock et al., 2017 ). To increase diversity in search committees while not overworking women, we propose that members of search committees be compensated by reducing their teaching or other administrative duties. Importantly, we highlight the strong need for male allies as part of search committees (see Discussion ).

Some academic institutions have already introduced mediators from equity committees in the hiring/promotion procedure. For example in Switzerland such mediators are required to actively provide input in faculty hiring and monitor gender balance (Gender Monitoring_Egalité_EPFL). Although non-academic advisors cannot judge the quality of scientific work, their input on the fairness of the hiring process can be valuable.

Each institution must commit to policies and action plans that set quantifiable goals for women in different position categories. Ideally, the number of women reaching the interview stages should match the gender ratio of a given academic field. Concrete recruitment strategies to achieve these goals could be developed, for example, by adopting mandatory submission of regular reports on gender ratio with quantifiable measures ( Bergman et al., 2013 ). As an example, if no women candidates apply, the University of California at Berkeley requires the position to be re-announced more broadly. Institutions can be required to be more explicit and transparent about how merit is evaluated. All of the above measures can be enforced with central incentives, such as funding allocations, to motivate departments to implement the necessary steps and hire more women ( Bergman et al., 2013 ). Another solution to help reach a larger and more diverse pool of potential candidates would be the development of a curated and regularly updated list of underrepresented minority mentees that could become targets for job searches and awards (as it is already the case for conference speakers, Table 1 ).

Importantly, we believe that hiring committees need to recognize forms of scientific contribution to the STEM community not directly tied to scientific productivity. Such contributions include outreach, knowledge dissemination, and faculty service; these are contributions which women make on average significantly more than men, taking time from more traditional forms of research ( Guarino and Borden, 2017 ). The practice of science is evolving, and additional qualification criteria for hiring decisions should be adopted to acknowledge the broader range of roles and responsibilities of contemporary scientists ( Moher et al., 2018 ). In addition to building towards gender equity, recognizing and incentivizing these contributions to our academic communities will benefit all scientists regardless of gender.

Suggestions at the societal level:

When legally possible (as in Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland), any organization, including academic institutions can set policies on gender equity, set goals for gender ratios in different position categories, and develop recruitment strategies to achieve these goals ( Nielsen et al., 2017 ; Schrouff et al., 2019 ; Exploring quotas in academia; Des quotas pour promouvoir l’égalité des chances dans la recherche).

9. Gender bias in negotiation outcomes

Negotiations are important for building a successful career, as they can lead to better starting salaries and start-up packages, salary increases, better work conditions, and increased allocation of personnel, lab space, and other resources. On average, men tend to initiate negotiations more often than women ( Babcock et al., 2006 ; Small et al., 2007 ). Additionally, when they do, women still get less out of negotiations; are less likely than men to be successful in receiving the raise they asked for, and may incur a social cost for standing up for themselves ( Bowles et al., 2007 ; Mazei et al., 2015 ).

Importantly, negotiations might be affected by perceived gender stereotypes as gender roles influence both parties of the negotiations regardless of their gender ( Kray et al., 2001 , 2014 ). In accordance with Role Congruity Theory ( Eagly and Karau, 2002 ), women are often reluctant to negotiate because initiating negotiations is perceived as stereotypically male behavior. Moreover, expressions of emotions commonly associated with leadership characteristics, such as anger and pride ( Brescoll, 2016 ), are more widely tolerated and even appreciated when they emanate from men compared to women ( Brescoll and Uhlmann, 2008 ). The expression of gender roles is a complex phenomenon though. On the one hand, women may lose social capital (i.e the work connections that have productive benefits) when voicing their opinions, especially when they go against the group’s opinion. On the other hand, it has been reported that women who described themselves as displaying so-called "masculine" personality traits (i.e., a competitive mindset and willingness to take risks) had a 4.3% greater chance of getting positions and were more likely to take up positions that offered 10% higher wages than those displaying so-called "feminine" personality traits (i.e., gentle, friendly, and affectionate)( Drydakis et al., 2018 ). This deep-seated implicit bias, held by all genders, has non-trivial consequences over women’s career in academia.

Transparency is a key element for equity during negotiations. We propose that institutions provide access to everyone's salary and also to a range of possible salaries per academic level. Gender differences in economic outcomes tend to be smaller when negotiators first receive information about the bargaining range in a negotiation ( Mazei et al., 2015 ). Such an approach could be complemented by providing information to faculty about ranges of research budgets, or salaries and construct a rational -rather than ad-hoc- process for determining how resources are allocated.

Removing stereotypes in both parties of the negotiations can improve women’s performance ( Kray and Kennedy, 2017 ). It has been shown that having supportive academic supervisors plays an important role in improving negotiational effectiveness for women ( Fiset and Saffie-Robertson, 2020 ). Also, for mentees eager to develop their negotiation skills, institutions could offer courses on this topic. For instance, several online services, highlighted on Table 1 , offer training materials on negotiation strategies, as well as materials targeted for companies wanting to improve their gender representation. These workshops provide techniques for negotiation and conflict resolution.

10. Gender inequalities are present in conferences

Conferences and meetings are crucial avenues for scientists to communicate new discoveries, form research collaborations, communicate with funding agencies, and attract new members to their labs and programs ( Calisi and a Working Group of Mothers in Science, 2018 ). For instance, invitations to seminars at different institutions increase scientists’ visibility and expand their academic networks. However, equally qualified women scientists are often given fewer opportunities to speak at conferences and seminars than men. For instance, nearly half of the conferences in neuroscience have fewer women speakers than the base rate of women working in the field of the conference (Conference Watch at a glance ∣ biaswatchneuro, How scientists are fighting against gender bias in conference speaker lineups). Given that conference presentations are an important indicator of the impact and significance of one’s research, this form of gender bias has negative implications for women during hiring and promotion. Inviting women speakers and providing them with resources that allow them to attend the conference contributes to their professional development and increases their visibility. This action also contributes to the perception of women researchers as leaders for young scientists in the audience. This visibility is especially important for boosting the confidence of young women researchers. Moreover, women in the conference audience generally remain less visible, as they ask fewer questions than men. This is due to both internal (e.g., being unsure whether their question is appropriate) and structural factors (e.g., when the first question is asked by a man, women are less likely to follow up) ( Carter et al., 2018 ).

Another important point that undermines the experience of women at conferences is unprofessional and inappropriate behavior ( Parsons, 2015 ) (see the below section 11 on sexual harassment). This may cause some scientists to avoid conferences due to feeling unsafe ( Richey et al., 2015 ). Specifically, sexual and gender harassment and micro-aggressions target primarily women, and are a common form of reported harassment at conferences ( Marts, 2017 ). Finally, disrespectful and unprofessional questions and feedback during poster sessions and talks may discourage women from presenting their work ( Biggs et al., 2018 ).

We recommend that invited participants take proactive actions to promote gender equity. They could ask the organizers what measures are taken to ensure that the symposium and/or conference will not be a man-dominated event, and could also decline to speak at conferences with an imbalanced speaker lineup. For instance, attendees can monitor progress in a conference’s history of gender balance in speaker selection and see the base rates of women in relevant subfields, as is already possible in neuroscience ( Table 1 ). We believe that scientists of all genders and levels of seniority should take personal responsibility to ensure professional conduct by speaking out against harassment and other biased behaviors.

Conferences can strive to ensure that symposia include gender-balanced speakers and chairs, at least in a ratio that matches the demographics of the field. Conference, seminar, and symposium organizers should have a list of women speakers that they can invite. They can search outside their personal and professional networks by consulting resources such as the directory compiled by Jennifer Glass and Minda Monteagudo which lists searchable databases of highly qualified women by subfield ( Table 1 ). As a notable example, proposals for symposia at the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENS) Forum are required to include men and women speakers or provide a justification for single-gender symposia.

We also propose that organizers consider existing tools to mitigate their own bias. Gender balance at neuroscience conferences has been publicly monitored through the website BiasWatchNeuro ( Table 1 ). Such measures could be implemented in many academic fields. In the context of conferences, unlike that for citations, diversity must come from the top: the organizations hosting a conference should strive for a committee that is well trained regarding bias. The Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) has introduced an ‘Affirmative Attention’ approach, by which new Council members are elected through a ballot, so that the candidates for at least some open positions may only include women, to ensure that the gender distribution in the council remains equitable, no matter which candidates get elected ( Tzovara et al., 2021 ). Conference organizers can also offer programs that raise awareness of the issue of gender bias. For example, the annual meetings of several major conferences, such as the Society for Neuroscience, OHBM, or FENS, include educational courses, workshops and informational sessions on gender bias (Seeds of Change within OHBM: Three Years of Work Addressing Inclusivity and Diversity). Another example is the ‘power hour’ institutionalized by The Gordon Research Conferences which consists of a forum for conversations about diversity, inclusivity and related topics (The GRC Power Hour™).

However, in workshops about gender bias, often only highly successful women are represented on panels discussing bias and women’s careers in academia. In these instances, we believe that it is important to avoid promoting survivorship bias, which emphasizes positive outcomes without addressing the barriers and challenges that must be overcome to achieve that success more broadly among women scientists. Moreover, men are not usually invited as speakers in these events and are also usually absent from the audience, which renders them less aware of the issues around gender bias, and therefore less effective allies. We suggest that the way that the speakers and topics of panels are chosen must be improved to be more inclusive and represent the full spectrum of diversity in the community.

An inclusive code of conduct has been proposed as mandatory for each conference, stating what is and what is not appropriate behavior for conference attendees ( Favaro et al., 2016 ). Conference organizers should have clear plans of action in place in case harassment occurs, including anonymous reporting and removing confirmed harassers from the conference ( Marts, 2017 ; Parsons, 2015 ). The suggested code of conduct should also include respectful ways to provide constructive scientific feedback ( Favaro et al., 2016 ), a practice that should be implemented across all contexts within academia. Lastly, all attendees should feel concerned about and responsible for maintaining a respectable environment during conferences. Since it can sometimes be hard to intervene as things unfold in real-time, we suggest that conference organizers provide a specific contact where members can report unethical or inappropriate incidents.

11. Sexual harassment is a major obstacle encompassing all career stages

A recent exhaustive report on sexual assault led by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, and funded by the NIH, reported that rates of sexual harassment are as high as 58% for academic faculty and staff and between 20 to 50% for students. The majority of the sexual harassment experienced by women in academia consists of sexist hostility. These unacceptable rates are higher than any other work environment except for the military ( Johnson and Smith, 2018 ). The consequences of harassment are far-reaching and require widespread efforts to reduce these high rates if we are to see gender parity in a scientific workplace.

Sexual harassment falls into four main categories: micro-aggression (i.e., comments or actions that express prejudiced attitudes), sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment (see National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 for detailed review). Harassment consists of actions that create a hostile and inequitable environment for members of a specific group. Harassment is not limited to the extreme form of physical assault; it also includes endorsing beliefs that someone’s intelligence is inferior to another’s, or making demeaning jokes that target one gender group.

Unfortunately, all types of sexual harassment are common and lead to negative outcomes for the people who experience them. In addition to the 58% of academic faculty or staff who experienced sexual harassment, 38% of women trainees and 23% of men trainees experienced sexual harassment from faculty ( Johnson and Smith, 2018 ). More egregious numbers are found in specific fields; a recent study reports that 75% of undergraduate women majoring in physics experienced sexual harassment ( Aycock et al., 2019 ). While peer-to-peer harassment is also prevalent, trainees experience worse professional outcomes when faculty at their university conducted the harassment. These numbers may underestimate the problem, as trainees might not feel comfortable speaking up when their career development, and sometimes even legal status in a country, depends on the person harassing them. In another study of 474 scientists, 30% of women reported feeling unsafe at work, compared to 2% of men ( Clancy et al., 2017 ). The rates were even higher for women of color, where almost 50% of women scientists of color reported feeling unsafe at work ( Clancy et al., 2017 ). These experiences are chronically stressful and have been linked to higher levels of depression, anxiety, and generally impaired psychological well-being ( Lim and Cortina, 2005 ; Parker and Griffin, 2002 ). People who have experienced sexual harassment report higher rates of absenteeism, tardiness, and use of sick leave (measured on scales where respondents indicated desirability, frequency, likelihood, and ease of engaging in these behaviors) and unfavorable job behaviors (e.g., making excuses to get out of work, neglecting tasks not evaluated on performance appraisal) ( Schneider et al., 1997 ). Finally, and not surprisingly, individuals who experience sexual harassment are more likely to leave their jobs. All of these statistics demonstrate that sexual harassment is both alarmingly common and reduces the scientific productivity and well-being of the people who have been harmed. Yet, when this behavior is reported, the whistle-blowers may be either retaliated against or there may be no repercussions for the perpetrators. Moreover, even the policies that aim to ‘protect’ victims of harassment have substantial negative consequences, which are more likely to occur to women than men. These include reluctance to have one-to-one meetings with women or to include them in social events, or reluctance to hire women for positions that require close contact with them ( Atwater et al., 2019 ).

Collegial behavior, that does not propagate harassment and micro-aggressions should be the bare minimum expectation in any lab or academic institution. Individuals of all levels should consider their personal responsibility to promote a respectful and professional environment, avoid and denounce unwelcome behavior when witnessed. Besides everyone’s own responsibility, it is essential that organizational leaders display an unequivocal anti-harassment message ( Buchanan et al., 2014 ).

Sexual harassment cannot be tolerated and must be severely reprehended by institutions. Although some initiatives for combating harassment exist, there is to date no evidence that current policies have succeeded in reducing harassment (ACD Working Group on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment). To counter this ineffectiveness, the NIH has recently recommended that sexual harassment needs to be equated to scientific misconduct, including similar mechanisms for reporting, investigation, and adjudication.

Researchers found guilty of sexual harassment could be barred from applying for new grants over a period of years deemed appropriate by the various regulatory entities similar to the penalty for scientific misconduct. Examples of such entities in the USA would be the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), their Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and the NIH. Importantly, the committees involved in investigating and adjudicating harassment should be independent from the institution leaders ( Greider et al. 2019 ).

One solution often proposed to combat sexual harassment is anti-harassment training. This consists of requiring students and staff to participate in workshops detailing sexual harassment policies and what constitutes unwelcome behavior. This approach has been widely suggested, and is currently implemented in several institutions despite its debatable effectiveness in reducing harassment. Indeed, it has been shown that some approaches could have the opposite effect, with men being less likely to judge a situation as harassment after receiving training, and leading to gender stereotype reinforcement ( Roehling and Huang, 2018 ). Moreover, empirical studies have shown that training employees to recognize what constitutes harassment can be followed by decreases in women managers ( Dobbin and Kalev, 2019 ). By contrast, training managers to recognize signs of harassment and intervene, results in increases in women managers ( Dobbin and Kalev, 2019 ). This seeming discrepancy may be due to gender differences in perception of harassment, so that women are more likely to believe victims of harassment. Departments need to carefully design their sexual harassment training as studies have reported that the designs of such training are essential and need to be adapted to the targeted populations ( Dobbin and Kalev, 2019 ). Interventions that place trainees as allies, such as bystander intervention training (Bringing in the Bystander®), showed positive effects on sexual harassment prevention in academia and military sectors ( Buchanan et al., 2014 ; Cares et al., 2015 ; Katz and Moore, 2013 ; Potter and Moynihan, 2011 ). For instance, Potter et al. (2019) are developing videogames to educate college students bystander intervention skills in situations of sexual harassment and stalking.

One example of a novel, yet untested approach is the ‘Respect is Part of Research’ initiative by graduate students in the University of California Berkeley Physics Department. During these trainings, participants discuss case studies in small groups together with a facilitator, addressing what is wrong about the behavior of the actors in the example, separating intent from impact, and methods to resolve the situation. Providing trainees with the tools to handle difficult situations and creating a supportive community has the potential to significantly shift the culture towards more respectful behavior in academia. However, its effectiveness for combating harassment in the long-term still remains to be tested.

Another factor that can assist in reducing harassment is adopting clear anti-harassment policies in codes of conduct (Why and How to Develop an Event Code of Conduct), both at conferences, and in individual labs. Enforcing a code of conduct is a challenging task, and future efforts should focus on drafting clear policies for different scenarios.

To lower the rates of sexual harassment, all members of the scientific community, and the community at large, need to make widespread changes. Learning to recognize sexual harassment should be an ongoing goal for any nation, starting with education in schools. We recommend that all organizations develop programs charged with reducing the prevalence of sexual violence, sexual harassment, and stalking through prevention, advocacy, training, and healing (for example see the Path to Care center from University of California Berkeley). This approach is distinct from and complementary to the purpose of official university legal procedures (e.g., Title IX in the USA): while such officers legally arbitrate gender discrimination disputes, the University Program we envision would be dedicated to serving the survivors of sexual harassment, preventing new cases, and training the university-wide community.

12. Encompassing all sectors: family planning in academia

Gender inequity exists in the division of household labor. Women typically shoulder most of the burden in childcare and in maintenance of the household, even among dual career partners ( Chopra and Zambelli, 2017 ). Women have increasingly joined the paid labor force, increasing their total work time, but men have not increased the amount of time they spend in unpaid household work. The COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent evidence of the impact of gender inequality in the labor market ( Alon et al., 2020 ). During the lockdown, women scientists submitted fewer manuscripts and started fewer research projects than men ( Viglione, 2020 ), consistent with an additional and disproportionate burden of childcare. While the majority of studies consider households composed of one man and one woman, further work is needed to evaluate the relations between gender and labor in single-parent homes or same-gender parent homes.

Although academia has its perks for the single parent, same-gender parent, and different-gender parent families, such as flexible hours and additional time to tenure, other working conditions can become barriers for family planning. Career stages where funding and mobility are critical, such as transitions between graduate school, postgraduate training, and tenure positions, often correspond to a time when researchers may wish to start a family (see Figure 1 ). However, pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, parental leave, and early childcare take a considerable amount of time, physical and mental resources, and money that constitute a competitive disadvantage in a scientific career. Indeed, parental leave negatively impacts metrics of productivity of early career scientists who are parents ( Chapman et al., 2019 ), yet with a stronger effect for women ( Morgan et al., 2021 ); which in turn impacts the possibility to obtain grant funding (i.e., several calls are limited to a certain amount of years post-degree according to funding agency policies).

Women with children are reluctant to attend conferences due to the lack of childcare support ( Calisi and a Working Group of Mothers in Science, 2018 ). Conferences in distant locations add another layer of complexity, as transoceanic flights often mean a longer stay away from home. Adequate facilities such as lactation rooms are rarely provided, nor are support for a traveling caretaker to assist in the care of their infant as the scientist attends the meeting. This limited mobility reduces parents’ opportunities for international collaborations and funding, which are common criteria used for promotion and evaluations.

Importantly, women face even stronger discrimination when they are part of non-traditional family formations: single mothers experience a stronger work-family strain than partnered ones ( Baxter and Alexander, 2008 ). Studies of single mother doctoral students have shown that they fear being judged in their departments, and that they often feel excluded by university life and academic schedules ( AmiriRad, 2016 ). Although LGBTQ+ parents face similar challenges as cisgender and heterosexual parents ( King et al., 2013 ), LGBTQ+ individuals might have fewer health or retirement benefits, and face unequal treatment in academia ( Cech and Waidzunas, 2021 ; Thompson and Parry, 2017 ). Future studies should address the particular challenges and biases faced by single parent and LGBTQ+ families and their potential impact on academic achievements.

Apart from the academic aspect, most societies are not built to assist families where both parents pursue a demanding career path. For instance, public schools in some countries like Germany often stop in the early afternoon, and it can be hard to find public preschool or after school childcare. Moreover, working mothers often feel stigmatized as they risk being looked down upon by citizens of more “traditional” societies for their choices to work instead of staying at home with their children.

Parents should not have to choose between having a family and an academic career. Evaluation of academic progress should take into consideration delays caused by parenthood and childcare responsibilities. Individuals should also assess their own possible tendencies to judge or exclude academics with young children, and become prepared to support initiatives that would encourage their participation in gatherings, conferences, and other professional activities.

Institutions need to adopt official extensions of graduate, postdoctoral, and tenure timelines due to childbirth and parenthood. To address the financial difficulties for academic families, we suggest a number of measures. First, job security can be improved by creating longer-term contracts where possible, and by providing bridge funds at the department or university level to support trainees during gaps in funding ( Stewart and Valian, 2018 ). Both universities and funding institutions should put measures in place to prevent a gap in funding during parental leave ( Powell 2019 ). Special provisions for parenthood can be made in calls for proposals and funding mechanisms. A few funding organizations include childbirth in their policies as a valid reason to extend the eligibility window (from one year for NIH K awards to 18 months for ERC grants, or a 2 year extension to post-PhD limits per child for the Emmy Noether Program of the German Research Foundation), or subtract time for parental leave (“Research Project for Young Talent” proposed by the Research Council of Norway, 2–7 years post-PhD). Finally, efforts should be made to reduce the difficulty in returning to work after maternity leave, such as providing lactation rooms.

Solutions can be found to support couples in which both partners are in academia ( Schiebinger et al., 2008 ). By enabling couple hiring for tenure track positions, institutions can help women pursue their academic career. Critically, universities should ensure access to affordable, on-site childcare, as this both improves outcomes for children enrolled in such programs and increases women’s participation in the workforce ( Morrissey, 2017 ; Gault 2016).

Specific funding should be allocated for parents to travel for conferences and sabbaticals. Conferences, universities, and funding agencies can reserve a part of their budget to create travel funds for parents. Compared to a decade ago, more conferences are offering nursing rooms ( Cardel et al., 2020 ; Hope et al., 2019 ; Langin, 2018 ) and other types of on-site childcare, which should be accessible to all parents ( Cardel et al., 2020 ; Langin, 2018 ). However, unfamiliar caregivers are not always a viable option, and parents will likely feel most comfortable knowing their child is cared for by a primary caregiver. To address these issues, some conferences, such as FENS or OHBM, are offering childcare grants, which can either cover travel expense for a trusted caregiver (spouse, partner, or nanny) to accompany the parent and child, or pay for expenses involved in leaving the child at home ( Calisi and a Working Group of Mothers in Science, 2018 ; Langin, 2018 ; Tzovara et al., 2021 ).

These issues require a broad reshaping of society, which still relies on parental roles or family patterns that are increasingly obsolete. Law in all countries needs to enforce official extension of timelines to accommodate pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood, as increases in parental leave result in fewer women leaving the workforce ( Jones and Wilcher, 2019 ). For instance, the total paid period of parental leave in Norway is between 46 and 59 weeks, with maternal and paternal quotas of 15 weeks each and a joint period of 16 weeks. The downside of providing parental leave to both parents is that previous research has shown that giving the same extensions to both parents puts mothers at a disadvantage as fathers are more likely to increase their productivity during this period ( Antecol et al., 2016 ). It is therefore important for parents to have an equal split of child caring duties, and profit from allocated time to bond with their child.

13. Not all gender biases are the same: Intersectionality

Discussions surrounding plans to combat gender bias in academia are incomplete without attention to the unique struggles of women who hold additional identities are subject to discrimination. Barriers faced by all women in academia are compounded for those who are members of additional underrepresented groups (e.g., based on, but not limited to race, ethnicity, first-generation status, religion, socioeconomic status, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability) that interact with and increase gender bias ( Armstrong and Jovanovic, 2015 ). For instance, the gender wage gap has been shown to be wider for transgender women ( Schilt and Wiswall, 2008 ) and also for black women (Guillory, 2001). Women of color faculty are the least likely to receive tenure of all demographic groups despite comparable productivity ( Armstrong and Jovanovic, 2017 ). As such, successful interventions must consider these supra-additive effects, and take an intersectional approach.

Across all career stages and aspects of academia, institutions could develop interventions and programs that take into account the specific needs of overlapping identities. For instance, Flores ( Flores, 2011 ) proposed that financial awards, or targeted mentoring programs could help underrepresented women to overcome practical and psychological burdens associated with intersecting identities. Policies to increase the Latino community in STEM propose mentoring and educational programs in different languages, for women whose native language is not English ( Flores, 2011 ). A first step in developing such programming can be interviews and focus groups with underrepresented minority women in order to receive feedback on structural inequalities that can be addressed at the institutional level. Intersectional approaches can include targeted networking events, mentorship pipelines, and funding initiatives, as well as rigorous data collection to assess efficacy of these approaches. As with any intervention, special care needs to be taken to not overburden the individuals experiencing discrimination with additional tasks and administrative overload.

14. Discussion

In this article, we review empirical evidence demonstrating pervasive gender bias throughout all stages and venues of academic life. Studies have shown that women are less likely to be hired or to receive tenure than men, despite equal performance. They receive less grant funding and fewer prestigious awards. The rates of accepted publications, presentations, and patents are lower for women, and women are less likely to be first or last author on publications or to submit to high impact journals. Studies are documenting a prevailing notion that work by men has higher merit than that of women, a perception that is reflected in the discrepant number of citations of men versus women authors in research papers or in assigned classroom readings. Positions on review panels with the power to hire, promote, approve funding, or decide policy are still largely offered to men, whose own biases (unconscious or otherwise) may impede the advancement of women academics. Women’s salaries are lower than men’s, and women take on the greater burden of childcare, restricting their opportunities to conduct research or attend conferences. Finally, women continue to experience sexual harassment and hostility at an alarming rate, not only in their work environment, but also at conferences and other academic venues.

Apart from the ethical issues this evidence raises, a large proportion of the highly trained and talented individuals who are essential for advancing research and educational practice are not progressing in their academic careers, largely due to the rectifiable issue of gender bias. Here, we gather, explore, and suggest actions at the individual, institutional and societal levels, aimed to mitigate the effects of gender bias. Implementing some of the proposed recommendations will not be trivial as new regulations and controls might themselves require monitoring for bias. We cannot predict the outcomes of the proposed suggestions. However, openly and explicitly acknowledging gender bias (that all genders are susceptible to) is an essential starting point to restore the unbalanced academic environment. In considering such complexities, institutions should engage the advice and guidance of social science experts and the affected groups to ensure optimal solutions.

Diversity is essential to delivering excellence in science as it increases cognitive diversity, which in turn leads to novel solutions ( Page, 2008 )and innovations ( Hofstra et al., 2020 ), as well as increased problem-solving ( Hong and Page, 2004 ) and scientific discovery ( Nielsen et al., 2018 ). Besides the invaluable contribution to science, it will also help reduce stereotypes ( Miller et al., 2015 ). To ensure successful changes, mindsets must change, and our proposed solutions provide a step in that direction. However, many challenges first need to be understood and overcome. Thus, a few important aspects of gender bias must be addressed.

The fight for gender equity needs diverse role models and strong allies

First, we need to amplify the voices of under-represented scientists and mentors as role models in order to encourage diversity. One of the main reasons for leaving science is a lack of mentoring, which affects more women than men trainees, as women are less likely to be mentored ( Preston, 2004 ). In line with this reported gender bias in mentoring in academia, experimental evidence showed that women and men science faculty were less likely to offer mentoring to a trainee when their application materials were assigned a female rather than a male name ( Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ). In order to overcome this bias against women trainees, mentors have to make an intentional effort to offer mentoring to women trainees to ensure that mentoring is provided equally to women and men trainees. This study also found that female applicants were rated as less competent than the male applicants with the identical application. Awareness of implicit bias is an important first step to overcome these barriers and enable mentors to improve equal support of women mentees. For instance, they could actively encourage them to submit to higher impact factor journals, apply for funding opportunities and large grants, nominate them to awards, invite them to speak in conferences and seminars, and meet potential collaborators. All scientists should consider gender equity when building a team of principal investigators for collaborative work, particularly on larger or more prestigious projects. Having encouraging mentors and role models with whom students and scientists can identify will positively shift their perception of themselves ( Morgenroth et al., 2015 ) and mitigate imposter syndrome ( Abdelaal, 2020 ). This type of support can make the academic career path more inclusive and accessible, irrespective of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or gender.

Second, everyone needs to be on board, irrespective of gender or career stage. This is particularly critical as men still hold most positions of power in STEM, and can use their positions to change the system from within. This can be challenging as there are several persistent misbeliefs about preventing progress ( Johnson and Smith, 2018 ). One might argue that giving more opportunities to women necessarily comes with a loss of privileges for men. However, the situation in some STEM domains is not a zero-sum game. Many countries suffer from an overall STEM worker shortage; thus adding women to the workforce would improve overall industry performance. In addition, gender equity comes with many benefits: organizations with more female leaders offer employees more generous policies ( Ingram and Simons, 1995 ) producing better business results ( Berdahl, 2007 ). Some men might feel that gender equity “is not their fight”. The answer to this concern is two-fold. First, gender equity is a moral imperative, and the voices and actions of all are needed. Second, gender equity is a man’s fight. Gendered roles impact not only women, but men as well: many still believe that “child caregiving/domestic work is not a male job”, and that “a man needs to be the family breadwinner”, a belief that can have a strong impact on mental health ( King et al., 2020 ). This position reflects a “fixed mindset” about gender roles, which leads men to rationalize the status quo, i.e. engage in system justification about gender inequality ( Kray et al., 2017 ). A more fundamental antidote in combating gender bias is to promote growth mindsets (e.g. “things can change, there is no reason why men and women can’t occupy the same social roles”; Dweck 2016 ).

Notably, the concern and interest around the topic of women's underrepresentation in STEM has not been matched by a similar concern about men's underrepresentation in healthcare, early education and domestic roles ( Block et al., 2019 ; Croft et al., 2015 ; Meeussen et al., 2020 ). However, gender experts are now pointing at men and men’s representation as a key component to advance women’s place in society ( Block et al., 2019 ; Croft et al., 2021 ). Gender equity will benefit men by freeing them from societal biases. In turn, a change in the aspirations and careers of men will likely benefit overall gender equality: men who take on non-traditional roles can enable women and girls to envision themselves in less traditional, complementary roles ( Block et al., 2018 ; Croft et al., 2014 ). When more men turn to roles in health care, education, and domestic work, there will be more STEM roles that can be occupied by women. To quote one of our reviewers: “As long as there is stagnation in men's roles, there will be an upper limit on the amount of change that can be achieved for women's roles as well”.

Importantly, as soon as the fight for gender equity becomes a universal cause, the overload of academic work weighing on women should be alleviated. The approach of several institutes or funding agencies for improving equity is to task women with taking part in administrative obligations during hiring processes, panels in conferences etc. However, being fewer in number, the same women find themselves having to manage substantial extra work. Besides these administrative burdens, they are also often asked to participate in initiatives aimed for promoting diversity. This work additionally affects women disproportionately, and even more so women of color ( Nair, 2014 ). It may seem natural that individuals facing discrimination would have the strongest interest and possibly knowledge on how to resolve it. However, leaving the work that promotes diversity to those directly affected by the lack of diversity/inclusivity can contribute to further injustices. This work thus needs to be shared with advocates from the non-minority category.

When implementing some of the proposed solutions, it is important to consider complexities that might emerge from “positive discrimination”, where the “best” candidate might be overlooked in favor of a candidate who meets another requirement (e.g., ethnicity, first-generation status, religion, socioeconomic status, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability; STEM Women, 2019). Not dismantling structural conditions of inequality, means that existing disadvantages triumph. Institutions should carefully consider these complexities and include affected minorities in policy development to ensure optimal solutions.

Challenges and major open questions in addressing gender bias

Improving gender equity in science represents challenges at several levels. First of all, despite an abundance of research, there is a lack of systematic and validated metrics to assess gender bias and evaluate the efficacy of various initiatives in improving gender equity. Without standardized data collection and metrics to objectively measure gender bias, it is often impossible to draw solid conclusions on the degree of its presence and/or origin. However, for appropriate measures to be deployed the source of bias needs to be properly established so that proposed actions can differentially target the real cause. One reason for this is that despite its far-fetched consequences, evaluating the existence of bias can be very subtle and challenging. Measuring presence and then reductions in implicit bias in a controlled setting does not necessarily translate to changes in real life situations (Forscher et al., 2019). It is crucial that advocacy goals do not bias the presentation of scientific evidence for and against different interventions and policy changes ( Eagly, 2016 , 2018 ). Moreover, there is a lack of systematic gathering and reporting of gender data from various organizations such as universities, conferences, funding agencies, or award and hiring committees. Moving forward, we encourage institutions to gather and report data about gender representation in their membership and to collaborate with social scientists who can provide valuable expertise. Importantly, we encourage all scientific bodies to increase transparency about the successes and failures of interventions that they have used in the past to address bias.

Notably, for many of the issues raised in this article, no straightforward solutions exist. Despite an increasing number of actions taken to mitigate gender bias in the workplace over the past decades, a thorough assessment and evaluation of their impact on diversity are often lacking as their short- and long-term impacts are hard to quantify in the real world ( Paluck and Green, 2009 ; Paluck et al., 2021 ). Long term impacts are vital to quantify especially as some evidence suggests that gender bias persists even after gender representation becomes balanced, paradoxically perpetuated by members who believe that gender bias has been overcome ( Begeny et al., 2020 ). Not all of the potential solutions presented here are destined to work, but several of them are certainly worth consideration (see Table 2 for an overview of tested vs. proposed actions).

For instance, diversity training is oftentimes recommended as one potential tool to mitigate gender bias. The admirable goal is to raise awareness on implicit and explicit biases that every human being carries. Although it is an intuitive way to tackle bias, the efficiency of diversity training is currently debated. Some studies, especially in the corporate sector, have reported modest to no effect of trainings with potential adverse effects for certain minority groups ( Dobbin and Kalev, 2013 ; Dobbin et al., 2011 ; Kalev et al., 2006 ), while other studies have shown encouraging results (in corporate sectors: Anand and Winters, 2008 and in academia: Carnes et al., 2015 ). Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of diversity training ( Roberson et al., 2013 ). Among them, the design of the training itself; such as the format, the length, and most importantly the way men are depicted (as allies and not oppressors); and the way to assign training (i.e. voluntarily, in person) may positively influence the outcome of these initiatives ( Bezrukova et al., 2016 ; Kalev and Dobbin, 2020 ). Genuine motivation, support and commitment from superiors, social accountability, and transparency play important roles ( Chang et al., 2019 ; Dobbin and Kalev, 2020 ). Lastly, as diversity training is not effective to change behavior in isolation ( Kalev et al., 2006 ), other actions and concrete changes at the institutional and societal levels are needed ( Dobbin and Kalev, 2020 ; Paluck et al., 2021 ).

Combining several actions is required for successful outcomes. For instance, increasing the representation of women across scientific bodies (i.e. hiring committees, review panels, in mentorship) and career stages can be helpful in reducing bias, but on its own it is not enough. Extensive research in hundreds of thousands of participants and across multiple countries has shown that increasing the enrollment of women students in higher education can reduce gender stereotypes. However, increasing the employment of women as researchers reduces only explicit, but not implicit stereotypes ( Miller et al., 2015 ). The perseverance of explicit gender stereotypes is stronger in disciplines that are male-dominated, but implicit stereotypes remain even in disciplines where women are well represented ( Smyth and Nosek, 2015 ). Gender stereotypes are also prevalent in women, who can be biased against women. It is important to highlight that increasing the representation of women is a necessary but not sufficient condition for addressing gender bias.

A second major challenge in improving gender equity is that not all scientific fields have the same gender imbalances across career stages. Several fields like psychology typically achieve a more balanced gender ratio than other men-dominated fields such as engineering. Future attempts should implement initiatives that cater to the needs of each sub-field and should also test the generalizability of initiatives across fields.

Last, one major open question is that of governance. To date there is a lack of governance models for monitoring gender bias, and for deciding whether a given solution is sufficient, or well implemented. Importantly, the decision about whether a solution is successful often relies on arbitrary metrics and does not take into account the experiences of women who are targets of bias. We invite scholars to develop better governance models and oversight committees for monitoring gender bias in an inclusive and objective way.

Conclusions

Gender bias is a complex assortment of problems, encompassing all career stages. Concrete actions are required to address each of the facets of gender bias, and need to be initiated by every academic entity, from individuals to departments to conferences and professional organizations. These actions, in combination with strong role models and a diverse pool of allies, will make it possible to shift the culture and bring positive change. The time for action is now.

Acknowledgements

We thank Susan Fiske, Vinitha Rangarajan, Kristina R. Olson, and Sapna Cheryan for their help in editing and improving the manuscript and Luisa Reis Castro for valuable discussions. A.T. is supported by the Interfaculty Research Cooperation “Decoding Sleep: From Neurons to Health and Mind” of the University of Bern, and the Swiss National Science Foundation (#320030_188737 and P300PA_174451). E.A.B is supported by NIH grant OD-010425, A.L.F. by the Simons Collaboration for the Global Brain, S.K. by NIH (RO1MH64043, RO1EY017699, 21560-685 Silvio O. Conte Center), the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Overdeck Family Foundation. C.K. is supported by the Jacobs foundation; N.J.K. by NIH/NIGMS P01-GM118629 and NIH/NIMH P50-MH109429; J.J.L. by U19NS107609-01. A.C.N is funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award (ACN) 104571/Z/14/Z; James S. McDonnell Foundation Understanding Human Cognition Collaborative Award 220020448; and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. The Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (203139/Z/16/Z). S.K.R. is supported by NIH/NIDCD 1R21DC016985. A.K.S. is supported by a research grant from the Research Council of Norway (RCN; project number 240389) and through the RCNs Centres of Excellence scheme (project number 262762 RITMO). J.D.W. is supported by NIMH R01-MH121448 and NIMH R01-MH117763, W.-J.W. by the US Office of Naval Research (ONR) grant N00014-17-1-2041, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant 062349, and the Simons Collaboration on the Global Brain program grant 543057SPI. M.V.I. and N.F.D. contributions are supported by NIH/NIDCD R01-DC016345; DSB is supported by NSF CAREER PHY-1554488. R.T.K. is supported by NINDS NS21135, NIMH CONTE Center PO-MH109429, Brain Initiative U19 NS1076, and Brain Initiative U01 NS108916

References * :

* The gender proportions in the references list of this manuscript have been checked with cleanBib ( https://github.com/dalejn/cleanBib ) to evaluate gender ratio. Our reference list contains 42.4% woman(first)/woman(last), 12.2% man/woman, 22% woman/man, 18.5% man/man, and 4.88% unknown categorization. The remaining percentage is unknown. It is important to note the limits of classifying gender identity using names, pronouns, other signifiers scraped from online databases, and that this methodology cannot account for intersex, non-binary, or transgender people.

• Abdelaal G (2020). Coping with imposter syndrome in academia and research . Biochem . 42 , 62–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alon TM, Doepke M, Olmstead-Rumsey J, and Tertilt M (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on Gender Equality . Working Paper . [ Google Scholar ]
• AmiriRad MB (2016). Experiences of Single - Mother Doctoral Students as They Navigate Between the Educational System, Societal Expectations, and Parenting Their Children: A Phenomenological Approach (Lulu Press, Inc; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Anand R, and Winters M-F (2008). A Retrospective View of Corporate Diversity Training From 1964 to the Present . AMLE 7 , 356–372. [ Google Scholar ]
• Antecol H, Bedard K, and Stearns J (2016). Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies? In IZA Discussion Papers (No. 9904; IZA Discussion Papers). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA,. [ Google Scholar ]
• Armstrong MA, and Jovanovic J (2015). Starting at The Crossroads: Intersectional approaches to institutionally supporting underrepresented minority women stem faculty . J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng 21 , 141–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Armstrong MA, and Jovanovic J (2017). The intersectional matrix: Rethinking institutional change for URM women in STEM . J. Divers. High. Educ 10 , 216–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atwater LE, Tringale AM, Sturm RE, Taylor SN, and Braddy PW (2019). Looking Ahead: How What We Know About Sexual Harassment Now Informs Us of the Future . Organ. Dyn 48 , 100677. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aycock LM, Hazari Z, Brewe E, Clancy KBH, Hodapp T, and Goertzen RM (2019). Sexual harassment reported by undergraduate female physicists . Physical Review Physics Education Research 15 , 010121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L, Gelfand M, Small D, and Stayn H (2006). Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations. In Social Psychology and Economics , (pp, Murnighan J, ed. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, xii: Mahwah, NJ, US: ), pp. 239–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L, Recalde MP, Vesterlund L, and Weingart L (2017). Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability . Am. Econ. Rev 107 , 714–747. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balafoutas L, and Sutter M (2012). Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory . Science 335 , 579–582. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barroga E (2020). Innovative Strategies for Peer Review . J. Korean Med. Sci 35 , e138. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baxter J, and Alexander M (2008). Mothers’ work–to–family strain in single and couple parent families: The role of job characteristics and supports . Aust. J. Soc. Issues 43 , 195–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beede DN, Julian TA, Langdon D, McKittrick G, Khan B, and Doms ME (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation (Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny CT, Ryan MK, Moss-Racusin CA, and Ravetz G (2020). In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists-Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening . Sci Adv 6 , eaba7814. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bendels MHK, Müller R, Brueggmann D, and Groneberg DA (2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals . PLoS One 13 , e0189136. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berdahl JL (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women . J. Appl. Psychol 92 , 425–437. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergman S, Rustad ML, and a Nordic reference group . (2013). The Nordic region - a step closer to gender balance in research? : Joint Nordic strategies and measures to promote gender balance among researchers in academia . In Nordic Council of Ministers, TemaNord 2013 :544. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard C (2018). Editorial: Gender Bias in Publishing: Double-Blind Reviewing as a Solution? eNeuro 5 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezrukova K, Spell CS, Perry JL, and Jehn KA (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation . Psychol. Bull 142 , 1227–1274. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biggs J, Hawley PH, and Biernat M (2018). The Academic Conference as a Chilly Climate for Women: Effects of Gender Representation on Experiences of Sexism, Coping Responses, and Career Intentions . Sex Roles 78 , 394–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bigler RS, and Leaper C (2015). Gendered language: psychological principles, evolving practices, and inclusive policies . Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 , 187–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair IV, Ma JE, and Lenton AP (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: the moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 81 , 828–841. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Block K, Croft A, and Schmader T (2018). Worth Less?: Why Men (and Women) Devalue Care-Oriented Careers . Front. Psychol 9 , 1353. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Block K, Croft A, De Souza L, and Schmader T (2019). Do people care if men don’t care about caring? The asymmetry in support for changing gender roles . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol 83 , 112–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boring A (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching . J. Public Econ 145 , 27–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowles H, Babcock L, and Lai L (2007). Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes It Does Hurt to Ask . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 103 , 84–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowles HR, Babcock L, and McGinn KL (2005). Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in negotiation . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 89 , 951–965. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, and Squazzoni F (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals . Nat. Commun 10 , 322. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brescoll VL (2016). Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders . Leadersh. Q 27 , 415–428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brescoll VL, and Uhlmann EL (2008). Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead?: Status Conferral, Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace . Psychol. Sci [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Brink M (2010). Behind the Scenes of Science: Gender Practices in the Recruitment and Selection of Professors in the Netherlands (Amsterdam University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Brink M, Benschop Y, and Jansen W (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality? Organ. Stud 31 , 1459–1483. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan NT, Settles IH, Hall AT, and O’Connor RC (2014). A review of organizational strategies for reducing sexual harassment: Insights from the U. s. military . J. Soc. Issues 70 , 687–702. [ Google Scholar ]
• Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, and Lortie CJ (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors . Trends Ecol. Evol 23 , 4–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burns KEA, Straus SE, Liu K, Rizvi L, and Guyatt G (2019). Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis . PLoS Med . 16 , e1002935. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calisi RM, and a Working Group of Mothers in Science (2018). Opinion: How to tackle the childcare-conference conundrum . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 115 , 2845–2849. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cameron EZ, White AM, and Gray ME (2016). Solving the Productivity and Impact Puzzle: Do Men Outperform Women, or are Metrics Biased? Bioscience 66 , 245–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caplar N, Tacchella S, and Birrer S (2017). Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts . Nature Astronomy 1 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cardel MI, Dhurandhar E, Yarar-Fisher C, Foster M, Hidalgo B, McClure LA, Pagoto S, Brown N, Pekmezi D, Sharafeldin N, et al. (2020). Turning Chutes into Ladders for Women Faculty: A Review and Roadmap for Equity in Academia . Journal of Women’s Health . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cares AC, Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Williams LM, Potter SJ, and Stapleton JG (2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus . Violence Against Women 21 , 165–187. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnes M, Devine PG, Baier Manwell L, Byars-Winston A, Fine E, Ford CE, Forscher P, Isaac C, Kaatz A, Magua W, et al. (2015). The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial . Acad. Med 90 , 221–230. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter AJ, Croft A, Lukas D, and Sandstrom GM (2018). Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men . PLoS One 13 , 0202743. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cech EA, and Waidzunas TJ (2021). Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM . Sci Adv 7 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, and Williams WM (2014). Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape . Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 15 , 75–141. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang EH, Milkman KL, Gromet DM, Rebele RW, Massey C, Duckworth AL, and Grant AM (2019). The mixed effects of online diversity training . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 116 , 7778–7783. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman C, Bicca-Marques JC, Calvignac-Spencer S, Fan P-F, Fashing P, Gogarten J, Guo S, Hemingway C, Leendertz F, Li B, et al. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia . In Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences ,. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charlesworth TES, and Banaji MR (2019). Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions . J. Neurosci 39 , 7228–7243. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheryan S, Master A, and Meltzoff AN (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes . Front. Psychol 6 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, and Jiang L (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychol. Bull 143 , 1–35. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chopra D, and Zambelli E (2017). No Time to Rest: Women’s Lived Experiences of Balancing Paid Work and Unpaid Care Work . Institute of Development Studies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choudhury S, and Aggarwal NK (2020). Reporting Grantee Demographics for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Neuroscience . J. Neurosci 40 , 7780–7781. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clancy KBH, Lee KMN, Rodgers EM, and Richey C (2017). Double jeopardy in astronomy and planetary science: Women of color face greater risks of gendered and racial harassment . Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 122 , 1610–1623. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colgan J (2017). Gender Bias in International Relations Graduate Education? New Evidence from Syllabi . PS Polit. Sci. Polit 50 , 456–460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox AR, and Montgomerie R (2019). The cases for and against double-blind reviews . PeerJ 7 , e6702. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croft A, Schmader T, Block K, and Baron AS (2014). The Second Shift Reflected in the Second Generation: Do Parents’ Gender Roles at Home Predict Children’s Aspirations? Psychol. Sci 25 , 1418–1428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croft A, Schmader T, and Block K (2015). An underexamined inequality: cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev 19 , 343–370. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croft A, Atkinson C, and May AM (2021). Promoting Gender Equality by Supporting Men’s Emotional Flexibility . Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 , 42–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Paola M, and Scoppa V (2015). Gender discrimination and evaluators’ gender: Evidence from Italian academia . Economica 82 , 162–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine PG, Forscher PS, Cox WTL, Kaatz A, Sheridan J, and Carnes M (2017). A Gender Bias Habit-Breaking Intervention Led to Increased Hiring of Female Faculty in STEMM Departments . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol 73 , 211–215. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbin F, and Kalev A (2013). The Origins and Effects of Corporate Diversity Programs . Oxford Handbooks Online. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbin F, and Kalev A (2019). The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 116 , 12255–12260. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbin F, and Kalev A (2020). Why Sexual Harassment Programs Backfire And what to do about it . Harv. Bus. Rev 98 , 45–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbin F, Kim S, and Kalev A (2011). You Can’t Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs . Am. Sociol. Rev 76 , 386–411. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drydakis N, Sidiropoulou K, Bozani V, Selmanovic S, and Patnaik S (2018). Masculine vs feminine personality traits and women’s employment outcomes in Britain: A field experiment . Int. J. Manpow 39 , 621–630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duch J, Zeng XHT, Sales-Pardo M, Radicchi F, Otis S, Woodruff TK, and Nunes Amaral LA (2012). The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact . PLoS One 7 , e51332. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutt K, Pfaff DL, Bernstein AF, Dillard JS, and Block CJ (2016). Gender differences in recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience . Nat. Geosci 9 , 805–808. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C (2016). What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means . Harvard Business Review , 13 , 213–226 [ Google Scholar ]
• Dworkin J, Zurn P, and Bassett DS (2020a). (In)citing Action to Realize an Equitable Future . Neuron 106 , 890–894. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dworkin JD, Linn KA, Teich EG, Zurn P, Shinohara RT, and Bassett DS (2020b). The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists . Nat. Neurosci 23 , 918–926. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly AH (2016). When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance? J. Soc. Issues 72 , 199–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly AH (2018). The shaping of science by ideology: How feminism inspired, led, and constrained scientific understanding of sex and gender . J. Soc. Issues 74 , 871–888. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly AH, and Chaiken S (1998). Attitude structure and function. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vols , Gilbert DT, ed. (New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill, x), pp. 1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly AH, and Karau SJ (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders . Psychol. Rev 109 , 573–598. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckerson E, Talbourdet L, Reichlin L, Sykes M, Noll E, and Gault B (2016). Child Care for Parents in College: A State-by-State Assessment . Institute for Women's Policy Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellemers N (2018). Gender Stereotypes . Annu. Rev. Psychol 69 , 275–298. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis J, Fosdick BK, and Rasmussen C (2016). Women 1.5 Times More Likely to Leave STEM Pipeline after Calculus Compared to Men: Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit . PLoS One 11 , e0157447. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Else-Quest NM, Hyde JS, and Linn MC (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis . Psychol. Bull 136 , 103–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairhall AL, and Marder E (2020). Acknowledging female voices . Nat. Neurosci 23 , 904–905. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan Y, Shepherd LJ, Slavich E, Waters D, Stone M, Abel R, and Johnston EL (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters . PLoS One 14 , e0209749. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Favaro B, Oester S, Cigliano JA, Cornick LA, Hind EJ, Parsons ECM, and Woodbury TJ (2016). Your Science Conference Should Have a Code of Conduct . Frontiers in Marine Science 3 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes JD, Sarabipour S, Smith CT, Niemi NM, Jadavji NM, Kozik AJ, Holehouse AS, Pejaver V, Symmons O, Bisson Filho AW, et al. (2020). A survey-based analysis of the academic job market . Elife 9 , 54097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine E, Sheridan J, Carnes M, Handelsman J, Pribbenow C, Savoy J, and Wendt A (2014). Minimizing the influence of gender bias on the faculty search process. In Gender Transformation in the Academy , (Emerald Group Publishing Limited; ), pp. 267–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiset J, and Saffie-Robertson MC (2020). The impact of gender and perceived academic supervisory support on new faculty negotiation success . High. Educ. Q 74 , 240–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiske ST (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vols , Gilbert DT, ed. (New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill, x), pp. 1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flores GM (2011). Latino/as in the hard sciences: Increasing Latina/o participation in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) related fields . Latino Studies 9 , 327–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald AG, and Banaji MR (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes . Psychol. Rev 102 , 4–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greguletz E, Diehl M-R, and Kreutzer K (2019). Why women build less effective networks than men: The role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation . Hum. Relat 72 , 1234–1261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greider CW, Sheltzer JM, Cantalupo NC, Copeland WB, Dasgupta N, Hopkins N, Jansen JM, Joshua-Tor L, McDowell GS, Metcalf JL, et al. (2019). Increasing gender diversity in the STEM research workforce . Science 366 , 692–695. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruber J, Mendle J, Lindquist KA, Schmader T, Clark LA, Bliss-Moreau E, Akinola M, Atlas L, Barch DM, Barrett LF, et al. (2020). The Future of Women in Psychological Science. Perspect . Psychol. Sci 1745691620952789 , 1745691620952789. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guarino CM, and Borden VMH (2017). Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family? Res. High. Educ 58 , 672–694. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunderson EA, Ramirez G, Levine SC, and Beilock SL (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes . Sex Roles 66 , 153–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta N, Kemelgor C, Fuchs S, and Etzkowitz H (2005). Triple burden on women in science: A cross-cultural analysis . Curr. Sci 89 , 1382–1386. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanson SL, Sykes M, and Pena LB (2017). Gender Equity in Science: The Global Context . International Journal of Social Science Studies 6 , 33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, and Battaglia D (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review . Elife 6 , 21718. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, and McFarland DA (2020). The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Science . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 117 , 9284–9291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, and Hauser CE (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biol . 16 , e2004956. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong L, and Page SE (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 , 16385–16389. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hope J, Lemanski C, Bastia T, Moeller NI, and Williams G (2019). Childcare and Academia - an intervention . International Development Planning Review. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, and Barabási A-L (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 117 , 4609–4616. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt J, Garant J-P, Herman H, and Munroe DJ (2013). Why are women underrepresented amongst patentees? Res. Policy 42 , 831–843. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingram P, and Simons T (1995). Institutional and Resource Dependence Determinants of Responsiveness to Work-Family Issues . Acad. Manage. J 38 , 1466–1482. [ Google Scholar ]
• James A, Chisnall R, and Plank MJ (2019). Gender and societies: a grassroots approach to women in science . R Soc Open Sci 6 , 190633. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen K, Kovács B, and Sorenson O (2018). Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights . Nat. Biotechnol 36 , 307–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BW, and Smith DG (2018). How Men Can Become Better Allies to Women . Harv. Bus. Rev [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones K, and Wilcher B (2019). Reducing Maternal Labor Market Detachment: A Role for Paid Family Leave (American University, Department of Economics; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalev A, and Dobbin F (2020). Does Diversity Training Increase Corporate Diversity? Regulation Backlash and Regulatory Accountability . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalev A, Dobbin F, and Kelly E (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies . Am. Sociol. Rev 71 , 589–617. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J, and Moore J (2013). Bystander education training for campus sexual assault prevention: an initial meta-analysis . Violence Vict . 28 , 1054–1067. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly CD, and Jennions MD (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers . Trends Ecol. Evol 21 , 167–170. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kersey AJ, Csumitta KD, and Cantlon JF (2019). Gender similarities in the brain during mathematics development . NPJ Sci Learn 4 , 19. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khazan E, Borden J, Johnson S, and Greenhaw L (2019). Examining gender bias in student evaluation of teaching for graduate teaching assistants . NACTA Journal 2020 . [ Google Scholar ]
• King EB, Huffman AH, and Peddie CI (2013). LGBT Parents and the Workplace. In LGBT-Parent Families: Innovations in Research and Implications for Practice , Goldberg AE, and Allen KR, eds. (Springer; ), pp. 225–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• King MM, Bergstrom CT, Correll SJ, Jacquet J, and West JD (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time . Socius 3 , 237802311773890. [ Google Scholar ]
• King TL, Shields M, Byars S, Kavanagh AM, Craig L, and Milner A (2020). Breadwinners and Losers: Does the Mental Health of Mothers, Fathers, and Children Vary by Household Employment Arrangements? Evidence From 7 Waves of Data From the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children . Am. J. Epidemiol 189 , 1512–1520. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, and Huge M (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest . Sci. Commun 35 , 603–625. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krawczyk M, and Smyk M (2016). Author’s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized, deception-free laboratory experiment . Eur. Econ. Rev 90 , 326–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kray LJ, and Kennedy JA (2017). Changing the Narrative: Women as Negotiators—and Leaders . Calif. Manage. Rev 60 , 70–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kray LJ, Thompson L, and Galinsky A (2001). Battle of the sexes: gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 80 , 942–958. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kray LJ, Kennedy JA, and Van Zant AB (2014). Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 125 , 61–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kray LJ, Howland L, Russell AG, and Jackman LM (2017). The effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 112 , 98–115. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langin K (2018). Are conferences providing enough child care support? We decided to find out. Science ∣ AAAS. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, and Cronin B (2013). Bias in peer review . J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol 64 , 2–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerchenmueller MJ, and Sorenson O (2018). The gender gap in early career transitions in the life sciences . Res. Policy 47 , 1007–1017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerchenmueller MJ, Sorenson O, and Jena AB (2019). Gender differences in how scientists present the importance of their research: observational study . BMJ 367 , l6573. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim S, and Cortina L (2005). Interpersonal Mistreatment in the Workplace: The Interface and Impact of General Incivility and Sexual Harassment . J. Appl. Psychol 90 , 483–496. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, and Leboy PS (2012). The matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s . Soc. Stud. Sci 42 , 307–320. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luc JGY, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, Hlci TN, Kidane B, Ouzounian M, Varghese TK, Jr, et al. (2021). Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results From the TSSMN Prospective Randomized Trial . Ann. Thorac. Surg 111 , 296–300. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lunnemann P, Jensen MH, and Jauffred L (2019). Gender bias in Nobel prizes . Palgrave Commun . 5 , 1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma Y, Oliveira DFM, Woodruff TK, and Uzzi B (2019). Women who win prizes get less money and prestige . Nature 565 , 287–288. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacNell L, Driscoll A, and Hunt AN (2015). What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching . Innovative Higher Education 40 , 291–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Madera JM, Hebl MR, and Martin RC (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences . J. Appl. Psychol 94 , 1591–1599. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makarova E, Aeschlimann B, and Herzog W (2019). The gender gap in STEM Fields: The impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students’ career aspirations . Frontiers in Education 4 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Marts S (2017). Open Secrets and Missing Stairs: Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment at Scientific Meetings . [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazei J, Hüffmeier J, Freund PA, Stuhlmacher AF, Bilke L, and Hertel G (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators . Psychol. Bull 141 , 85–104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAllister D, Juillerat J, and Hunter J (2016). Funding: What stops women getting more grants? Nature 529 , 466. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCullough L (2019). Proportions of women in STEM leadership in the academy in the USA . Educ. Sci 10 , 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meeussen L, Van Laar C, and Van Grootel S (2020). How to foster male engagement in traditionally female communal roles and occupations: Insights from research on gender norms and precarious manhood . Soc. Issues Policy Rev 14 , 297–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mengel F, Sauermann J, and Zölitz U (2018). Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations . J. Eur. Econ. Assoc 17 , 535–566. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller DI, Eagly AH, and Linn MC (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations . J. Educ. Psychol 107 , 631–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Misra J, Lundquist JH, Holmes E, and Agiomavritis S (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work . Academe 97 , 22–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, and Goodman SN (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure . PLoS Biol . 16 , e2004089. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan AC, Way SF, Hoefer MJD, Larremore DB, Galesic M, and Clauset A (2021). The unequal impact of parenthood in academia . Sci Adv 7 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgenroth T, Ryan MK, and Peters K (2015). The Motivational Theory of Role Modeling: How Role Models Influence Role Aspirants’ Goals . Rev. Gen. Psychol 19 , 465–483. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrissey T (2017). Child care and parent labor force participation: a review of the research literature . Rev Econ Household . 15 , 1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, and Handelsman J (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 109 , 16474–16479. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulligan A, Hall L, and Raphael E (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers . J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol 64 , 132–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray D, Siler K, Larivière V, Chan WM, Collings AM, Raymond J, and Sugimoto CR (2019). Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review . bioRxiv . 2019 ;400515 [ Google Scholar ]
• Nair S (2014). Women of Color Faculty and the “Burden” of Diversity . International Feminist Journal of Politics 16 , 497–500. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niederle M (2017). A Gender Agenda: A Progress Report on Competitiveness . Am. Econ. Rev 107 , 115–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niederle M, and Vesterlund L (2011). Gender and Competition . Annu. Rev. Econom 3 , 601–630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niederle M, Segal C, and Vesterlund L (2013). How Costly Is Diversity? Affirmative Action in Light of Gender Differences in Competitiveness . Manage. Sci 59 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen MW (2015). Make academic job advertisements fair to all . Nature 525 , 427. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen MW (2016). Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes . Sci. Public Policy 43 , 386–399. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen MW, Alegria S, Börjeson L, Etzkowitz H, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Joshi A, Leahey E, Smith-Doerr L, Woolley AW, and Schiebinger L (2017). Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 , 1740–1742. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen MW, Bloch CW, and Schiebinger L (2018). Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation . Nature Human Behaviour 2 , 726–734. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliveira DFM, Ma Y, Woodruff TK, and Uzzi B (2019). Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators . JAMA 321 , 898–900. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page S (2008). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies (Princeton University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Paluck EL, and Green DP (2009). Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice . Annual Review of Psychology 60 , 339–367. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paluck EL, Porat R, Clark CS, and Green DP (2021). Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges . Annu. Rev. Psychol 72 , 533–560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker SK, and Griffin MA (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress . J. Occup. Health Psychol 7 , 195–210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons ECM (2015). So you think you want to run an environmental conservation meeting? Advice on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that accompany academic conference planning . Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5 , 735–744. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson DAM, Biederman LA, Andersen D, Ditonto TM, and Roe K (2019). Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching . PLoS One 14 , e0216241. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, and Pinn VW (2011). Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs . Acad. Med 86 , 759–767. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Potter SJ, and Moynihan MM (2011). Bringing in the Bystander in-person prevention program to a U.S. military installation: results from a pilot study . Mil. Med 176 , 870–875. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Potter SJ, Flanagan M, Seidman M, Hodges H, and Stapleton JG (2019). Developing and Piloting Videogames to Increase College and University Students’ Awareness and Efficacy of the Bystander Role in Incidents of Sexual Violence . Games Health J 8 , 24–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell K (2019). Why scientist-mums in the United States need better parental-support policies . Nature 569 , 149–151. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preston AE (2004). Plugging the Leaks in the Scientific Workforce . Issues Sci. Technol 20 , 69–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Régner I, Thinus-Blanc C, Netter A, Schmader T, and Huguet P (2019). Committees with implicit biases promote fewer women when they do not believe gender bias exists . Nat Hum Behav 3 , 1171–1179. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinholz DL, and Shah N (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse . J. Res. Math. Educ 49 , 140–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richey CR, Clancy KBH, Lee KM, and Rodgers E (2015). The CSWA Survey on Workplace Climate and an Uncomfortable Conversation about Harassment . I . [ Google Scholar ]
• Rissler LJ, Hale KL, Joffe NR, and Caruso NM (2020). Gender Differences in Grant Submissions across Science and Engineering Fields at the NSF . Bioscience 70 , 814–820. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivera LA (2017). When two bodies are (not) a problem: Gender and relationship status discrimination in academic hiring . Am. Sociol. Rev 82 , 1111–1138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberson L, Kulik CT, and Tan RY (2013). Effective Diversity Training. In The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work , Roberson QM, ed. (Oxford University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodgers P (2017). Decisions, decisions . Elife 6 , 32011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roehling MV, and Huang J (2018). Sexual harassment training effectiveness: An interdisciplinary review and call for research . J. Organ. Behav 39 , 134–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schiebinger LL, Gilmartin SK, and Henderson AD (2008). Dual-career academic couples: What universities need to know (Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Schilt K, and Wiswall M (2008). Before and After: Gender Transitions, Human Capital, and Workplace Experiences . B. E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 8 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmader T, Whitehead J, and Wysocki VH (2007). A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants . Sex Roles 57 , 509–514. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider KT, Swan S, and Fitzgerald LF (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations . J. Appl. Psychol 82 , 401–415. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schroeder J, Dugdale HL, Radersma R, Hinsch M, Buehler DM, Saul J, Porter L, Liker A, De Cauwer I, Johnson PJ, et al. (2013). Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia . J. Evol. Biol 26 , 2063–2069. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrouff J, Pischedda D, Genon S, Fryns G, Pinho AL, Vassena E, Liuzzi AG, and Ferreira FS (2019). Gender bias in (neuro)science: Facts, consequences, and solutions . Eur. J. Neurosci 50 , 3094–3100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro JR, and Williams AM (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields . Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 66 , 175–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheltzer JM, and Smith JC (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 111 , 10107–10112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Small D, Gelfand M, Babcock L, and Gettman H (2007). Who Goes to the Bargaining Table? The Influence of Gender and Framing on the Initiation of Negotiation . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 93 , 600–613. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith DG, Turner CSV, Osei-Kofi N, and Richards S (2004). Interrupting the Usual: Successful Strategies for Hiring Diverse Faculty . J. Higher Educ 75 , 133–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JL, Handley IM, Zale AV, Rushing S, and Potvin MA (2015). Now Hiring! Empirically Testing a Three-Step Intervention to Increase Faculty Gender Diversity in STEM . Bioscience 65 , 1084–1087. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smyth FL, and Nosek BA (2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity . Front. Psychol 6 , 415. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snodgrass R (2006). Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature . SIGMOD Rec . 35 , 8–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer SJ, Steele CM, and Quinn DM (1999). Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol 35 , 4–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Squazzoni F, Grimaldo F, and Marušić A (2017). Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data . Nature 546 , 352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, Marusic A, Mehmani B, Willis M, Birukou A, Dondio P, and Grimaldo F (2021). Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals . Sci Adv 7 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark P, and Freishtat R (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations . ScienceOpen Res . [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, and Ritzke D (1999). The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study . Sex Roles 41 , 509–528. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart AJ, and Valian V (2018). An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence . In MIT Press, (MIT Press. 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. Tel: 800–405-1619; Tel: 617–253-5646; Fax: 617–253-1709; [email protected]; Web site: http://mitpress.mit.edu ),. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugimoto CR, Ni C, West JD, and Larivière V (2015). The academic advantage: gender disparities in patenting . PLoS One 10 , e0128000. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumner JL (2018). The Gender Balance Assessment Tool (GBAT): A Web-Based Tool for Estimating Gender Balance in Syllabi and Bibliographies . PS Polit. Sci. Polit 51 , 396–400. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweet DJ (2021). New at Cell Press: The Inclusion and Diversity Statement . Cell 184 , 1–2. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson S, and Parry P (2017). Coping with Gender Inequities: Critical Conversations of Women Faculty (Rowman and Littlefield; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomkins A, Zhang M, and Heavlin WD (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 114 , 12708–12713. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzovara A, Amarreh I, Borghesani V, Chakravarty MM, DuPre E, Grefkes C, Haugg A, Jollans L, Lee HW, Newman SD, et al. (2021). Embracing diversity and inclusivity in an academic setting: Insights from the Organization for Human Brain Mapping . Neuroimage 229 , 117742. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valantine HA, Grewal D, Ku MC, Moseley J, Shih M-C, Stevenson D, and Pizzo PA (2014). The gender gap in academic medicine: comparing results from a multifaceted intervention for stanford faculty to peer and national cohorts . Acad. Med 89 , 904–911. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viglione G (2020). Are women publishing less during the pandemic? Here’s what the data say . Nature 581 , 365–366. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waisbren SE, Bowles H, Hasan T, Zou KH, Emans SJ, Goldberg C, Gould S, Levine D, Lieberman E, Loeken M, et al. (2008). Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty . J. Womens. Health 17 , 207–214. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisshaar K (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia . Soc. Forces 96 , 529–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, and Bergstrom CT (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship . PLoS One 8 , e66212. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittington KB, and Smith-Doerr L (2008). Women Inventors in Context: Disparities in Patenting across Academia and Industry . Gend. Soc 22 , 194–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams WM, and Ceci SJ (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 112 , 5360–5365. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, and Tannenbaum C (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency . Lancet 393 , 531–540. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolston C (2020). Male authors boost research impact through self-hyping studies . Nature 578 , 328. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou D, Cornblath EJ, Stiso J, Teich EG, Dworkin JD, Blevins AS, and Bassett DS (2020). Gender Diversity Statement and Code Notebook v1.0 (Zenodo; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu JM, Pelullo AP, Hassan S, Siderowf L, Merchant RM, and Werner RM (2019). Gender Differences in Twitter Use and Influence Among Health Policy and Health Services Researchers . JAMA Intern. Med 179 , 1726–1729. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zinovyeva N, and Bagues MF (2011). Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment (IZA Discussion Papers. [ Google Scholar ]

Development Matters

Discussions on development opportunities and challenges.

Breaking the chains: how to overcome gender biases for true equality

By Pierre de Boisséson , Economist, and Hyeshin Park , Gender Programme Co-ordinator, OECD Development Centre

 We all have biases when it comes to gender roles. From pre-conceived ideas about the kinds of roles men and women take on at home to the types of jobs for which they are suited. Shockingly, a significant portion of the population believes that men should have more rights and opportunities than women. While easily overlooked, these outdated ideas actually have staggering socio-economic ripple effects – limiting women’s agency and costing societies billions, if not trillions, of dollars in lost GDP .

Despite growing awareness of the negative impacts of those discriminatory social norms , change remains frustratingly slow. Based on data from the World Values Survey, the SIGI 2023 Global Report: Gender Equality in Times of Crisis reveals that attitudes have barely shifted between 2014 and 2022. We see some progress: the acceptance of intimate-partner violence is decreasing, and attitudes towards women’s leadership in the economic and political spheres are improving. But other problematic views persist, like biases against abortion, and the belief that being a housewife is as fulfilling as working for pay.

Dishearteningly, biases related to women’s economic empowerment seem to be worsening, with an increase in the belief that men should have more rights to a job when employment is scarce, and in views that woman earning more than her husband can be a problem.   

Source:  Inglehart et al. (2022), World Values Survey: All Rounds.

As with anything else, resistance to transforming discriminatory social norms into gender-equitable ones often arise from those benefiting from existing power asymmetries, as they fear losing privileges and control. The general lack of awareness and education around the harmful consequences of gender biases – within the home, in social roles, and at work – also play a significant role in perpetuating the status quo. Family and time play a pivotal role.  Children absorb norms and stereotypes from a young age, notably by observing household dynamics. Consequently, biases are often passed down through generations, perpetuating gender inequalities over time.

Therefore, to make change happen, policy makers and stakeholders – civil society organisations, philanthropic actors, and the private sector— must work harder together. Long-term commitments, gender-transformative approaches, and gender lenses must be embedded in programmes, projects, and initiatives from conceptualisation to completion.

Here are five critical angles that demand their concerted action.

Educate for change

Education plays a pivotal role in challenging biases and stereotypes, by fostering critical thinking, promoting inclusive curricula, and encouraging respectful dialogue. Schools and educational institutions can provide opportunities for children and young adults to question traditional gender roles, examine societal expectations, and explore diverse perspectives. By equipping adolescents with information on sexual and reproductive health and rights, comprehensive sexuality education, coupled with education on gender norms, values, and power dynamics is also essential.

Leverage the media

The media is a powerful tool that shapes public perceptions. As such, media representation is crucial for dismantling gender norms and showcasing diverse narratives. Media outlets must actively avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes. By highlighting positive and empowering stories, putting the spotlight on positive role models, and incorporating edutainment content – programmes or projects intended to be both educational and enjoyable – the media can contribute to shifting societal attitudes.  

Turn men and boys into allies

We must engage with men and boys as allies and work together to challenge norms of restrictive masculinities . Gender equality is not a zero-sum game: more inclusive societies benefit both men and women. As such, men and boys have a crucial role to play in advocating for inclusive policies, challenging discriminatory behaviours, and amplifying women’s voices. Efforts should also focus on transforming restrictive masculinities into gender-equitable or positive ones, allowing men to embrace more diverse roles and behaviours while enhancing women’s agency.

Change policies and institutional framework

Gender-transformative approaches within policies and institutions are also key. All public and private actors can play a decisive role in establishing environments conducive to equality. Governments and policy makers must enact legislation that addresses gender-based discrimination and ensures equal rights and opportunities. Similarly, companies and private actors can prioritise diversity and inclusion initiatives by implementing diverse hiring practices and extending leadership development programs.

Engage communities and grassroots actors

Local level public awareness campaigns, workshops, and community events can create spaces for conversations about gender equality and the harmful impacts of stereotypes. These initiatives can encourage individuals to reflect on their own biases and actively work towards change. Moreover, involving key stakeholders or “gatekeepers”, such as religious and community leaders, can have a huge impact – as they advocate for gender equality within their respective communities and institutions. This then creates the social acceptance necessary to unlock transformative change.

Discriminatory social norms are at the heart of gender inequality, pressuring men to live up to the ideals of manhood , holding women back and undermining efforts to eliminate gender discrimination. By exposing the facts with comprehensive, updated data, we help public and private agents of change focus their efforts to roll them back.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Discover more from Development Matters

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers

• Herminia Ibarra,
• Robin J. Ely,
• Deborah M. Kolb

Persistent gender bias too often disrupts the learning process at the heart of becoming a leader. Here’s how to correct the problem.

Reprint: R1309C

Even when CEOs make gender diversity a priority—by setting aspirational goals for the proportion of women in leadership roles, insisting on diverse slates of candidates for senior positions, and developing mentoring and training programs—they are often frustrated by a lack of results. That’s because they haven’t addressed the fundamental identity shift involved in coming to see oneself, and to be seen by others, as a leader.

Research shows, the authors write, that the subtle “second generation” gender bias still present in organizations and in society disrupts the learning cycle at the heart of becoming a leader. Women must establish credibility in a culture that is deeply conflicted about whether, when, and how they should exercise authority. Practices that equate leadership with behaviors considered more common in men suggest that women are simply not cut out to be leaders. Furthermore, the human tendency to gravitate to people who are like oneself leads powerful men to sponsor and advocate for other men when leadership opportunities arise.

The authors suggest three actions to support and advance gender diversity: Educate women and men about second-generation gender bias; create safe “identity workspaces” to support transitions to bigger roles; and anchor women’s development efforts in their sense of leadership purpose rather than in how they are perceived.

Many CEOs who make gender diversity a priority—by setting aspirational goals for the proportion of women in leadership roles, insisting on diverse slates of candidates for senior positions, and developing mentoring and training programs—are frustrated. They and their companies spend time, money, and good intentions on efforts to build a more robust pipeline of upwardly mobile women, and then not much happens.

• HI Herminia Ibarra is the Charles Handy Professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business School and the author of Act Like a Leader, Think Like a Leader , revised edition (Harvard Business Review Press, 2023), and Working Identity , revised edition (Harvard Business Review Press, 2023). HerminiaIbarra
• RE Robin J. Ely is the Diane Doerge Wilson Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and the faculty chair of the HBS Gender Initiative.
• Deborah M. Kolb  is Deloitte Ellen Gabriel Professor for Women and Leadership (Emerita) at Simmons University and former executive director at the Harvard Program on Negotiation. She is the author of several award-winning books, including The Shadow Negotiation: How Women can Manage the Hidden Agendas that Determine Bargaining Success and Negotiating at Work: Turn Small Wins into Big Gains .

Partner Center

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Women Can Escape the Likability Trap

Powerful women know how to flip feminine stereotypes to their advantage.

By Joan C. Williams

Ms. Williams, a professor of law, is a co-author of “What Works for Women at Work.”

There has been a lot of talk recently in the political arena about the likability trap for women : Women who behave in authoritative ways risk being disliked as insufferable prima donnas, pedantic schoolmarms or witchy women.

What you haven’t heard about much is the way successful women overcome this form of gender bias. I have interviewed about 200 women over the years in my research on gender and the workplace, and they all employ a similar set of strategies for escaping the likability trap. One former chief executive described hers this way: “I’m warm Ms. Mother 95 percent of the time, so that the 5 percent of the time when I need to be tough, I can be.” She embraced a stereotype that typically holds women back — the office mom — but flipped it around, using its momentum to propel herself forward. I call it gender judo.

Why do women need to do this? Even as women have moved into traditionally male domains, feminine mandates remain. More than 40 years of research by social scientists have shown that Americans define the good woman as helpful, modest and nice. In other words, as focused on her family and community, rather than working in her own self-interest. Meanwhile, the ideal man is defined as direct, assertive, competitive and ambitious.

This version of masculinity maps perfectly onto what we expect from leaders, in business and politics. Women in leadership need to display these “masculine” qualities, but when they do they risk being seen as bad women, and also as bad people. So savvy women learn that they must often do a masculine thing (which establishes their competence) in a feminine way (to defuse backlash).

In their study of female entrepreneurs , the social scientists Matthew Lee and Laura Huang found that venture capitalists were more likely to fund companies led by women if those companies were presented as having a social impact . This provides a “cover” that helps women overcome the perceived mismatch between the stereotypes of the good, community-focused woman and the hard-driving entrepreneur.

Other research finds that women make a similar finesse while negotiating. Women who negotiate as hard as men do tend to be disliked as overly demanding. So they use “softeners” in conversation . (“It wasn’t clear to me whether this salary offer represents the top of the pay range.”) When Sheryl Sandberg negotiated for what no doubt was an outlandishly high compensation package at Facebook, she told Mark Zuckerberg: “Of course you realize that you’re hiring me to run your deal teams, so you want me to be a good negotiator. This is the only time you and I will ever be on opposite sides of the table.” She turned a salary negotiation (competitive and ambitious) into a touching testimony of team loyalty.

Isn’t this all a bit revolting? Here’s what works for men negotiating for a higher salary: I have another offer, and I need you to match it. Why should women have to do something different?

They shouldn’t.

When women embrace feminine stereotypes like the office mom, they reinforce both the descriptive stereotype that women are naturally nurturing and communal, and the prescriptive stereotype that they should be. But sometimes what women need to do to survive and thrive in the world is exactly the opposite of what they need to do to change it.

For women who want to master this strategy, the first step is to behave as assertively as comes naturally and see what happens. If you find your effectiveness jeopardized because you being yourself triggers dislike, then you need to decide whether overcoming the backlash is worth the sacrifice.

If it is, try doing something masculine in a feminine way. Think of femininity as a tool kit, and choose something that feels authentic to you. But don’t choose deference. One study found that women who used a submissive conversational style, apologizing and hedging, just undercut themselves.

The most common anti-backlash strategy I found in the women I interviewed was to mix authoritativeness and warmth. “I got feedback I was intimidating, so I would make sure that I got to know people, and before a meeting I would share something personal to make myself more approachable,” one woman, who is now a chief executive, told me.

Some women use metaphors to recode behavior that is coded as masculine. A woman responsible for winning new clients at a major consulting firm, where rainmakers were called “hunters,” told me she rejected that label. “I always said: ‘No, no, no, I’m a gardener. I grow things,’” she told me. Just another dame who loves to nurture.

Another tried-and-true move is what anthropologists call gender display. “For me, it’s pink lipstick,” one woman told me. She is the lone female member of the board of a public company.

In the most sophisticated form of this strategy, powerful women create an entirely new narrative, softening their hard-driving personas by highlighting that they are also communal, selfless mothers. A brilliant recent example is M.J. Hegar’s 2018 congressional campaign video . In it, a battered door — all that’s left of the helicopter she was shot down in while on an Air Force rescue mission — is tucked behind her dining table, where she sits contentedly with her family.

This is all a lot of hard work, and it’s work that men don’t have to do. Men, to be successful, just need to master and display masculine-coded traits; women, to be successful, need to master both those and some version of feminine-coded traits that do not undercut their perceived competence or authenticity. That’s a lot trickier.

What’s the solution? Organizations have to be vigilant about challenging the biases that force women to do this in the first place. The workplace is often structured in ways that reward behavior that’s considered socially appropriate in white men but socially inappropriate in women and people of color. This provides an invisible escalator for white men.

The goal is not to empower women to be as emotionally tone deaf and grabby as men are sometimes encouraged to be. Instead, we should work to make sure that both men and women are rewarded for displaying empathy or a willingness to put the common good above self-interest. These qualities have long been undervalued in work and in political life because they have been coded as feminine, and the world needs much more of them.

Joan C. Williams is a professor of law and director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• How to attain gender...

How to attain gender equality in nursing—an essay

Read our collection on the future of nursing.

• Related content
• Peer review
• Thomas Kearns , executive director 1 ,
• Paul Mahon , operational lead 2
• 1 Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
• 2 Centre for Nursing and Midwifery Advancement, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
• Correspondence to: P Mahon pmahon{at}rcsi.ie

Tackling stereotypes and assumptions that deter men from nursing is essential to meet the growing shortage of nurses and improve diversity, say Thomas Kearns and Paul Mahon

The covid-19 pandemic shows that where, when, how, and to whom care is delivered has never been more diverse. In today’s healthcare, the people delivering care must be similarly diverse, for the benefit of the profession, its practitioners, and patients. 1 2 3 Yet around 90% of the world’s nurses are women. 4 Calls are being made, as they have before, to examine ways to promote the profession among men to tackle this imbalance. 1 5

Nursing is an inherently human experience: it is done for humans, by humans, and as humans, and in human experience no one gender claims primacy. Men have had, and continue to have, a valuable contribution to make to nursing, not simply because they are male but because they are human. Men enter the profession for the same reason as women—to care for people.

Huge shortage

Nurses are often the first, and sometimes the only, healthcare provider that a patient sees, 6 making them well positioned to respond to healthcare challenges at every level. One of the key challenges affecting the achievement of the sustainable development goals of health and wellbeing, 7 is the worldwide shortage of nurses. Recruiting more men is essential to tackle this shortage.

The world faces a deficit of 13.5 million nurses in the next decade. 4 8 In its first report on the state of the world’s nursing, 6 the World Health Organization estimated that an additional six million nurses will be needed by 2030. This is a 20% increase from the current total global nursing stock of 27.9 million. In addition, the burden of anticipated retirement over the next decade means that 4.7 million new nurses must be recruited just to maintain current staffing levels. 4 It is too early to say what effect the covid-19 pandemic will have on intention to join the profession, but initial estimates are that at least a further 10% will leave. 9 Data to monitor the effect of covid-19 on recruitment and retention of nurses will be vital.

Recent changes in society, healthcare globally, and nursing have seen more men entering the profession. In general, their number varies across regions ( table 1 ) and remains stubbornly low in some countries and clinical specialties such as obstetrics. 10 The reasons for this are unclear but may include cultural perceptions of the role of men and women in society, the status of nursing itself, or the pay and conditions of nurses. For example, a higher proportion of male nurses in some countries may reflect societal perceptions of the role of women, and vice versa. Further research into this area may provide useful insights into gender equity for all.

Percentage of male nurses worldwide*

• View inline

Why are men under-represented?

Contrary to the common perception that male nurses are a relatively recent phenomenon, men in nursing can be traced to 1600BC ( box 1 ). 16 History speaks of military and religious orders such as the Parabalani (“those who disregard their lives”)—a group of men who cared for people with leprosy in Alexandria in AD416, or St Camillus de Lellis, who in AD1535 vowed to care for sick and dying people. 5 12 The Maltese cross, a symbol of humanitarianism worn by the Knights Hospitaller in 1099, was subsequently adopted by the Nightingale School of Nursing in London. 14

Brief history of men in nursing

250BC: First nursing school in the world started in India. Only men were considered “pure” enough to become nurses 11 12

AD416-18: The Theodosian codes refer to the Parabolani—a group of 500 poor men who cared for the lepers of Alexandria 5 12

1095: Order of the Brothers of St Anthony founded (merged with the Knights of Malta in 1775) to care for people inflicted with the medieval disease of St Anthony’s fire 13 14 15

1099: Knight Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem founded to care for sick and injured pilgrims en route to and from the Holy Land 13 15

1119: Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem founded

1180: Order of the Hospitallers of the Holy Spirit and the Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit founded

1192: Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem, or the Teutonic Knights, founded

1334: The Beghards (renamed Alexian Brothers after Saint Alexis in 1469) cared for the poor, the lepers, and the “morons and lunatics” of Europe 5 14 16

1535: St John of God began studying under the monks of St Jerome and cared for the ill and mistreated

1585: St Camillus de Lellis became a priest and established a religious order, vowing to care for the sick and dying even with danger to his own life

1600s–1700s: Protestant reformation led to the closure of monasteries and convents across Europe resulting in a loss of records of organized nursing activity 14 16

1780s: Nurse James Durham (or Derham) became the first African American in the United States to practise medicine 12

1850–1950s : War began to alter nursing, and the role of men within it

1859: Florence Nightingale publishes Notes on Nursing , suggesting “every woman is a nurse”

1861–65: American civil war: more women became nurses in civilian life 12

1877: St John Ambulance Association founded (derived from the Knight Hospitallers )

1884: The Male Nurses (Temperance) Cooperation founded

1892: The Male Nurses Mutual Benefit Association founded

1888−1914: Alexian Brothers and other orders built hospitals throughout Chicago, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania. Increasingly, men became nurses at their own social peril, experiencing discrimination, pay inequality, role erosion, and exclusion from formal nurse education 2 17

1914–18: American men were prohibited from practising in the US Army Nursing Corps

1919: The Nurses Act in England barred men from entering the general register. 5 11 14 15 Internationally, men found it difficult to access formal training and where they did, their training was shorter and lacked the curricular content of their female counterparts 5 15

1937: Society of Registered Male Nurses founded

1950s: Men begin to be recognized in nursing in the US, Czechoslovakia, the UK, 2 14 and towards the 1970s, in Denmark and Sweden 15

1971: American Assembly for Men in Nursing founded

By the mid-1800s as men fought and died during the Crimean, American civil, and other wars, more women became nurses. In the years after the introduction of the epochal Nightingale reforms, men were increasingly excluded from formal nurse education and eventually were barred from the English general register. 2 5 11 14 15 17

Combined with the gender based division of labor, and Victorian righteousness regarding the place of women in society, 14 15 16 18 the feminization of caring within the hierarchical male dominated medical model meant men wishing to do the dirty “women’s work” were classified as deviant, undesirable, or unable to get a “real man’s” job. As caring became devalued, more men were forced to find occupations with better pay so they could provide for their families. 16

The decline of the male nurse is a complex product of cultural, historical, economic, and political factors. In modern times, the move from the hospital based apprenticeship model of education to the tertiary setting has helped establish nursing as a profession. But rising entry requirements have not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in remuneration, making nursing a less attractive career option for men and women. In addition, gendered and inaccurate representations of nursing and male nurses limit the public’s perception and affect the recruitment and retention of men. 3 19

Men in the profession have also experienced stigmatization and have been disparately positioned as being both dominant and dominated, victimized and valorized, and of benefiting from the hidden advantages of status shield and status bonus that their gender affords. 20 21

Studies show that adverse stereotypes affect male nurses’ physical and emotional wellbeing, resulting in depression, demotivation, and in some cases their exit from the profession. 19 The perpetuation of such stereotypes and gender based labels injures the profession, preserves segregation, and stifles the pursuance of gender equality for all. 1 6 22 Moreover, they compound the shortage of nurses, limit diversity in the workplace, and deny patients of both genders a holistic caring environment. 1 5 23

What can be done?

Increasing the number of men in nursing is seen as difficult because of the erroneous perception that nursing is a female-only profession, sexist stereotypes of the male nurse being less masculine, 11 13 16 and nurses’ undervalued status and pay. Solutions are as complex as the genesis of the 200 year decline of men in nursing. There is no quick fix, and change requires political, sociocultural, and professional action. Although some solutions will be universal, ultimately each country and culture will have to determine what works best for them. Nurse leaders and politicians should offer long term, strategic solutions beyond mere marketing campaigns. 3

Better public understanding

That is not to say that marketing is not needed. Indeed, given the publicity afforded to the profession during the pandemic, now is an ideal time to set aside the nostalgic view of nursing 3 and capitalize on a contemporary civic conception of caring, competence, and capability throughout clinical settings from community to critical care.

The public has seen nurses caring for ventilated patients, using tablet computers so that family members could say goodbye to loved ones, leading covid testing centres, and innovating in practice. We have heard stories of nurses’ adaptability, resilience, determination, camaraderie, and composure. We have seen them hold patients’ hands and hold governments to account while fighting for proper personal protective equipment. This has given the public a better insight into the art and science of caring in modern healthcare, which we can build on to attract more men, and women, to the profession.

Neither patients nor the public fully understand the complexity of nurses’ work. 3 Highlighting nurses’ roles across domains of practice, registration status, and stage of career could promote a more realistic understanding, not just of men in nursing but of nursing itself. 24 Campaigns such as Nursing Now have raised the status and profile of nursing, and this momentum must be maintained. As part of this, we must de-gender and revalue caring 1 by attaining a gender balance and by continuing to advocate for better pay and conditions for nurses. 25

Better recruitment

Men enter and stay in nursing for many of the same reasons as women, and ultimately, they do so to care for patients. 24 Therefore, recruitment strategies that dispel the myths surrounding the male nurse while promoting the inherent values of nursing are needed. 10 We can look to countries with higher percentages of male nurses for direction.

For men becoming nurses mid-career, graduate entry should be an option—not just in terms of access to a place on the program but also with financial support to facilitate the uptake of that place. As countries seek to increase the number of nursing graduates, consideration could also be given to a specific allocation of places to male applicants to show that men are both missing and needed in nursing. 17 Many male nurse societies were established in the mid-1800s, and such social supports, including the provision of male role models, will help retain men in the profession.

More financial investment

WHO recommends that nursing education be considered a science subject. 6 Therefore, nursing should be afforded the status, pay, and benefits of other science and technology professions. For example, a senior staff nurse (a nurse with over 20 years’ experience) in Ireland earns just under €50 000 (£43 000; $61 000) in base pay a year whereas a pharmacist earns the same after seven years and up to €67 000 after 13 years. 26

Adequate pay and acceptable working conditions, 6 mobility, and opportunity for personal and professional advancement must underpin and be highlighted in recruitment and retention initiatives.

Confrontation of stereotypes

Stereotypical assumptions must be challenged at school and societal level in careers guidance, mainstream and social media, and popular culture so that boys know that nursing is a valid career option. 3 19 27 28 29 This will require greater intersectoral and cross government collaboration from the early years to higher education levels, 6 and for broadcasters to consider how their programming may negatively portray nursing and male nurses. We must robustly voice our objection to any outdated overtures that disenfranchise the profession and the people within it.

We must also promote professional acceptance and challenge stereotypes and assumptions in the profession itself—such as those in relation to male nurses’ sexuality, ability to care, or reasons for entering the profession. For example, the literature often refers to the “hidden advantage” of male nurses and the over-representation of men in leadership positions without examining broadly why this is so.

Although there may be many individual and institutional reasons for this “glass elevator,” including conscious and unconscious bias, hegemonic masculinity, explicit or tacit discrimination, continuity of employment, organizational gendering practices, or the personal and professional characteristics of the individual nurse, 17 30 31 such discussion conflates the problem of attracting men to the profession with the career progression of all nurses. Indeed, examining ways to empower all nurses thorough initiatives such as the International Council of Nurses’ global nurse consultants initiative will help improve health, promote gender equality, and support economic growth. 32

Continuing men’s long history in nursing

Men have a rich and varied history in nursing, a history that is somewhat lost to the last 200 years and the often misquoted preface of Florence Nightingale’s Notes on Nursing that “every woman is a nurse.” Less well quoted, however, is her full contention that “While it has been said and written scores of times, that every woman makes a good nurse I believe, on the contrary, that the very elements of nursing are all but unknown.”

The consequences of the lack of men in nursing can be considered in terms of the effect on male nurses themselves, the profession as a whole, and on the patients that nurses serve.

To increase the number of men in nursing, it is important to highlight to men their historical past and their potential future in a rewarding, contemporary career with myriad clinical, academic, and professional development opportunities. The profession must continue to lobby governments to move beyond mere platitudes and actually provide parity of pay and esteem. We must portray to the public the true scope and complexity of our professional practice, 3 and we must build a profession for all through robust policy that focuses on education, jobs, practice, and leadership.

Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This article is part of a series commissioned by The BMJ for the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH). The BMJ peer reviewed, edited, and made the decision to publish. The series, including open access fees, is funded by WISH.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

• Philipsen N
• Jackson D ,
• Hutchinson M
• World Health Organization
• ↵ International Council of Nurses. Mass trauma experienced by the global nursing workforce. ICN Covid update 13 Jan 2021. https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/ICN%20COVID19%20update%20report%20FINAL.pdf
• Twomey JC ,
• Smallheer B ,
• Clementson R
• Mackintosh C
• Cottingham M
• Rossouw L ,
• Machobane BF
• Cottingham M ,
• Erickson R ,
• Diefendorff J
• ↵ All Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health. Triple impact: how developing nursing will improve health, promote gender equality and support economic growth. All Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health, 2016.
• Stanley D ,
• Beament T ,
• Falconer D ,
• ↵ International Council of Nurses. ICN says nurses’ pay and safety are gender issues at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW65) virtual event. Press release, 22 Mar 2021. https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/WS_09_CSW65_final_FINAL.pdf
• ↵ Health Service Executive. Health sector consolidated salary scales in accordance with FEMPI 2015 and the public service stability agreements 2013-2020 (The Lansdowne Road Agreements). 2020. https://healthservice.hse.ie/filelibrary/staff/october-2020-consolidated-pay-scales.pdf
• N’Gbichi C ,
• Ziraba AK ,
• Wambui DW ,
• Dos Santos L
• Turkmen B ,
• Eskin Bacaksiz F
• ↵ ICN Certified global nurse consultants. https://www.icn.ch/what-we-do/icn-certified-global-nurse-consultants

Smashing gender stereotypes and bias in and through education

“On this International Women’s Day and every day, UNESCO is committed to ensure all persons’ right to education free from bias and stereotypes”, said Stefania Giannini, Assistant Director-General for Education at UNESCO.

Gender stereotypes and biases are built in people’s minds as early as childhood. They influence the toys children play with, the subjects they pursue, their entire experience of education, and their future lives and careers.

To mark International Women’s Day, UNESCO, the UN Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) and Transform Education, with support from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), held a webinar calling on students, parents, teachers, governments and development partners to smash gender stereotypes and bias in and through education.

Moving from exclusion to inclusion

“When it comes to education, the system trains and teaches young children and young people, for example, how to dress, how to speak, influencing young people’s expressions,” shared Michael who along with Nicole, represented Transform Education, a feminist youth-led coalition hosted by UNGEI. “Obviously as we grow up, we see biases that have been created and partially embedded in the social, economic and political systems around us.”

Nicole shared her own experience of facing “negative norms since I was young saying how feminine and submissive a girl should be and classifying femininity as a negative characteristic when it comes to leadership at both school and the workplace.”

“A large number of boys tell us that if they don’t live up to these norms, they are bullied or otherwise experience violence at school”, said Gary Barker, CEO of Promundo, recognizing that gender norms also impact boys, and more broadly gender equality. “This matters for boys’ educational attainment… It matters also tremendously for girls and women. We know from our research that boys and young men who buy into these inequitable norms and learn them at home are more likely to use violence against a female partner and they are less likely to support gender equality overall.”

Choosing subjects and careers freely

“We know that gender stereotypes and biases become engrained in early childhood, and that they affect students’ decisions about the types of futures they should plan for,” said Erin Ganju, Managing Director of Echidna Giving and the moderator of the event.

“Girls and boys follow certain stereotypes. Girls’ aspirations are to become doctors, teachers, nurses, psychologists and veterinarians. For boys, they want to become engineers, work in ICT and in mechanics”, said Marta Encinas-Martin, Gender Ambassador at the OECD, sharing results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

Gender stereotypes affect girls’ study paths and career choices. This has resulting implications, with fewer women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, and fewer men in the teaching, health and social workforce.

Transforming bias through education and communities

The Global Education Monitoring Report and UNESCO launched a new factsheet challenging gender bias and stereotypes in and through education. Recognizing the transformative role of education, Anna Cristina D’Addio stated that gender bias and stereotypes can “be reinforced but they could also be challenged by the school programmes, the curricula and the teaching materials and the teaching that learners are exposed to.”

Amelia Fernandez, Advisor for the Government of Navarre, and laureate of the 2019 UNESCO Prize for Girls’ and Women’s Education for the project SKOLAE, shared that “teachers have a duty to have a gender-transformative approach so that we explain to learners all of their capabilities and enable them to fulfil their potential as people and not as silos of boys and girls separately.”

Stephen Jalenga, from the Ministry of Education in Kenya, emphasized the role of mentors and role models to deconstruct gender stereotypes in STEM fields: “A girl from the rural area may have never seen a female engineer, or a female pilot. When you enable them to interact with such mentors, it gives them the impetus to move ahead.”

“We need to have these conversations in ways that are compassionate and caring and that call boys and men into the benefit that we all get when we embrace healthier versions of manhood”, said Barker.

Sujata Bordoloi, of UNGEI, said “We all have to unlearn and question false and limiting beliefs about others and ourselves. We think it would be really great if education around the world prepared students to think outside the ‘gender box’.”

Maria Nguyen, representing the SDG4Youth Network, closed the event with the following powerful words, “There is one key action that is needed to smash stereotypes and to challenge gender bias in and through education: to challenge the silence. Challenge it when no one else seems to be standing up against gender stereotypes in education. Challenge it when the needs of students and young people who are at the heart of education are unheard. Challenge what is spoken and what is left unspoken.”

• Watch the recording of the event
• Read the new factsheet: #BreakTheBias: Challenging gender bias and stereotypes in and through education
• Learn more about the UNESCO Prize for Girls’ and Women’s Education
• Learn more about UNESCO’s work on education and gender equality

Related items

• Gender equality
• International Women’s Day
• UNESCO Prize for girls' and women's education
• Girls education
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent articles

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Issues & Debates: Evaluating Gender Bias

Last updated 6 Sept 2022

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Unfortunately, issues of gender bias often go unchallenged. For example, Darwin’s established theory of sexual selection suggests that women are selective (choosy) in terms of mate selection. These views have only recently been challenged by DNA evidence suggesting that women are equally as competitive as men when the need arises.

By developing a greater understanding of gender bias, psychologists have put forward a number of solutions. For example, some psychologists attempt to develop theories that emphasise the importance or value of women. Cornwell et al. (2013) noted that females are better at learning, as they are more attentive and organised, thus emphasising both the value and the positive attributes of women. As a result, this type of research helps to reduce or challenge gender stereotypes which is important in reducing gender bias.

Another way to reduce gender bias is to take a feminist approach which attempts to restore the imbalance in both psychological theories and research. For example, feminist psychology accepts that there are biological differences between males and females: Research by Eagly (1978) claims that female are less effective leaders than males. However, the purpose of Eagly’s claim is to help researchers develop training programmes aimed at reducing the lack of female leaders in the real-world.

Worrell (1992) also suggested a number of research criteria that are particularly important to ensure non-gender biased research investigations: using alternative methods of inquiry to explore the personal lives of women; considering women in the natural settings in which they function; collaborating with research participants to explore personally relevant variables and studying diverse samples (women who vary by age, socio-economic class, partner preference, minority or ethnic group).

As society has changed and females have progressed further in academic disciplines such as psychology, there have been changes, both in the research methodology used and to the earlier theories. As previously explained, Carol Gilligan (a student of Kohlberg’s) proposed that women have a different sense of moral understanding to men and compiled her own stage theory of moral understanding. Her approach showed that men and women are different, but neither kind of moral reasoning (justice focus or care focus) is considered to be better, they are just different.

It is also important to remember that sometimes the gender bias can work against males as well as females, as sometimes alpha bias theories heighten the value of women. For example, Chodorow (1978) viewed women as more relational and caring. Another example is that women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression and given treatment than males. This may be because woman are more likely to suffer from depression, or it could be that the diagnostic system may be biased towards finding depression among women. The expectation for males should be able to ‘pull themselves together’ is viewed as a masculine trait which may highlight an issue with the psychological diagnostic systems.

• Issues & Debates
• Androcentrism

You might also like

Issues & debates: gender bias, free will vs. determinism: issues & debates webinar video.

Topic Videos

The Nature-Nurture Debate: Issues & Debates Webinar Video

Holism & reductionism: issues & debates webinar video, psychology weekly update.

8th January 2017

Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches: Issues & Debates Webinar Video

Issues & debates: culture bias, issues & debates: evaluating culture bias, our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

• Open access
• Published: 22 September 2020

Gender disparities in clinical practice: are there any solutions? Scoping review of interventions to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice

• Lorena Alcalde-Rubio 1 ,
• Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado 1 , 2 ,
• Lucy Anne Parker 1 , 2 ,
• Eduardo Bueno-Vergara 1 &
• Elisa Chilet-Rosell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9091-7255 1 , 2  

International Journal for Equity in Health volume  19 , Article number:  166 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

39k Accesses

46 Citations

53 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Gender, understood as “social relationships between males and females in terms of their roles, behaviours, activities, attributes and opportunities, and which are based on different levels of power”, [ 1 ] is one of the main social determinants of health [ 2 ]. The damage caused to population health by gender inequality across the globe is immense and justifies comprehensive actions addressing gender equity in health at all levels [ 3 ]. In the words of Hawkes and Buse, “Now is the time to take the call from Alma Ata in its literal sense—“Health is for All” not only for some. Embedding of gender in global health provides one promising route to attainment of the longstanding, but long-languishing, human right—the right to health” [ 4 ]. The root causes of gender inequality encompass all societal spheres and a multisectoral approach is required [ 5 ]. In fact, it has been shown that actions across multiple sectors in low and middle-income countries can improve a variety of health and development outcomes [ 6 ]. Therefore, there is no doubt that gender mainstreaming should pervade all policies. The UN Economic and Social Council embraced this approach in 1997 as “assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies, or programmes … so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated” [ 7 ]. On global level, the impact of gender inequality on health was later included in the UN’s the Millennium Development Goals, and remains significant in the Sustainable Development Goals [ 8 ].

In the health domain, there has been a substantial interest in gender issues in the last two decades. Vlassof and García Montero explained why gender is key to understanding all dimensions of health including healthcare, health seeking behaviour and health status. Consequently, they proposed transformation in all areas of the health sector in order to integrate gender perspective [ 9 ]. This integral change should encompass actions on policy, research, training and programmes including interventions at the individual level. We have witnessed an appreciable increase in the consideration of gender in health plans [ 5 , 10 ] and particularly in those focused on women’s reproductive health [ 11 , 12 ]. However, more than 20 years of research from high-income, middle income and low-income countries shows that gender inequalities remain embedded in health systems [ 13 , 14 ]. Within health care systems, unconscious gender biases –based on gender stereotypes- and sexism affect patient care [ 15 , 16 ]. While policy and organisational changes are essential, the involvement of health workers can act as a catalyst of integral change in the healthcare system.

Since the recognition of gender bias in the clinical management of cardiovascular disease, [ 17 , 18 , 19 ] several other health problems have been the target of research, which shows the extent of gender inequity in health care. Last year, Nature Communications published a study analysing health data for almost 7 million men and women in the Danish healthcare system over a 21-year period, and showing that women were diagnosed later than men in more than 700 diseases [ 20 ]. Despite demonstrated disparities in women’s health and advocacy to improve women’s health, there is still a lack of patient centred care for women.

These contributions from research on the relevance of gender inequalities in health care have not gone along with research on effective interventions that could provide health workers with practical tools that facilitate the application of gender oriented clinical interventions. In addition, the lack of patient centred care for women has been reported recently [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. In fact, Celik et al.’s 2010 review of the available literature, [ 24 ] the authors failed to find references that contributed to the development of procedures to increase health professionals’ skills related to gender. Health systems and health providers remain largely gender unresponsive [ 13 ]. In order to move forward we need to assess the available experience in reducing gender-based inequities and, where possible, learn how to scale-up effective interventions. Our objective here is to identify available tools that can be used to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice.

Material and methods

This scoping review was developed following the Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework, which we used to guide our reporting where possible [ 25 ]. We specifically searched for articles examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias in clinical practice, as long as they were provider-focused and healthcare-based.

Search strategy

The primary search was performed in Medline through PubMed, Web of Science, Scielo and Lilacs. Modifications on our search strategy in Medline through PubMed were made several times to ensure highest sensitivity. Finally, we decided to combine two individual searches to expand our search in Pubmed and we then made minor modifications to adequate the search strategy to each database. The final search strategies combined Subject headings and MeSH terms related to “gender”, “healthcare”, “bias”, “disparities”,“inequality”,“inequity” and “intervention” (Table  1 ).

In order to retrieve as many interventions studies as possible, we applied no date limitations and retrieved all results published until December 2018.

Study selection

We included empirical studies designed to prevent or decrease gender bias in clinical practice and those that were focused on other types of prejudice (such as race, age …) as long as they also evaluated gender bias. Similarly, we included studies designed to evaluate the effect on gender bias of interventions already implemented for a different primary objective (e.g. improving adherence to guidelines). These interventions should be provider-focused and healthcare-based. We only included studies that evaluated the interventions. Given the heterogeneity in the evaluation of gender bias, we included studies that assessed or measured any outcome related to clinical practice in a gender-disaggregated way (e.g. in-hospital adverse events) or the effects of interventions designed to reduce gender-based vulnerability of specific population (LGBTI+ populations, women suffering from intimate partner violence). We only included studies that were published in peer-review journals in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Exclusion criteria included non-empirical or descriptive studies, interventions focused only on patients and description of programmes or interventions without an evaluation of the impact.

All search results were first screened based on title and abstract by two researchers. The full text of potentially useful records was reviewed. We read all potentially useful texts and their reference lists were also revised for additional interventions. A detailed flow diagram of study selection is showed in Fig.  1 .

Flow diagram for identification of interventions to reduce gender bias in clinical practice

Data extraction and synthesis

We carried out the data extraction using a standardized data extraction form. Data were collected on the health issue, country, description of intervention (later categorized in clinical decision support guidelines and standardized protocols; interventions that included staff, clinic and community interventions; interventions managed by an all women team for female patients; gender sensitive improvements in data collection, and routine screening for gender violence), type of evaluation (considering the comparison group and the use of routine or non-routine-data) clinical setting (hospital, specialized care, primary health care, and others), main results and conclusions (later classified as successful or partially successful and not successful).

In order to evaluate the application of gender perspective in research reporting, we used the SAGER guidelines checklist adapted to our data extraction form [ 26 ]. In this case, we obtained information from the following items: introduction (explanation on whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected); methods (explanation on how sex and gender were taken into account in the design of the study, whether they ensured adequate representation of males and females, and justification of the reasons for any exclusion of males or females); results (in addition to sex-disaggregated data, it includes variables that facilitate gender analysis); and, discussion (implications of sex and gender on the study results and discussion of the implications of the results stratified by sex or from gender perspective).

Firstly, we performed an initial analysis of five papers by two researchers in order to homogenize data coding. Researchers agreed in four papers. After consensus on the assessment of the main variables, we proceed with the remaining articles. For the second set of articles, two researchers extracted data independently. A third research was in charge of detect discrepancies between researchers. Discrepancies were detected in four papers and were solved by consensus between the two researchers that reviewed each paper. Those discrepancies were related to minor variations on the length of text extracted to justify their answers and did not influence the interpretation of the results.

We performed a descriptive analysis of the information obtained from items formerly described.

After removing duplicates, we screened 3082 abstracts retrieved through database search. Additional file 1 : Appendix 1 presents detailed information of the 22 [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] studies included in our scoping review.

When reporting the interventions, information regarding sex differences and the gender perspective: two of the studies failed to include whether sex and/or gender may be an important variant of the health outcome assessed in the introduction section (9%), three of the studies failed to report how the researchers ensured adequate representation of males and females in the sample (14%), in nine of them lacked variables/information that enabled a gender-based analysis (40%). Five studies did not discuss sex differences or apply a gender perspective (23%) and six did not discuss the implications of the results from a gender perspective (27%) (Table  2 ).

The interventions analysed were mainly focused on cardiovascular disease ( n  = 13, 59%) and, sexual and reproductive health, including one intervention focused on sexual orientation and gender identity ( n  = 5, 23%). Other themes were gender-based violence ( n  = 1), unhealthy drinking (n = 1), diabetes (n = 1) and renal failure (n = 1) (Table  3 ). Seventeen studies were conducted in USA (77%); the others were located in Brazil ( n  = 2), India (n = 1), Tanzania (n = 1) and Singapore (1).

Interventions were conducted more frequently in hospitals ( n  = 14, 64%). We found several types of intervention. Most studies included clinical decision support decision support guidelines and standardized protocols (15, 68%). These studies were aimed to reduce variability in healthcare and were not specifically designed to reduce gender bias. There was a cluster of studies (5) related to the program in the United States called Get with the Guidelines (GWTG) [ 49 ]. This initiative was focused on the redesign of hospital systems in order to improve the quality of patients care and was based on a collaborative model and Internet-based Patient Management. The GWTG included interactive learning sessions, teleconferences, and electronic communication between multidisciplinary teams from hospitals in a variety of settings to facilitate the transfer of the “how-to”, which is considered necessary to produce system-wide change. Finally, there were interventions that included activities involving staff, clinic, and community interventions (3, 14%), two studies evaluated data collection in a more gender-sensitive way, one more was an intervention managed by an all women team for female patients (2, 9%), and finally one study evaluated the implementation of gender violence screening.

The evaluations of the interventions were mostly conducted without comparison group and using routine data (7, 32%) or with a pre and post comparison and using routine data (6, 27%). The other 9 studies used non routine data (quantitative, qualitative and mixed data) and a variety of designs: randomised control group (2, 9%), non- randomised control group (2, 9%), without comparison group (3, 14%) and pre-post comparison (2, 9%).

The majority of the interventions (19, 86%) were mostly successful in narrowing the gender gap (See Annex 1 for more details). Four of them were unable to narrow this gap in all outcomes. There was no difference in cardiovascular events, quality of life, knowledge, attitudes and practices in women with cardiovascular disease after intervention [ 42 ]. A discharge tool was less used in women after acute myocardial infarction than in men [ 38 ].. Fewer women than men with heart failure received hospital discharge instructions and the length of the stay was longer for women even after implementation [ 32 ]. Additionally, the gender violence screening raised doubts in clinicians [ 39 ]. On the other hand, three studies were not successful in any outcome: two interventions in cardiovascular disease [ 36 , 43 ] and one in unhealthy drinking [ 48 ]. The latter one stated that a non-gender-specific threshold for an intervention in alcohol misuse was detrimental as may increase gender differences in receipt of brief intervention among patients.

Despite the extensive and growing evidence of gender bias in clinical practice published in scientific journals since the 90s, our scoping review has shown that few studies have tried to tackle this bias. After screening over 3082 abstracts in health sciences databases, we identified only 22 evaluated provider-focused and healthcare-based interventions. Most of the analysed studies focused on cardiovascular diseases and were strategies to improve adherence to existing guidelines in order to reduce variability in healthcare. It is noteworthy that even though the studies included in our scoping review described interventions that could reduce gender bias in clinical practice, we identified shortcomings in the reporting of the information from a gender perspective. Most of the interventions were successful in narrowing the gender gap in at least one of the outcomes even when they were not intended or seeking to reduce the gender gaps. Therefore, it is likely that future innovative interventions designed according to the theoretical bases that originate gender bias could result in higher reductions on gender bias.

There are, however, some limitations in our study. Firstly, the difficulty to find suitable articles, which we addressed by redefining our search and inclusion criteria several times in order to increase sensitivity. Secondly, the methodology of the studies was heterogeneous and could hinder the comparisons between studies. In addition, considering that some of the results of the analysed interventions were based on studies lacking a comparison group, interpretations should be cautious. Finally, interventions were conducted on few countries, which could difficult to replicate them in different contexts.

Although we identified few studies which sought to reduce gender bias in clinical practice, the interventions examined were mostly successful, demonstrating that narrowing gender gaps in healthcare is possible. This scoping review is a starting point, which, along with barriers and facilitators of interventions to reduce gender gap in healthcare already described in literature [ 24 ], can guide future interventions. The analysed interventions showed that gender disparities in healthcare could be reduced and even eliminated if clinician’s adherence to guidelines increased. Most of these interventions proposed the protocolization of technical procedures that aimed to reduce differences by sex and other variables without seeking specifically to reduce gender biases in health care - and may or may not result in that reduction. In contrast, interventions designed with the aim of reducing gender bias included different strategies (like programs managed by an all women team or improvement of the data collection system) and all of them were successful or partially successful in their objectives.

Most of the studies, particularly those focused on technical procedures, were based on specialized health care and hospitals. There is a lack of studies addressing this problem in primary healthcare (only two studies were based on this setting). If the narrowing of gender biases occurs in primary care, its impact could be even greater due to the volume of patients treated in these centres and because it is the patient’s first contact with the healthcare system [ 50 ].

Gender bias in clinical practice was described for the first time in the New England Journal of Medicine [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Almost 30 ago, Bernadine Healy used the term “Yentl syndrome” equating women with myocardial infarction to the character Yentl - a Jewish woman who dressed herself as a man to be able to study the sacred texts [ 18 ]. Healy was denouncing the fact that women have to show the same symptoms as men to receive the appropriate diagnosis and treatments, because the knowledge of cardiovascular disease was based on studies conducted on men. Since then, many studies have addressed gender bias in clinical practice, particularly in cardiovascular disease. In concordance with this, cardiovascular health was the predominant issue addressed in the analysed interventions. However, gender bias has been described in the clinical practice of a great number of diseases, [ 20 ] so it is necessary to expand the field of work to other health issues.

Importantly, physicians –and, the health system in general– have the potential to either reproduce or perpetuate disparities, or to overcome them. Even if the results of the interventions are encouraging, we need to question the theoretical framework in which these gender inequities originated. This may be why some interventions were not successful, as simply implementing instruments, while necessary, is not enough to tackle gender bias in professionals. It is important to advocate for reforms aimed to include gender aspects in the curricula of medical schools and in health research in order to advance in the field of gender- specific medicine [ 51 ].

Conclusions

In contrast to the wide research identifying gender bias in health care, few studies, so far, have described and evaluated interventions aimed to tackle this bias. However, there is some empirical evidence showing how to narrow the gender gaps in healthcare, as the reviewed literature reveals that that most of the interventions were successful at achieving at least one of the expected outcomes. Nevertheless, it is alarming that studies of interventions in primary healthcare, where the impact of narrowing of gender bias could be greater, are almost absent in the present available research.

Based on the results of our review, we consider that knowledge about the causes of gender inequities in healthcare should permeate new research on how to increase gender equity and improve quality in clinical practice.

Implications for practice and/or policy

Future clinical practice interventions should be developed with a gender perspective and should be comprehensive, long-term, experimental, evaluated with standardized methods, and specifically developed to tackle gender bias. In addition, they should address not only the women-man dichotomy, but also the gender continuum. Interventions should consider facilitators and barriers to include gender perspective in healthcare and they should always be adapted to the specific context, moment and population targeted. Finally, successful implementation is not enough, monitoring is essential. Standardized indicators and audits need to be developed for a structural embedding of gender in clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

All available data is included in the publication.

Manandhar M, Hawkes S, Buse K, Nosrati E, Magar V. Gender, health and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96:644–53.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–104.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sen G, Östlin P, George A. Unequal, Unfair, Ineffective and Inefficient. Gender Inequity in Health: Why it exists and how we can change it. Final report of the Women and Gender Equity Knowledge Network (WGEKN), vol. Report No1. Sweden: World Health Organization; 2007. p. 145.

Google Scholar  

Hawkes S, Buse K. Gender and global health: evidence, policy, and inconvenient truths. Lancet. 2013;381:1783–7.

Östlin P, Eckermann E, Mishra US, Nkowane M, Wallstam E. Gender and health promotion: a multisectoral policy approach. Health Promot Int. 2006;21:25–35.

Taukobong H, Kincaid M, Levy JK, Bloom S, Platt J, Henry S, Darmstadt G. Does addressing gender inequalities and empowering women and girls improve health and development programme outcomes? Health Policy Plan. 2016;31:1492–514.

United Nations General Assembly: Report of the economic and social council for 1997 . 1997.

Gupta GR, Oomman N, Grown C, Conn K, Hawkes S, Shawar YR, Shiffman J, Buse K, Mehra R, Bah CA, et al. Gender equality and gender norms: framing the opportunities for health. Lancet. 2019;393:2550–62.

Vlassoff C, Garcia Moreno C. Placing gender at the Centre of health programming: challenges and limitations. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1713–23.

Wilkins D, Payne S, Granville G, Branney P. The Gender and Access to Health Services Study. Final Report, vol. Report No.1; 2008. p. 142.

Briones-Vozmediano E, Vives-Cases C, Peiró-Pérez R. Gender sensitivity in national health plans in Latin America and the European Union. Health Policy. 2012;106:88–96.

Boender C, Santana D, Santillan D, Hardee K, Greene ME, Schuler S. The “So What?” report: A look at whether integrating a gender focus into programs makes a difference to outcomes. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau for the Interagency Gender Working Group; 2004.

Hay K, McDougal L, Percival V, Henry S, Klugman J, Wurie H, Raven J, Shabalala F, Fielding-Miller R, Dey A, et al. Disrupting gender norms in health systems: making the case for change. Lancet. 2019;393:2535–49.

Morgan R, George A, Ssali S, Hawkins K, Molyneux S, Theobald S. How to do (or not to do)... gender analysis in health systems research. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31:1069–78.

Hoffmann D, Tarzian A. The girl who cried pain: a bias against women in the treatment of pain. J Law Med Ethics. 2001;29:13–27.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Travis CB, Howerton DM, Szymanski DM. Risk, uncertainty, and gender stereotypes in healthcare decisions. Women Ther. 2012;35:207–20.

Ayanian JZ, Epstein AM. Differences in the use of procedures between women and men hospitalized for coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:221–5.

Healy B. The Yentl syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:274–6.

Steingart RM, Packer M, Hamm P, Coglianese ME, Gersh B, Geltman EM, Sollano J, Katz S, Moye L, Basta LL, et al. Sex differences in the management of coronary artery disease. Survival and ventricular enlargement investigators. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:226–30.

Westergaard D, Moseley P, Sørup F, Baldi P, Brunak S. Population-wide analysis of differences in disease progression patterns in men and women. Nat Commun. 2019;10:666.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gagliardi AR, Dunn S, Foster A, Grace SL, Green CR, Khanlou N, Miller FA, Stewart DE, Vigod S, Wright FC. How is patient-centred care addressed in women's health? A theoretical rapid review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026121.

Gagliardi AR, Green C, Dunn S, Grace SL, Khanlou N, Stewart DE. How do and could clinical guidelines support patient-centred care for women: content analysis of guidelines. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0224507.

Ramlakhan JU, Foster AM, Grace SL, Green CR, Stewart DE, Gagliardi AR. What constitutes patient-centred care for women: a theoretical rapid review. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:182.

Celik H, Lagro-Janssen T, Widdershoven G, Abma T. Bringing gender sensitivity into healthcare practice: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:143–9.

Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:2.

Al-Khatib SM, Hellkamp AS, Hernandez AF, Fonarow GC, Thomas KL, Al-Khalidi HR, Heidenreich PA, Hammill S, Yancy C, Peterson ED. Trends in use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy among patients hospitalized for heart failure: have the previously observed sex and racial disparities changed over time? Circulation. 2012;125:1094–101.

Asdaghi N, Romano JG, Wang K, Ciliberti-Vargas MA, Koch S, Gardener H, Dong C, Rose DZ, Waddy SP, Robichaux M, et al. Sex disparities in ischemic stroke care: FL-PR CReSD study (Florida-Puerto Rico collaboration to reduce stroke disparities). Stroke. 2016;47:2618–26.

Batista LE, Rattner D, Kalckmann S, MCGd O. Humanização na atenção à saúde e as desigualdades raciais: uma proposta de intervenção. Saude Soc. 2016;25:689–702.

Figueiredo R, Ayres JRCM. Intervenção comunitária e redução da vulnerabilidade de mulheres às DST/ Aids em São Paulo, SP. Rev Saude Publica. 2002;36:96–107.

Fine D, Warner L, Salomon S, Johnson DM. Interventions to increase male attendance and testing for sexually transmitted infections at publicly-funded family planning clinics. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61:32–9.

Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, Stough WG, Gheorghiade M, Greenberg BH, O'Connor CM, Sun JL, Yancy C, Young JB. Age- and gender-related differences in quality of care and outcomes of patients hospitalized with heart failure (from OPTIMIZE-HF). Am J Cardiol. 2009;104:107–15.

Fotso JC, Higgins-Steele A, Mohanty S. Male engagement as a strategy to improve utilization and community-based delivery of maternal, newborn and child health services: evidence from an intervention in Odisha, India. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(Suppl 1):S5.

Glickman SW, Granger CB, Ou FS, O'Brien S, Lytle BL, Cairns CB, Mears G, Hoekstra JW, Garvey JL, Peterson ED, Jollis JG. Impact of a statewide ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization program on treatment times for women, minorities, and the elderly. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:514–21.

Haider A, Adler RR, Schneider E, Uribe Leitz T, Ranjit A, Ta C, Levine A, Harfouch O, Pelaez D, Kodadek L, et al. Assessment of patient-centered approaches to collect sexual orientation and gender identity information in the emergency department: the EQUALITY study. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e186506.

Hinohara TT, Al-Khalidi HR, Fordyce CB, Gu X, Sherwood MW, Roettig ML, Corbett CC, Monk L, Tamis-Holland JE, Berger PB, et al. Impact of regional Systems of Care on disparities in care among female and black patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e007122.

Huded CP, Johnson M, Kravitz K, Menon V, Abdallah M, Gullett TC, Hantz S, Ellis SG, Podolsky SR, Meldon SW, et al. 4-step protocol for disparities in STEMI care and outcomes in women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2122–32.

Jani SM, Montoye C, Mehta R, Riba AL, DeFranco AC, Parrish R, Skorcz S, Baker PL, Faul J, Chen B, et al. Sex differences in the application of evidence-based therapies for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: the American College of Cardiology's guidelines applied in practice projects in Michigan. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1164–70.

Laisser RM, Nystrom L, Lindmark G, Lugina HI, Emmelin M. Screening of women for intimate partner violence: a pilot intervention at an outpatient department in Tanzania. Glob Health Action. 2011;4:7288.

Lau BD, Haider AH, Streiff MB, Lehmann CU, Kraus PS, Hobson DB, Kraenzlin FS, Zeidan AM, Pronovost PJ, Haut ER. Eliminating health care disparities with mandatory clinical decision support: the venous thromboembolism (VTE) example. Med Care. 2015;53:18–24.

Lewis WR, Ellrodt AG, Peterson E, Hernandez AF, LaBresh KA, Cannon CP, Pan W, Fonarow GC. Trends in the use of evidence-based treatments for coronary artery disease among women and the elderly: findings from the get with the guidelines quality-improvement program. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:633–41.

Low TT, Chan SP, Wai SH, Ang Z, Kyu K, Lee KY, Ching A, Comer S, Tan NQP, Thong E, et al. The women's heart health programme: a pilot trial of sex-specific cardiovascular management. BMC Womens Health. 2018;18:56.

Mehta RH, Bufalino VJ, Pan W, Hernandez AF, Cannon CP, Fonarow GC, Peterson ED. Achieving rapid reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention remains a challenge: insights from American Heart Association's get with the guidelines program. Am Heart J. 2008;155:1059–67.

Sehgal AR. Impact of quality improvement efforts on race and sex disparities in hemodialysis. JAMA. 2003;289:996–1000.

Walsh MN, Yancy CW, Albert NM, Curtis AB, Gheorghiade M, Heywood JT, Inge PJ, McBride ML, Mehra MR, O’connor CM, et al. Equitable improvement for women and men in the use of guideline-recommended therapies for heart failure: findings from IMPROVE HF. J Card Fail. 2010;16:940–9.

Wei J, Mehta PK, Grey E, Garberich RF, Hauser R, Bairey Merz CN, Henry TD. Sex-based differences in quality of care and outcomes in a health system using a standardized STEMI protocol. Am Heart J. 2017;191:30–6.

White RO, DeWalt DA, Malone RM, Osborn CY, Pignone MP, Rothman RL. Leveling the field: addressing health disparities through diabetes disease management. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:42–8.

Williams EC, Lapham GT, Rubinsky AD, Chavez LJ, Berger D, Bradley KA. Influence of a targeted performance measure for brief intervention on gender differences in receipt of brief intervention among patients with unhealthy alcohol use in the veterans health administration. J Subst Abus Treat. 2017;81:11–6.

Smaha LA. The American Heart Association get with the guidelines program. Am Heart J. 2004;148:S46–8.

Dielissen P, Verdonk P, Waard MW, Bottema B, Lagro-Janssen T. The effect of gender medicine education in GP training: a prospective cohort study. Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3:343–56.

Phillips SP. Measuring the health effects of gender. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:368–71.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jonathan Whitehead and Jessica Gorlin for language editing.

This study was supported by CIBER in Epidemiology and Public Health. Funder had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health, History of Science and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University Miguel Hernández, Crta Nacional, N-332, s/n, 03550, Sant Joan d’Alacant, Spain

Lorena Alcalde-Rubio, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Lucy Anne Parker, Eduardo Bueno-Vergara & Elisa Chilet-Rosell

CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain

Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Lucy Anne Parker & Elisa Chilet-Rosell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LAL, IHA and ECR participated in the hypothesis and design of the study. EBV supported the bibliographic search. LAL, IHA, LAP and ECR participated in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data from identified articles. LAL and ECR have written the manuscript and all authors made important contributions to different drafts. All authors approve the final manuscript and its submission to this journal.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Chilet-Rosell .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

Authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

Appendix 1.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alcalde-Rubio, L., Hernández-Aguado, I., Parker, L.A. et al. Gender disparities in clinical practice: are there any solutions? Scoping review of interventions to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice. Int J Equity Health 19 , 166 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01283-4

Download citation

Received : 13 December 2019

Accepted : 15 September 2020

Published : 22 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01283-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

International Journal for Equity in Health

ISSN: 1475-9276

• General enquiries: [email protected]

7 Gender Biases That Impede Progress

How our brain keeps us believing myths about women, despite the evidence..

Posted April 25, 2021 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

In the first part of this series , I shared seven myths that get in the way of achieving leadership gender diversity and equity in companies and stifle women’s career advancement.

In a nutshell, I shared research that debunks myths like “not having enough ambition,” “it’s hard to juggle with kids,” “lack of confidence ,” or “not having strong enough negotiation or leadership skills.” The research just doesn’t support those assumptions!

How do we keep believing those assumptions despite the lack of evidence?

Well, just like in most aspects of our human lives, we (as imperfect humans) have biases that color our world.

Are you rolling your eyes? I know, I know. You may be thinking at this point, “Yeah, yeah, we all have biases… But I don’t because I’m fully aware of mine, so I don’t have to read this.”

We all have this bias as well: the belief that somehow we’re the one human being who is impervious to being biased because we’ve done our work to become a more self-actualized human being.

Just teasing! It’s so hard right now to talk about bias without losing people, shutting them down, or causing them to feel defensive...

If it makes you feel better, having any bias (including the one where you tell yourself you have no biases) means you have a working brain! A working brain that is just trying to do its best to make sense of the overwhelming amount of information coming at it each day.

So let’s take a moment to acknowledge we’re all human and we all have our ways of making sense of this complicated world.

Thank your brain for serving as a filtering mechanism to keep us from getting overwhelmed with too much information... AND... help it keep growing and getting better in its analysis.

With that growth mindset in mind, let’s stretch and grow it now by considering your brain’s potential gender biases .

How can we help our brain become more effective in its filtering mechanism around gender biases?

The first step is just starting to become more aware of how easy it is to miss the different ways our brain is misunderstanding or misinterpreting information that causes us to be less effective in supporting women.

Here are 7 biases that happen often. See how often you can catch them happening. Each time you can catch them and adjust, you are making your brain more effective AND helping improve gender equity—a win-win for all!

• Performance evaluation bias. In performance reviews, men are rated more often on their potential, whereas women are rated more often on what they already achieved . Check out this incredible TED talk by Dana Kanza on her research regarding this type of bias in the entrepreneur and venture capital world. Women also receive less useful direct feedback , and feedback that is not always helpful to advancing their careers. For example, getting feedback about how to manage their office relationships or recommendations to step into more supportive office roles (see benevolent sexism , below).
• Motherhood bias. This is the bias that assumes women are less committed to their careers if they become mothers (like they can't have more than one thing they're passionate about or good at?). (“Oh, she has two little ones at home—her hands are already plenty full.”) As a result, they are also held to higher standards and offered fewer leadership opportunities. Women have to constantly prove that they are as committed (or more) to their careers once they have children. This also takes a toll on their ability to come to work with their full selves—many will hold back sharing their personal lives for fear of how this bias would be used against them.
• Leadership bias. This is the belief that only one type of leadership style works best. Both men and women have less faith that different leadership styles will be as effective, despite the evidence that many leadership styles work well, that different styles work better for different situations, and that the leadership styles many women bring to the workforce better meet the current demands for successful companies. (See also internalized gender bias below)
• Benevolent sexism. Women are just as committed to their careers and find work-life balance just as challenging as men do. Yet they are encouraged more often to take accommodations , such as going part-time and shifting to internally facing roles, which derails their careers. Benevolent sexism is when supervisors make decisions for, instead of with, their female employees that, on the surface, appears to be thoughtful about helping women who “are juggling a lot,” but in fact are overprotective and even patronizing. It overlooks women’s own career advancement interests and capacity for good decision-making about their own lives. To change this, supervisors need to offer opportunities to all qualified employees regardless of gender (or race, disability status, age, etc.) and allow the employee the opportunity to say whether they can handle it or not.
• Internalized gender bias. Gender bias or sexism, like other biases, can become internalized by the very people experiencing it. For example, in the case of “ imposter syndrome” in which women start to believe they are not good enough... after receiving a lifetime of messages that they are not good enough . To compound this, there are services like women’s leadership programs that perpetuate these biases by focusing on fixing women’s “confidence issues” (a major pet peeve of mine) without acknowledging the powerful external forces affecting things like confidence.
• The “You’re too good” bias: According to Wojcik’s (2014) research , “women often get ‘stuck’ in midlevel roles because their managers view them as essential and reliable and don't want to lose them.” Yes, this actually happens!
• The “Women are too emotional” bias. This one happens all too often to Black and Latina women. They continue to be perceived as “too loud,” “too angry,” or “too emotional” even when they are being calm but direct. Men who display much more intense emotional outbursts like flying off the handle, being aggressive, bullying , yelling, and even cursing at employees, and rarely held to the same negative judgment (or even held accountable for the harm they cause) and sometimes are even lauded for demonstrating “strong” or “passionate" leadership qualities. If one of your female employees gets “too emotional,” trust me that it’s not because she hasn’t tried many times to share the same information in a calm way. It’s more likely because she has not been heard the last few attempts and now is intentionally trying to get your attention . Help your brain adjust and pay attention.

There are so many more I have not listed here, but this is a start. Women who also have a disability, belong to a racial/ethnic “minority-status” group, or have experienced marginalization in other ways experience multiple biases that are compounded, creating even further barriers.

Now what? How do we address these biases?

Well, I’m not going to give you the typical answer of “more implicit bias training!” That’s a helpful start to increase awareness about how your brain may be processing information, but current research indicates that it only goes so far and it doesn’t change behavior long-term.

In my next post, I will share the one thing I think will make the greatest difference. And it’s completely within our power—and empowering for all. Hint: It’s not about fixing women…

Stay tuned!

In the meantime while you wait, take a look at this resource developed by McKinsey and Lean-In—they created activity cards that include these intersectional identities and the biases encountered.

Mira Brancu, Ph.D. , serves as a Senior Organizational Development Psychologist for the VA, is an Associate Professor at Duke, and is CEO of Towerscope, a leadership and team development consulting company.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Essay on Gender Bias

Students are often asked to write an essay on Gender Bias in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Gender Bias

Understanding gender bias.

Gender bias refers to the unequal treatment of people based on their gender. It can be seen in various areas like workplaces, schools, or homes. It is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

Effects of Gender Bias

Gender bias can lead to discrimination and limit opportunities. It can affect a person’s self-esteem and potential. It can also perpetuate stereotypes, leading to unfair expectations.

Combating Gender Bias

To combat gender bias, we need to promote equality and fairness. Education about gender bias is crucial, as well as encouraging respect for all genders.

250 Words Essay on Gender Bias

Introduction.

Gender bias, a deeply entrenched social evil, permeates every layer of society. It is a prejudiced view or preferential treatment based on one’s gender, often favoring men over women. This essay explores the origins, manifestations, and implications of gender bias.

Origins of Gender Bias

Gender bias has roots in patriarchal societies where males were the primary authority figures. This bias is not merely a cultural artifact; it is often subtly propagated through language, education, and media, reinforcing stereotypical gender roles.

Manifestations of Gender Bias

Gender bias manifests in various forms, such as wage disparity, limited opportunities for women in leadership, and societal expectations about gender roles. In STEM fields, for example, women are often underrepresented, a phenomenon attributed to deep-seated biases.

Implications of Gender Bias

The implications of gender bias are far-reaching. It not only restricts individual growth but also hampers societal progress. By limiting opportunities based on gender, we lose out on the potential contributions of half the population.

To redress gender bias, we must challenge and change our societal norms and personal prejudices. Education plays a crucial role in this transformation, promoting gender equality and empowering everyone to contribute their skills and talents without bias. In the end, overcoming gender bias is not just about fairness; it’s about unlocking the full potential of human society.

500 Words Essay on Gender Bias

Gender bias is a deeply rooted issue in societies worldwide, manifesting in various forms, from subtle to blatant. It refers to the unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender and often stems from traditional stereotypes and societal norms. This essay delves into the complexities of gender bias, its implications, and potential solutions.

Gender bias is often a product of cultural conditioning and institutionalized stereotypes. It can be explicit, such as discriminatory laws, or implicit, manifesting as unconscious bias. Gender bias is not restricted to any one gender; it affects all genders, leading to a skewed perception of abilities and roles.

The implications of gender bias are far-reaching and pervasive, affecting various aspects of life. In the workplace, it can lead to unequal pay or opportunities, contributing to the gender wage gap. In education, it can limit access to resources or opportunities for certain genders, shaping career paths and future prospects. It also influences societal expectations, dictating ‘appropriate’ behaviors and roles for different genders.

Gender Bias in Media and Popular Culture

Media and popular culture play a significant role in perpetuating gender bias. The portrayal of genders in movies, advertisements, and literature often reinforces stereotypes, shaping public perception. For instance, the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in films may lead to the belief that women are less capable leaders.

Addressing Gender Bias

Addressing gender bias requires a multifaceted approach. Education is a powerful tool in this regard. By promoting gender equality and challenging stereotypes in educational settings, we can foster more equitable attitudes.

Moreover, policies should be implemented to ensure equal opportunities and fair treatment for all genders in workplaces, schools, and other institutions. For instance, implementing transparent salary structures can help address the gender wage gap.

Lastly, individuals can play a significant role in challenging gender bias. By becoming aware of our own biases and actively seeking to challenge them, we can contribute to a more equitable society.

Gender bias is a complex issue deeply ingrained in societal structures and attitudes. It impacts various aspects of life, from career opportunities to societal expectations. Addressing it requires a concerted effort from individuals, institutions, and society at large. Through education, policy changes, and personal commitment, we can challenge and overcome gender bias, paving the way for a more equitable society.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Gender Stereotypes
• Essay on Gender Equality in India
• Essay on Gender Equality

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Here’s How Bad Workplace Gender Bias Has Become

Gender bias continues to sprout in the workplace—both in explicit and covert ways.

A new survey of over 1,000 women by The Muse job board revealed that 41 percent of women have felt discriminated against based on their gender during a job interview, and 42 percent said they have encountered gender-biased or inappropriate questions during a job interview.

The report also showed that:

• Over 1 in 3 (38 percent) of women have hesitated to apply for a job due to perceived gender bias.
• 2 out of 3 think women in their industry have a hard time getting promoted.
• 55 percent do not feel there’s enough female representation in the leadership at their organization.
• 79 percent of women said they are more likely to seek out companies that have equal representation of women in managerial/leadership positions when looking for a new job.

While the findings are troubling, 63 percent of respondents did say they felt supported as a woman at work.

“We have made incredible progress over the past few years toward increasing gender equity in the workplace, but as the results of this survey reveal, there’s still so much more progress needed—particularly in the hiring and job interview process,” said Heather Tenuto, CEO of The Muse.

SHRM Online collected additional news on gender bias in the workplace.

New Report Finds 30 Different Biases Impact Women at Work

Gender bias and discrimination have held women back in the workplace for generations, but new research indicates gender-based judgments barely scratch the surface of ways professional women are criticized throughout their careers. Researchers identified 30 characteristics that women say were used against them in the workplace, including age, attractiveness and body size.

Gender Discrimination in Tech Industry Worsening

A 2023 report by tech career marketplace Dice revealed the percentage of tech professionals who said they experienced gender discrimination rose from 21 percent in 2021 to 26 percent in 2022.

To reduce discrimination, HR professionals should consider incorporating procedures to assess hiring processes and salaries, asking for feedback from the workforce via surveys and enlisting a third-party consultant to further identify opportunities for improvement.

( SHRM Online )

The Groups Hit Hardest by the Gender Pay Gap

While progress has been made toward eliminating the gender pay gap, some groups of women fare worse than others, according to an annual report. Overall, women in the U.S. earn 83 cents for every dollar a man earns. But women of color, mothers, women working remotely and women leaders are earning less than that. Here’s how employers can contribute to a more equitable workplace and keep their top female talent.

5 Ways to Reduce Gender Inequality at Work

​Research has shown that societal biases toward women have contributed to gender salary disparities in the U.S. Generation Z women have lower pay expectations than men have when entering the workforce, according to a recent report by career app Handshake. Handshake researchers explained that the difference in pay expectations “highlights the long-standing issue of gender pay disparity: Women's salary expectations are lower from the start, potentially reflecting historical pay gaps.”

Related Content

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Gender Bias In Psychology

March 17, 2021 - paper 3 issues and options in psychology | issues & debates.

• Back to Paper 3 - Issues & Debates

Gender Bias In Psychology:

Gender Bias  Key Definitions:

• Bias:  Bias may be an unavoidable part of the research process, in that all researchers are likely to be influenced by things like the social and historical context in which they live, their own education and training, etc.  However, in Psychology we try to find ‘facts’ about human behaviour which are  objective  and free from bias
• Universality:   the belief that all humans are alike so what is true for one person is true for everyone  (e.g. if low levels of serotonin causes depression in females, it will also cause depression in males).
• Gender Bias:  Bias refers to a tendency to treat one individual or group in a different way to another. Gender bias therefore refers to the notion that research or theory may offer a view that does not justifiably represent the experience and/or behaviour of men or women  individually  or  specifically .

The Two Main Forms of Gender Bia s

(1) Beta-Bias:

Ignores/underestimates  the differences between men and women.

Often occurs when female participants are not included as part of the research process and then it is assumed that the findings apply equally to both sexes.

Example:  Taylor et al (2000), has pointed out that early research into the ‘fight or flight’ response focused mainly on male participants, later research that has adopted a more female focus has highlighted that females react in a different way to stress, adopting a more ‘tend and befriend’ approach.

The two types of beta bias:

(A)  Androcentrism:

• A  consequence  of beta bias
• If our understanding of what is ‘normal’ is being drawn from research that involves  all-male samples,  then any  behaviour that deviates  from this standard is likely to be judged as  ‘abnormal.’
• This  can lead to female behaviour  being  misunderstood  (remember, an understanding of how females should behave is being generalised from male focused research).

(B) Gynocentrism

• A  consequence  of beta-bias
• If our understanding of what is ‘normal’ is being drawn from  all female samples,  then any  behaviour that deviates  from this standard is likely to be judged as  ‘abnormal’.
• This  can lead to male behaviour  being  misunderstood  (remember, an understanding of how males should behave is being generalised from female focused research).

(2) Alpha Bias:

• An  exaggeration/over-estimation of the differences  between the sexes.
• It is generally  understood that there are some differences  between males and females however, Psychology has sometimes suggested  differences that may not actually be there.
• For example,  research has suggested that males appear to be less sensitive than females however, males are more physically active/aggressive a suggestion drawn from bias research conducted in the latter half of the twentieth century.

AO3: Implications Of Gender Bias In Research

(1) Implications of Gender Bias:  Gender bias research may;  create misleading assumptions about female behaviour, fail to challenge negative stereotypes and validate discriminatory practice.

For example,  Dalton (1964)  controversially suggested that during this part of the menstrual cycle, women are more likely to have accidents, carry out crimes, commit suicide and to have reduced scores in IQ tests.

Why could such findings have a negative impact on females?  Such research findings paint women to be volatile individuals who are victims of their own biological makeup holding little control/free will over their own behaviour. Research findings could also cause women to be discriminated against in the work place (for example), employers who believe women are more likely to have accidents/reduced IQ scores could favour male applicants for jobs assuming that they would be a more competent member of the workforce.

(2) Implications of Gender Bias:  Gender bias research may;  create misleading assumptions about male behaviour, fail to challenge negative stereotypes and validate discriminatory practice.

For example, research has suggested that males appear to be less sensitive than females and display more aggressive tendencies.

Why could such findings have a negative impact on males?  Again, it could be that males may (as a result of such research) find themselves being discriminated against during the application process for certain jobs. Holding the idea that males are ‘less sensitive’ may make them less favourable candidates for certain jobs (e.g. teachers, counsellors, therapists etc…) were sensitivity is seen as an important trait for the role. Furthermore, it might be that research suggesting males are aggressive could cause a bias judgement – e.g. assuming the male was the instigator of a violent act due to them holding a biological trait for aggression.

(3) Bias in Research Method s: The way in which research is carried out can also create gender bias assumptions (that don’t really exist). For example, male researchers tend to be nice, friendly and more welcoming the female participants rather than male participants. This often leads to female participants performing better than male participants in certain research tasks.

Why could this lead to bias conclusions being drawn?  Such practice indicates experimenter/investigator effects and would therefore lead to bias results being obtained. Due to the presence of the EV, experimenter/investigator effect, the IV would not be the sole variable affecting the DV and therefore a cause and effect relationship would be unable to be established and internal validity would be low.

(4) Sexism within the Research Process:  A lack of women appointed at a senior level means that female concerns may not be reflected in the research questions asked.

Why is this a problem when it comes to further developing our understanding of human behaviour?  This is a problem as it may mean that research focuses on male topics of interest and therefore, topics associated with female interest may not be conducted in abundance.

Many individuals argue that the lack of females in the ‘higher’ research roles within psychology is due to the fact that women are usually seen to lack leadership qualities (in comparison to men).  Eagly (1978)  acknowledged that women may be less effective leaders than men but argued that such knowledge should be used to remove gender bias and redress the imbalances in theory and research in psychology.

To learn about Culture Bias and the implications of ethnocentrism in psychological research click here.

• Psychopathology
• Social Psychology
• Approaches To Human Behaviour
• Biopsychology
• Research Methods
• Issues & Debates
• Teacher Hub
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• [email protected]
• www.psychologyhub.co.uk

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Cookie Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy