This study examines gender discrimination among post-doctoral researchers – a precarious and vulnerable segment of the academic workforce. As early-career scholars with limited bargaining power and high job insecurity, post-docs face systemic stress that heightens their exposure to misconduct. Using data from a global survey on post-doctoral working conditions, we evaluate whether the implementation of gender equality plans (GEPs) reduces the likelihood of gender discrimination, accounting for intersecting factors such as race, nationality and career stage. Our analysis assesses the relative efficacy of GEPs compared to other structural and individual-level variables in mitigating discriminatory practices.
This study uses a recent Nature survey on post-doctoral working conditions to test whether GEPs – when perceived as effectively implemented – reduce reported gender discrimination (both personal and observed). Grounded in practice theory, we argue that GEPs' success depends on subjective recognition by individuals, as discrimination is culturally embedded and resistant to top-down policies alone. We employ quantitative regression analysis, controlling for individual (e.g. nationality, parental status) and organizational factors (e.g. disciplinary culture, regional norms) to isolate GEPs' associative impact. The analysis uniquely accounts for intersectional dimensions (race, LGBTQ + status, sexual harassment) and concomitant equality initiatives (e.g. anti-racism policies), while addressing heterogeneity across institutions and disciplines.
The survey reveals that GEPs have a statistically significant association with reducing the chances of gender discrimination. However, the most interesting results derive from additive effects. In relation to individuals' characteristics, GEPs are more effective in reducing discrimination among, inter alia, those who are also foreigners, or White, but not for minority groups. The clearest positive effect is for post-docs who also have a parenting role. Among institutional factors, GEPs are associated with both fewer cases of long hours and the absence of a culture of long hours. It remains unclear to what extent GEPs induce less hectic working conditions, or whether the pre-existence of better employment conditions leads to the promotion of gender equality. Yet, GEPs alone do not suffice to decrease discrimination based on LGBTQ+, or cases of sexual harassment, while the concomitant promotion of race equality is instead beneficial in decreasing cases of gender discrimination.
There is a list of limitations related to the structure of the survey. First, the specific gender initiatives for each respondent are unknown. Second, there is no indication of single institutions (or lower levels therein). Third, we solely rely on interviewees' impressions, expectations and feelings. Fourth, there is no chronological sorting of events, making the data analysis more complicated in assessing the extent to which GEPs actually shape post-docs' experiences in terms of discrimination, or if there are mere associations. We cautiously discuss findings under tentative causation. Lastly, it should not be forgotten that GEPs do not deal only with tackling misconduct, leaving this study as pertaining to a single aspect of the wider topic of gender equality.
The practical implications relate to the capacity of any institution committed to implementing a GEP to understand, even before designing a specific initiative, what might be effective. Moreover, the study unveils some delicate and usually taken-for-granted, interplays when it comes to referring to organizational culture – one aspect being, for instance, the resilience of higher layers of hierarchy in perpetrating discrimination. In observable terms, this study sheds light on institutional zones of resistance (e.g. PIs or other seniors perpetrating gender discrimination) on one side and pathways of feasibility on the other (e.g. promoting equality by parenting status). This allows practitioners to focus on the latter, or to use innovative solutions to approach the former.
Despite being limited to a specific subgroup of academic personnel (post-docs), the study can shed light on GEPs beyond higher education, showing that the beneficial impacts are not homogeneous across individual characteristics. Yet, equality initiatives face resilience along with the capacity to ingrain change at the institutional level. Limiting cases of gender discrimination represents the repression of misconduct rather than improving gender equality in a broader sense. However, it is proven that lessening misconduct would entail broader institutional performance, and, in the case of post-docs, reducing the tendency to suffer gender discrimination also implies improving career perspectives for women.
This study is the first to exploit this recent database, and one of the few to approach the topic of the effectiveness of GEPs with quantitative techniques across multiple countries and disciplines. It is also one of the very first empirical works to adopt the angle of ex-post assessment of the effectiveness of GEPs. Yet, the data analysis is designed to account not only for multiple other types of discrimination, but also for other types of equality initiatives (against racism and for dignity and physical safety). We are also able to account for regional and disciplinary cultural traits that arguably impact the likelihood of misconduct, mitigating heterogeneity across institutions. By accounting for these dimensions, we move beyond binary assessments of “success” or “failure” to examine pathways of effectiveness – a shift aligned with Bourdieu's theory of practice, where structural change depends on the reproduction (or disruption) of institutional habits.
