Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-05-13
Source: The Conversation – France in French (2)– By Marie-Francoise Roy, emerita professor in mathematics Photo by Gustavo Fring via Pexels,CC BY *Women represent only one third of researchers worldwide, but are even less integrated into the power structures of scientific organizations.
A global study examines their presence in positions of influence, in order to bring out best practices. * The academic world struggles to achieve gender equality. Women are underrepresented at all levels, in research and even more so in leadership positions within scientific organizations.
This is also the case for science academies (prestigious institutions within national scientific systems) and scientific unions (international organizations representing disciplinary communities). Today, women represent nearly one third of the research workforce worldwide. According to UNESCO, they accounted for 31.1% of researchers globally in 2022, up from 29.4% in 2012.
They are particularly underrepresented in engineering and technology (a quarter, or even less), while gender parity is generally achieved in social sciences and humanities. However, the representation of women within the workforce does not automatically translate into equivalent access to management positions.
Onerecent global studyshows that women remain underrepresented in organizations that influence agendas and scientific standards, recognize scientific excellence, and advise governments. This 2026 report is based on data from over 130 scientific academies and international scientific unions, as well as on a survey conducted with nearly 600 scientists.
It was produced by theInternational Science Council, theInterAcademy Partnershipand theStanding Committee for Gender Equality in Science, and follows studies conducted in2015and2020. I am one of the authors of the 2026 report, along with Léa Nacache and Catherine Jami.
The national academies of sciences illustrate the extent of gender inequalities. In 2025, women represented on average 19% of the members of these bodies. This figure represents an improvement compared to the results of the two previous studies: 12% in 2015 and 16% in 2020.
However, this number remains well below the proportion of women within the global scientific community. And the average masks significant disparities: in some academies, women represent less than 5% of the members; in others, they approach 40%.
The mission of international scientific unions is to contribute to the development and structuring of their discipline, to organize international congresses, and to award prizes. These unions have a somewhat different profile from that of academies.
On average, women now hold 40% of leadership positions within the international unions that responded to our survey. But progress is also uneven there. Deep disciplinary inequalities persist, especially for the most prestigious scientific prizes. Ourreportexamines the reasons for these trends, the concrete functioning of institutions, and the means ofto evolve the situation.
These conclusions are important because academies and scientific unions play a major role in the governance of science. The persistent gender imbalances within these bodies therefore raise questions not only of equity, but also of legitimacy and effectiveness.
The legitimacy of science depends in part on the ability of its institutions to reflect the diversity of the scientific community. However, legitimacy is essential in a context of global challenges — from climate change to pandemics — where public trust in science is fragile.
Beyond nursery effects Gender disparities in the leadership bodies of science are often explained by a lag effect: if fewer women entered certain fields several decades ago, they are today less numerous in holding positions of responsibility or being eligible for appointments in academies or for scientific awards.
The dynamics of the talent pools play a role, as do traditional gaps between disciplines. But these factors do not explain everything. Most scientific organizations report having nomination, election, and appointment procedures that are formally open and merit-based.
However, data show that women are systematically underrepresented in nominee lists compared to their presence among eligible scientists. Our analysis highlights the importance ofinstitutional processes. Who is authorized to submit an application? How are qualified candidates identified?
Are the nomination criteria transparent? What importance is given to reputation and informal networks? In 90% of the academies surveyed, the appointment is based on existing members. In a context where members are predominantly male, such procedures tend to perpetuate existing imbalances.
Even in the absence of explicit discrimination, informal sponsorship networks and professional visibility mechanisms influence the selection of candidates. The evaluation of potential candidates is therefore shaped by social and institutional dynamics, not solely by individual achievements and merit.
Our investigation into initiatives in favor of gender equality has shown that awareness-raising and encouragement actions alone have had a limited impact. They must be accompanied by structural reforms. In most organizations, measures in favor of gender equality lack dedicated structures, formal mandates, budgets, or monitoring mechanisms.
Participation without equal progression The quantitative results were complemented by responses to a survey conducted among active scientists in scientific organizations. These responses helped to better understand the practical functioning of the structures. Women who join scientific organizations report participating at levels comparable to those of men.
They sit on committees, attend meetings, and contribute to activities. However, we have found that this engagement does not translate into equivalent advancement or recognition. Women are three times more likely than men to report obstacles to their advancement within their scientific organization.
They are 4.5 times more likely to declare missing important events due to their family responsibilities. And when they can attend, they report six times more often feeling that they are unable to participate on equal footing with men.
In parallel, women are 2.5 times more likely than men to report experiences of harassment or microaggressions in the course of their activities within scientific organizations. They also express less confidence in the transparency of selection processes and in the mechanisms for reporting and handling inappropriate behavior.
Qualitative interviews made it possible to document the strategies that women develop to evolve in these environments. These notably include the creation of exclusively female networks, investment in international engagement to escape the constraints of their local cultures, and the establishment of collective advocacy for change.
These strategies seem effective and organizations should encourage them. From diagnosis to change The report does not recommend a single model nor fixed objectives applicable everywhere. Scientific organizations are very diverse. However, the data and case studies presented in the report highlight a set of key institutional levers likely to influence change.
As an example, in the academies where the rules and formal structures have been revised, progress in the representation of women has been more lasting. It is essential to systematically identify and generalize these best practices.
The main conclusion is unequivocal: the underrepresentation of women in scientific governance is not due to their lack of skills. It reflects institutional practices rooted in cultures that have developed within male-dominated scientific communities. If science strives to serve society as a whole, the bodies that define and represent it must be willing to examine their functioning and the composition of their bodies.
Many colleagues have contributed to the development and improvement ofreporton which this article is based, prepared in collaboration with Peter McGrath (InterAcademy Partnership) and Léa Nacache (International Science Council). < class="fine-print">Marie-Francoise Roy does not work for, advise, own shares in, receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than her research institute. –ref.
Women in science are increasingly present but without real power, reveals a global study –https://theconversation.com/women-in-science-are-increasingly-present-but-without-real-power-reveals-a-global-study-281189