Although gender equity is acknowledged as a global objective, existing progress parameters and interventions predominantly align with Western contexts and academic traditions, which often overlook the complex realities of the Majority World. This paper provides a critique of the dominance of such approaches and highlights the challenges of applying them universally. We examine the limitations of prevailing gender equity scholarship, including how a lack of diversity in general and intersectionality in particular, methodological biases, and individual-level solutions may inadvertently perpetuate inequities. We propose alternatives based on Latin American theory and practice to design decolonial and intersectional interventions for gender equity. Finally, we call for a systemic change by introducing the 5S framework, which advocates for interventions that (a) challenge the status quo, (b) focus on systemic changes, (c) are sensitive to social context, (d) are sustainable, and (e) are supported by evidence.
Public Abstract
Gender equity is a global priority, but many strategies and solutions often ignore the unique challenges faced by people in different cultural and social contexts around the world. This paper explores why these one-size-fits-all approaches do not work and highlights the need for more inclusive, collaborative solutions. We examine core limitations such as the lack of focus on how gender intersects with race, class, and other factors, and the tendency to place the responsibility for change on individuals rather than addressing larger social and systemic problems. To tackle these challenges, we propose the 5S framework, which emphasizes interventions that: challenge the status quo, focus on systemic changes, are sensitive to social context, are sustainable, and are supported by evidence. Instead of offering fixed answers, we encourage collaborative and culturally sensitive efforts to create fairer and more effective ways to promote gender equity worldwide.
ÁlvarezA. A. (2010). El “mainstreaming” de género y sus nuevos desafíos: repensando el concepto de igualdad(es). Revista Del Clad Reforma Y Democracia, 47–70.
2.
AnnamalaiE.Skutnabb-KangasT. (2020). 19 Social justice and inclusiveness through linguistic human rights in education. In SchalleyA.EisenchlasS. (Eds.), Handbook of home language maintenance and development: Social and affective factors (pp. 377–400). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510175-019
3.
ArmadaF.MuntanerC.NavarroV. (2001). Health and social security reforms in Latin America: The convergence of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and transnational corporations. International Journal of Health Services: Planning, Administration, Evaluation, 31(4), 729–768. https://doi.org/10.2190/70BE-TJ0Q-P7WJ-2ELU
4.
ArriagaA. E.MedinaL. (2020). Activismo de género en las organizaciones sindicales. Reivindicaciones y estrategias emergentes en los Encuentros Nacionales de Mujeres. Trabajo y sociedad, 21(34), 91–100.
5.
AsabaE.Suarez-BalcazarY. (2018). Participatory research: A promising approach to promote meaningful engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 25(5), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1541224
BauerG. R.ChurchillS. M.MahendranM.WalwynC.LizotteD.Villa-RuedaA. A. (2021). Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM—Population Health, 14, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798
8.
BillupsS.ThelamourB.ThibodeauP.DurginF. H. (2022). On intersectionality: Visualizing the invisibility of Black women. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7, 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00450-1
9.
Bolados GarcíaP.Sánchez CuevasA. (2017). Una ecología política feminista en construcción: El caso de las “Mujeres de zonas de sacrificio en resistencia,” Región de Valparaíso, Chile. Psicoperspectivas, 16(2), 33–42. https://dx.doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol16-issue2-fulltext-977
10.
BothelloJ.BonfimL. (2023). Marginalized communities and the problem of research extraction. Journal of Management Studies, 62(1), 526–532.
11.
BovedaM.AnnammaS. A. (2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314.
12.
BowlegL.BauerG. (2016). Invited reflection: Quantifying intersectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316654282
13.
BowlegL.MalekzadehA. N.AuBuchonK. E.GhabrialM. A.BauerG. R. (2023). Rare exemplars and missed opportunities: Intersectionality within current sexual and gender diversity research and scholarship in psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 49, 101511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101511
14.
BredaK. L. (2015). What is old is also new—Participatory action research. Texto & Contexto Enfermagem, 24, 9–10.
15.
BrownL. A.StregaS. (2015). Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches. Canadian Scholars’ Press.
16.
BulteE.LensinkR.VuN. (2017). Do gender and business trainings affect business outcomes? Experimental evidence from Vietnam. Management Science, 63(9), 2885–2902. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2472
17.
BurkinshawP.WhiteK. (2017). Fixing the women or fixing universities: Women in HE leadership. Administrative Sciences, 7(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7030030
CabreraM.SaraivaI. (2022). Principales problemáticas de las publicaciones científicas: un análisis en perspectiva latinoamericana. e-Ciencias de la Información, 12(1), 188–210. https://doi.org/10.15517/eci.v12i1.46145
21.
ChoiS. L.GohC. F.AdamM. B.TanO. K. (2016). Transformational leadership, empowerment, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of employee empowerment. Human Resources for Health, 14(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-016-0171-2
22.
CokleyK.AwadG. H. (2013). In defense of quantitative methods: Using the “Master’s Tools” to promote social justice. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 5(2), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.33043/JSACP.5.2.26-41
CoutoM. T.de OliveiraE.Alves-SeparavichM. A.do Carmo LuizO. (2019). La perspectiva feminista de la interseccionalidad en el campo de la salud pública: revisión narrativa de las producciones teórico-metodológicas. Salud Colectiva [online]. v. 15. https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2019.1994.
25.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
26.
CroninM. A.GeorgeE. (2020). The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507
27.
CummingsS.MunthaliN.ShaplandP. (2021). A systemic approach to the decolonisation of knowledge. In LudwigD.BoogaardB.MacnaghtenP.LeeuwisC., The politics of knowledge in inclusive development and innovation (pp. 65–79). Routledge.
28.
de BrauwA.GilliganD. O.HoddinottJ.RoyS. (2014). The impact of Bolsa Família on women’s decision-making power. World Development, 59, 487–504.
29.
De VriesJ. A.van den BrinkM. (2016). Transformative gender interventions: Linking theory and practice using the “bifocal approach.”Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 35(7/8), 429–44.
30.
DeJonckheereM.Lindquist-GrantzR.ToramanS.HaddadK.VaughnL. M. (2019). Intersection of mixed methods and community-based participatory research: A methodological review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818778469
31.
Del Río-GonzálezA. M.HoltS. L.BowlegL. (2021). Powering and structuring intersectionality: Beyond main and interactive associations. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00720-w
32.
DiasM. C. (2020). Feminismo e decolonialidade: contribuições de María Lugones para a promoção da justiça em sociedades periféricas. In M. C. Dias, L. Gonçalves, P. Gonzaga, & S. Soares, (Org.). Feminismos Decoloniais—Homenagem à Maria Lugones. Ape’ku.
33.
DíazA. (2018). Challenging dominant epistemologies in higher education: The role of language in the geopolitics of knowledge (Re)production. In LiyanageI. (Ed.). Multilingual education yearbook 2018. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77655-2_2
34.
DixitA.BandayM. U. L. (2022). Problematising the digital gender gap: Invoking decoloniality and intersectionality for inclusive policymaking. Gender & Development, 30(3), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2022.2117930
35.
EgidB. R.RouraM.AktarB.QuachJ. A.ChumoI.DiasS.HegelG.JonesL.KarugaR.LarL.LopezY.PandyaA.NortonT. C.SheikhattariP.TancredT.WallersteinN.ZimmermanE.OzanoK. (2021). “You want to deal with power while riding on power”: Global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches. BMJ Global Health, 6(11), e006978. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006978
36.
FernándezN.SantillanaA. (2019). El regreso del FMI al Ecuador y la retórica del feminismo empresarial: Los posibles efectos en la vida de las mujeres. Revista Economía, 71(114), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.29166/economia.v71i114.2221
37.
Fernández-RodríguezC. J.Medina-VicentM. (2023). Critical Management Studies y la perspectiva feminista: Una revisión de los debates en el campo de los análisis críticos de la gestión. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 41(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.5209/crla.87774
38.
FlowerdewJ. (2007). The non-Anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly publication. AILA Review, 20(1), 14–27.
39.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
40.
GalinskyA. D.HallE. V.CuddyA. J. C. (2013). Gendered Races: Implications for Interracial Marriage, Leadership Selection, and Athletic Participation. Psychological Science, 24(4), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457783
41.
GonzálezL. (2020). Por um Feminismo Afro-Latino-Americano: Ensaios, Intervenções e Diálogos. Zahar.
42.
GrimaldiE.SerpieriR.SpanòE. (2015). Positionality, symbolic violence and reflexivity. Researching the educational strategies of marginalised groups. In BhopalK.DeucharR. (Eds.), Researching Marginalized Groups (pp. 134–148), Routledge.
43.
GutberletJ.TremblayC.MoraesC. S. (2014). The community-based research tradition in Latin America. In MunckR.McIlrathL.HallB.TandonR. (Eds.), Higher education and community-based research (pp. 167–180). Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
GuthridgeM.KirkmanM.PenovicT.GiummarraM. J. (2022), Promoting gender equality: A systematic review of interventions (September 1, 2022). Social Justice Research, 35, 318–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00398-z
45.
HaelewatersD.HofmannT. A.Romero-OlivaresA. L. (2021). Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(8), e1009277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277.
46.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
47.
Hondagneu-soteloP. (2001). Doméstica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence (2nd ed.), University of California Press.
48.
hooksb. (1984). Feminist theory from margin to center. South End Press.
49.
JamiesonM. K.GovaartG. H.PownallM. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735
50.
JensonJ.NagelsN. (2018) Social policy instruments in motion. Conditional cash transfers from Mexico to Peru. Social Policy & Administration, 52, 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12275
51.
KossekE. E.SuR.WuL. (2017). “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43(1), 228–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671582
52.
KubiakE.EfremovaM. I.BaronS.FrascaK. J. (2023). Gender equity in hiring: Examining the effectiveness of a personality-based algorithm. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1219865. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219865
53.
LauV. W.ScottV. L.WarrenM. A.BlighM. C. (2023). Moving from problems to solutions: A review of gender equality interventions at work using an ecological systems approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2654
54.
LebonN.MaierE. (2010). Women’s activism in Latin America and the Caribbean: Engendering social justice, democratizing citizenship. Rutgers University Press.
Martínez FranzoniJ.VoorendK. (2012). Blacks, whites, or grays? Conditional transfers and gender equality in Latin America. Social Politics, 19(3), 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/SP/JXS008
59.
Martínez-LabrínS.Castelao-HuertaI. (2023). Narrativas de subjetivación en académicas de Chile y Colombia: neoliberalismo y género en la universidad. Quaderns De Psicologia, 25(2), e1910. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/qpsicologia.1910
60.
MasueO. S.SwaiI. L.AnaselM. G. (2013). The qualitative-quantitative “Disparities” in social science research: What does qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) brings in to bridge the gap?Asian Social Science, 9, 211.
61.
McCluneyC. L.RabeloV. C. (2019). Conditions of visibility: An intersectional examination of black women’s belongingness and distinctiveness at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.09.008
62.
McCormick-HuhnK.WarnerL. R.SettlesI. H.ShieldsS. A. (2019). What if psychology took intersectionality seriously? Changing how psychologists think about participants. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319866430
MendozaB.GrijalvaD. P. (2022). The epistemology of the south, coloniality of gender, and Latin American Feminism. Hypatia, 37(3), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2022.26
66.
MetinyurtT.Haynes-BaratzM. C.BondM. A. (2021). A systematic review of interventions to address workplace bias: What we know, what we don’t, and lessons learned. New Ideas in Psychology, 63, Article 100879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100879
67.
MignoloW. D. (2011). The darker side of Western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press.
68.
MoghadamV. M. (2005). Globalizing women: Transnational feminist networks. JHU Press.
MorrisseyC. S.SchmidtM. L. (2008). Fixing the system, not the women: An innovative approach to faculty advancement. Journal of Women’s Health (2002), 17(8), 1399–1408. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2007.0708
71.
MotroD.EvansJ. B.EllisA. P.Benson IIIL. (2022). Race and reactions to women’s expressions of anger at work: Examining the effects of the “angry Black woman” stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000884
72.
MousaM.BoyleJ.SkouterisH.MullinsA. K.CurrieG.RiachK.TeedeH. J. (2021). Advancing women in healthcare leadership: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions. eClinicalMedicine, 39, 101084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101084
73.
National Health Council. (2012). Resolution 466/2012 on Research Involving Human Subjects.
74.
NogueiraC. (2017). Interseccionalidade e Psicologia feminista. Devires.
75.
Oliveira-SilvaL. C.Barbosa-SilvaL. (2023). Career interventions for promoting gender equality: Methodological aspects. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 33, e3320. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3320
76.
OyhantcabalL. M. (2021). Los aportes de los feminismos decolonial y latinoamericano. Anduli. Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales, 20, 97–115.
77.
PaekE. (2022). Manager gender and changing attitudes toward schedule control: Evidence from the work, family, and health study. Community Work Fam, 27(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2043827
78.
PatilV. (2013). From patriarchy to intersectionality: A transnational feminist assessment of how far we’ve really come. Signs, 38(4), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1086/669560
79.
PeretzT. (2021). Locally specific matrices of domination: Towards a global theory of intersectionalities. In Women’s Studies International Forum (Vol. 89, p. 102540). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102540
80.
PogrebnaG.AngelopoulosS.Motsi-OmoijiadeI.KharlamovA.TkachenkoN. (2024). The impact of intersectional racial and gender biases on minority female leadership over two centuries. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50392-x
81.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
82.
Ramírez-CastañedaV. (2020). Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLoS One, 15(9), e0238372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238372
RothJ. (2019). Intersectionality. In KaltmeierO.RaabJ.FoleyM. S.NashA.RinkeS.RuferM. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook to the History and Society of the Americas. Routledge.
85.
RosenthalL. (2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity. American Psychologist, 71(6), 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040323
86.
RyanM. K. (2023). Addressing workplace gender inequality: Using the evidence to avoid common pitfalls. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12606
87.
RyanM. K.MorgenrothT. (2024). Why we should stop trying to fix women: How context shapes and constrains women’s career trajectories. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032620-030938
88.
SchiebingerL.SchraudnerM. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36, 154–167.
89.
SettlesI. H.WarnerL. R.BuchananN. T.JonesM. K. (2020). Understanding psychology’s resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 796–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12403
SojoV.WheelerM. (2024). Organizational research. In NicholsA. L.EdlundJ. E. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 116–139). Cambridge University Press.
92.
SojoV.WheelerM.RyanM. (2023). Accelerating gender and sexuality inclusion in organisations: Introduction to the special issue and research agenda. Australian Journal of Management, 48(4), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962231181427
93.
SojoV.WoodR.WoodS.WheelerM. (2016). Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.003
SuayaA.KaplanD. S.EtcheverryL. (2023). Public policies for unlocking the value of paid domestic labor in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18235/0005348
96.
TraharS.JuntrasookA.BurfordJ.von KotzeA.WildemeerschD. (2019). Hovering on the periphery? “Decolonising” writing for academic journals. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1545817
97.
TriccoA. C.ParkerA.KhanP. A.NincicV.RobsonR.MacDonaldH.WarrenR.ClearyO.ZibrowskiE.BaxterN.BurnsK. E. A.CoyleD.NdjaboueR.ClarkJ. P.LangloisE. V.AhmedS. B.WittemanH. O.GrahamI. D.El-AdhamiW.…StrausS. E. (2024). Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review. BMC Medicine, 22(1).
Viveros VigoyaM. (2015). Social mobility, whiteness, and whitening in Colombia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 20(3), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlca.12176
100.
WagnerW.HansenK.KronbergerN. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative research across cultures and languages: cultural metrics and their application. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 48(4), 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9269-z
101.
WestmarlandN. (2001). The quantitative/qualitative debate and feminist research: A subjective view of objectivity. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2, 11.
102.
WilliamsonA.SmithK.SojoV.BarraketJ.OngS.ReillyJ.MitchellE.TeoJ. (2024). Equitable Foundations: A Framework for Gender-wise Philanthropy in Partnerships. Australians Investing In Women and Melbourne Social Equity Institute, The University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.26188/24813873
103.
WindsongE. A. (2018). Incorporating intersectionality into research design: An example using qualitative interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 21(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1268361
104.
WongC. Y. E.KirbyT. A.RinkF.RyanM. K. (2022). Intersectional invisibility in women’s diversity interventions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 791572. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.791572
105.
WoolnoughH. M. (2007). A longitudinal study to investigate the impact of a career development and mentoring programme on female mental health nurses. The University of Manchester.
106.
World Economic Forum. (2024). Global Gender Gap 2024: Insight Report.
107.
YakushkoO.HoffmanL.Morgan ConsoliM. L.LeeG. (2016). On methods, methodologies, and continued colonization of knowledge in the study of “ethnic minorities”: Comment on Hall et al. (2016). American Psychologist, 71(9), 890–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000060
108.
YapA. (2021). Hidden costs of inquiry: Exploitation, world-travelling and marginalized lives. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 31, 153–173.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
