Abstract
Historically, the formulation of science, technology, and innovation policy (STIP) has exhibited a predominantly male perspective, neglecting the critical examination and measurement of gender bias and inequitable educational practices. These two factors significantly contribute to the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP frameworks. This pervasive global issue potentially hinders innovation within crucial sectors, particularly in addressing pressing challenges such as the coronavirus disease pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) and climate change. To address this concern comprehensively, a simplified classification framework is proposed to assess gender bias and inequitable education, which consistently emerge as key factors across nations, leading to the lack of consideration of women and gender minorities in STIP. Despite the inherent complexities of the social sciences, leveraging these two well-established variables as foundational starting points can foster an iterative process tailored to each country’s context. Such a system has the potential to ameliorate the existing disparity, while concurrently striving to achieve gender parity within the STI landscape.
Plain Language Summary
In the sector of science, technology, and innovation policy (STIP), there’s been a long-standing issue: this field has mostly been shaped by men’s perspectives. This has led to not paying enough attention to how biases against women and gender minorities, as well as inequitable educational practices, keep these groups from being fully included and considered in STIP. This exclusion is a significant problem globally and can slow down progress in tackling major challenges like pandemics and climate change, as well as hinder innovation. To tackle this issue head-on, a new, straightforward way of identifying and measuring these biases and educational inequalities is being suggested. This approach focuses on identifying and addressing gender bias and unfair education, which are common problems worldwide that prevent women and gender minorities from participating fully in STIP. By starting with these two well-understood issues, we can create a process that can be adjusted for each country’s specific circumstances. This method aims to reduce the current gaps and work toward equal representation of all genders in STIP.
Science, technology, and innovation policy (STIP) plays a critical role in driving innovation to tackle global challenges, including coronavirus disease pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) and the climate crisis (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2024q). Combining the distinct sectors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) with policymaking, STIP significantly influences a country’s economic and social progress. It is considered a vital source of new knowledge, products, and services that benefit both the economy and society (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2021). However, closer examination reveals a notable lack of diversity in STIP, particularly concerning the representation of women and gender minorities.
Women account for approximately 30% of the world’s researchers (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2024) and only 26.5% of all national parliamentarians (UN Women, 2023). These figures indicate that women likely comprise less than 30% of STIP. Research suggests worldwide gender disparities in this sector, attributable to cultural and societal expectations rather than lack of ability (Amirtham & Kumar, 2023; Jiang, 2021; Matete, 2022).
Existing research examines the underrepresentation of women in STEM and policymaking separately. However, comprehensive frameworks that analyze and tackle the specific challenges arising at the intersection of these two areas—the STIP sector—are lacking. Although women comprise less than 30% of STIP worldwide, few studies specifically target comprehending and mitigating the variables that contribute to their continual underrepresentation. Current research uses gender perspectives to develop solutions for STEM and policymaking separately. However, the crucial intersectional perspective required to comprehensively address the equality challenges that emerge from the convergence of these predominantly male-dominated fields remains neglected.
We contend that examining the dialectic relationship between gender and the social construction of science, technology, and policymaking is imperative for fostering a more inclusive STIP environment. To bridge this disparity, specific frameworks that enhance the presence of women and gender minorities in this key sector are crucial. These will facilitate innovative ideas and equitable policies that are beneficial to all of society.
This study aimed to address the lack of comprehensive inclusive STIP frameworks by proposing a novel classification system targeting the root causes of the lack of women and gender minorities in STIP. Gender minorities are considered within sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations, including (but not limited to) individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, Two-Spirit, queer, and/or intersex (National Institutes of Health, 2021).
Gender diversity in STIP has both ethical and economic significance. Relevant to firms and policymakers alike, it enhances the likelihood of innovation (Phillips, 2014; Ritter-Hayashi et al., 2019). Gender diversity, especially in management, correlates with increased revenue, greater market share growth, and more innovative products and services (Capozza & Divella, 2023). However, the positive impact on company productivity is contingent upon the acceptance of gender diversity within the organizational culture (Zhang, 2020). Given women’s underrepresentation in STIP, the sector’s innovation potential could be impeded.
This article identifies two primary factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP:
Gender bias in its various forms discourages women from STEM careers, with the bias varying based on a woman’s race or ethnicity (Bello et al., 2021; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Reuben et al., 2014; Stross, 2008; Williams, 2015).
Inequitable education, often a direct consequence of gender bias, deters women from STIP-related fields worldwide (Almukhambetova, 2023; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012 ; OECD, 2023; Sharif et al., 2024).
From early childhood, prevailing stereotypes exert powerful influences, guiding career choices and behaviors (Olsson & Martiny, 2018). By first grade, children have already developed implicit biases associating math with boys (Copur-Gencturk et al., 2023). Girls who strongly hold this association are less likely to perceive themselves as interested or proficient in math, leading to reduced engagement and study time (Corbett & Hill, 2020). Despite efforts, girls’ participation in STEM education have stagnated or declined since the mid-1990s due to deep-rooted cultural expectations perpetuating gender biases (Hobbs et al., 2017).
Societal beliefs and learning environments also affect girls’ achievements and interest in male-dominated subjects such as STEM and policymaking (UNESCO, 2020). While overt discrimination favoring boys’ education exists in some countries, more subtle actions cultivate inequitable opportunities for girls in fields that feed into STIP (Corbett et al., 2020). Studies indicate that when teachers proactively fight stereotypes and affirm girls’ intelligence, girls perform better in math and express greater interest in studying it (Corbett et al., 2020).
Educators’ belief in the intellectual potential of all students is particularly instrumental in supporting girls. Research demonstrates that many educators inadvertently perpetuate gender stereotypes (Dee & Gershenson, 2017). While lacking malicious intent, stereotypes can nevertheless gradually diminish girls’ aspirations in science and engineering (Corbett et al., 2020). However, when teachers support that girls and boys have equal mathematical capabilities, the performance gap nearly disappears, underscoring the transformative potential of enhancing learning environments (Corbett et al., 2020).
Systemically perpetuated issues in education, such as gender bias and inequitable education, cyclically permeate, and significantly contribute to women’s underrepresentation in STIP and academia. Evidence indicates that gender bias, rather than pipeline issues or personal choices, discourages women from science-related sectors (Schmader, 2022 ; Williams, 2015). Gender bias influence everyday workplace interactions, further supporting its persistence from academia into the STIP workforce. Four prominent patterns of gender bias impact women, with an additional type predominantly affecting Black and Latin women (Williams, 2015). This study aims to address gender bias as a business issue, employing objective metrics and holding organizations accountable.
This classification system targets pervasive gender bias and inequitable education as the primary systemic factors leading to the underrepresentation of women in STIP. From a young age, gender bias frequently steers girls away from educational paths that lead to STIP careers (Del Giudice, 2021). Women who pursue STEM fields encounter ongoing obstacles, such as gender bias, workplace harassment, and difficulties juggling work and family obligations (Krause & Gehmlich, 2022). Furthermore, concentrating solely on numbers instead of underlying causes and nuances, attempting to change individuals within the system rather than the system itself, and overlooking intersectionality when developing and executing gender equality plans can reduce the effectiveness of policies (Ryan, 2022).
This paper proposes a novel classification system to foster accountability among countries in addressing these challenges. The intentionally simplified framework allows countries to adopt the most efficient, sustainable approaches aligned with their governance structures and circumstances.
Establishing this system as a tool and registry of progress provides a targeted approach to the specific problem of women’s underrepresentation in STIP. While numerous unknown variables exist in social science, gender bias and inequitable education have consistently emerged as key factors affecting STIP across diverse countries. This classification system serves as a pivotal reference point based on these common variables, offering nations a starting point for advancement and adaptability.
Theoretical Background
STIP Needs More Women and Gender Minorities
STIP is crucial for countries’ to achieve their sustainable development goals and to addressing global issues (Mammen & Nirupama, 2024; Ozkaya et al., 2021; Woolley & MacGregor, 2022). Since COVID-19, several countries have adopted various STIPs to address global public health challenges (Yun, 2023). The far-reaching impact of global challenges, including pandemics and climate change, place increasing pressure on STIP to foster innovative solutions (Woolley & MacGregor, 2022).
Innovation, a core aspect of STIP, is essential for generating much-needed solutions. Women’s underrepresentation is a significant concern, as gender diversity is known to enhance workplace innovation, with diverse perspectives driving problem-solving toward more impactful solutions (Capozza & Divella, 2023; Ritter-Hayashi et al., 2019). The potential for innovation in STIP is likely constrained by the lack of female representation (del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes et al., 2023; Ritter-Hayashi et al., 2019).
To reap innovation and economic benefits, a concerted effort is needed to support gender diversity across the STEM pipeline—from early education to the workforce (Dangar, 2021; del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes et al., 2023; Ro et al., 2021; Sultan et al., 2023). This requires changes in culture, reducing barriers and biases, and enacting policies to recruit, retain, and advance women in STEM (Hing et al., 2023; Ortiz-Martínez et al., 2023; Palid et al., 2023). Additionally, when women are involved in designing and developing innovations, the needs of women and society as a whole are better represented and addressed (Madison et al., 2022). With women comprising half of the population, fully engaging their talent in the STIP sector is critical for scientific and technological progress tackling societal challenges and driving sustainable economic development (Dangar, 2021; Ro et al., 2021; Sultan et al., 2023).
STIP encompasses two distinct sectors: STEM and policymaking. To estimate gender representation accurately, it is imperative to evaluate each sector separately. Globally, women comprise approximately 30% of the research workforce (UNESCO, 2021); however, substantial disparities exist across STEM fields. Female enrollment is only 3% in information and communication technology (ICT), 5% in natural science, mathematics, and statistics, and 8% in engineering, manufacturing, and construction (Bokova, 2017). Moreover, in 2017–2018, women of color earned only 14.1% of all STEM bachelor’s degrees in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). In policymaking, women hold a mere 25% of national parliamentary positions worldwide, with women of color facing even greater underrepresentation (UN Women, 2022). These statistics indicate that women constitute less than 30% of the STIP sector overall, with women of color more severely underrepresented. Currently, research on gender minorities is inadequate to correctly ascertain their percentage in STIP.
The underrepresentation of women in STIP is a pervasive issue across most STEM and policymaking domains. While extensive research has been conducted on the lack of women in STEM and policymaking, the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP remains inadequately studied. Recent studies by Schmader (2022) and Ryan (2022) highlight the importance of addressing gender bias and promoting inclusivity in STEM. However, the ICT sector emerges as having particularly acute gender disparity, with staggeringly low female enrollment rates of only 3% globally (Bokova, 2017). Significant gender biases contribute to ICT access, use, and skills, which not only cause a significant loss of potential talent and diverse perspectives, but also pose substantial risks for developing an inclusive, equitable STIP sector that addresses the needs of all citizens (Qazi et al., 2021). Understanding the motivations and perceptions of women interested or currently working in the ICT sector is crucial for generating solutions that contribute to STIP (Kurti et al., 2024; Munyeka & Maharaj, 2023).
These findings underscore the urgent need to address gender imbalances in STIP. To rectify the issue, concerted efforts must be made to foster inclusivity and diversity. Achieving gender parity in STIP is not only an ethical imperative but a strategic necessity to leverage the full potential of diverse perspectives and expertise.
A lack of diversity within STIP may hinder innovation, which is crucial for advancing scientific research (Al-Monawer, 2023; Díaz-García et al., 2013). When scientific research is viewed as a collaborative endeavor emphasizing group problem-solving, diversity emerges as a vital ingredient for excellence (Gibbs, 2021). Progress often arises from the interplay of different perspectives (Page, 2007). In tackling complex challenges, the diversity of problem solvers becomes more significant than their individual capabilities (Page, 2007).
Gender studies have evolved on the grounds that gender experience is dynamic and must be understood through diverse lived experiences (Subramanian et al., 2021). Public policies may significantly impact gender equality and equal access to opportunities, resources, and rights for women, men, and other gender identities (Parejo & Radulović, 2023). Through laws and everyday practices, formal and informal institutions exert gendered effects that increase inequalities (Aidis et al., 2021). Without considering these lived gender experiences, the STIP sector will not be effective in producing policies that affect the full spectrum of citizens.
Promoting gender equality and ensuring that all genders benefit from STIPs contributes to reducing poverty and fostering equitable development (Filho et al., 2022; United Nations, 2011). While the potential of STIP to promote development is increasingly recognized, current policies often lack a gender perspective and fail to comprehensively address development concerns equitably. Adopting a “gender lens” that encompasses the aims, concerns, circumstances, and capabilities of all genders in every facet of STI policymaking is imperative, including the urgent need for greater representation of women and gender minorities within the sector itself (United Nations, 2011).
Alongside the gender lens, an intersectional lens is equally indispensable. Intersectionality recognizes how gender, class, race, and sexuality, as intersecting axes of subordination, mutually shape one another despite varied contexts (Crenshaw, 1989). Applying both lenses can foster a more equitable STIP sector and facilitate the inclusion of a wider range of human experiences and perspectives. Historically, STEM discourses have been tailored to respond to either gender or racial dimensions, rendering women of color effectively invisible in both domains (Crenshaw, 1991; Milton et al., 2023; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2019).
The first step in operationalizing intersectionality is to unseat the dominance of a unitary gender lens—or any other hierarchy—in understanding social inequalities (Christoffersen, 2023). Intersectional approaches foster greater inclusion and promote innovation (Kelly et al., 2021; Thomson et al., 2021; Tulshyan, 2022). However, when considering an intersectional lens, (1) addressing the needs and interests of the most marginalized within the context of (2) cross-cutting issues affecting differently marginalized groups is the most effective way to mitigate inequalities (Christoffersen, 2023). While an intersectional approach allows the STIP sector to address the unique challenges faced by individuals with overlapping identities, approaches must focus on equity within marginalized groups when considering methods to address gender inequality.
In summary, adopting gender and intersectional lenses within STIP is crucial for promoting equity and innovation (Crenshaw, 1989; Díaz-García et al., 2013; Milton et al., 2023; United Nations, 2011). Recognizing the value of diverse perspectives, addressing gender disparities, and understanding the intersecting dimensions of identity will ensure a more inclusive and impactful future for the STIP sector.
Women comprise less than 30% of STIP overall, and assessing the STEM sector feeding into it reveals that 18% are White women, 7% Asian, 2% Black, 2% Hispanic, and 1% women from other races (National Science Foundation, 2017). Research on gender minorities in STEM is limited, with recent studies indicating that 1.4% of the STEM community identifies as non-binary (Institute of Physics, Royal Astronomical Society, & Royal Society of Chemistry, 2019). However, intersectional analyses pertaining to race are lacking.
Employing both gender and intersectional lenses is essential to comprehensively assess inequality in STIP and identify interventions. The scientific community recognizes that gender, cultural, and cognitive diversity enhance the quality of research (Abbasi & Jaafari, 2013; Campbell et al., 2013; Hinnant et al., 2012; Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010; Pollitzer et al., 2018; Tannenbaum et al., 2019). Although many institutions today seek to hire more women, numerous cultural factors hinder progress, including the early redirection of girls toward alternative professions, gender bias, workplace sexual harassment, and potential career disruptions due to childbirth (Del Giudice, 2021).
Increasing the representation of women and gender minorities is a positive step toward gender parity and a more inclusive STIP sector. However, this alone fails to address the systemic issues perpetuating their underrepresentation, namely gender bias, inequitable education, and limited opportunities. Unless these issues are directly addressed, the cycle of underrepresentation will persist.
Examining the dialectic relationship between the social construction of science/technology and gender is necessary to understand the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STEM and create a more inclusive environment. In the Western view, technical competence is intrinsically linked to stereotypical masculine identity. Masculinity is partly constructed through technical competence, and women’s alienation from technology is argued to be a consequence of its historical and cultural construction as a masculine domain (Cockburn, 1997; Cronin & Roger, 1999; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992; Tellhed et al., 2023; Wajcman, 2000). Passion for technology is also deeply intertwined with the masculinization of engineering (Ottemo et al., 2023). Recent research revealed that “STEM belonging” develops from interactions of “self” with “others” who have a shared passion and interest in STEM fields (Dost, 2024). Women’s alienation from technology and other STEM disciplines is at least partially derived from the lack of a supportive and shared community within the STIP sector, which stems from the social construct of gender roles.
Regrettably, many barriers deterring women from pursuing STEM in the 1990s persisted in the 2010s (Christie et al., 2017). Successful recruitment, retention, and academic achievement in STEM degrees vary significantly based on the pathways and support available during school and the transition to university, especially for young women who often experience low STEM self-confidence from a lack of encouragement (Christie et al., 2017). A study examining the factors influencing women’s lived experiences in STEM revealed that those who succeeded in STEM work environments did so despite structural barriers, by relying on their determination, resilience, and unwavering interest (Prieto-Rodriguez et al., 2022).
Regarding participation in STI policymaking, the persistently low rate of women’s involvement at the highest political levels remains a persistent issue in gender stratification (Paxton & Kunovich, 2003). Although many countries’ constitutions grant all genders the same rights and responsibilities, establish women’s branches, promote party quotas, and ensure equal access to education and employment, equal efforts must be made to transform societal paradigms (Paxton & Kunovich, 2003). Increasing the number of women in politics has economic benefits and is a matter of human rights. Women’s exclusion from politics has been identified as a significant setback for economic development (Orisadare, 2019; Pervaiz et al., 2023). Additionally, support must be sustained for women transitioning into political positions. Continued external pressure on parties following such transitions is critical to maintain institutional progress and prevent regression (Brechenmacher & Hubbard, 2020).
Even in countries striving to include more gender minorities as policymakers, such as the United States, accurately assessing their numbers presents challenges owing to limitations in surveys and census data collection (US Census Bureau, 2019). As of 2021, these surveys provided response options of “male,”“female,”“transgender,” or “none of these.” Although an improvement from only “male” and “female” options, the current format does not encompass the full range of gender minorities nor allow write-in responses (File & Lee, 2021a). This revised format, while a step in the right direction, still falls short in capturing the complete data required, including comprehensive information on gender minorities in political roles. Further research is necessary to explore the representation of gender minorities in policymaking and STEM fields internationally to ascertain more accurate percentages within the STIP sector.
Underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic workers in STEM persists, including in computing jobs, despite notable recent growth (Wilkins-Yel et al., 2019). Being a woman in STEM and a person of color entails a distinct experience characterized by intersectional invisibility, which heightens the likelihood of marginalization, scrutiny, and isolation (Crenshaw, 1991; Milton et al., 2023; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2019). Participants’ experiences with microaggressions in STEM highlight four prominent themes: implicit and explicit messages conveying a lack of belonging, undermining skills and expertise, encounters influenced by gender and racial dynamics, and instances of physical presence and voice being disregarded (UNICEF, 2020a). Recognizing the unique experiences shaped by intersecting identities such as race, age, gender, ethnicity, ability, religion, social class, and sexual orientation underscores the complexity of inequality issues and the need for a holistic approach to address them comprehensively.
Inequitable Education and Gender Bias
Systemic educational issues such as girls’ education, STEM education, and opportunities leading to STEM and policymaking careers contribute to the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP (Tsakalerou et al., 2024; UNESCO Office Bangkok & Regional Bureau for Education in Asia and the Pacific, 2020). Achieving gender parity in STEM requires equal access to STEM education, and addressing the factors leading to the shortage of women and gender minorities. Women’s participation in technical sciences and production is also recognized as a factor in stable social development (Tereshchenko et al., 2023). However, constraints target women at an early age, including salary, work environment, and social stereotypes about their abilities (Camacho et al., 2021). Applying gender and intersectional lenses, especially in disciplines that feed into male-dominated sectors, such as STIP, is crucial for promoting equity and inclusion.
Gender bias and inequitable education often intersect through the actions of administrators and educators, albeit unintentionally (Global Business Coalition for Education & the Education Commission, 2024). Educating stakeholders, including educators, curriculum designers, administrators, and students about these issues within the educational system and STIP is essential for implementing sustainable change, which necessitates transforming the system itself. Messaging-based interventions in STEM education were found to be impactful, providing a realistic representation of engineering as both an agentic and communally oriented field (Batz-Barbarich et al., 2024). Despite significant progress in girls’ primary education (Global Business Coalition for Education & the Education Commission, 2024), projections suggest that by 2030, approximately 880 million children will still lack skills necessary for the workforce (Y. Ma, 2011).
This predicament is particularly problematic for women and gender minorities because of the persistent male-dominated nature of STEM education, which poses an additional challenge in achieving equal access (Campbell-Montalvo et al., 2022; Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). Recent research not only confirms the negative consequences of gender stereotypes for women in male-dominated domains but that it is worse than previously hypothesized (Froehlich et al., 2022). In this era of increasing technological advancement, the underrepresentation of women in STEM is widely recognized as a bottleneck hindering their progress into leadership positions (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Educational Disparities, 2012).
Gender disparities in education disproportionately impact marginalized girls, particularly Black, indigenous, and others of color (United Nations Children’s Fund & International Telecommunication Union, 2020). Although women comprise approximately 30% of the global research workforce, their overall labor force participation is nearly half (UNESCO, 2021). The persistent gender gap in STEM reflects untapped potential and is deeply ingrained in unequal gender norms (Makarova et al., 2019). A gender-responsive approach to STEM education that offers equitable opportunities and comprehensive reforms is crucial (Goulart et al., 2021). Inequitable access to STEM education hinders girls’ acquisition of essential skills for policymaking and problem-solving, ultimately impacting women’s representation in STIP. Administrators, educators, and curriculum developers must be conscious of gender and implicit biases that perpetuate inequity if left unaddressed.
Current Classification Systems and How It Could Be Done
Measuring gender equality involves various theories and methodologies; however, studies often overlook the inclusion of gender bias and inequitable education, which are significant factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women in STIP. Assessing gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) is particularly complex in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially those facing severe humanitarian challenges (Glick et al., 2018; Goulart et al., 2021). To address this, a comprehensive review was conducted to identify existing measurement tools, methods, and indicators assessing GEWE in humanitarian contexts, to provide researchers, organizations, and governments with a comprehensive dashboard for selecting appropriate measures. The identified indicators were categorized into seven domains: economic, health, human development, leadership, psychological, security and justice, and sociocultural (Glick et al., 2018).
While the aforementioned domains address prominent concerns, the measurement of gender bias and inequitable education, which can be subsumed within human development and leadership domains, lags behind significantly. Despite their interconnectedness with other disciplines, we contend that the human development and leadership domains provide the closest fit for capturing these variables contributing to the absence of women in STIP; however, they remain insufficiently explored (Glick et al., 2018).
Furthermore, studying gender minority disparities faces limitations stemming from prevailing binary gender measurement practices (Herrmann et al., 2023). Despite the growing youth population identifying with transgender or non-binary gender identities, research on gender-diverse individuals’ educational outcomes is limited (Wilkinson et al., 2021). Consequently, expanding measurement tools to encompass gender minorities is imperative to the accurate reporting of gender disparities (Pike et al., 2023; World Economic Forum, 2023).
The Global Gender Gap Report reveals that the global gender gap stands at an average of 31.4%, with the pandemic exacerbating this disparity (World Economic Forum, 2023). The report assesses global progress in gender equality annually through indicators such as political empowerment, educational attainment, health and survival, and economic participation and opportunity (World Economic Forum, 2023). Women’s severe underrepresentation in political empowerment is particularly concerning for STIP (Fabris et al., 2020). Women’s political empowerment reduces the level of corruption and the size of the informal sector (Njoya, 2021).
While these studies offer valuable insights into education and politics that directly relate to STIP issues, we argue that they lack detailed categorization of the underlying causes, namely inequitable education and gender bias. Consequently, this broad analysis is insufficient to definitively assess these critical factors. Furthermore, the Global Gender Gap Report has yet to expand its scope of research to include gender minorities.
Although many measurements do not expressly incorporate gender bias, technological advancements have led to the development of the Gender Stereotype Reinforcement (GSR) measure (Fabris et al., 2020). This measure quantifies the extent to which search engines (SEs) reinforce gender stereotypes by leveraging gender-related information encoded in Word Embeddings (WEs). SEs can perpetuate well-known gender stereotypes and influence user perceptions through search results (Fabris et al., 2020). The GSR measure is the first tool capable of quantifying the perpetuation of gender bias in searches, thereby identifying representational harm caused by search engine results (Diehl et al., 2020). It sheds light on the presence of gender bias and how it is perpetuated and reinforced through research tools such as SEs, which contribute to the cycle perpetuating the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP.
The Gender Bias Scale for Women Leaders is a valuable classification system for measuring gender bias in the context of women in STIP (Diehl et al., 2020). Developed and validated across multiple industries, this scale comprehensively assesses how women leaders perceive and experience gender bias, identifying specific types of bias prevalent in organizational settings and facilitating the application of tailored interventions (Diehl et al., 2020). While existing literature has examined various aspects of bias, this study represents the first comprehensive model to demonstrate how different facets of bias interact. Although the factor structure has been tested in industries such as higher education, healthcare, and faith-based nonprofits, there is no indication that this tool will be less effective in sectors relevant to STIP (UN Women & Younghwa, 2021).
The applicability of the Gender Bias Scale for Women Leaders to address cumulative gender bias in education, particularly concerning access to equitable educational opportunities, is noteworthy, given its use and validation in higher education settings. However, this scale is designed to measure gender bias against women leaders, which may not be suitable for women still pursuing their degrees, where many are lost within the educational pipeline. Adapting the scale to include women during their educational journey would make it more relevant in addressing the underrepresentation of women in STIP. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the scale does not encompass gender minorities within its scope.
While several tools touch upon the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP, no single classification system is tailored to address gender bias and inequitable education in this context. A challenge these tools face is the lack of sufficient gender and sex-disaggregated data to establish a baseline of current figures for women, girls, and gender minorities in specific sectors. The absence of comprehensive gender and sex data can hinder the development of informed and effective policies (Madgavkar, 2016 ). Given this data gap, establishing a purposefully simplified classification system could serve as a baseline, providing a foundation for setting goals targeting specific areas of gender bias.
The proposed classification system is intentionally simplistic because of the complex and varied nature of unknown variables in social science, which can manifest differently in each country. By employing a simplified classification system based on the well-established variables of gender bias and inequitable education, global progress can be initiated toward addressing these issues from a common starting point. The system can be adapted to fit each country’s unique circumstances, allowing them to implement the strategies most suited to their specific contexts with the ultimate objective of fostering gender-responsive learning approaches in all educational settings.
Through this classification system, countries can collectively work toward eliminating gender bias and inequitable education. Moreover, this system will aid in promoting gender parity by establishing sustainable goals that support ongoing progress and facilitate the development of targeted strategies to address the unique challenges each country faces in achieving gender equality within the STIP sector.
Methods
This study employed a quantitative approach using secondary data sources to provide a broad, global perspective on gender inequities, specifically gender bias and inequitable education. While we acknowledge the limitations of this approach, it offers several advantages that aligned with our research objectives:
Comprehensive global coverage: By utilizing secondary data from reputable international organizations, we could analyze trends across 195 countries, providing a scope that would have been impractical with primary data collection.
Longitudinal perspective: The use of data spanning from the 1980s to 2023 allowed for the identification of long-term trends and changes in gender disparities.
Standardized metrics: Gross enrollment ratios and political participation statistics, while simplistic, offer standardized measures that enabled cross-country comparisons.
The proposed classification system uses country-level education and political statistics to assess the prevalence of gender bias and inequitable education—the primary factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP. We analyzed and compared quantitative statistics on female and male enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary education levels (gross ratio) in each country and gender-wise participation in politics. A data-driven approach using the Google search engine was employed to develop a content-based classification system.
While Google was used merely as a starting point for identifying relevant data sources, we recognize the potential for search bias. To mitigate this, we employed a rigorous verification process:
Cross-referencing: All data were verified against multiple sources, including official government publications and reports from international organizations.
Prioritization of authoritative sources: We prioritized data from reputable international bodies such as UNESCO, The World Bank, and UN Women to ensure consistency and reliability.
Transparency: We have clearly documented our data sources and collection methods to allow for replication and scrutiny of our approach.
The study included all 195 countries recognized by the United Nations, comprising 193 member states and two observer states (Holy See and Palestine; United Nations, 2024). This comprehensive approach ensured a global perspective on gender bias and inequitable education in STIP. Countries were included if relevant education and political statistics were available from reputable sources during the study period (1980s–2023). Efforts were made to supplement missing or incomplete data with the most recent available data for the country.
A systematic data collection process was employed using specific keywords, including gross enrollment ratio of boys and girls in primary, secondary, and tertiary education (country), percentage of women and men in politics (country), gross enrollment ratio of gender minorities in primary, secondary, and tertiary education (country), and percentage of gender minorities in politics (country). To maintain focus on the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP, all unrelated data and non-empirical articles were excluded.
These statistics were sought in 195 countries, and over 700 sources were identified and coded. The selected statistics, primarily obtained from reputable sources such as the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, The World Bank, UN Women, UNICEF, Council of Europe, IDEA, IPU Parline, Statista Research Department, and OECD, cover the period from the 1980s to 2023. Each source was carefully analyzed to extract the most recent and relevant statistics, and codes with descriptions were assigned to align them with the corresponding statistics related to women and gender minorities in primary, secondary, and tertiary education and politics.
The collected data were assigned codes based on predefined themes related to female and male enrollment in education and political participation, such as “FPE” (female primary education), “FSE” (female secondary education), “FTE” (female tertiary education), and “FPP” (female political participation). Contextual information was coded using descriptive labels such as “educational policies” or “gender quotas.” Two researchers independently coded the data and discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. The coders underwent training to ensure consistent understanding of the coding scheme and procedures. Interrater reliability checks were conducted on a random subset of the data, with a minimum threshold of 80% agreement required for inclusion in the final analysis.
Notably, the contextual information did not alter the coding process and thus does not influence its replicability. This information was collected merely to add nuance to the existing data. Because of the quantitative nature of the data and the clearly marked metrics within the classification parameters, there were no noteworthy discrepancies, making this study replicable.
Following the analysis, the identified keywords were organized into distinct strategic themes, highlighting patterns within the statistics. These themes encompassed various scenarios, such as higher female representation in higher education but unequal representation in policymaking, countries classified differently based on educational factors and female political representation, educational issues affecting all genders, higher female enrollment in higher education without corresponding workforce participation, and limited research on gender minorities within the defined classification parameters. These themes are further discussed in the Discussion and Conclusions section.
Although the use of numerous sources may seem extensive, it is necessary to gather relevant and comprehensive statistics for each of the 195 countries included in the classification system. Given the annual updates and availability of data, this study can be replicated annually. The classification system was designed to accommodate updates as new statistics become available.
The classification system includes both policymaking and STEM sectors, reflecting the nature of STIP, which encompasses both areas. To capture the influence of gender bias and inequitable education within STIP, the system compares the percentages of women (and, if available, gender minorities) and men in both sectors. The novelty of this classification lies in the interpretation and categorization of existing data. Although the data are not novel, the unique insights gained from their interpretation and classification illuminate the factors contributing to the lack of women and gender minorities in STIP.
The proposed classification system uses country-level education and political statistics to assess the prevalence of gender bias and inequitable education. The data sources, including universities, governments, media, associations and groups, and market research firms, provide information on the percentage in each country of women enrolled in primary, secondary, and tertiary education and involved in politics.
The data collection process prioritizes gross enrollment ratios, which represent the number of students enrolled in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official school-age population corresponding to the same level of education (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2025). For the tertiary level, the 5-year age group starting from the official secondary school graduation age is considered. When gross enrollment ratios are unavailable for a particular country, net enrollment ratios can be used, representing the total number of students within the official age group for a given level of education but are enrolled in any level, expressed as a percentage of the corresponding population (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2024ex).
Gross enrollment ratios are preferred over net for the classification system because they provide comprehensive information about all students, regardless of age, which is relevant for classification purposes. Notably, when the statistics favor women over men, it is still recognized as a cause for concern to be addressed accordingly. The ultimate goal is to achieve equity on the path to equality, and any gender equality issues must be acknowledged and addressed.
This classification system utilizes a simple approach, categorizing countries into red, yellow, and green, based on the comparison of gross enrollment percentages of boys and girls in elementary, secondary, and tertiary education, and the percentage of women participating in politics. The classification criteria consider the minimum requirement of attending primary education through lower secondary education as the baseline for evaluating educational statistics. If secondary education statistics are unavailable, primary education statistics are used as the basis for comparison. To be included in the classification system, a country must have statistics for primary education; otherwise, it is excluded because of lack of data. Additionally, if gross and net enrollment ratios are unavailable, the percentage of girls who have completed primary, lower secondary, or secondary education can be considered.
When a country meets the criteria for a higher-level category, such as yellow or green, based on either education or politics but not both, it is classified as the lower of the two categories. For example, if a country meets the criteria for being classified as yellow in politics but red in education (or vice versa), it is classified as red. To move to the next category, a country must meet the criteria for both education and politics. Countries that do not allow women to continue their education at any level or participate in politics are automatically classified as red.
The classification parameters are set as follows:
• Red: A country is classified as red if less than 50% of girls attend lower secondary school (primary school statistics may be used if secondary school statistics are unavailable) and/or if women are not allowed to involve in politics.
• Yellow: A country is classified as yellow if 50% or more, but less than 75%, of girls attend lower secondary school, and female participation in politics is allowed.
• Green: A country is classified as green if 75% or more girls attend lower secondary school, and 40% or more women involve in politics.
The classification results for each country, indicating their red, yellow, or green status, along with the relevant statistics and contextual information, are presented in the attachment (see “Attachment 1: Country Results [Red, Yellow, Green] by Region”). This comprehensive breakdown provides a detailed overview of each country’s classification based on the criteria of gender bias and inequitable education, including the necessary education and political statistics, and additional facts that offer contextual insights for understanding the country’s classification status.
We acknowledge that our classification system, based on gross enrollment ratios and political participation, provides a simplified view of complex issues. However, this approach offers several benefits:
Clarity and accessibility: The red, yellow, and green categories provide an easily understandable indicator of a country’s status regarding gender disparities.
Comparative analysis: This system allows for the quick identification of countries facing similar challenges or making similar progress.
Baseline for further research: While our quantitative approach does not capture all the nuances of gender inequities, it provides a solid foundation for more in-depth qualitative studies.
We recognize that our focus on educational enrollment and political participation does not encompass all aspects of gender inequities. Factors such as workplace discrimination, societal support systems, and access to resources are indeed crucial. Our study aims to provide a starting point for understanding global patterns, with the intention that future research will build upon these findings to explore these additional critical factors.
Results
Although based on existing data, the presented classification system offers a novel purpose and approach. By categorizing countries based on their gender bias and inequitable educational opportunities, valuable patterns emerge that can aid in eliminating barriers and promoting the inclusion of more women and gender minorities in STIP. To address the issue effectively, the classification system considers the STEM and policymaking sectors separately, recognizing their interconnectedness in forming the STIP sector.
Some countries are transcontinental, spanning multiple continents. In this classification system, these countries are placed within the continent that aligns with their political system. For example, if a country is geographically located in multiple continents but is a member state of the Council of Europe, it will be categorized under Europe. Similarly, if a country is an independent political system, not affiliated with a specific continental council, such as Russia, it will be categorized based on the continent that contains the largest portion of its geographic area.
As outlined in “Attachment 1: Country Results (Red, Yellow, Green) by Region,” countries were grouped into regions according to their respective continents. Classification parameters and detailed statistics determined whether each country fell into the red, yellow, or green categories (Figure 1). Table 1 provides an overview of the results, indicating the number of countries in each classification within each region.
Classification of countries based on gender bias and inequitable education.
Classification of Countries per Region.
Discussion and Conclusion
Current Classification Patterns Within Data
During the classification process, specific patterns emerged that shed light on the prevalence of gender bias and inequitable education in each region. These patterns provide valuable insights into the unique challenges and dynamics of different regions.
Pattern 1: A Higher Percentage of Women in Higher Education But Unequal Representation in Policymaking
Of the 195 countries recognized by the United Nations, 193 members of the United Nations, and two observer states—the Vatican City (Holy See) and Palestine State (United Nations, 2024), five countries did not have current data of tertiary education by gender—Holy See, Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. Among the remaining countries, women constituted the majority of those enrolled in higher education in 132 (69.5%) countries, whereas men outnumbered women in tertiary education in 58 (30.5%) countries. Of the 58 countries reporting higher percentages of men in tertiary education, 38 (65.52%) are located in Africa, 16 (27.59%) in Asia, two (3.44%) in Europe, one (1.72%) in Australia, and one (1.72%) in North America (approximate percentages). Notably, Japan reported nearly equal percentages, with approximately 61.6% male students and 60.6% female students in 2023 (Statista Research Department, 2024a).
Among the 190 countries analyzed, only six demonstrated data indicating both a higher percentage of women in higher education and 50% or more women in policymaking: Austria (52.9%), Cuba (54.4%), France (51.2%), Mexico (50%), Nicaragua (51%), and the United Arab Emirates (50%).
Furthermore, 126 (66.31%) of the 190 countries presented data demonstrating a higher percentage of women enrolled in higher education, but less than 50% involved in policymaking. Of them (approximate percentages), 43 were in Europe (34.13%), 27 in Asia (21.43%), 19 in Africa (15.07%), 19 in North America (15.07%), 11 in South America (8.73%), and seven in Australia (5.55%). Additionally, 63 countries (33.15%) presented data showing a higher percentage of women enrolled in higher education, but less than 25% involved in policymaking. Of them (approximate percentages), 22 were in Asia (34.92%), 12 in Africa (19.05%), 12 in Europe (19.05%), seven in North America (11.1%), five in Australia (7.94%), and five in South America (7.94%). This pattern indicates that the most educated segment of the world’s population is not only unequally represented among leadership worldwide but, in many countries, does not even represent a quarter of those responsible for national policymaking and international politics.
Pattern 2: Countries That Would be Classified as Yellow due to Female Representation in Politics, But Are Classified as Red Because of Educational Factors
Another pattern emerged that indicated countries that met the criteria of yellow status in female representation in politics but, because of educational issues were, classified as red. Half or less of women participating in compulsory education by secondary education would qualify the country as red. As inequitable education is a crucial component leading to fewer women within STIP, this pattern should be noted and analyzed. Although educational issues may affect all genders, the focus group for this classification is women. Of the 190 countries analyzed, 32 (16.84%) fit this pattern (approximate percentages): 26 (81.25%) were located in Africa, three in Asia (9.38%), one in Europe (3.12%), one in North America (3.12%), and one (3.12%) in South America. These data indicate that African countries face significant challenges regarding inequitable education, which must be considered when working to eradicate gender disparity in STIP.
Pattern 3: Countries That Have Educational Issues That Affect All Genders
Although this classification system pertains to women, educational issues affect all genders, even when they disproportionately impact the focus group. This is indicative not only of a systemic gender issue but also of other systemic educational issues often related to poverty and available resources. However, not all countries have sufficient data to be considered for this pattern. To be considered, data must be available pertaining to either enrollment or graduation rates for primary and secondary education, or specific data illuminating educational issues that affect all genders within a country. Many countries lack secondary education statistics.
Of this emerging pattern concerning educational issues that affect all genders, 55 countries presented data that included less than 70% enrollment for both boys and girls in secondary education, categorizing them in the pattern (approximate percentages); 34 were located in Africa (61.81%), nine in Asia (16.36%), five in the Australia region of Oceania (9.09%), five in North America (9.09%), one in Europe (1.81%), and one in South America (1.81%). Africa contains over half of the countries with educational issues that affect all genders but disproportionately affect women. This could indicate other systemic problems involving education, such as poverty and resource access. Further research is required to determine whether there is a correlation between these systemic gender equality issues and other systemically perpetuated issues involving educational systems within the continent.
Pattern 4: A Higher Percentage of Women in Higher Education That Does Not Translate to the Workforce
While analyzing countries with higher percentages of women in education, it became apparent that this percentage did not translate to the workplace. First, in addition to the five aforementioned countries that did not have adequate data concerning women in tertiary education (Holy See, Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu), other countries also lacked sufficient data representing the female percentage of the total labor force. Most countries were able to provide the percentage of women who were economically participating in the labor force. However, there was not enough data to provide the exact percentage of women contributing to the labor force. These countries included Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Palau, Palestine State, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Seychelles. Andorra and Dominica. In total, 16 out of 195 countries did not have sufficient data to be considered for this pattern.
Of the 179 countries considered for this pattern, Lithuania (50.1%), Nepal (54.9%), and Zimbabwe (51.2%) presented data indicating that over 50% of their workforce was female, in addition to having more women in higher education. In Latvia, almost 50% of the country’s workforce comprised women, meaning that the higher percentage of women in higher education contributed to approximately half of the workforce (The World Bank, 2023a). Fifty-eight of these countries had a higher percentage of men in higher education, leaving 117 (60%) countries out of 195, or 65.36% of the 179 countries considered for this pattern, with a higher percentage of women in higher education comprising less than half of the workforce.
Of these 117 countries, 79 (67.52%), or 40.51% of 195 countries, reported having more women in higher education, and 40% or more contributing to the workforce (approximate percentages): 39 were located in Europe (49.37%), 11 in South America (13.92%), 10 in Asia (12.66%), 10 in North America (12.66%), six in Africa (7.59%), and three in the Australian region of Oceania (3.79%). Additionally, out of these 117 countries, 39 (33.33%), or 20% of 195 countries, reported having more women in higher education but less than 40% in the workforce (approximate percentages): 17 were in Asia (43.58%), nine in Africa (23.08%), seven in North America (17.95%), two in the Australian region of Oceania (5.13%), two in Europe (5.13%), and two in South America (5.13%).
Of these 117 countries, 13, or 11.11% (6.6% out of 195 countries total), report having more women in higher education but less than 25% in the country’s workforce (approximate percentages): 11 (84.62%) are located in Asia and two (15.38%) are in Africa. This pattern highlights the need for more research on this phenomenon, particularly considering issues revolving around gender bias and inequitable education, and opportunities. Additionally, young women are at a disadvantage when considering vocational education and training due to reinforced narrow and segregated routes that deliver industry-limited and gender-based pools of talent, making pursuing vocational education less likely to result in a job (Equal Opportunities Commission, 1999). Regardless of the populous advantage of choosing higher education over vocational education, where women are in the minority, women are statistically less likely to become part of the workforce than their male peers.
Pattern 5: Little to No Research Available Regarding Gender Minorities Within the Context of Gender Equality Issues Within the Classification Parameters
SGM populations include individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, Two-Spirit, queer, and/or intersex (National Institutes of Health, 2021). This also includes individuals with same-sex or gender attraction or behaviors, and those with different sex development. These populations encompass those who do not self-identify with one of these terms but whose sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or reproductive development is characterized by non-binary constructs of sexual orientation, gender, and/or sex (National Institutes of Health, 2021). While the classification parameters include gender minorities outside male or female gender identities, there is very little research concerning gender minorities’ participation in education systems and policymaking at an international level.
Upon closer inspection, there appears to be little research on gender minorities overall, not just concerning the classification parameters. Many countries do not include gender minorities in research, making it impossible to account for their actual numbers. Even in countries with numbers for gender minorities, such as the United States, much of the data are based on estimation. The most accurate way to reflect this information is through the US Census Bureau Survey, which accounts for every individual. However, this survey did not consider same-sex couples and different gender identities until 2021. In addition to male and female options for how one currently describes oneself, transgender and “none of these” are now included; however, transgender is the only gender minority with a separate category (File & Lee, 2021b). Without accurate research on the exact numbers and nuances, it will be more challenging to branch into more specific lines of research on gender minorities.
Fortunately, the National Institute of Health founded a strategic plan to aid the health and well-being of SGMs, which is set to be implemented from 2021 to 2025 (National Institutes of Health, 2021). This plan includes themes of clinical research, social and behavioral research, research on chronic diseases and comorbidities, and methods and measurement research. However, it should be noted that the Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) wasn’t established until 2015 (National Institutes of Health, 2021). Despite being understudied and underrepresented in research, current studies on the SGM population are expanding to include information deemed necessary by the SGM community themselves, and to allow for identity fluidity and complexity within surveys (Suen et al., 2020). This is an imperative focus for equitable research on gender equality issues.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, its exploratory nature and the limited availability of up-to-date data pose challenges. Delays in countries reporting relevant statistics and the ongoing process of implementing new studies to update data may lead to discrepancies between the available figures and current situation. These factors can affect the accuracy of the classification system and its ability to reflect recent trends in gender representation. To mitigate these limitations, we made every effort to utilize the most accurate and recent statistics. However, it is essential to acknowledge the inherent challenges in obtaining real-time data for social science research.
Data availability and quality are major limitations in this study. Many countries lack comprehensive and reliable data on gender representation in education and politics, particularly for gender minorities. Data availability and quality can vary significantly across countries and regions, making cross-country comparisons challenging. Additionally, some countries may have outdated or incomplete data owing to limitations in data collection processes, resources, or political factors.
Another limitation is the lack of standardized data collection methods and definitions across countries. Different countries may use varying methodologies, definitions, and indicators to measure gender representation, which can hinder comparability and consistency of analyses. For instance, some countries may not include gender minorities in their data collection efforts, leading to an underrepresentation of these groups in the available statistics.
Furthermore, the study relies heavily on quantitative data such as enrollment ratios and political representation percentages. Although these metrics provide valuable insights, they may not capture the nuances and complexities of gender bias and inequitable education, which can manifest in various forms and contexts. Qualitative data and contextual information could enhance the understanding of these issues but are often limited or unavailable.
The collection of gender minority data is challenging owing to several factors. Many studies employ binary gender measures that fail to reflect gender minority populations’ intricacies. Some gender minorities may not disclose their identities out of fear of safety or social stigma. The low prevalence of gender minorities in the general population makes it difficult to collect large and inclusive samples. Data shortages hinder the assessment of gender minorities’ experiences in education, STEM, and policymaking. Future data collection methods must prioritize inclusion, allow self-identification, and protect respondent data. To investigate gender equality equitably and create policies that meet the needs of all gender identities, research must consider gender minorities.
This study does not delve into specific strategies for eliminating these factors, as their effectiveness is contingent on contextual variations and governmental considerations. Instead, we provide a starting point for each country to assess its situation and progress. Consequently, this study highlights the potential benefits of achieving gender equality and emphasizes the disadvantages within countries of neglecting it, particularly in the context of the significant underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP. To achieve meaningful change, the implementation of strategies must align with the specific needs of each country, contributing to the development of a more robust international STIP sector.
Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge that the requirements for addressing these issues can vary, considering that social science concerns are dynamic and subject to change according to different political and economic events. Consequently, a country’s needs must be reassessed and adjusted accordingly. Additionally, changing societal climates should be considered when addressing issues related to gender bias and inequitable education.
Despite these limitations, the analysis and interpretation of educational and political statistics within the framework of this classification system offer valuable insights, as the observed patterns tend to exhibit gradual rather than drastic fluctuations over a given term.
Implications and Directions for Future Work
The primary objective of this classification system is to raise awareness among countries about gender bias and inequitable education that lead to the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP. The tool allows countries to assess their current situation and provides guidance for advancing efforts to eradicate these contributory factors. The simplicity of the system makes it adaptable and expandable. Once a country achieves “green” status, the system could be applied to specific regions to ensure equitable opportunities nationwide.
Future research should focus on several key areas to expand and refine the understanding of gender equality in STIP:
Expanding Studies on Gender Minorities: Comprehensive analyses, statistical assessments, and investigations aligned with the classification framework are required. International research in this area is lacking, leading to considerable estimations, even in countries attempting to assess their gender minority populations. Equitable gender equality research must consider every facet of gender, including non-binary and transgender identities.
Developing Robust Data Collection Methods: Future research should develop more robust, timely data collection methods to keep the classification system current. Longitudinal studies that track changes over time provide valuable insights into the evolving dynamics of gender bias and inequitable education. Innovative data collection methods that prioritize inclusivity, allow for self-identification, and ensure the privacy and security of respondents are essential.
Investigating Intersectionality: Research should explore the intersectionality of gender with other identities such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability. This approach can uncover the unique challenges faced by women and gender minorities with overlapping identities, and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of gender inequality in STIP.
Evaluating Policy Interventions: Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of various policy interventions aimed at reducing gender bias and promoting equitable education. This includes assessing the impact of gender quotas, mentorship programs, bias awareness training, and other initiatives to increase the representation of women and gender minorities in STIP roles.
Exploring Alternative Educational Frameworks: Research should investigate alternative educational frameworks that prioritize inclusivity, such as gender-responsive learning. These frameworks can help address the root causes of gender disparities in STEM education and create supportive environments for women and gender minorities.
Assessing Organizational Practices: From a managerial perspective, future research should assess the impact of organizational practices on gender equality in STIP. This includes conducting gender audits, implementing bias awareness training, and establishing mentorship programs to support women’s career development in STI fields. Understanding how these practices influence organizational culture and performance can provide valuable insights for creating more inclusive workplaces.
By addressing these areas, future research can build on the foundation provided by this classification system and contribute a deeper understanding of the factors that impede gender parity in STIP. This will benefit not only the STIP community through more inclusive policies but also accelerate overall progress toward gender parity. Conducting in-depth analysis of the influential STIP sector is crucial for improving policies affecting society. Achieving greater diversity, especially by increasing the participation of women, gender minorities, and those with diverse backgrounds, is essential for the sector to fulfill its potential. Addressing gender bias, inequitable education, and limited opportunities are vital steps toward this end.
From a managerial perspective, this actionable framework enables government agencies and institutions to implement targeted interventions and policies that address gender bias, promote equitable education, and increase the representation of women and gender minorities in STIP roles. By understanding the impact of gender bias and inequitable education on the representation of women and gender minorities, leaders can develop targeted interventions to create more inclusive and diverse workplaces.
This study contributes to the literature by providing a novel classification system that assesses gender bias and inequitable education as key factors perpetuating the underrepresentation of women and gender minorities in STIP, addressing an important gap. By focusing on these specific variables, we offer a targeted approach to understanding and addressing gender disparities in this influential sector. The proposed classification system provides a structured approach for analyzing and tracking gender equality in STIP, which can spur further investigation into root causes and solutions. By establishing common metrics and benchmarks, the system offers researchers a valuable tool to assess progress and identify best practices across different contexts.
Further academic research is required, including alternative educational frameworks that prioritize inclusivity, such as gender-responsive learning. Research must also encompass equitable gender equality research conducted by gender minorities. The current lack of focused research has resulted in a paucity of data on the complexities of gender minority experiences. More focused research and innovative data collection methods are required to accurately represent gender minority identities and experiences.
Eliminating the systemic issues that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STIP requires concerted efforts across fields and countries. This classification system provides a foundational framework for incorporating additional tools to assess gender bias, inequitable education, and limited opportunities that impede gender parity in STIP and other sectors. Further tool development is imperative to assist countries in progressing toward equity objectives. Given its influence, it is crucial for the STIP sector to mirror the societies it serves, embracing the benefits of diversity in creating more inclusive societies that benefit all citizens.
Addressing gender bias and inequitable education in STIP has far-reaching societal implications. By creating more inclusive and diverse STI sectors, countries can harness the full potential of their human capital, accelerate technological advancement, and develop innovative solutions to pressing global challenges. Moreover, promoting gender equality in influential fields such as STIP can contribute to broader social change, break down stereotypes, and create role models for future generations.
Supplemental Material
sj-xlsx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251322615 – Supplemental material for Utilizing Classification as a Tool to Address Gender Equality Issues in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy
Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251322615 for Utilizing Classification as a Tool to Address Gender Equality Issues in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy by Caitlin Meyer and Du Baogui in SAGE Open
Footnotes
Author Note
Statements and Declarations
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
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.
