Delivering gender justice in academia through gender equality plans? Normative and practical challenges

Abstract

This paper employs the concept of epistemic justice to examine the potential for gender equality plans (GEPs) to bring about sustainable transformative change towards gender equality in higher education. Mindful of both the limitations and opportunities of gender policy interventions, the paper highlights the importance of approaching gender inequality as a problem of justice and power rather than as an issue of ‘loss of talent’. The paper draws on Fricker’s account of epistemic justice as well as on Bourdieu’s analysis of power in the academic field, to evaluate seven gender equality plans in European universities for their potential to transform gender‐power relations in academia. The analysis reveals that insufficient attention is paid to the role of academic power in creating gender injustice at all institutional levels and to the role of organisational culture in the perpetuation of gender inequalities in those settings. The study suggests that the incorporation of an epistemic justice lens in the creation of GEPs would address gendered power relationships and lead to sustainable equitable outcomes.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Full text

Received: 1 August 2019
-
Revised: 12 December 2020
-
Accepted: 2 March 2021
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12658
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Delivering gender justice in academia through
gender equality plans? Normative and practical
challenges
Sara Clavero |Yvonne Galligan
Directorate for Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion, TU Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Correspondence
Sara Clavero, TU Dublin, EDI Directorate,
North Circular Road 191, Dublin, D07 EWV4,
Ireland.
Email: sara.clavero@tudublin.ie
Funding information
European Commission, Grant/Award
Number: 710534
Abstract
This paper employs the concept of epistemic justice to
examine the potential for gender equality plans (GEPs) to
bring about sustainable transformative change towards
gender equality in higher education. Mindful of both the
limitations and opportunities of gender policy interventions,
the paper highlights the importance of approaching gender
inequality as a problem of justice and power rather than as an
issue of “loss of talent.” The paper draws on Fricker's account
of epistemic justice as well as on Bourdieu's analysis of po-
wer in the academic field, to evaluate seven GEPs in
European universities for their potential to transform
gender–power relations in academia. The analysis reveals
that insufficient attention is paid to the role of academic
power in creating gender injustice at all institutional levels
and to the role of organizational culture in the perpetuation
of gender inequalities in those settings. The study suggests
that the incorporation of an epistemic justice lens in the
creation of GEPs would address gendered power relation-
ships and lead to sustainable equitable outcomes.
KEYWORDS
epistemic justice, gender equality, higher education, institutional
change, power
Gender Work Organ. 2021;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gwao © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
-
1

1
|
INTRODUCTION
There have been persistent efforts to tackle gender inequalities in universities and research organizations in the
European Union (EU) since the publication of the European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN) report
(Osborn et al., 2000). That report found that gender played a disproportionate role in the likelihood of a person
being able to enter, remain in and succeed within the scientific community. Noting the very slow increase in the
percentages of women in top positions, the report proposed a series of recommendations designed to address the
situation, combining a three‐pronged policy approach: equal treatment, positive action, and gender mainstreaming
(Rees, 2001, p. 256).
Since 2015, the EU has been recommending, and actively supporting, the implementation of Gender Equality
Plans (GEPs) in academic and research organizations as a tool for structural change. The main vehicles for this strategy
are through European research and innovation programs (FP6, FP7, Horizon 2020) and other supportive instruments,
such as the GEAR online tool designed to inform and guide universities in setting up and implementing GEPs (Council
of the European Union, 2015; EIGE 2016). A GEP is defined as a set of actions aimed at identifying gender inequalities
and bias, designing and implementing measures to correct these, and setting targets and monitoring progress via
indicators (EIGE, 2016). GEPs implemented in the context of EU funded projects must meet the three objectives of the
European Research Area in relation to gender equality: (1) to remove legal and other barriers to the recruitment,
retention, and career progression of female researchers; (2) to address gender imbalances in decision making pro-
cesses, and (3) to strengthen the gender dimension in research (Council of the European Union, 2015).
Twenty years after the ETAN report, data on progress on gender equality in academia and research suggest
that policy and legislative efforts at both EU and Member State level have had some impact, although the figures
continue to portray a sector in which significant gender inequalities persist. The proportion of women professors in
the EU rose from 14% in 2004 (EU‐25) to 24% in 2016. Gender gaps in governance bodies also persist albeit with
some progress in recent years: in 2007 the proportion of women among heads of higher education institutions in
the EU‐27 was a mere 13%, this increased to a modest 22% in 2017. Yet, women held about 46% of lecturing posts
(Grade C) over this period (European Commission, 2013,2019).
The “glass ceiling” metaphor is often used to represent gender inequalities in career advancement. It points to the
influence of a set of invisible barriers that hinder women's progression to the highest positions of organizations. These
barriers are invisible because formal organizational rules may carry the promise of a fair opportunity for women to
compete with men in recruitment and promotion processes, yet informal norms and practices can act to undermine
those chances by creating a ceiling against which women aspiring to the top positions collide (Teelken et al., 2019). In
the academic sector, the under‐representation of women among professors and university rectors represents the
most visible and salient manifestation of gender inequalities. Yet, this is but one aspect of a problem that “resembles
an unbeatable seven‐headed dragon” (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012, p. 71). As studies on gender and organizations
show, even if women were finally to break the “glass ceiling” and reach parity with men at the top structures, there is
no guarantee that those organizations will operate in a more gender‐egalitarian manner (Hamilton et al., 2019). In
response to the limitations of the “glass ceiling” metaphor, additional metaphors have been used to portray the
complex relationship between gender, inequality, and its structural and cultural determinants in organizations.
The “glass cliff” metaphor describes a phenomenon whereby women are more likely to be appointed to
leadership roles in situations of problematic organizational change (Ryan et al., 2016). In the academic sector, an
increased proportion of women have taken senior management positions in a variety of countries. While this
development can bring potential benefits to the organization
1
, studies show that it cannot be taken as evidence of
the “glass ceiling” being finally broken (Peterson, 2016). The reason is that the growth of women in these positions
is occurring at a time of decline in status and prestige attaching to these senior posts, thus becoming less attractive
to men (Deem et al., 2000). This reduction in prestige is associated with the spread of an “entrepreneurial,”
business‐oriented ethos in higher education. It is when these appointments are no longer a sign of scholarly
excellence and when their associated administrative duties have significantly increased, becoming harder to
2
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

combine with a successful scholarly career, that women have been allowed to enter them. The “glass cliff” metaphor
highlights the importance of looking at changes to the kind of power and authority conferred by certain positions
(including those at the top) when these become feminized (Castaño et al., 2019).
Understanding the role of gender in structuring power relations in universities also requires attention to “sticky
floors,” a metaphor that represents the clustering of women in precarious forms of employment at the bottom of
the academic hierarchy. Linked to neoliberal, business‐oriented reforms in the higher education sector, these ac-
ademics are employed on temporary and short‐term contracts to deliver core academic functions such as teaching
and research. Like “glass ceilings” and “glass cliffs,” “sticky floors” also point to barriers that are hidden from view.
This highly feminized workforce at the bottom of the academic hierarchy is likely to get stuck in a “wheel of
precarity,” with few opportunities to obtain secure work. Yet, their working conditions are individualized through
the lens of “talent,” leading to stigmatization for their “failure” to obtain a permanent position (O'Keefe & Cour-
tois, 2019). In addition, the metaphor highlights the invisibility of these workers—their nonstatus in the organi-
zation. Their work is often not properly acknowledged, they lack access to intellectual leadership, do not have the
ability to pursue their own interests, nor to enjoy basic scholarly opportunities such as research leave (Love-
day, 2018). This invisibility is exacerbated by the fact that their situation is rarely considered in studies and policy
initiatives seeking to understand and address gender inequalities in universities. Institutional efforts of this kind
tend to focus on women in permanent positions and on resolving the barriers encountered as they progress to the
higher ranks (White, 2017).
These metaphors highlight the invisibility of institutional barriers which are often perceived as individual in
nature. They also offer a picture of the way gender shapes the distribution of power both within and across all
levels of the academic hierarchy. Changing gender–power relations in academic institutions requires policy in-
terventions that go beyond creating the conditions for tenured women to advance to the top positions in academia
and research.
In this context, the implementation of institutional transformation programs towards gender equality is the
main stated goal of GEPs being developed in universities in Europe and beyond. But what is the potential of GEPs to
achieve institutional transformation? What pitfalls do they encounter? This paper explores these questions through
the analysis of the GEPs of seven European universities. It utilizes a normative framework based on the concept of
epistemic justice to examine the potential of GEPs to disrupt gender–power structures and dynamics to bring about
sustainable, gender‐equal institutional change.
This study has four parts. The first part presents different normative approaches to gender inequalities in Higher
education institutions, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of each. Taking the work of Pierre Bourdieu on
power in the academic field as a point of departure, this section develops an approach based on the concept of
epistemic justice as a core component of gender justice in academia. The second part presents the methodological
framework for analyzing GEP actions through the lens of epistemic justice. This section defines the research questions
of the study, as well as describing the sample and clarifying the methods. Part three provides an analysis of GEPs in
seven universities in Europe. This analysis identifies and evaluates general trends as well as good practice in efforts to
disrupt traditional gender power relations through both cultural and structural change interventions. The paper ends
with a with a discussion, in part four, of the prospects for achieving gender justice in universities through the appli-
cation of GEPs, together with some recommendations based on the results of the study.
2
|
PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER INEQUALITIES IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
2.1
|
Gender and power in academia
This inquiry into the capacity of GEPs in universities to disrupt traditional gender–power relations and achieve
institutional change is informed by a concept of power—and more specifically, of academic power—as articulated
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
3

and developed in the work of Bourdieu (1986,1988,1993). Bourdieu distinguished different forms of power, or
capital, in the academic field: economic capital (material resources); social capital (social connections, networks);
cultural capital (education, knowledge, skills); and symbolic capital (prestige, status, recognition). These forms of
capital are interconvertible and can be held either by individual academics or collective actors (i.e., higher education
institutions, faculties, departments or research groups).
According to Bourdieu, the most significant form of capital in the academic field is symbolic capital—that is, the
prestige and recognition associated with different types of activities (e.g., research) and their outputs (e.g., publica-
tions, citations) as well as positions within the university (e.g., full professorship; Heffernan, 2020; Rowlands, 2018).
Since these forms of academic power or capital are unevenly distributed, higher education institutions are
deeply hierarchical structures, where academics and academic units occupy dominant and subordinate positions.
The work of Bourdieu does not explicitly consider the ways in which gender constitutes a marker of power in-
equalities in these settings, yet his theory of academic power illuminates the dynamics of gender–power relations in
universities. It also draws attention to the gatekeeping role of powerful actors. Both aspects are at the very center
of gender inequalities and their perpetuation. In addition, academic power helps to understand why policy in-
terventions aimed at advancing gender equality in the accruement of economic, social and cultural forms of capital
in the academic field may not be effective unless the importance of symbolic capital is also taken into account. To
give an example, a policy geared towards giving equal opportunities in the attainment of social capital through the
elimination of barriers that dissuade or prevent academic women from applying for conference attendance funds
may constitute a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for eliminating gender inequalities. The recognition of
academic standing (symbolic capital) is granted through formal institutional rules (e.g., the standards used to
evaluate a candidate's “merit” in recruitment and promotion processes) as well as informal ones (everyday ex-
changes in multiple academic and research settings). These formal and informal rules act to reinforce, and
perpetuate, gendered structures of privilege and marginalization at all levels of the academic hierarchy (De
Welde & Laursen, 2011). Informal rules take subtle forms such as shunning, overlooking and social exclusion
(Waylen, 2014), and therefore are more difficult to identify and to change through policy interventions.
A transformation of gender–power relations in academic institutions may require sustained action that takes
into consideration the role of symbolic power (in both its formal and informal expressions), its gender dimensions,
and its impact on gender justice. While fairness and efficiency rationales are employed as normative foundations for
legitimizing actions intended to deliver gender equality, they stop short of linking to the more overarching
transformative norm of gender justice. This transformative norm, when applied to delivering gender equality, offers
the opportunity for constructing actions that tackle the gender deficit in symbolic capital. It also facilitates a critical
lens through which to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions in delivering equitable outcomes. The next section
explores the concept of epistemic justice as a core aspect of gender justice in higher education.
2.2
|
A problem of justice or of “loss of talent”? Normative perspectives
This section critically reviews normative arguments for advancing gender equality in higher education and research.
It makes a case for the need to recast a normative approach based on the principle of gender justice that in-
corporates the concept of epistemic justice as one of its core dimensions.
2.2.1
|
Justice and utility arguments for advancing gender equality
A classical argument used to legitimize gender equality interventions is that of “fairness.” This justification draws on
rights to equality of treatment and equal opportunities between women and men regarding participation,
employment, status and social and economic conditions, and the prohibition of gender‐based discrimination. The
4
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

expectation in this argument is that people who are equally talented and motivated should have equal chances to
attain desirable positions, as a person's fate in life should not depend on the social circumstances of their birth or
upbringing (Rawls, 2001). We find these concepts enshrined in gender equality law. For example, EU legislation
obliges Member States to ensure equal opportunities and equal treatment for women and men in all areas and to
combat any form of gender discrimination. The European Institute for Gender Equality reiterates the importance of
fairness as an underlying nondiscrimination principle in the higher education sector:
Gender balance and non‐discrimination are a matter of fairness. Women and men, regardless of
their ethnic background, must have the same opportunities to participate in, and the same power to
influence, the higher education and research community (EIGE, 2016, p. 12).
While this is a compelling statement, the main question is how to translate this abstract concept of equality de jure
into concrete policy goals with a view to achieving substantive equality. While fairness arguments invoke universal
rules that apply to macro‐structures, when one moves from this abstract concept to implementable policy and
practice in specific institutional settings, there is not necessarily agreement on what is “fair” between a discriminated
group and the dominant group from which the injustice emanates. This lack of consensus is manifest in the resistance
encountered in academia to changes that seek to bring fairness into the outcomes of academic processes.
A second normative approach for making the gender equality argument is that of “efficiency.” In this instance
the “good” is framed in utilitarian terms rather than in universal ideals of justice. This shift in orientation coincides
with trends towards a technocratic style of policymaking that is evidence‐informed, quantifiable, and results‐
oriented. Efficiency arguments justify the value of gender equality not as an end in itself, but as a means to ach-
ieve economic efficiency gains.
Efficiency arguments assume that talent is equally distributed between women and men and, therefore, that
gender inequalities represent a waste of human resources. They posit that a greater involvement of women in
academia and research will enrich knowledge production and bring important gains to both the economy and
society in the form of greater innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. This is a business rationale that
fits well with the rapid transformation of institutions of higher education in Europe into “entrepreneurial univer-
sities,” where the business is the knowledge economy and the economic rationale for higher education is connected
to competition for excellence (Elomäki, 2015; Sam & van der Sijde, 2014).
However, efficiency arguments present a variety of problems. First, promoting gender equality may not neces-
sarily lead to efficiency gains, so that relying on this type of argument to justify gender equality policy without strong
supporting evidence about its assumed impacts can jeopardize the prospects for gender equality action in the future
(Doss, 2017). Second, efficiency arguments displaces the moral imperative to achieve gender equality, undermining the
primacy of rights‐based justice arguments according to which all individuals, independent of their gender, have a right
to be treated as equals and to share power, knowledge and resources equitably (Gerard, 2019). Third, efficiency ar-
guments may be blind to discriminatory practices by shifting the responsibility of failure to succeed onto those indi-
vidual women who cannot contribute, or can contribute in only limited ways, to the goals of the organization. Last, but
not least, efficiency arguments obscure unequal power relations (Esquivel, 2017). As the efficiency frame views gender
differences as competencies that are beneficial for the organization, the initiatives generated by this approach focus on
bringing more women into already established gendered power structures. Actions based on this premise can hinder a
transformative politics, insofar as efficiency‐oriented reforms may protect the status quo from meaningful challenge.
2.2.2
|
Epistemic justice: A core dimension of gender justice in academia and research
Given the shortcomings of both efficiency and fairness as a basis for delivering gender equality, the challenge is to
develop a normative approach centered on gender justice which can reveal the specific gender discriminations
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
5

occurring in institutions of higher education and research. Such an approach can render visible the operation of
Bourdieu's forms of academic power and thereby provide a more robust basis for delivering gender equity in
academia.
In academia, epistemic exchanges are at the very heart of everyday activities and social interactions.
Furthermore, the mission, goals, and values of these institutions, as knowledge producers and transmitters, are
predominantly epistemic. To draw out the gender aspect of epistemic justice it is important, first, to define what we
mean by the “epistemic” and, second, to explore the nature of epistemic injustice in these settings.
Scientific inquiry involves a wide variety of interconnected actions such as posing research questions, forming
hypotheses, designing methodologies, setting up instruments, gathering evidence, analyzing, interpreting and
disseminating results, and so on (Hookway, 2010). It also involves sharing, explaining, discussing, and critiquing the
knowledge created through teaching, peer discussions, and publication. This constitutes the core of the epistemic
community that is the academy. Power, and more particularly, symbolic power, is central to the creation, exchange
and imparting of knowledge.
In her work on epistemic injustice, Fricker (2007) identifies one kind of injustice which occurs when a speaker's
assertions are given unduly low weight because of a listener's prejudices about the social group to which the
speaker belongs. This injustice is evident, for example, when it is expressed through dismissive comments,
patronizing remarks, or other interventions that undermines the speaker's knowledge. Epistemic injustice thus
occurs when the credibility or epistemic authority that a person is afforded does not correspond to the credibility/
epistemic authority that she deserves. This dynamic is one where the nature of symbolic power (prestige, status,
and recognition) is revealed.
Epistemic exchanges are social practices and, as such, epistemic injustice will be rarely reducible to individual
acts of injustice because epistemic authority can only be conferred by an epistemic community according to
established norms. The social character of such norms does not guarantee that processes of credibility assessment
will be objective, as they may favor those groups who are already powerful or privileged. Individuals who are male,
middle class, middle‐aged and white are more likely to be granted epistemic authority in relation to individuals who
are female, belong to an ethnic minority group, are young or old (Fricker, 1998). Furthermore, dominant groups in
higher education institutions may block the progression of others with a view to preserving their power positions.
This is carried out, for example, by powerful groups and individuals promoting the characteristics, career patterns
and markers of scientific excellence that they self‐identify as possessing and that subordinates are supposed
to lack.
Epistemic injustice is closely linked to other forms such as socioeconomic and cultural injustices emanating
from “maldistribution” and “misrecognition” (Fraser, 1995). The sexual division of labor along productive/repro-
ductive lines is often cited as a key factor leading to gender inequalities in career advancement in academia and
research (Lutter & Schröder, 2020). Although it could be argued that gender injustice linked to the sexual division of
labor is not strictly “epistemic,” its epistemic consequences are obvious in these contexts. When a woman's aca-
demic career is thwarted due to childcare responsibilities the social injustice committed has an important epistemic
dimension because of the type of institutions and practices involved (Hookway, 2010, p. 154).
Epistemic injustice is also closely linked to a form of cultural injustice emanating from either misrecognition
or nonrecognition, whereby an individual or a social group is not deemed one's conversational peer
(Giladi, 2018,2020). In academic and research contexts, the granting of epistemic authority is an act by which
we recognize an individual as competent and trustworthy in relation to the various activities required for the
production and transmission of knowledge. It is in such acts where the operation of symbolic power is more
clearly manifest. One illustration of the gender–power dynamics at the root of (gender) epistemic injustice in
higher education is the kind of interactions often observed in, for example, an academic seminar. In this setting,
eye contact, body language, seating allocation, who gets to speak, who dominates the discussion, who is being
cut short, whose ideas are developed and whose are ignored, denote power relations in operation (Reed, 2018,
p. 185). In these informal contexts, gender epistemic injustice is committed through masculinist micropolitical
6
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

practices (Montes & O'Connor, 2019; O'Connor et al., 2017) which devalue, or put into question, women's
epistemic authority.
Epistemic injustice, in sum, is a form of injustice institutionalized in the norms and standards of “excellence” and
“merit” that results in the marginalization or exclusion from epistemic communities of individuals that do not belong
to the dominant group. Consequently, the ability of those individuals to use the shared capital (economic, social, and
cultural) that are necessary to advance knowledge—and hence advance academic careers—is hindered, thwarting
the development of their own epistemic potential and the attainment of their epistemic goals (Dotson, 2014).
Ultimately, epistemic injustice “can cause deep and wide harm to a person's psychology and practical life”
(Fricker, 2007, p. 145), including loss of confidence in one's intellectual abilities, self‐belief and intellectual courage,
all of which are essential conditions to participate in scientific inquiry and the production of knowledge.
Restoring gender equality in academia can benefit from a normative account of gender justice that unveils, and
articulates, the multiple ways in which the withholding of epistemic authority (symbolic power) on the basis of
gender damages individual women, academic institutions, and scientific inquiry. Borrowing on Fraser's theory of
participatory parity (Fraser, 2007) and applying it to the academic field, restoring gender epistemic justice may
require a politics of recognition that focuses on the damage inflicted when women are systematically marginalized,
and which is aimed towards the achievement of gender equality within the “status order” of this field.
2.2.3
|
Institutional change for gender justice: The promises and perils of policy
interventions
Drawing on a normative account of gender equality based on gender justice, we have highlighted the importance of
its epistemic dimensions in academic contexts. We have also drawn attention to how an institutional change policy
aimed at achieving gender equality would require a transformation of the gendered structures of academic power.
But what would such policy look like? And more specifically, how can we assess GEPs in universities with regards to
their capacity to tackle gender epistemic injustice?
In addressing these questions, two sets of considerations must be taken into account. The first concerns the
conditions for policy to achieve desired outcomes. As indicated in the previous section, acts of gender epistemic
injustice can take place in formal contexts, such as, for example, in formal assessments of academic merit and
scientific excellence of an individual's academic career. Besides these formal settings, acts of epistemic injustice can
also occur in the context of everyday interactions when performing typical academic and scientific activities, such
as seminar discussions, lectures, conference presentations and group experiments. In order to tackle those prac-
tices, the importance of changing not only institutional structures, but also the culture of an organization, is now
being increasingly recognized. For example, the Athena SWAN Charter includes an explicit commitment to both
structural and cultural changes to advance gender equality, “recognising that initiatives and actions that support
individuals alone will not sufficiently advance equality” (Advance HE, 2019). The GEAR tool draws attention to the
challenge involved in realizing this goal, stating that changing the culture of an organization requires systematic
efforts “until the desired change in values has been internalized by all involved in the organisation” (EIGE, 2016,
p. 39).
Findings from analyses of work–life balance policies in universities show the limited effectiveness of structural
change programs, particularly in cases where traditional cultural norms about the gender division of labor and the
ideal male worker continue to be deeply embedded in the culture of the organization. Even if this policy confers
equal formal rights to both women and men, the informal expectation in such cases is that women will be the ones
who avail of this right, while men will continue to be fully dedicated to their academic activities. In such instances,
the intended transformative goal of structural change programs will not be achieved (Hobson, 2018; Sallee, 2012).
The second set of considerations concern the limitations of written policy for an evaluation of its potential to
realize gender justice. The fact that an institution has a GEP in place does not in itself guarantee a gender just set of
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
7

outcomes (O'Connor, 2020). Those policies must be interpreted, and they must be implemented. Thus, universities
may engage in GEP actions for reasons other than a commitment to justice and equality; for example because they
have a legal duty to do so (Ikävalko & Kantola, 2017), or to remain competitive in the global market (Tzanakou &
Pearce, 2019). Increasingly, having a GEP in place is a positive element in seeking research funds, and in attracting
talented staff and a greater pool of potential students.
Previous studies show how GEPs can have multiple effects. While a GEP may be initiated by a managerialist
logic where the goal is to formulate a reasonable technocratic document and to follow it through the different
phases, it can also provide opportunities for transforming gender–power relationships in the organization. The
policy process can itself raise awareness about gender inequalities through the collection of quantitative and
qualitative data. Furthermore, the process can also create inclusive spaces for discussion, learning, cooperation and
support. These activities can facilitate a wide engagement in gender equality work from students and staff at
different levels of the organization. They can also assist in consensus‐building on gender equality priorities and
actions. All of these measures offer the potential to create an active sense of ownership and ensure a sustained
commitment to institutional change (Ovseiko et al., 2017).
However, an analysis of written policy cannot alone fully capture the background or effectiveness of the wider
implementing context, as this would require a deep qualitative analysis based on participant observation and/or
interviews with the main actors involved, plus a longitudinal quantitative monitoring of the gender equality out-
comes of different types of policy measures. With these limitations in mind, the analysis in this study is focused on
the more modest inquiry of assessing the main approaches employed across a sample of European universities and
analyzing their potential to deliver epistemic justice.
3
|
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1
|
The study sample
In exploring the real‐world potential and limitations of GEPs to deliver gender epistemic justice in academia, this
paper analyses and evaluates recent GEPs approved in seven European Universities: (1) The University of Not-
tingham, England (2017–2020); (2) The Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain (2019–2023); (3) The Uni-
versity of Bologna, Italy (2017–2020); (4) The University of Helsinki, Finland (2019–2020); (5) The University of
Geneva, Switzerland (2017–2020); (6) The University of Minho, School of Engineering, Portugal (2017–2019); and
(7) The University of Stockholm, Sweden (2017–2018).
These GEPs were selected to represent recent examples from a variety of European public higher education
institutions. All documents are available online and published in English, French and Spanish. In selecting the GEPs, the
quality of information provided was prioritized over the sample size, favoring those that included a narrative about the
nature of the problem to be addressed, the results of the institutional assessment process and a justification of the
actions based on assessment results. When this information was lacking from the GEP documents, other relevant
material published on the university websites were consulted (for a list of documents consulted, see Appendix Table).
There are three elements common to the sample institutions. The first is that they provide clear evidence that
women academics are faced with obstacles along the career path (see Appendix Table). The second is an explicit
commitment to gender equality at the institutional level. Two of the universities (Geneva and Helsinki) are
members of the League of European Research Institutions, an association of 23 leading research‐intensive uni-
versities committed to gender equality. Three universities have been participants of EU‐funded projects supporting
institutional change through GEPs (Barcelona, Bologna, and Minho) and one is a signatory to the UK gender
equality accreditation scheme, the Athena Swan Charter, established in 2005 to encourage and recognize
commitment to advancing the careers of women in academia (Nottingham). The third element is that the majority
have endorsed the European Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (European Commission, 2005).
8
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

The Code includes gender equality principles in the areas of recruitment, selection, transparency, judging merit,
career breaks, and variations in the chronological order of CVs, recognition of mobility experience and of quali-
fications, seniority, and postdoctoral appointments.
Beyond these commonalities, there are significant differences across the institutions with respect to their
national legal and policy frameworks; the results of the initial assessments of the situation and the priorities for
action identified by their stakeholders; the institutional tradition of GEP implementation; and the levels of insti-
tutional autonomy in the evaluation of individual merit and in the hiring and promotion of academic staff.
3.2
|
Methods
The empirical part of this study is an exploratory first analysis aiming to address the following questions: To what
extent are GEPs in European universities recognizing gender epistemic injustices? What type of initiatives are being
introduced in this regard? What major gaps can be identified in practice?
As an exploratory study seeking to identify and evaluate approaches, identify gaps and highlight good practices
in efforts to disrupt entrenched organizational cultures through policy interventions, the analysis of GEPs is not
comparative in the conventional sense. Given the differences between the institutions, a comparative case analysis
does not constitute the most suitable technique to address the general questions above. Furthermore, the analysis
does not seek to test or to validate a hypothesis to obtain conclusive results. Instead, following a more inductive
approach, the aim is to develop the current state of knowledge on the epistemic aspects of gender justice in
academia, its policy implications, and to open new avenues for future research.
The analysis is based on documentary evidence. Given the variation in the information included in the GEP
documents, in some cases additional material, such as separate statistical reports and organization strategic plans—
were also consulted.
Each GEP, including introduction, assessment reports, and action plans, in conjunction with the supporting
documents, was interrogated and interpreted alongside two axes derived from the theoretical framework devel-
oped in previous sections. These are:
(1) Challenges and opportunities in mobilizing commitment and collective engagement around gender justice in
the organization.
(2) Challenges and opportunities to effect a transformation in the gendered culture of the organization through
changes in the norms (both formal and informal) by which epistemic authority is recognized.
The authors are aware of the limitations attending to this study, given its exclusive documentary focus. First,
the meaning we extract from the GEPs is followed up in the ancillary documentation, but not examined for accuracy
and validity through other methods (e.g., interviews). Our focus is not to evaluate the application of the GEPs in
their real‐life settings. Instead, this is a first‐step exploration of the extent to which a range of university GEPs, in
different cultural contexts, embed a gender justice approach to gender equality. Thus, we are seeking to reveal the
underlying normative principles guiding the GEPs. In the words of Bowen (2009, p. 29), it is “a case of text providing
context.” Second, these are documents aligned with university corporate policy and university's leaders' agenda. In
some circumstances, this could be a disadvantage given the risk of bias, with the institution presenting a face
consonant with the public relations image it wishes to project. In this instance, however, this is precisely what we
wish to evaluate—the sort of normative frame the institution demonstrates in terms of gender equality.
Bearing in mind the limitations of an exploratory study based on secondary research methods, it nonetheless
provides valuable insights into gender inequalities in academia as an issue gender epistemic justice and the extent
to which institutions are responding to this, highlighting challenges, as well as laying the ground for the design of a
more systematic case‐study research.
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
9

4
|
ANALYSIS OF GEPS IN EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES
4.1
|
Mobilizing commitment to gender equality and collective engagement in the GEP
process
The GEPs reviewed in this study typically begin by describing the legal and policy context for gender equality at
international, European, national, regional, and local level. This provides a general framework for the aims and
objectives of the action plan, its approach, its scope, as well as the target population of its measures.
The Equality and Diversity Plan of the University of Helsinki is underpinned by the Finnish Act on Equality
between Women and Men and by the Non‐Discrimination Act. The first is aimed at preventing gender
discrimination, promote equality between women and men, improve the status of women, particularly in
working life, and preventing discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression. The second is aimed
at preventing discrimination on the basis of age, ethnic or national origin, nationality, language, religion, belief,
opinion, health, disability, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics. Within this legal framework, the
Helsinki Plan takes an equality and diversity approach, covering the discrimination grounds specified by the
legislation. At the same time, it broadens the concept of gender to consider gender identities beyond tradi-
tional binary understandings.
This example highlights the role of external regulatory frameworks relating to gender equality in both
fostering and shaping the contours of GEP analysis and action. Legal frameworks are underpinned by normative
equality principles of equal treatment, equal opportunities and nondiscrimination, yet another framing condi-
tion is commitment from institutional leaders. Without this commitment, it is unlikely that institutional
change will be achieved, as the GEP can easily become a bureaucratic box‐ticking exercise. This issue is
explicitly acknowledged in the GEP of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, which states that
achieving gender equality “requires a strong political commitment, mainstreaming gender in all type of ac-
tions carried out by the institution and the involvement of the whole university community” (Universidad
Autonoma de Barcelona, 2019, p. 3). The challenge of mobilizing commitment and engaging the university
community in gender equality work is also recognized and addressed in the GEPs of Helsinki, Nottingham,
and Minho, each of which take a broad participative approach to building consensus on gender equality.
However, the information provided in these GEPs reveals important gender gaps in engagement, which confirms
the generalized assumption that gender equality work continues to be viewed predominantly as “women's
work.”
There are some good indicators of commitment to gender equality and levels of engagement in GEP design
and implementation. The first is the response rate of surveys/questionnaires carried out during the GEP
assessment phase. These vary across institutions but typically include culture surveys, an evaluation of actions
implemented in previous GEPs and emerging areas for action. The response rate of these surveys range between
6.7% in Barcelona, 34.7% in Nottingham, and 62.8% in Helsinki.
2
In these three institutions, the majority of
respondents were women (66.3% in Barcelona, 61.6% in Helsinki, and 58.4% in Nottingham). Measures to in-
crease engagement mainly focus on better communication plans, diversifying the channels used, as well as
“encouraging managers to ensure that staff had both time and opportunity to complete the survey” (University
of Nottingham, 2017, p. 18).
3
Another indicator of engagement is the level of participation in relevant training and awareness‐raising events,
as well as membership of networks related to gender equality, diversity, and inclusion. Although the GEPs analyzed
do not include detailed information, both the Nottingham and Helsinki GEPs record a low participation of male staff
in training on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (e.g., 72% of women participants in both Helsinki and Nottingham
4
).
10
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

In response, Nottingham includes a measure to make sure that all staff avails of training opportunities in equality
issues.
5
Low levels of men's engagement in GEP design and implementation represent an important barrier to insti-
tutional transformation towards gender justice in academia. Redressing the unequal distribution of academic power
along gender divides requires a broad participation in the generation of data as well as in actions geared towards
gender sensitization. There are examples that illustrate progress in this regard. The GEP of the University of
Helsinki increased staff participation in their surveys by 18% points over the period 2015–2017 (from 44.7% to
62.8%), although this was accompanied by a small increase in men's participation (2.5% points). In Nottingham, a
low participation in the 2016 Athena Swan Survey was addressed through the distribution of paper copies,
encouraging managers to ensure that staff had both time and opportunity to complete the survey, as well as
sending personalized reminders to staff who had not completed the survey. As a result, the response rate in the
following 2017 Staff Engagement Survey nearly doubled, increasing from 34.7% to 61% (University of
Nottingham, 2017)
6
.
4.2
|
Effecting a cultural transformation
In the academic world, the conferring of epistemic authority is governed by the principle of merit. Decision‐making
processes regarding recruitment, promotion, nominations, grant awards and publications, are made on the basis of
this principle (Scully, 1997, p. 413).
In today's higher education institutions, merit is assessed through standards of “excellence” which are assumed
to be objective, quantifiable, and measurable. There is a strong focus on research and related outputs, such as
publications in peer‐reviewed journals, journal rankings, citation indexes, the ability to obtain research funds,
alongside other indicators such as the holding of leadership roles (Shore & Wright, 2017).
Numerous studies challenge the idea that selection decisions in academia are solely based on individual
achievements according to objective and measurable standards of excellence and regardless of the candidate's
gender (Thornton, 2013). These studies show how the “excellence” system for evaluating merit reproduces gender
inequalities through the gendered construction of the concept, the existence of implicit gender bias in the appli-
cation of its standards, and its stratifying gendered outcomes. Criticisms of the claim that evaluations of academic
excellence are objective and gender‐neutral call for a revision of current meritocratic systems through the
incorporation of institutional policy and practices addressing this issue (Linková, 2017; Helgesson & Sjögren, 2019;
Treviño et al., 2018).
4.2.1
|
Recasting academic excellence in the selected institutions
Five GEPs in this study contain a variety of actions aimed at changing the formal norms and procedures used in
assessments of academic merit, as well as the cultural values engendering traditional perceptions of the “ideal
academic.” One typical action aims at neutralizing the negative impact of maternity, paternity and other care leaves
in recruitment and promotion decisions, as well as in evaluations of research performance, by discounting the
periods of professional inactivity derived from the take up of these types of leave (Barcelona, Bologna, Helsinki,
Nottingham, and Stockholm). This measure is not necessarily targeted at women exclusively but is also intended to
change traditional gender norms by encouraging more men to take up those leaves and to share care re-
sponsibilities with women.
A related action consists in moving away from an exclusive research focus in evaluations of academic merit by
taking into account nonresearch activities such as teaching and leadership roles (Nottingham).
7
Like the previous
measure, this action is not necessarily aimed at facilitating the career advancement of women exclusively. As
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
11

teaching roles continue to be feminized, it can contribute to the blurring of the gendered division of academic work
through a revaluation of roles. This action also moves away from a quantitative evaluation of merit through
introducing standards than require more qualitative assessments, although with limited success in practice. As
explained in the GEP from Nottingham: “Promotion success has been greater via the research and teaching
pathway where employees have a research focus. This may be in part because criteria regarding teaching, lead-
ership, and citizenship are more qualitative so can be harder to interpret” (University of Nottingham 2017, p. 151).
This phrasing implies that quantitative criteria continue to be favored over qualitative criteria in assessments of
academic merit. If qualitative criteria are perceived as being less accurate than quantitative measures, their use
may be viewed as being susceptible of giving the candidate an “easy pass.”
Finally, three GEPs include positive action measures in selection decisions (Barcelona, Helsinki, and
Nottingham) which incorporate a gender equality of outcome perspective into formal assessments of academic
merit, even if they do not necessarily aim to change traditional evaluation standards. This type of measure consists
in selecting the underrepresented gender in cases where there are two or more candidates of equal merit and
qualifications according to whatever criteria is used. Other GEPs include gender targets or quotas in shortlists
(Geneva). The goal is to tackle both vertical and horizontal gender segregation in academic and research careers by
facilitating gender parity via a change in decision‐making procedures.
In sum, while a majority of GEP surveyed in this study include actions aimed at changing the application of the
criteria deployed in formal assessments of academic merit, only one of them (Nottingham) includes actions to
change the criteria by which merit is defined. This GEP records the challenges in efforts to counteract traditional
gendered constructions and measures of merit, which raises a question about the prospect of achieving gender
epistemic justice in a climate of neoliberal ethos where “worth” is mainly dictated by market values (Rosa &
Clavero, 2020).
4.2.2
|
Levers for informal cultural change
Action aimed at changing both the standards and procedures by which academic merit is formally assessed must be
supported by actions directly aimed at informal cultural change. This is because misrecognition not only happens in
formal assessments of merit but also at the level of micro‐political practices. However, informal practices are
particularly difficult to change, as they are “often infused with cultural stereotypes and supported by wider organ-
isational and societal structures” (O'Connor et al., 2017, p. 12). Good mechanisms for the detection of informal
practices that lead to the misrecognition of women's epistemic worth are key to giving visibility to this issue.
A major gap identified in the majority of GEPs is a lack of sufficient data and information regarding the extent
to which the culture of the organization acts to discriminate against women. The GEPs of Barcelona, Bologna,
Helsinki, Minho, and Nottingham provide a description of the methodology used in the institutional assessment
phase, all of which comprised cultural/wellbeing surveys, interviews and/or focus groups. However, only three of
these GEPs (Barcelona, Helsinki, and Nottingham) include data collected through these methods, while the self‐
assessment reports of the remaining four GEPs focus exclusively on quantitative data from human resources units.
The quality of the data gathered through cultural/wellbeing surveys very much depends on the questionnaire
design. A well‐designed questionnaire that is based on a good understanding of the dynamics of gender–power
relations in the academic world can identify problems of recognition, both in formal and informal contexts, in
assignments of epistemic authority. In addition to providing a good evidence‐basis for policy design, the publication
and wide circulation of the results of these surveys can be a powerful awareness‐raising tool among key stake-
holders and the university community as a whole.
However, the culture surveys fall short in their potential to deliver high‐quality data. Two pitfalls found were
lack of specificity in the content of the questionnaires and lack of sex‐disaggregated data in the presentation of the
findings.
12
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

On the matter of specificity, the GEP from Helsinki includes data findings from a wellbeing survey carried out
as part of the institutional assessment stage. While the data presented is gender disaggregated, it refers to five
quite general questions such as “I have not experienced inappropriate treatment or workplace harassment during
the past year.” Respondents were asked to agree or disagree on a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Although the overall response was highly positive at 4.2, there was no collection of qualitative
views. In qualitative responses separately gathered for the university equality and diversity plan, it was suggested
that the reporting of harassment would be aided by the assignment of a harassment liaison to each faculty
(University of Helsinki, 2019, p. 7).
In Nottingham, the GEP includes results from two surveys (a Staff Engagement Survey and an Athena Swan
Survey) each including five questions. Similar to the Helsinki GEP, these are general questions which barely tap on
issues of mutual recognition arising from gender power relations, especially in informal contexts (e.g., “If I raised a
concern about discrimination, I am confident the University would do what is right”; “My gender has no bearing on
whether I will have a successful career in this University”). Yet, lack of specificity has policy implications. In this
university, results from one of the culture survey questions (“What is your perception of the equality of treatment
in the University with respect to promotions/regrading?”) revealed that a high proportion of women respondents
(43%) perceived that they were disadvantaged in this respect, in contrast to a mere 17% of men respondents who
did. While these gender differences may point to an underlying problem to be further investigated, the Action Plan
interpreted these results as a problem of communication: “Our AS survey shows female staff are more negative
than male about their progression opportunities. Given data showing promotion/regrading success is higher for
female staff, this emphasised to us the importance of communicating our achievements and continuing to support
all our colleagues appropriately” (University of Nottingham, 2017, p. 108).
In order to identify how gender–power relations shape micropolitical practices in academic institutions, more
nuanced cultural surveys, plus other qualitative methods of data collection, are required.
8
The GEP of Barcelona
presents data results from a more comprehensive survey, as it includes questions aimed at identifying issues related
to the promotion of a culture of mutual recognition and respect (e.g., “In the classroom, department or unit where I
work, sexist or discriminatory comments against women, LGBTI‐phobic comments and xenophobic or racist
comments are not tolerated”). The survey also includes questions to identify issues of inequality and discrimination
in formal assessments of merit (e.g., “Equal opportunities is guaranteed through fair processes of selection,
recruitment, promotion, and CV evaluation”). Yet, as the data collected through this survey are not gender dis-
aggregated, it does not provide a portrait of gendered privilege and discrimination in the application of both formal
and informal rules governing epistemic recognition. This GEP reports that approximately half of respondents agree
with the statements that the principle of equal opportunities is guaranteed in selection (52%), promotion (48%), and
CV evaluations (47%) but the lack of gender disaggregation does not allow for the detection of gender differences
in these perceptions.
Training constitutes a major tool for cultural change in all seven GEPs, although its effectiveness is limited if
there are significant gender gaps in participation, as revealed by the results of the assessment exercises. Micro-
political practices surrounding acts of misrecognition need to be understood in terms of power relations, which
require reflexivity on the part of those holding epistemic privilege as well as on the part of those who experience
gender epistemic injustice. However, the concept of power is absent from both the narratives and the actions in the
majority of the GEPs analyzed.
One exception is the GEP from Stockholm, which opens by framing the problem of gender inequality as follows:
“Unequal power structures, both formal and informal – are a general problem in society.” The action plan comprises
three sections focused specifically on power structures and career paths, namely: (1) identifying and countering the
effects of power structures, (2) increased gender awareness, and (3) clarity and transparency (University of
Stockholm, 2017, p. 3).
In this GEP, gender awareness related to the operations of both formal and informal power is deemed as one
the most important tools to counter unequal power relations. It highlights the role of gender‐trained leaders in
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
13

institutional change and includes training geared to raising awareness about power relations for directors of
studies, managers, and research leaders.
5
|
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper sought to unpack the concept of epistemic justice as a prism through which to analyze gender inequality
in higher education institutions. Applying Bourdieu's analysis of power in academia, the paper provides an analytical
structure to understand the operation of systemic gender inequalities in higher education as a matter of epistemic
injustice. The concept of epistemic justice brings gender power relations to the fore to more clearly show where
injustice occurs and requires remediation.
One clear indicator of epistemic injustice is the persistence of gender gaps in the share of full professorship
positions. The argument made in this paper is that, in order to understand gender inequalities in academic power,
repeated acts of epistemic injustice committed against women academics and researchers throughout the course of
their careers should be taken into account in policy design and implementation.
From this study, a number of resources and conditions are shown to be required to deliver gender justice in
higher education. The first is that the approach to tackling gender inequalities be sensitive to gender power re-
lations in the academic world, and the multiple and interrelated forms through which these power dynamics are
manifested. Thus, explicit discussion of how economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital present in an institution,
provides a strong basis for undertaking further work supportive of gender equality. A second requirement is an
institutional consensus on the value of having gender justice as a guiding principle, informing the formal and
informal life of the university. In this regard, commitment from university leaders' matters, as this signals the
importance of gender equality to the institution.
However, these two normative features will not produce a more gender‐equal academic environment without
the aid of specific measures and plans to address real‐world violations of epistemic justice. This is where GEPs have
utility. The process of producing a GEP can provide the setting for reflexivity, consensus‐building, and interrogation
of the gendered norms (both formal and informal) that underpin the assignment of epistemic authority. If the
imbalance of power experienced by women in higher education is to be addressed in a sustainable manner, this
paper suggests that action aimed at effecting institutional change in academic organizations need to tackle both
epistemic privilege and discrimination, reset a traditional culture that normalizes unequal gendered expectations
and behaviors, and distribute epistemic‐supporting resources in a gender‐just manner.
The paper utilizes this normative framework in an analysis of seven GEPs in European universities. Specifically,
it surveyed provisions aimed at transforming organizational cultures through changes in both formal and informal
rules governing the conferral of epistemic authority, while mindful of the conditions that need to be in place for
sustainable institutional change to occur.
The analysis found significant challenges in delivering gender justice in academia through GEP action. First, it
found that gender equality continues to be perceived as women's work, as revealed by gender gaps in levels of
participation and engagement in GEP design and implementation. Second, the analysis revealed deficiencies in
detecting gender epistemic injustices emanating from organizational cultures due to lack of gender disaggregated
data as well as insufficient recognition of this issue in the design of culture surveys used in institutional self‐
assessments. Third, the analysis identified important challenges in the implementation of measures aimed at
changing the formal criteria by which academic merit and scientific excellence is evaluated in recruitment and
promotion processes. In a “publish or perish” neoliberal culture, where market values dictate worth, masculinized
ideals of academic profiles are reinforced and prospects for a recognition of diverse academic skills significantly
compromised.
While this is a first exploratory study, findings from the analysis pave the way for future research on gender
inequalities in academia informed by a theoretical framework based on the concept of gender epistemic justice. The
14
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

study provides the groundwork for more systematic research geared towards theory development and testing,
expanding on methods of data collection beyond documentary analysis as well as contrasting cases over time and
space through longitudinal and comparative case‐studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research for this paper was financially supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and inno-
vation program under the SAGE project (Grant Agreement No. 710534). In developing the ideas presented here, we
have received helpful feedback from Maria Bustelo, Fiona Jenkins, Heike Kahlert, and Kristin Goss. The authors
would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on a previous
version of this paper.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available at the URLs listed in the Appendix Table.
ORCID
Sara Clavero https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5482-7108
Yvonne Galligan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4624-3959
ENDNOTES
1
For example, these women can change masculine management styles; use their power to represent other women and,
more generally, promote gender equality in the organization.
2
In Barcelona, the survey was sent to everyone in the university, including both students and staff (39,335 individuals in
total, yielding 2622 responses); in Nottingham the Athena Swan survey only included university staff and yielded 2703
responses; in Helsinki the survey was conducted among contractual employees plus 194 grant/funded researchers and
other noncontractual employees. Only data related to the participation rate of contractual employees, which yielded
5229 responses, is provided in the gender equality plan (GEP).
3
Lack of knowledge of GEPs can hinder participation in surveys. In Barcelona, only 57.5% of those surveyed reported to
have some knowledge of the previous GEP, while the rest of the respondents either “heard of it” (25.2%) or did not know
of its existence (8.8%). In the light of these survey findings, the urgency of improving communication constitutes a
priority.
4
In Nottingham this gender gap in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training refers to professional and support staff
only. For academic staff participation in this type of training, no gender gaps were found.
5
“We will compile attendance stats for EDI development and use these to ensure that any Schools with poor (<50%)
attendance or absence of particular staff groups are targeted for further development.”
6
However, a breakdown by gender of participation in this survey is not available in public documents—the 2017 Athena
Swan application or the 2018 Annual Report of the Staff Engagement Survey.
7
The teaching and leadership promotion pathway was created to ensure the recognition of the role of teaching‐focused
academics.
8
Mindful of the limitations of survey data, it is possible that findings indicating the prevalence of gender epistemic
injustice in informal settings were complemented by qualitative interviews and focus group data. However, the results of
these qualitative data‐gathering techniques were not explicitly included in the Nottingham GEP documents, and only
summarily reported in the Helsinki GEP.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education.
Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Polity Press.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal,9(2), 27–40.
Castaño, C., Vázquez‐Cupeiro, S., & Martínez‐Cantos, J. L. (2019). Gendered management in Spanish universities: Func-
tional segregation among vice‐rectors. Gender and Education,31(8), 966–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.
2017.1410109
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
15

Council of the European Union (2015). Advancing gender equality in the European Research Area: Council Conclusions, 14846/
15.http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST‐14846‐2015‐INIT/en/pdf
De Welde, K., & Laursen, S. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for women Ph.D. students in
STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology,3(3), 571–595.
Deem, R., Ozga, J. T., & Prichard, C. (2000). Managing further education: Is it still men's work too? Journal of Further and
Higher Education,24(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/713677083
Doss, C. R. (2017). Including both equity and efficiency claims for international development. Canadian Journal of Devel-
opment Studies,38(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2017.1376623
Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology,28(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02691728.2013.782585
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2016). Gender equality in academia and research. GEAR tool. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. https://eige.europa.eu/gender‐mainstreaming/toolkits/gear
Elomäki, A. (2015). The economic case for gender equality in the European Union: Selling gender equality to decision‐
makers and neoliberalism to women's organizations. European Journal of Women's Studies,22(3), 288–302. https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F10.1177/1350506815571142
Esquivel, V. (2017). Efficiency and gender equality in growth theory: simply add‐ons?. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/
Revue Canadienne d'Études du Developpement,38(4), 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2017.1377061
European Commission. (2005). The European Charter for researchers and the code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers.
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/am509774cee_en_e4.pdf
European Commission. (2013). SHE figures 2012.http://ec.europa.eu/research/science‐society/document_library/pdf_06/
she‐figures‐2012_en.pdf
European Commission. (2019). SHE figures 2018.https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/she‐figures‐2018_en
Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post‐socialist’ age. New Left Review,212,
68–93.
Fraser, N. (2007). Feminist politics in the age of recognition: A two‐dimensional approach to gender justice. Studies in Social
Justice,1(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v1i1.979
Fricker, M. (1998). Rational authority and social power: Towards a truly social epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society,98(2), 159–177.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Gerard, K. (2019). Rationalizing ‘gender‐wash’: Empowerment, efficiency and knowledge construction. Review of Interna-
tional Political Economy,26(5), 1022–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625423
Giladi, P. (2018). Epistemic injustice. Philosophy & Social Criticism,44(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F01914537
17707237
Giladi, P. (2020). The agent in pain: Alienation and discursive abuse. International Journal of Philosophical Studies,28, 692.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2020.1784534
Hamilton, L. E., Husar, M. H., & Sowa, J. E. (2019). Including women in public affairs departments: Diversity is not enough.
Journal of Public Affairs Education,25(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1565051
Heffernan, T., & Bosetti, L. (2020). University bullying and incivility towards faculty deans. International Journal of Leadership
in Education,00, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12272
Helgesson, K. S., & Sjögren, E. (2019). No finish line: How formalization of academic assessment can undermine clarity and
increase secrecy. Gender, Work and Organization,26(4), 558–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12355
Hobson, B. (2018). Gendered dimensions and capabilities: Opportunities, dilemmas and challenges. Critical Sociology,44(6),
883–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F0896920516683232
Hookway, C. (2010). Some varieties of epistemic injustice: Reflections on Fricker. Episteme,7(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/
10.3366/E1742360010000882
Ikävalko, E., & Kantola, J. (2017). Feminist resistance and resistance to feminism in gender equality planning in Finland.
European Journal of Women's Studies,24(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F1350506817693868
Linková, M. (2017). Academic excellence and gender bias in the practices and perceptions of scientists in leadership and
decision‐making positions. Gender a výzkum/Gender and Research,18(1), 42–66. https://doi.org/10.13060/25706578.
2017.18.1.349
Loveday, V. (2018). The neurotic academic: Anxiety, casualization, and governance in the neoliberalising university. Journal
of Cultural Economy,11(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2018.1426032
Lutter, M., & Schröder, M. (2020). Is there a motherhood penalty in academia? The gendered effect of children on academic
publications in German sociology. European Sociological Review,36(3), 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz063
Montes López, E., & O'Connor, P. (2019). Micropolitics and meritocracy: Improbable bed fellows? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership,47(5), 678–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F1741143218759090
16
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN

O'Connor, P. (2020). Why is it so difficult to reduce gender inequality in male‐dominated higher educational organizations?
A feminist institutional perspective. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,45(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03080188.2020.1737903
O'Connor, P., Montes López, E., O'Hagan, C., Wolffram, A., Aye, M., Chizzola, V., Mich, O., Apostolov, G., Topuzova, I., Sağlamer,
S., Tan, M. G., & Çağlayan, H. (2017). Micro‐political practices in higher education: A challenge to excellence as a
rationalizing myth?. Critical Studies in Education,61(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1381629
O'Keefe, T., & Courtois, A. (2019). ‘Not one of the family’: Gender and precarious work in the neoliberal university. Gender,
Work and Organization,26(4), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12346
Osborn, M., Rees, T., Bosch, M., Hermann, C., Hilden, J., Mason, J., Mclaren, A., Palomba, R., Peltonen, L., Vela, C., Weis, D.,
Wold, A., & Wenneras, C. (2000). Science policies in the European Union: Promoting excellence through mainstreaming
gender equality. A report from the ETAN network on women and science. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
Ovseiko, P. V., Chapple, A., Edmunds, L. D., Ziebland,S. (2017). Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN
charter for women in science: An exploratory study of women's and men's perceptions. Health Research Policy and
Systems,15(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961‐017‐0177‐9
Peterson, H. (2016). Is managing academics “women's work”? Exploring the glass cliff in higher education management.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership,44(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F1741143
214563897
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
Reed, M. (2018). The research impact handbook.https://www.fasttrackimpact.com/research‐impact‐book
Rees, T. (2001). Mainstreaming gender equality in science in the European Union: The ‘ETAN Report’. Gender and Education,
13(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250120063544
Rosa, R., & Clavero, S. (2020). The challenge of neoliberalism and precarity for gender sensitivity in academia. In E. Drew &
S. Canavan (Eds.), The gender‐sensitive university. Routledge.
Rowlands, J. (2018). Deepening understandings of Bourdieu's academic and intellectual capital through a study of academic
voice within academic governance. Studies in Higher Education,43(11), 1823–1836.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing
a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The Leadership Quarterly,27(3), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2015.10.008
Sallee, M. W. (2012). The ideal worker or the ideal father: Organizational structures and culture in the gendered university.
Research in Higher Education,53, 782–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐012‐9256‐5
Sam, C., & van der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of
higher education models. Higher Education,68(6), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐014‐9750‐0
Scully, M. A. (1997). Meritocracy. In P. H. Werhane & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics
(pp. 413–414). Blackwell.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2017). Privatizing the public university: Key trends, counter‐trends and alternatives. In S. Wright &
C. Shore (Eds.), Death of the public university? Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy (pp. 1–27).
Berghahn Books.
Teelken, C., Taminiau, Y., & Rosenmöller, C. (2019). Career mobility from associate to full professor in academia: Micro‐
political practices and implicit gender stereotypes. Studies in Higher Education,46(4), 836–850. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075079.2019.1655725
Thornton, M. (2013). The mirage of merit. Australian Feminist Studies,28(76), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.
2013.789584
Treviño, L. J., Gomez‐Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Mixon, F. G. (2018). Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential
allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. Journal of Management,44(3), 972–1000. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206315599216
Tzanakou, C., & Pearce, R. (2019). Moderate feminism within or against the neoliberal university? The example of Athena
SWAN. Gender, Work and Organization,26(8), 1191–1211. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gwao.
12336
Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona. (2019). IV Plan de acción para la igualdad de género de la. Cuatrienio 2019‐2023.
University of Helsinki. (2019). Equality and diversity plan 2019‐2020.
University of Nottingham. (2017). Athena SWAN Silver Submission. Valuing diversity, promoting equality..
University of Stockholm. (2017). Plan for gender mainstreaming.
Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven‐headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia.
Gender, Work and Organization,19, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐0432.2011.00566.x
Waylen, G. (2014). Informal institutions, institutional change, and gender equality. Political Research Quarterly,67(1), 212–
223. https://doi.org/10.1177/%2F1065912913510360
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN
-
17

White, K. (2017). Introduction: The focus on success stories. In K. White & P. O'Connor (Eds.), Gendered success in higher
education: Global perspectives (pp. 3–23). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978‐1‐137‐56659‐1_1
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Sara Clavero is a Senior Postdoctoral Researcher at the Directorate for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion,
Technological University Dublin.
Prof. Yvonne Galligan is the Director of the Directorate for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Technological
University Dublin.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: Clavero S, Galligan Y. Delivering gender justice in academia through gender equality
plans? Normative and practical challenges. Gender Work Organ. 2021;1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/
gwao.12658
18
-
CLAVERO AND GALLIGAN