Women in research are assessed on achievements, men on potential: RSU explores inequality in science

Science is not just about generating new knowledge and making discoveries. Its impact extends to our health, the environment, technology and everyday life. Although science is often seen as an objective and neutral space where the most talented and hardworking people succeed, opportunities in science are not equal. 

Writer: Jana Kukaine
Lead Researcher, RSU Asst. Prof. 
 

For example, although women make up a significant proportion of those working in science in Latvia (55.1% of academic staff are women), they remain underrepresented in senior positions. 

The analysis and researchers’ discussions conducted as part of the international INCLUDE project implemented by Rīga Stradiņš University (RSU) point to inequality that is not always easy to notice. As a result, science may lose talented people, while some human potential may remain untapped, leading to lost opportunities for ideas, discoveries and solutions that could benefit society. 

The project team encourages a critical reassessment of perceptions of people working in science and draws attention to mechanisms that may perpetuate inequality in academia.  

To build an inclusive scientific community, we must acknowledge that academia is not isolated from the stereotypes prevalent in society or from existing structural inequalities. 

Is the starting position the same for everyone? 

Traditionally, academic careers are based on the principle of meritocracy – a system in which positions and recognition are awarded on the basis of individual merit. However, the INCLUDE project experts argue that this formal approach is not sufficient. If assessment criteria and the practices used to apply them are not critically reviewed, they may indirectly reinforce existing privileges and structural inequalities. These inequalities do not arise from the attitudes or choices of individuals but are embedded in institutional practices and societal perceptions. 

The problem lies in the assumption that all researchers start from the same position. 

In reality, unequal access to resources, professional networks and support systems means that some move forward with the wind at their backs, while others get “stuck” or have to overcome invisible systemic barriers.  

Without a more nuanced approach, meritocracy can become a system that rewards not only talent and contribution, but also the ability to fit into historically established academic career models¹, which focus on linear career progression, long and intensive working hours, and the ability to travel and work outside regular working hours. People who have caring responsibilities for family members or other obligations find it more difficult to fit into such a system. 

Moreover, the meritocratic approach encourages individualism and competition. When a researcher’s value is reduced to a “score” based on individual achievements, research can become an individual contest rather than a collaborative endeavour. In the long term, this emphasis weakens the academic community, diminishes solidarity and hinders the exchange of knowledge, as researchers compete for resources and status within the system. 

From formal equality to substantive equality 

The terms “equality of rights” and “equality” are often used interchangeably, but researchers are increasingly emphasising the concept of substantive equality. While formal equality provides for the same rules for everyone, substantive equality recognises that achieving fair outcomes requires taking into account people’s different starting points, opportunities and structural barriers. 

Equal or seemingly “gender-neutral” treatment does not in itself eliminate long-standing biases and may, on the contrary, reinforce inequality. This is why there is growing discussion about the need to complement strictly quantitative measures of “excellence” with a more holistic approach to assessment. This makes it possible to view a researcher’s performance in a broader context, taking into account career breaks due to caring responsibilities or other circumstances. 

Data from international studies show that inequality in research often arises through processes that are difficult to detect but can collectively create a significant gap. 

Research shows that unconscious bias can influence assessment processes: men are more often assessed on their potential, that is, whether they are considered promising candidates. Women, by contrast, are more often required to provide evidence of what they have already achieved.² This can mean that women have to achieve more to receive the same recognition that men receive with less effort. This situation can affect career progression, access to funding and resources, and professional and other forms of recognition. 

Academic care work 

A significant but often underrated contribution to science is so-called care work. In the humanities and social sciences, care work means not only practical help but also emotional support and the maintenance of relationships that are crucial for the well-being of people and communities. 

Academic care work includes student mentoring, support for colleagues (for example, birthday greetings) and other duties that are crucial to the day-to-day functioning of the institution but are often much less visible. 

International research suggests that women undertake a disproportionate share of this work.

 Although essential to the university environment, this contribution is not always adequately recognised in workload assessments or career progression.³

The leaky pipeline and the citation gap 

Although women make up the majority in many fields at the early stages of their studies, their representation decreases as they progress through an academic career, particularly in senior and decision-making positions. In research, this phenomenon is known as the “leaky pipeline” – a metaphor describing how women, and their potential contributions to science, gradually “drip away” over the course of an academic career. 

Research also points to a citation gap in several scientific disciplines: women researchers’ work is cited less frequently, and women are also less likely, on average, to cite their own previous work.⁴ These differences may be linked not only to individual citation practices, but also to the structural organisation of academic communities, which can reinforce existing inequalities.⁵ This, in turn, can affect academic visibility and citation metrics, including the h-index, which are used to assess academic competitiveness. 

For this reason, when awarding grants or assessing candidates for academic positions, it is increasingly important to consider not only quantitative indicators, but also the quality of a researcher’s work, the different forms of their contribution and the context in which they work. For example, although publications in Latvian academic journals often carry less weight than those in journals published by international publishers such as Oxford University Press or Routledge, their significance within Latvia’s academic community should also be taken into account. 

These publications help develop academic discourse in Latvian and make knowledge accessible to Latvian society, thereby making a significant contribution at the national level. 

The INCLUDE Manifesto for Change 

Raising public awareness and fostering understanding are important steps towards a fairer and more inclusive academic environment. Researchers, higher education institutions and policymakers are therefore encouraged to endorse the INCLUDE Manifesto, which commits them to recognising structural inequalities and their impact on scientific processes, acknowledging the wider effects of these inequalities on societal health and well-being, and developing research infrastructure that embraces diversity. 

Read and endorse the INCLUDE Manifesto

1. Jackson-Cole, D., & Goldmeier, G. (2023). Meritocracy. In M. Duarte, K. Losleben & K. Fjørtoft (Eds.), Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Academia: A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Transformation (pp. 98–107). Routledge.
2. Benson, A., Danielle L., and K. Shue. 2026. "Potential" and the Gender Promotion Gap. American Economic Review 116 (2): 375–417; Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies. Journal of Management, 38(2), 719-739; Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 707–724.
3. Rajan, S. V. (2025). The hand that rocks the cradle: Revaluing academic labour and recognizing the centrality of care work. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 59(2), 290–305.
4. King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3.
5. Rubin, H. (2022). Structural causes of citation gaps. Philosophical Studies, 179, 2323–2345.