INTRODUCTION

In Spain, female students are in the majority in university classrooms, but there is still a significant horizontal segregation by degree, with a lower presence of women in some disciplines linked to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) or PECS (Physics, Engineering, Computer, Science) areas. This last acronym is used to emphasize that it is in these areas where women are less represented (Cimpian et al., 2020; Sáinz, 2017). Approximately three out of every four students in undergraduate and first and second cycle studies in Health Sciences are women, i.e. 71.8% of students in these disciplines, while in Engineering and Architecture the percentage of women drops to 26.5%, as shown in the report Científicas en Cifras 2023 (Unidad de Mujer y Ciencia, 2023).

This situation is not new in Spanish universities or in the Western context, since almost sixty years ago Alice Rossi (1965) asked the question: why so few women? Since then, numerous studies have been carried out that show the influence of multiple social and cultural factors in the gender gap that exists in certain careers in the scientific-technical field and the need to continue our efforts to reduce this gap (Verdugo-Castro, 2022). Thanks to this research, we now know that the low representation of women in university careers related to PECS disciplines is not related to girls’ performance or skills in these fields, but to the gender stereotypes that condition their choices at school (Bian et al., 2017; Couso, 2023). These stereotypes affect girls from an early age: at the age of six, girls already believe they are less bright than boys (Bian et al., 2017) and in primary school they perceive themselves to be less competent in mathematics and show greater anxiety before mathematics exams (Ayuso et al., 2021). Moreover, taking into account that students’ interest in science decreases as they get older (Martín et al., 2023), action should be taken in the early stages of education to promote more vocations in the STEM field; without forgetting the stereotypes and expectations that teachers have and that they can transmit to students (Couso, 2023), and that we must combat by providing gender training to active teachers and future teachers so that they can educate in equality.

The participation of women scientists and researchers in the celebration of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science has been fundamental in providing students with female references in PECS areas, helping girls to see these careers as a possible career option. This promotion of scientific-technological vocations in girls and young women is an equality measure successfully implemented in 2022 (Women and Science Unit, 2023), although it seems to be carried out primarily in secondary education. Given the importance of these promotional activities, the participation of female researchers and professors should be recognised and prevented from becoming an increase in women’s “academic housework” at university (Heijstra et al., 2017), as they devote more hours than their male colleagues to these tasks of care and service to the students (Cabero et al., 2023).

But it is not only a matter of increasing the number of female students in these degrees, we also have to take into account that “when scientific-technical areas are a socio-economic scenario of high employability and excellent salaries for qualified people, men move to occupy these socio-economic centres and women remain on the margins” (Samper-Gras, 2022, p. 209), which could explain the changes in enrolment in the mathematics degree in recent years. We should also be able to retain our female students (González-Pérez et al., 2022) and researchers (González, 2018) and end the dynamics that push them out of the system, including harassment (Yang & Wright, 2018; Bernardo, 2021), which has remained silenced in Spanish universities (Valls et al., 2016) and the criminalisation of motherhood (Gallardo, 2021; Powell, 2021). Not forgetting that there are gender biases in the scientific evaluation system (Moss-Racusin, 2012) and that women are systematically denied publications and citations, hindering their professional promotion (Sugimoto & Larivière, 2023), which favours vertical segregation or the so-called scissors effect that still persists in universities and public research organisations (Women and Science Unit, 2023) and contributes to a 12.7% pay gap in universities (De la Cal, 2023). This scissors effect also affects other more feminised areas, such as biomedicine, and to overcome this inequality “it is necessary to distribute women’s and men’s time fairly, favouring conciliation; and that equality policies between women and men are implemented effectively, not only by limiting themselves to establishing recommendations but also by taking concrete action and sanctioning non-compliance” (Segovia et al., 2023, p. 408). Otherwise, we will continue with this low female representation in the field of science and technology, which, in addition to reducing work opportunities and women’s participation in future advances and decisions, also affects the quality of science, since “the presence of women in science (like other groups) is not a sufficient condition for better science, but it is necessary” (García Dauder & Pérez Sedeño, 2017, p. 9). On the other hand, Schiebinger and Klinge (2020) show us the importance of including sex and gender in research and innovation, and the consequences of not doing so (harm to people, delay of innovations...).

The involvement of universities is of great importance in order to solve the problems listed in the previous paragraphs. To this end, they should promote the incorporation of the gender perspective in the teaching of disciplines related to PECS (Calvo-Iglesias, 2022a), and teach students to introduce the sex/gender approach in research (Calvo-Iglesias, 2022b), thus complying with the laws in force at both European and national level. Universities should also train future pre-school, primary and secondary school teachers to promote coeducation and to support a non-stereotypical choice of university studies. All of this would contribute to achieving Goal 5 “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. And we must not forget that, although “we currently find ourselves in a favourable context in which new educational laws allow us to rethink the development of teacher training in which coeducation becomes an essential element” (García-Lastra, 2022, p. 33), for now the integration of the gender perspective in university teaching is scarce, as stated in Miralles-Cardona (2020). Although important steps have been taken towards this, such as the collection of guides published by the Xarxa Vives d’Universitats (Calvo-Iglesias et al., 2022), which already has thirty-eight guides, twelve of them belong to the field of science and engineering, and the provision of training courses on gender perspective among teaching and research staff, but male participation in these courses is very low (Unidad Mujer y Ciencia, 2023). To understand this situation, we must take into account the resistance to implementing gender equality initiatives in Spanish universities (Castaño & Vázquez-Cupeiro, 2023) and the neoliberal context that has been implemented in the university and which directs teaching and research staff to promote their research activity (Saura & Caballero, 2020) in order to climb positions in the rankings. This evaluation policy based on rankings is beginning to be questioned after the recent scandals (Galán, 2023) and it is not going to help us achieve gender equality, as shown by the study carried out by Reverter-Bañón (2020) on the Times Higher Education ranking.

Based on the report prepared by the Network of Gender Equality Units for University Excellence (RUIGEU), which shows the diagnosis of the mainstreaming of the gender perspective in teaching and research, the measures for prevention and action against harassment, and the measures for joint responsibility and work-life balance in the public and private universities that make up the network (RUIGEU, 2022), we have prepared and analysed a survey to carry out a diagnosis of the situation of the actions to promote gender equality in STEM areas carried out in Spanish universities. This survey has been addressed to the equality units because, as stated in the Organic Law 2/2023 of 22 March on the University System (23 March, 2023), they are “responsible for advising, coordinating and evaluating the mainstreaming of equality between women and men in the development of university policies, as well as for including the gender perspective in all the activities and functions of the university”. This is the first time that this diagnosis has been carried out and, therefore, it complements the RUIGEU report (2022). The purpose of this survey is to find out about the implementation of measures to favour the presence of women in STEM or PECS areas, which should be implemented at all stages of education, from infant education to the recognition of women in PECS disciplines in appointments as Honorary Doctorates, showing that we are not just guests, but that women have made and continue to make important contributions to science and technology.

METHOD

Participants

The Network of Gender Equality Units for University Excellence (RUIGEU) includes the equality units of all Spanish public universities and those of private universities that have applied for membership. In 2023, the RUIGEU is made up of the units of 54 universities (RUIGEU, 2022).

To collect information about each university, a survey was sent out with questions about the initiatives and policies carried out in their university on gender equality with emphasis on the PECS field. The survey was sent to the 54 RUIGEU units during December 2022 and January 2023 on three occasions (two reminders), in order to collect more responses. A total of 28 units responded, i.e. 52% of the units.

Survey

The survey was elaborated with Google forms and consisted of 13 questions so that it did not take long to answer and was easy to answer. The answers were given with several options and there was always a section for others, so that they could optionally write if they wished to clarify their answer. The full questionnaire is available at https://bit.ly/3v8IdiY and the questions are also specified in the Results section. However, they can be grouped into several areas: a) actions to fight against gender stereotypes before access to university (questions 1 to 3); b) actions to favour access and permanence in the PECS areas (questions 4 and 5); c) recognition of students’ work carried out with a gender perspective (questions 6 and 7); d) valuation of teaching and research with a gender perspective (questions 8 to 10); e) visibility and maximum recognition of female researchers in the STEM area (question 11); f) actions for effective equality (questions 12 and 13).

Limitations

Since not all units responded, the information comes from a self-selected sample. Therefore, the study is exploratory, only descriptive statistics will be used, not inferential statistics.

The survey did not deal with personal data, but with data from the institutions. However, in order to avoid possible non-response to hide a low involvement in gender equality on the part of some universities, the survey was anonymous. It could be answered without specifying information about the institution. In any case, a response rate of 52% is much higher than the usual response rates for university staff, which range between 25 and 35% (Cabero & Epifanio, 2021). Moreover, according to Menachemi (2011) it seems that in online surveys conducted in universities, response bias is undetectable.

On the possible bias of non-response, Armstrong and Overton (1977) suggest three approaches. The first would be to compare with known values in the population. However, this is not possible in our case because we do not collect data from the responding universities and trying to find the answers to the survey questions on the websites of the 54 universities is an arduous and complicated mission, in addition to the fact that such information is not always available on the websites. It is precisely for this reason that we designed the survey. The second approach would be to consider subjective estimates of non-response. It is assumed that those people most involved in the issue will respond. So, in our case, the non-responses could correspond to those universities with a lower degree of involvement in equality policies, especially in the STEM field. The third approach would be based on comparing the responses of the different waves of respondents. Here it is assumed that the respondents after the last reminder are more similar to the non-respondents. In the last reminder, 5 universities responded, which is a small number to draw conclusions from. In any case, their responses are not out of line with those obtained previously, although there are perhaps slightly more negative responses and unknown answers.

Despite these limitations, this study provides a snapshot of the situation of equality policies focused on the STEM field in Spanish universities, which has not been carried out to date. Therefore, although it is possible that it reports statistics that might overestimate to some extent the equality policies in STEM currently in place, if indeed the universities most involved responded in greater proportion, this study offers a novel and important contribution to pointing out avenues for improvement in relation to equality in STEM.

RESULTS

As each question had different possible answers and all of them are categorical, the results of each question are presented and analyzed separately.

Regarding the first question: “at your university, is there any programme or initiative to bring STEM careers to primary school girls?”, 15 units (54%) stated that no such programme existed at their university.

The second question “If your university offers teaching or primary and early childhood education degrees, in the subjects dedicated to mathematics didactics, is there any topic dedicated to coeducation in mathematics?” reported the following results: in six of the 28 universities those degrees are not taught, three of those where it is taught were unaware of it, and in only three cases the answer was affirmative, while in 16 cases the answer was negative. Consequently, of those universities with teaching degrees, according to the data available to the equality units, only 16% have a topic dedicated to coeducation in mathematics.

The third question “If your university offers a Master’s degree in teacher training in the subjects of science (physics and chemistry), technology and/or mathematics, is there a topic dedicated to coeducation in these disciplines? “Therefore, of the universities that offer such a Master’s degree, according to the data provided by the equality offices, only 5% of the universities that do offer such a Master’s degree devote a topic to coeducation in these scientific-technical disciplines.

In reference to the fourth question “In your university, is there any action to favor the incorporation of female undergraduate students in PECS (Physics, Engineering, Computer Science)?”, 14 universities (50%) indicated that there was no action. Among those that did and indicated what they consisted of, the most repeated actions were campaigns and scholarships.

Regarding the fifth question “In your university, is there any positive action to favor the permanence of women in pre- and post-doctoral stages in PECS areas?”, one did not know the answer, while 21 units (78%) answered that there was none. Of those who answered in the affirmative, three corresponded to the undergraduate stage, and four to the doctoral and postdoctoral stage. One of these initiatives was a mentoring programme.

The sixth question “At your university, are there any specific awards for dissertations and theses in mathematics-intensive areas, such as PECS, to assess gender mainstreaming in these areas?” yields the following data: six universities do not offer awards in any area; 19 units offer awards, but not specific to these areas, while three universities do offer specific awards in different fields.

The information obtained from the seventh question “In your university, do any of the criteria for awarding extraordinary doctoral prizes consider that the thesis incorporates the gender perspective?” is shown below: four units do not know, two universities (8%) answer affirmatively, one of them indicates that only a few doctoral programmes, while 22 units indicate that it is not considered.

Regarding the eighth question “if your university has a programme for assessing teaching, such as the DOCENTIA programme or similar, for example, for the recognition of five-year periods, do you get extra points if you teach with a gender perspective or training in equality, as a specific section?”, one unit does not know, 22 universities (81%) answer in the negative, three units indicate that teaching with a gender perspective is valued and two universities value training in equality as a specific section.

The responses to the ninth question “If your university has a programme to fund educational innovation projects, are extra points awarded for projects that integrate the gender perspective?” are as follows: one unit does not know; the programme does not exist in four universities; it is not valued in 17 universities (74%), while it is valued in six universities.

In reference to the tenth question “If your university has a programme to finance research projects, is equality valued in the projects? “Again, one unit does not know; the programme does not exist in six universities; it is not valued in 16 universities (76%); and among the five universities that do value it, it is valued in the following way: in one university extra points are given if the project is directed by a female researcher; in another extra points are given if the team is an equal-gender team; and on another occasion extra points are given for the two previous conditions; and finally, in two universities it is valued that the project integrates the gender perspective.

The eleventh question asks whether “in your university, is there an Honorary Doctorate in STEM disciplines?”, with the result that two units do not know, and in 11 cases the answer is negative (42%).

The information collected in the twelfth question “in your university, do people who have suffered a break or reduction in research, either due to situations recognised by leaves of absence, or due to other situations, such as care in the COVID crisis, have the possibility of reducing their teaching in order to recover research, if they so wish, by means of a specific programme for this purpose? “The answer is summarized as follows: two units do not know; in 18 universities there is no programme at all (69%); in five of the universities only for maternity leave; while in three of them, in addition to leave, there is also leave for caregiving. None of them consider situations not recognized as leave situations.

In the thirteenth question “In your university, in the event that a student suffers inappropriate behavior or even harassment, are there mechanisms in place so that this person can immediately change university (by paying for the transfer) or research group if they wish to do so? “The following answers were obtained: one of the units does not know; 19 units (70%) answer in the negative; in the affirmative cases, the answers are very heterogeneous, in some cases only indicating a change of research group within the same university or on different campuses; while in others it is explicitly stated that the transfer is paid for.

Archetype analysis

In order to analyze the responses in a multivariate way and thus to discover the joint behavior of the universities, archetype analysis with missing data is used (Epifanio et al., 2020). Using this statistical technique that is similar to cluster analysis, but with important differences (see Cabero et al. 2023 for a discussion of archetype analysis in education), the archetypical universities, those with the most extreme responses, are found and the rest of the universities are expressed as percentage mixtures of these archetypical universities. This helps the interpretation of the results. Three archetypal universities are considered in order to facilitate the visualization and analysis of the results. Table 1 presents the responses to the 13 questions, denoted by P, for the three archetypal universities obtained, where 0 indicates a negative response and 1 a positive response. In the sixth question, 0.5 indicates that awards are given for TFG and TFM with a gender perspective, but not by field. Missing data are denoted by NA (“not available”). The data and the code to reproduce the results are available at http://www3.uji.es/~epifanio/RESEARCH/datoscodigo.zip.

Almost all responses from both A1 and A2 universities are negative, i.e. they are universities with few equality initiatives in the STEM field. Both A1 and A2 were universities that responded after the last reminder. In contrast, almost all the responses from university A3 are positive, i.e. it is a university that is highly involved in implementing equality policies in the STEM field. Universities A1 and A2 would represent the archetype of a university with low involvement, while university A3 represents the opposite archetype.

To visualize the behavior of the universities in the survey, Figure 1 shows a ternary diagram, whose vertices corresponds to the three archetypal universities and the rest of the universities are represented as a percentage mix of these universities. Only five of 28 universities (18%) are similar to A3, with percentages above 50% in Figure 1. Consequently, the vast majority of universities are more similar to A1 and A2 universities, with low involvement in STEM equality policies.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although in recent years there have been various legislative reforms to introduce gender equality in education in the university system (Calvo et al., 2022), the results of the survey show that the necessary actions to achieve equality in the STEM field have not been carried out.

If we compare the survey responses to questions 1-3, on actions to favor access and permanence in the PECS areas, with those found in the literature, we can see that most of the actions are aimed at secondary education, although there are also specific initiatives in primary education, such as that described by Ayuso et al. (2021). These initiatives are not without resistance, since, as Castaño and Vázquez-Cupeiro (2023) report, some universities opposed them with arguments associated with the supposed discrimination of men. For example, Resa’s study (2023), after analyzing the teaching guides for subjects in the Primary Education degree at 38 universities in the 2019-20 academic year, shows that only 6% of the guides contain content related to gender equality. In addition, the study by Miralles-Cardona et al. (2020) notes:

greater receptiveness to equality training among students of the undergraduate degrees in early childhood and primary education than among students of the master’s degree in secondary education, as well as a much more favorable perception of gender training among female students. (p. 247)

Therefore, it is still necessary to promote coeducation in kinder and primary education and in the master’s degree in secondary education, as can be deduced both from the survey data and from the studies by Miralles-Cardona (2020) and Resa (2023) mentioned in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, “the emphasis given by the LOMLOE to gender equality must undoubtedly be reflected in the training of students in the faculties of education, i.e. the future teachers responsible for putting these regulations into practice” (García-Lastra, 2022, p. 35). Therefore, it would be important to carry out actions to try to involve especially the male students who are studying for a Master’s degree in secondary education and come from the PECS areas.

In relation to questions 4 and 5, on actions to favor access and permanence in the PECS areas, we observe that actions to favor access are more important than those to favor permanence. Although we can find publications on mentoring programmes such as the one promoted by the Royal Academy of Engineering of Spain which has been carried out in different universities (Calvo-Iglesias, 2022a). When promoting university degrees, it would be interesting that universities would consider that the motivations of men and women are different. For example, for women, social utility seems to be an important factor (Sáinz et al., 2020). The changes made by universities such as Carnegie Mellon University and Harvey Mudd College in the USA to adapt the academic culture to women should also be analyzed in order to move from 10%-15% of female students enrolled in computer science degrees, as is currently the case in Spain, to 50% (Díaz, 2021).

The lack of recognition of students’ work carried out with a gender perspective, as shown in the answers to questions 6 and 7, is in line with the results of a recent review of the TFGs awarded for integrating the gender perspective in disciplines related to the STEM field in different universities (Calvo-Iglesias, 2022b). Even so, we would like to highlight that more and more universities are implementing these awards and giving them visibility through repositories, so we can find TFGs that incorporate this perspective in degrees such as Physics, or engineering degrees such as Computer Science (Calvo-Iglesias, 2022b).

There is also no recognition of teaching and research with a gender perspective (questions 8 to 10). Different investigations show that both educational innovation projects in the field of PECS and publications on teaching experiences or research projects with a gender perspective are still insufficient (Calvo-Iglesias, 2022a; Unidad Mujer y Ciencia, 2023), although there have been important projects such as that of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (Calvo et al., 2022). And to reverse this situation, mandatory training should be provided to teaching and research staff and institutional incentives should be created (Lombardo et al., 2021). For example, including the assessment of teaching with a gender perspective or attendance at gender training courses could help the involvement of teachers, especially male teachers whose participation in gender training courses is reduced (Unit of Women and Science, 2023). This involvement of male teachers in PECS areas is fundamental since they are masculinized and therefore more focus should be placed on their role as allies to achieve equality. As recent research highlights, it is essential to know what men’s motivations are to become allies and plan strategies to involve them in equity issues, showing them that their efforts are important (Nash et al., 2021).

The answers to question 11 show that there is still much to do in recognizing women as honorary doctors (RUIGEU, 2022; García, 2023), although there are universities that have chosen women from PECS fields such as Wendy Hall, Margaret Hamilton, Lisa Randall, Jocelyn Bell or Inmaculada Paz Andrade.

And finally, we want to comment that the little involvement of universities in response to the effect of the pandemic on the careers of researchers is striking, taking into account that there are studies that prove the stoppage in scientific production that they experienced during this period (Izquierdo-Useros et al., 2022). Furthermore, to combat harassment it is necessary to take measures and it would be advisable that they be the same throughout the university system, as is already done in the Catalan university system (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2023).

All these responses show us, as we have commented at the beginning of this section, that there is a low involvement of universities in equality policies. Furthermore, it is striking that in numerous cases the response reflected a lack of knowledge of the situation on the part of the equality unit, which may be due to changes in management and the lack of stable personnel, for example, an equality technician. We want to highlight that it is not enough to have a gender equality unit, but rather it is necessary to provide it with the necessary means, both in human and economic resources, to give visibility to the actions and support them without resistance. In this sense, we highlight the opposition to using inclusive language, for example, School of Engineering instead of School of (male in Spanish) Engineers (Castaño & Vázquez Cupeiro, 2023).

The analysis of archetypes confirms this low involvement and shows us that only five of the universities that participated in this study are committed to equality in the scientific-technical field and carry out actions to achieve it. We hope that soon more universities will join these actions following the example of the most committed ones and to do so it is necessary for the Ministry of Universities, the Conference of Rectors of the Spanish University System or the National Accreditation Agency to take appropriate measures, incentives and sanctions, not just recommendations, so that equality is a priority. A clear example of action would be for ANECA and other quality agencies to establish that to accredit degrees or DOCENTIA programs, the gender dimension must be considered, following the line undertaken by the Agency for the Quality of the University System of Catalonia (AQU). Likewise, the focus of action should be changed, which is highly directed at women, and think about actions to involve male teachers and students of these degrees so that they participate in equality actions.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge to all the equality units of the Spanish university system that responded to the survey and who, with their collaboration, made this study possible. We hope that our work helps them continue promoting equality in the scientific-technical field.

Work partially supported by the Research grant TRANSUJI/2023/6 from Jaume I University.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783

Ayuso, N., Fillola, E., Masia, B., Murillo, A. C., Trillo-Lado, R., Baldassarri, S., Cerezo, E., Ruberte, L., Mariscal, D., & Villarroya-Gaudó, M. (2021). Gender gap in STEM: A cross-sectional study of primary school students’ self-perception and test anxiety in mathematics. IEEE Transactions on Education, 64(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2020.3004075

Bernardo Álvarez, A. (2021). Acoso. #MeToo en la ciencia española. Next Door Publishers.

Bian, L., Leslie, S., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. https://bit.ly/49spkp7

Cabero, I., & Epifanio, I. (2021). A data science analysis of academic staff workload profiles in Spanish universities: Gender gap laid bare. Education Sciences, 11(7), 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070317

Cabero, I., Epifanio, I., & Gual-Arnau, X. (2023). Analysis of archetypes to determine time use and workload profiles of Spanish university professors. Education Sciences, 13(3), 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030295

Calvo-Iglesias, E., Epifanio, I., Estrade, S., & Mas de les Valls, E. (2022). Gender perspective in STEM disciplines in Spain universities. In R. Huang, Kinshuk, M. Jemni, N.-S. Chen, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Women in STEM in higher education: Good practices of attraction, access and retainment in higher education (pp. 165–179). Springer Nature Singapore. https://bit.ly/3PUTudF

Calvo Iglesias, E. (2022a). Perspectiva de género en la docencia universitaria de las materias STEM, una revisión. In L. Molina García, D. Cobos Sanchiz, E. López Meneses, A. Jaén Martínez, & A. H. Martín Padilla (Eds.), Educación y sociedad: Pensamiento e innovación para la transformación social (pp. 807–815). Dykinson. https://bit.ly/3vxiLnt

Calvo Iglesias, E. (2022b). Premios a los Trabajos de Fin de Grado con perspectiva de género en las disciplinas CTIM, una revisión. In J. M. Esteve Faubel, A. Fernández-Sogorb, R. Martínez Roig, & J. F. Álvarez Herrero (Eds.), Transformando la educación a través del conocimiento (pp. 191–200). Octaedro. https://bit.ly/3U2HE3A

Castaño Collado, C., & Vázquez-Cupeiro, S. (2023). Resistance and counter-resistance to gender equality policies in Spanish universities. Papers. Revista de Sociologia, 108(2), Artículo e3105. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/papers.3105

Cimpian, J. R., Kim, T. H., & McDermott, Z. T. (2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317–1319. https://bit.ly/3vIeWvz

Couso, D. (2023). Investigación educativa con perspectiva de género: ¿De qué estamos hablando? [Vídeo]. YouTube. https://bit.ly/3U4D70x

De la Cal, M. L., Etxezarreta, A., Galbete, A., & Martinez, E. (2023). Estudio brecha salarial de género en las universidades públicas españolas. https://bit.ly/3TtEh4e

Díaz, C. (2021). Cuando las informáticas rompen el techo de cristal [Webinar]. Tv USC. https://bit.ly/49n4R4Z

Epifanio, I., Ibáñez, M. V., & Simó, A. (2020). Archetypal analysis with missing data: See all samples by looking at a few based on extreme profiles. The American Statistician, 74(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1545700

Galán, A. (2023). Tiempos convulsos para la ética en la ciencia y en el uso de las métricas. Educación XX1, 26(2), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.37562

Gallardo, M. (2021). Does maternity affect women’s careers? Perceptions of working mothers in academia. Educación XX1, 24(1), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.26714

García, C. (2023, 7 de marzo). La brecha de género persiste en la universidad: El abismo de los honoris causa. elDiario.es. https://bit.ly/3IJf9RY

García-Dauder, S., & Pérez-Sedeño, E. (2017). Las "mentiras" científicas sobre las mujeres. Catarata.

García-Lastra, M. (2022). Coeducación y formación del profesorado: Una (nueva) oportunidad para repensar la práctica educativa. In N. Morales (Ed.), Igualdad y coeducación. Retos para las escuelas del siglo XXI (pp. 33–45). Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201/0AQ0336

Generalitat de Catalunya. (2023). Protocol guia d’àmbit universitari per prevenir i reparar amb diligència deguda les situacions de violència masclista, assetjament sexual i assetjament per raó de sexe, orientació sexual, identitat de gènere o expressió de gènere. https://bit.ly/49XqiL2

González-Pérez, S., Martínez-Martínez, M., Rey-Paredes, V., & Cifre, E. (2022). I am done with this! Women dropping out of engineering majors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Artículo 918439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918439

González Ramos, A. M. (2018). ¿Por qué abandonan las mujeres? In A. M. González Ramos (Ed.), Mujeres en la ciencia contemporánea: La aguja y el camello (pp. 39–66). Icaria.

Heijstra, T. M., Steinthorsdóttir, F. S., & Einarsdóttir, T. (2017). Academic career making and the double-edged role of academic housework. Gender and Education, 29(6), 764–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1171825

Izquierdo-Useros, N., Marin Lopez, M. A., Monguió-Tortajada, M., Muñoz-Moreno, J. A., Agusti Benito, C., Morón-López, S., Evans, H., Gualdrón-López, M., Müller, J., & Prado, J. G. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 lockdown in a biomedical research campus: A gender perspective analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Artículo 906072. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906072

Ley Orgánica 2/2023, de 22 de marzo, del Sistema Universitario. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 70, 23 de marzo de 2023. https://bit.ly/4amSmrA

Lombardo, E., Bustelo, M., Alonso, A., Verge, T., Elizondo, A., Tildesley, R., Diz, I., & La Barbera, M. C. (2021). Igualdad e interseccionalidad en las universidades. Recomendaciones. https://bit.ly/4cLKUHZ

Martín Carrasquilla, O., Muñoz San Roque, I., & Santaolalla Pascual, E. (2023). Actitudes hacia la ciencia en la educación STEM: Desarrollo de una escala para la detección y fomento de vocaciones tempranas. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 34(1), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.34.num.1.2023.37421

Menachemi, N. (2011). Assessing response bias in a web survey at a university faculty. Evaluation & Research in Education, 24(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2010.526205

Miralles-Cardona, C., Cardona-Moltó, M.-C., & Chiner, E. (2020). La perspectiva de género en la formación inicial docente: Estudio descriptivo de las percepciones del alumnado. Educación XX1, 23(2), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.23899

Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Nash, M., Grant, R., Moore, R., & Winzenberg, T. (2021). Male allyship in institutional STEMM gender equity initiatives. PLoS One, 16(3), e0248373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248373

Powell, K. (2021). The parenting penalties faced by scientist mothers. Nature, 595(7868), 611–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01993-x

Red de Unidades de Igualdad de Género para la Excelencia Universitaria. (2022). Las políticas de igualdad universitarias: XV Encuentro RUIGEU 2022: Diagnóstico de los grupos de trabajo. https://bit.ly/49rhpZl

Resa, A. (2023). Igualdad de género y formación inicial del profesorado en España: Entre la utopía y la realidad. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 27(1), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v27i1.21192

Reverter-Bañón, S. (2021). La igualdad de género en la universidad. Capitalismo académico y rankings globales. Investigaciones Feministas, 12(2), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.5209/infe.72331

Rossi, A. S. (1965). Women in science: Why so few? Social and psychological influences restrict women’s choice and pursuit of careers in science. Science, 148(3674), 1196–1202. https://bit.ly/3xgWzyb

Sáinz, M. (2017). ¿Por qué no hay más mujeres STEM? Se buscan ingenieras, físicas y tecnólogas. Ariel y Fundación Telefónica.

Sáinz, M., Fàbregues, S., Rodó-de-Zárate, M., Martínez-Cantos, J.-L., Arroyo, L., & Romano, M.-J. (2020). Gendered motivations to pursue male-dominated STEM careers among Spanish young people: A qualitative study. Journal of Career Development, 47(4), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318801101

Samper-Gras, T. (2022). A lo importante, ya van ellos. Una propuesta contextual desde los nuevos materialismos para comprender por qué hay tan pocas mujeres en ciencias técnicas. Cuestiones de Género: de la Igualdad y la Diferencia, 17, 209–231. https://doi.org/10.18002/cg.i17.7248

Saura, G., & Caballero, K. (2020). Capitalismo académico digital. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 37, 192. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.37.2021.27797

Schiebinger, L., & Klinge, I. (2020). Gendered innovations 2: How inclusive analysis contributes to research and innovation. Publications Office of the European Union.

Segovia Saiz, C., Briones Vozmediano, E., Tomás Mateos, J., González María, E., & Gea Sánchez, M. (2023). El techo de cristal de las mujeres investigadoras en ciencias de la salud en España. Feminismo/s, 42, 385–412. https://doi.org/10.14198/fem.2023.42.14

Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2023). Equity for women in science: Dismantling systemic barriers to advancement. Harvard University Press.

Unidad de Mujer y Ciencia. (2023). Científicas en Cifras 2023. https://bit.ly/3JdtMx7

Valls, R., Puigvert, L., Melgar, P., & Garcia-Yeste, C. (2016). Breaking the silence at Spanish universities: Findings from the first study of violence against women on campuses in Spain. Violence Against Women, 22(13), 1519–1539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215627511

Verdugo-Castro, S. (2022). La brecha de género en los estudios universitarios del sector STEM en el espacio español de educación [Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Salamanca]. GRIAL Repositorio documental Universidad de Salamanca. https://bit.ly/3AqxPTH

Yang, Y., & Wright Carroll, D. (2018). Gendered microaggressions in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Leadership and Research in Education, 4, 28–45. https://bit.ly/3PPixii

Información adicional

How to reference this article: Epifanio, I., & Calvo-Iglesias, E. (2024). Actions for gender equality in scientific-technical areas in Spanish universities. Educación XX1, 27(2), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.38279

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 706