IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf039..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender gaps in the promotion of mid-career university academic staff: a meta-analytic study

Author

Listed:
  • Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez
  • Carmen Araneda-Guirriman
  • Gabriel Peñaloza Diaz

Abstract

In recent decades, academia has changed significantly, due to managerial practices and the emphasis on productivity and quantifiable metrics for evaluating academic work. These changes have generated increased competition, making access to funding, and ability to publish in high- impact journals, pre-requisites to promotion, especially in the mid-career stages. Hence the need to determine the impact of productivity assessment on the promotion of men and women in academia. To this end, a meta-analysis was conducted, involving a review of 15 studies, to compare the odds of promotion to full professorship between men and women, using the odds ratio. The results showed that men are 1.76 times more likely (95% C1:1.51–2.05) to be promoted. This gap persisted even when considering academic area and geographic region, and publication metrics. The study’s findings contribute to the current debate on how academic work is evaluated and the emphasis placed on quantification through the use of metrics that measure research performance, which render structural gender inequalities invisible. These conclusions indicate an urgent need to formulate and implement evidence-based policies that foster inclusive academic environments, ensuring equal opportunities and equity in academic work evaluation frameworks for the promotion process for all academic staff.

Suggested Citation

  • Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez & Carmen Araneda-Guirriman & Gabriel Peñaloza Diaz, 2025. "Gender gaps in the promotion of mid-career university academic staff: a meta-analytic study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-039..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf039.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf039.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.