Executive Summary

This report analyzes the intersection of gender, status, and career advancement within academia, with a specific focus on its implications for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The study investigates promotion outcomes for recipients of prestigious individual research grants—the European Research Council (ERC) grant and the Italian “Futuro in Ricerca di Base” (FIRB) scheme—compared to non-recipients. The findings reveal a significant credentialism effect, where grant acquisition strongly predicts promotion, independent of research performance. Critically, this analysis demonstrates that while grant awardees do not experience gender-based discrimination in promotion, a substantial gender promotion gap persists among the larger population of non-awardees. This suggests that the high status conferred by a prestigious grant acts as a shield against gender discrimination. However, because such status is accessible to only a very small minority, systemic discrimination continues to impede progress towards SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) for the majority of women in academia. The report concludes that it is status, rather than performance, that protects women from discrimination, highlighting a critical flaw in institutional practices that undermines the principles of SDG 8 (Decent Work) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions).

Introduction: Aligning Academic Advancement with Sustainable Development Goals

The pursuit of equality in academic careers is fundamental to achieving several Sustainable Development Goals. Inequitable systems lead to a waste of talent, directly contravening the principles of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and hindering the development of inclusive institutions as outlined in SDG 16. Despite global initiatives to promote gender equality in research, progress remains slow, with persistent bias negatively impacting women’s career progression. This report examines a key mechanism of this inequality: the role of status. Status, defined by esteem and honor within a social group, is a primary driver of inequality. In academia, prestigious individual research grants are powerful symbols of status, often influencing promotion opportunities more than objective performance metrics. This investigation analyzes whether the status conferred by grant acquisition mitigates gender discrimination in promotion, providing a novel empirical contribution to the discourse on employment equality and its alignment with the SDGs.

Analysis of Gender Disparity and its Impact on SDGs

SDG 5: Gender Equality in Academia

Achieving SDG 5 requires ending all forms of discrimination against women and ensuring their full participation and equal opportunities for leadership. Academia, however, is often a highly gendered organization where women face systemic disadvantages.

• Systemic Barriers: The conservative culture of academia can create an unfriendly climate for women, leading to slower career tracks and a “glass ceiling” effect, independent of scientific productivity. This directly undermines Target 5.1 (End all forms of discrimination) and Target 5.5 (Ensure equal opportunities for leadership).
• The Italian Context: In Italy, women are penalized by the precarity of entry-level positions and face discrimination in promotions to full professorship, indicating that existing policies are inadequate to close the gender gap.
• Status and Discrimination: This study posits that status beliefs, which are often gendered, are written into organizational structures, perpetuating inequality. The acquisition of a high-status grant may serve to override these gendered beliefs, but only for a select few.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

SDG 10 aims to reduce inequality within and among countries by promoting the inclusion of all, irrespective of gender or other status. The findings of this report highlight a stark inequality of opportunity within the academic system.

• The Status Divide: A clear division exists between a small elite of grant-holders and the majority of academics. While grant-holders are shielded from gender bias, the vast majority of the academic population remains vulnerable. This creates a two-tiered system that perpetuates inequality, contrary to the spirit of Target 10.2 (Empower and promote social inclusion) and Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity).
• The Matthew Effect: The prestige attached to certain grants creates a “Matthew effect,” where initial advantage leads to further success (e.g., promotion), independent of ongoing performance. This concentrates opportunities and resources, widening the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” in academia.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The principles of SDG 8 include full, productive employment and decent work for all, with equal pay for work of equal value. The report’s findings challenge the notion that academic promotions are based purely on meritocratic principles, which is a cornerstone of decent work.

• Credentialism over Performance: The study reveals a strong “credentialism” effect, where the credential of a prestigious grant is a more powerful predictor of promotion than research productivity. This disconnect between performance and reward undermines fair evaluation and the principle of equal opportunity for career advancement (Target 8.5).
• Institutional Integrity: When promotion is based on status symbols rather than objective performance, it calls into question the fairness and integrity of the institution itself. This is crucial for building the strong and accountable institutions envisioned in SDG 16.

Methodological Framework

Research Focus

To analyze the effect of status on gender differences in academic careers, this research examines the impact of prestigious grants on promotion. The study compares grant recipients with a control group of non-recipients to isolate the effect of the grant. The core hypotheses tested are:

1. Grant acquisition is dependent on pre-award research performance, not gender.
2. Academic promotion is dependent on research performance, with grant acquisition and gender not acting as primary predictors.
3. Among those promoted, the velocity of promotion is examined for differences based on gender and grant status.

Data and Variables

The analysis relies on several key variables to measure performance, status, and career progression, ensuring a robust assessment of the factors influencing promotion in the context of the SDGs.

• Dependent Variables:
  • Grant Acquisition: Binary variables for receiving an ERC or FIRB grant.
  • Promotion: A categorical variable indicating promotion within five years of the grant award date.
  • Velocity: A continuous variable measuring the time (in years) to promotion for the promoted cohort.
• Independent and Control Variables:
  • Gender: To test for discrimination.
  • Research Performance: Measured by net productivity (Netprod) and journal prestige (SJR).
  • Institutional Prestige: Affiliation with a department rated as “excellent” (ExcDept).
  • Funding and Collaboration: Acknowledged funding from national (MIURfunding) or other (Othfund) sources, and international collaboration (Intcoll).

Key Findings: Status, Grants, and Gender Discrimination

Grant Acquisition and Performance

The initial analysis confirms that the awarding of ERC and FIRB grants is not subject to gender discrimination. Grant success is primarily predicted by pre-award research performance indicators. This suggests that at the point of entry into this high-status group, the system operates on meritocratic principles, aligning with the goals of fair evaluation under SDG 5 and SDG 16.

The Role of Status in Academic Promotion

The central finding of this report emerges from the analysis of promotion outcomes. The results demonstrate a clear and significant interaction between gender, status (grant acquisition), and promotion.

• Discrimination Among Non-Recipients: For the general academic population (non-grant-holders), a statistically significant gender gap exists, with women being less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues, even when controlling for performance. This is a direct failure to meet the objectives of SDG 5 and SDG 10.
• The “Status Shield”: For academics who have received a prestigious ERC or FIRB grant, this gender gap disappears. Both male and female grant recipients have a significantly higher likelihood of being promoted compared to non-recipients. The status conferred by the grant effectively shields women from the discrimination prevalent in the broader system.
• Status over Performance: The models show that the grant itself is a powerful predictor of promotion, often more so than measures of research productivity. This indicates that promotion committees are heavily influenced by the status signal of the grant, a dynamic of credentialism that challenges the meritocratic ideals of SDG 8.

Velocity of Promotion

Analysis of the speed of promotion among the promoted cohort reinforces the primary findings. While seniority and publication quality are key predictors of a faster promotion, the most significant effect is seen with ERC grant recipients. Both male and female ERC awardees are promoted faster, with no significant gender difference between them. This further illustrates that once an academic enters the high-status group, gender ceases to be a differentiating factor in career advancement.

Discussion: Implications for Sustainable and Inclusive Institutions

The “Status Shield” Phenomenon

This report identifies a “status shield” phenomenon, where acquiring a high-status credential like an ERC grant protects women from gender discrimination in academic promotion. This finding has profound implications for understanding inequality. It suggests that gender bias is not eliminated but rather superseded by a stronger status signal. Promotion committees, operating within a framework of social expectations, may find it more justifiable to promote a woman who possesses an undeniably prestigious and visible credential. This interactional nature of status beliefs means that while a few women benefit, the underlying discriminatory culture remains unchanged for the majority, posing a significant barrier to achieving truly inclusive institutions as mandated by SDG 16.

Addressing Systemic Discrimination

The fact that the gender promotion gap vanishes for an elite few but persists for the majority highlights a systemic issue. The success story of gender parity among grant winners can mask the widespread discrimination that continues to affect most women in academia. This partial success is insufficient for achieving the broad, systemic change required by SDG 5. The key to career success for women should not be contingent on accessing a rare dimension of prestige that overwrites gender bias. Instead, institutions must reform their evaluation and promotion practices to be genuinely meritocratic and free from bias for all members, regardless of their grant-winning status.

Conclusion and Recommendations for SDG Alignment

This report concludes that widespread gender discrimination in academic promotion remains a critical, unaddressed issue. The apparent success story of gender parity among a small, elite group of grant recipients obscures a pattern of persistent discrimination affecting the majority. This dynamic undermines progress towards a sustainable and equitable future as envisioned by the SDGs.

• For SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Institutions must move beyond celebrating the success of a few and implement robust gender equality plans that target systemic biases in promotion for the entire academic population.
• For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The reliance on scarce, high-status credentials as a primary basis for promotion must be re-evaluated to ensure more equitable opportunities for all, reducing the stark divide between a protected elite and a vulnerable majority.
• For SDG 8 and SDG 16 (Decent Work and Strong Institutions): Academic institutions must strengthen their commitment to fair and transparent evaluation processes. Promotion criteria should prioritize demonstrated research performance and contribution over the possession of status symbols to build accountable, inclusive, and truly meritocratic workplaces.

Ultimately, shielding a few individuals from discrimination is not a solution; it is a symptom of a system that has failed to address its foundational biases. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires tackling these inequalities at their core, ensuring that all individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed based on their merit, not their status.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on gender, grant acquisition, and academic promotion in Italy addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis connects primarily to goals concerning equality, decent work, and quality education.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire study is framed around investigating “gender discrimination,” the “gender promotion gap,” and the overall pursuit of “career equality” for women in academia. The abstract explicitly states the study “examines the interplay of gender, acquisition of prestigious individual grants, status, and academic promotion” and finds that a “gender promotion gap is evident among non-awardees.” The introduction reinforces this by mentioning the “enduring presence of gender bias that continues to negatively impact women’s career progression.”

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article’s focus on “academic promotion,” “career progression,” and “equality in employment” directly relates to the principles of decent work. It analyzes the factors that lead to career advancement and the disparities that exist, which is a core component of ensuring fair and productive employment. The study investigates whether promotions are based on merit (“research performance”) or other factors like status and gender, which speaks to the quality and fairness of work environments in the academic sector.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is addressed through the article’s core investigation into inequality based on gender and status. The introduction states, “one of the main pillars of inequality is status.” The study’s conclusion that “widespread gender discrimination among the majority in academia has yet to be addressed” and that status shields only a select few from this discrimination highlights the persistence of inequality within a specific professional structure. The research aims to understand the mechanisms that “stabilising inequalities” in academic careers.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  While not the primary focus, the article is set entirely within the context of higher education and research institutions (“academia,” “Italian universities”). The fairness of promotion systems and the retention and advancement of talent, regardless of gender, are crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of these educational and research institutions. The article notes that the “pursuit for career equality is rooted in the assumption that the lesser the extent of equality, the more the waste of talent,” which directly impacts the quality of research and education provided by these institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified as directly relevant to the article’s analysis.

1. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

     The study’s primary objective is to test for “gender discrimination” in academic promotions. The finding that a “gender promotion gap is evident among non-awardees” and that “most of the population remains vulnerable to persistent discrimination” directly relates to this target.

   • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership in political, economic and public life.

     The article investigates promotion to higher academic ranks (“full professorship”), which are leadership positions within the “public life” of academia. The analysis of the “glass ceiling” effect and the factors hindering women’s “career progression” speaks directly to the challenge of ensuring equal opportunities for leadership roles.

   • Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.

     The article implicitly addresses this by noting that in Italy, “transparency alone is not sufficient to challenge horizontal and vertical segregation” and that “current Italian policies aimed at closing the gender gap are inadequate.” This points to the need for more effective policies to achieve gender equality in this sector.

2. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.

     The study’s analysis of whether promotion is based on “research performance” (value of work) or gender is a direct examination of the “equal pay for work of equal value” principle, where promotion is a key component of remuneration and career value. The focus on “career progression” and the “gender promotion gap” aligns with achieving decent work for all.

3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

     The article investigates how “gender” and “status” (conferred by grants) affect inclusion and advancement in academic careers. The finding that status can “shield” women from discrimination, while non-status women remain vulnerable, is a nuanced analysis of the factors driving inclusion and exclusion.

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.

     The study directly measures “inequalities of outcome” through variables like promotion rates and promotion velocity. By identifying that “it is status – not performance – that protects women from discrimination,” the research highlights a systemic issue where equal opportunity is not guaranteed, pointing to the need for better policies.

4. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

     While the article focuses on careers post-entry, the system of promotion and retention it describes is a critical part of the “quality” of tertiary education. A system that discriminates based on gender and wastes talent, as the article suggests, undermines the overall quality of the university system.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article is rich with specific, quantifiable indicators used in its statistical models. These can be directly mapped to measuring progress towards the identified SDG targets.

• Promotion Rate: The binary variable “Promotion” (whether an academic was promoted within 5 years) is a direct indicator for measuring equal opportunity in leadership (Target 5.5) and inequalities of outcome (Target 10.3). The article uses logistic regression to analyze this, comparing rates between men and women, and between grant awardees and non-awardees.
• Velocity of Promotion: The continuous variable “Velocity” (number of years to promotion) is an indicator for Target 8.5 (decent work and equal pay for work of equal value, as faster promotion implies higher lifetime earnings) and Target 10.3. It measures the steepness of career paths and can reveal subtle forms of discrimination.
• Gender Promotion Gap: The identified “gender promotion gap among non-awardees” is a key composite indicator. It directly measures the lack of gender equality (SDG 5) and inequality of outcome (Target 10.3).
• Grant Acquisition Rate by Gender: The analysis of who receives ERC and FIRB grants, testing whether this is dependent on gender, is an indicator for Target 5.1. The study finds “no gender discrimination” at this stage, which would be a positive measure for this indicator.
• Research Performance Metrics: The article uses several variables to measure performance, which can be used as control indicators to isolate discrimination. These include:
  • Netprod (Net productivity): Number of publications per unit of time, adjusted for co-authors.
  • SJR (Scimago Journal Ranking): A measure of the quality/prestige of publication venues.
  • Intcoll (International collaboration): A measure of an academic’s international network.

  These indicators help assess whether promotions are merit-based, which is relevant to Target 8.5.

• Status Indicators: The variables for grant acquisition (ERC, FIRB) and affiliation with an “Excellent” department (ExcDept) are used as proxies for status. Analyzing their impact on promotion helps measure progress towards Target 10.2 by understanding the role of status in inclusion.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: nature.com