Eliminating Gender Inequality in Engineering, Industry, and Academia

Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 32)


Gender equality in the workplace with its many facets is a current topic of great interest in many societies and across virtually all sectors. Women are seriously under-represented in senior positions within organizations and there is evidence of a continuing pay gap between women and men. Industry, commerce, business, law, medicine, engineering, academia all have responded to or are responding to the challenges of eliminating gender inequality. There are three specific reasons for this. The first is based on the principle that there is or should be a prevailing environment guaranteeing social justice and human rights for all. The second is in effect a question of parsimony by which talent should not be wasted. Finally, and the imperative for the elimination of gender inequality which is receiving the most attention today, is that of diversity. The diversity argument adds to the ‘not being wasteful’ by virtue of the range of different skills, perspectives and experiences that are brought to bear on whatever challenge is being faced. Tackling gender equality is a complex task requiring many interventions but what is clear is that there is broad agreement across the different sectors, including engineering, as to what is required. The key interventions include committed and determined leadership from the top of the organization over a sustained period of time, supports to ensure better work-life balance, developing future women leaders, and tackling unconscious bias. The evidence is unequivocal – gender balance will not be achieved automatically without a range of such interventions and failure to take action will have a major impact on the engineering profession’s ability to meet the needs of society today and tomorrow.


Gender (in)equality Unconscious bias Work-life balance Diversity Leadership 


  1. Badal, S.B. (2014). The business benefits of gender diversity. Business Journal, January 20, 2014. Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  2. Barnard, S., Arnold, J., Bosley, S., Munir, F. (2016). Onwards and upwards? Tracking women’s work experience in higher education summary [online]. Available at: . Accessed 29 June 2017.
  3. Bothwell, E. (2015). World’s top 10 universities led by women. Times Higher Education, June 19, 2015. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  4. Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 543–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denning, S. (2011). How do you change an organizational culture? Forbes, July 2011. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  6. Department of Education. (2001). Report and recommendations of the task force on physical sciences. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  7. Engineering UK. (2016). Engineering UK 2016, synopsis, recommendations and calls for action. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  8. European Commission. (2006) DIRECTIVE 2006/54/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, 27.07.2006. Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  9. European Commission. (2010). Compilation of case law on the equality of treatment between women and men and on non-discrimination in the European Union (3rd ed.). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2014). Commission staff working document. Report on progress on equality between women and men 2013. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  11. European Commission. (2016). SHE figures 2015 gender in research and innovation statistics and indicators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.Google Scholar
  12. Flynn, J., Heath, K., Davis Holt, M. (2011). Collaboration’s hidden tax on women’s careers. Harvard Business Review, November 11, 2011. [online] Available at Accessed 26 June 2017.
  13. Goldin, C. & Rouse, C. (1997) Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. Working Paper 5903, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Available at: Accessed 27 June 2017.
  14. Grimson, J. (2014). Measuring research impact: not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. In W. Blockmans & L. Engwall (Eds.), Use and abuse in the review of research (pp. 29–41). Denis Weaire: Portland Press Ltd..Google Scholar
  15. Grimson, J., & Roughneen, C. (2009). Diversity in engineering: tinkering, tailoring, transforming. In H. Christensen, B. Delahousse, & M. Meganck (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 197–220). Denmark: Academica.Google Scholar
  16. Hicks, M. (2017). Programmed inequality. How Britain discarded women technologists and lost its edge in computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Husu, L., & Koskinen, P. (2010). Gendering excellence in technological research: a comparative European perspective. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(1), 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. London Business School. (2007) Innovative potential: Men and women in teams. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  19. Mason, M. A., Wolfinger, N. H., & Goulden, M. (2013). Do babies matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  20. McKinsey & Company. 2010). Women matter 3: Women leaders, a competitive edge in and after the crisis. [online] Available at: Accessed 20 March 2016.
  21. McKinsey & Company. (2013). Women Matter: Gender diversity in top management: Moving corporate culture, moving boundaries. [online] Available at: Accessed 20 March 2016.
  22. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in Science at MIT. [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  24. Moss-Racusin, C. A., et al. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favour male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4), 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing the conversation: messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2008.Google Scholar
  26. Noland, M., Moran, T., Kotschwar, B. (2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics. [online] Available at: Accessed 10 March 2016.
  27. O’Connor, P. (2014). Management and gender in higher education. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perrons, D. (2015) Gender equality in times of inequality, crisis and austerity: Towards gender-sensitive macroeconomic policies. In Visions for gender equality. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  29. Portia. (2015). Report from the 2015 European Gender Summit to the European Commission and European Parliament. Mastering gender in research performance, context and outcomes. International Women Online Journal of Distance Education, 5 (1). [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  30. Rees, T. (2011). The gendered construction of scientific excellence. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rice, C. (2012). 6 steps to gender equality. [online] Available at Accessed June 26 2017.
  32. Royal Society of Edinburgh. (2012). Tapping all our talents [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  33. Sahel, J.-A. (2011). Quality versus quantity: assessing individual research performance. Science Translational Medicine, 3(84), 84cm13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scaife, W. G. S. (2000). From galaxies to turbines: Science, technology and the parsons family. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sibley, S.S. (2016). Why do so many women who study engineering leave the field? Harvard Business Review, August 23, 2016. Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  36. Smith-Doerr, L., Algeria, S., & Sacco, T. (2017). How diversity matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce. A critical review considering integration in teams, fields and organizational context. Engaging Science, Technology and Society, 3, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Van den Brink, M. (2010). Behind the scenes of science: Gender practice in recruitment and selection of professors in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Pallas.Google Scholar
  39. Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 506–524.Google Scholar
  40. VDI. (2010). European engineering report, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V [online] Available at: Accessed 26 June 2017.
  41. Wallon, G., Bendiscioli, S., Garfinkel, M. S.(2015). Exploring quotas in academia, A joint study by EMBO and the Robert Bosch Stiftung. [online] Available at Accessed 28 June 2017.
  42. Williams, J.C. (2015) Hacking tech’s diversity problem. Harvard Business Review, Joan Williams, October 2015. Available at: Accessed June 28, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and StatisticsTrinity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Dublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations