Abstract
Although women often outnumber men in the early stages of academic careers in ecology, they remain significantly underrepresented in senior positions. In Brazil, women comprise the majority of graduate students in ecological sciences but hold fewer senior academic roles, receive less research funding, and face greater obstacles to visibility and recognition. To understand the factors contributing to this disparity, we conducted a nationwide survey with 283 Brazilian ecologists, analysing gender-based differences across career stages. Using descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and correspondence analysis (ANACOR), we examined experiences related to gender identity, parenthood, workplace dynamics, and scientific productivity. Our findings reveal persistent structural inequalities: women, particularly in early-career stages, reported more frequent experiences of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, limited access to leadership roles, lower publication rates, and heightened concerns about personal safety during fieldwork. Women more commonly cited personal and professional constraints as factors influencing their academic permanence. Overall, both men and women identified a lack of funding as the primary barrier to scientific productivity. These results underscore the intersectional barriers to gender equity in ecology and emphasise the urgency of structural, evidence-based reforms to build more inclusive academic environments.
Data availability
Data and R code are available in [https://github.com/MulheresEcologas/quest_pesquisa_barreiras.git]. The database for this study is published in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18244507
References
Grogan, K. E. How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 3–6 (2018).
Ryan, M. To advance equality for women, use the evidence. Nature 604, 403–403 (2022).
Zandonà, E. Female ecologists are falling from the academic ladder: A call for action. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 20, 294–299 (2022).
Lupon, A. et al. Towards women-inclusive ecology: Representation, behavior, and perception of women at an international conference. PLoS ONE 16, e0260163 (2021).
Barreto, J. R. et al. Is the audience gender-blind? Smaller attendance in female talks highlights an imbalanced visibility in academia. Npj Biodivers. 4, 28 (2025).
Lagisz, M. et al. Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 655–665 (2023).
Casad, B. J. et al. Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. J. Neurosci. Res. 99, 13–23 (2021).
Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O. & Cheryan, S. When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychol. Inq. 22, 265–269 (2011).
Haines, C. D., Rose, E. M., Odom, K. J. & Omland, K. E. The role of diversity in science: A case study of women advancing female birdsong research. Anim. Behav. 168, 19–24 (2020).
Eaton, A. A., Saunders, J. F., Jacobson, R. K. & West, K. How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Role 82, 127–141 (2020).
Salerno, P. E., Páez-Vacas, M., Guayasamin, J. M. & Stynoski, J. L. Male principal investigators (almost) don’t publish with women in ecology and zoology. PLoS ONE 14, e0218598 (2019).
Morgan, A. C. et al. The unequal impact of parenthood in academia. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd1996 (2021).
Leaper, C. & Starr, C. R. Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: Experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychol. Women Q. 43, 165–183 (2019).
Litzellachner, L. F., Barnett, J., Yeomans, L. & Blackwood, L. How harassment is depriving universities of talent: A national survey of STEM academics in the UK. Front. Psychol. 14, 1212545 (2024).
Buckland, S. T. Monte carlo confidence intervals. Biometrics 40, 811 (1984).
Leeuw, J. D. & Mair, P. Simple and canonical correspondence analysis using the R package anacor. J. Stat. Softw. 31 (2009).
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (2023).
Miriti, M. N., Bailey, K., Halsey, S. J. & Harris, N. C. Hidden figures in ecology and evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1282–1282 (2020).
Maas, B. et al. Women and global South strikingly underrepresented among top-publishing ecologists. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12797 (2021).
Astegiano, J., Sebastián-González, E. & Castanho, C. D. T. Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181566 (2019).
Arena, D. F., Volpone, S. D. & Jones, K. P. (Overcoming) maternity bias in the workplace: A systematic review. J. Manag. 49, 52–84 (2023).
Machado, C. & Neto, V. P. The labor market consequences of maternity leave policies: Evidence from Brazil. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/17859 (2016).
Staniscuaski, F. et al. Bias against parents in science hits women harder. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 10, 201 (2023).
Greider, C. W. et al. Increasing gender diversity in the STEM research workforce. Science 366, 692–695 (2019).
O’Connell, C. & McKinnon, M. Perceptions of barriers to career progression for academic women in STEM. Societies 11, 27 (2021).
Corbett, E., Barnett, J., Yeomans, L. & Blackwood, L. “That’s just the way it is”: Bullying and harassment in STEM academia. Int. J. STEM Educ. 11, 27 (2024).
Chaudhury, A. & Colla, S. Next steps in dismantling discrimination: Lessons from ecology and conservation science. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12774 (2021).
Kim, J. Y. & Meister, A. Microaggressions, interrupted: The experience and effects of gender microaggressions for women in STEM. J. Bus. Ethic. 185, 513–531 (2023).
Moody, A. T. & Lewis, J. A. Gendered racial microaggressions and traumatic stress symptoms among black women. Psychol. Women Q. 43, 201–214 (2019).
Sousa, A. L. N. D. et al. Professoras negras na pós-graduação em saúde: Entre o racismo estrutural e a feminização do cuidado. Saúde Em Debate 45, 13–26 (2021).
Meister, A., Sinclair, A. & Jehn, K. A. Identities under scrutiny: How women leaders navigate feeling misidentified at work. Leadersh. Q. 28, 672–690 (2017).
García-González, J., Forcén, P. & Jimenez-Sanchez, M. Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions. PLoS ONE 14, e0225763 (2019).
Llorens, A. et al. Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions. Neuron 109, 2047–2074 (2021).
Giakoumi, S. et al. Persistent gender bias in marine science and conservation calls for action to achieve equity. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109134 (2021).
Flood, M. Gender equality: Engaging men in change. Lancet 393, 2386–2387 (2019).
Kwiek, M. & Roszka, W. Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration. J. Informetr. 15, 101171 (2021).
Ross, M. B. et al. Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 608, 135–145 (2022).
Guilherme, P. D. A. A., De Araujo, P. D. J. M., Silva, P. L. & Brito, P. D. R. D. O. Two ‘Brazils’: Socioeconomic status and education performance in Brazil. Int. J. Educ. Res. 123, 102287 (2024).
Kachchaf, R., Ko, L., Hodari, A. & Ong, M. Career–life balance for women of color: Experiences in science and engineering academia. J. Divers. High. Educ. 8, 175–191 (2015).
Nielsen, M. W. et al. Gender diversity leads to better science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 1740–1742 (2017).
Hofstra, B. et al. The diversity-innovation paradox in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 9284–9291 (2020).
Traylor-Knowles, N. et al. Experiences of and support for black women in ecology, evolution, and marine science. Front. Mar. Sci. 10, 1295931 (2023).
Quintans-Júnior, L. J. & Guedes Gomes, F. The abyss of research funding in Brazil. EXCLI J. 23Doc1491 ISSN 1611-2156 https://doi.org/10.17179/EXCLI2024-8037 (2024).
De Oliveira Andrade, R. Brazil budget cuts could leave science labs without power and water. Nature d41586-024-01035–2 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01035-2 (2024).
Stegmann, L. F. et al. Brazilian public funding for biodiversity research in the Amazon. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 22, 1–7 (2024).
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge all the individuals who participated in our survey - your time and perspectives were essential to this work. We are especially thankful to the members of the ‘Women in Ecology’ Project for their valuable insights and ongoing support throughout the development of this study. We would like to extend our particular thanks to Amanda Leão for her work on constructing the questionnaire. We also extend our acknowledgements to those who provided thoughtful feedback during our conference presentations; their engagement and contributions greatly enriched our research.
Funding
APLC was supported by a postdoctoral grant from VPCCB/FIOCRUZ. JRMC and MEFS were supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
APLC; JRMC; MEFS; LNP; LDV; and EDB. [Conceptualisation] : Initial idea; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims. - E.D.B., L.N.P, A.P.L.C., and J.R.M.C. [Data curation] : Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use. - A.P.L.C., M.E.F.S., and E.D.B. [Formal analysis] : Application of statistical or other formal techniques to analyse or synthesise study data. - A.P.L.C.; J.R.M.C, and E.D.B. [Investigation] : Conducting a research and investigation process or data/evidence collection. - A.P.L.C. and E.D.B. [Methodology] : Development or design of methods; data collection. - A.P.L.C.; E.D.B.; J.R.M.C.; M.E.F.S.; L.N.P.; and L.D.V. [Project administration] : Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution. - A.P.L.C. and E.D.B. [Supervision] : Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team. - E.D.B.; L.D.V. and A.P.L.C. [Validation] : Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs. - A.P.L.C.; J.R.M.C.; M.E.F.S., and E.D.B. [Visualisation] : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualisation/data presentation. - E.D.B.; A.P.L.C., and J.R.M.C. [Writing – original draft] : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation). - A.P.L.C. [Writing – review & editing] : Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages. - E.D.B.; A.P.L.C.; J.R.M.C.; M.E.F.S.; and L.D.V.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
This study was conducted in accordance with all the relevant guidelines and regulations in Brazil. It was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Bahia (CEpEE/UFBA), under the Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Assessment (CAAE) 69100023.3.0000.5531. We state that we obtained informed consent from all subjects. The term is provided in the supplementary information.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Costa, A.P.L., Ciccheto, J.R.M., Santos, M.E.F. et al. Structural barriers drive gender inequality across academic careers in Brazilian ecology. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-38278-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-38278-0
