Much of academia and medicine struggle with gender disparity in leadership. Globally, graduates of medical degrees who identify as women have approached or exceeded numbers of those identifying as men, yet representation in upper leadership (division director, department chair, dean, dean’s suite, etc) remains woefully disproportionate (Liu et al., 2021; Machut et al., 2024). Gender parity has improved at the entry gates to medical academia, but many have described a “leaky pipeline” to directorship positions at the same universities that female alumni attended (Carr et al., 2015; James-McCarthy et al., 2022).
A striking gender imbalance in executive leadership persists even in socially progressive countries, highlighting worldwide under-representation of women in the seats that drive major changes in the veterinary medical and academic fields
Recent research has suggested that a similar phenomenon occurs in veterinary medicine (Vezeau et al., 2024). In a field where entry-level practitioners are even more highly comprised of women than in human medicine, a striking gender imbalance in executive leadership persists even in socially progressive countries, highlighting worldwide under-representation of women in the seats that drive major changes in the veterinary medical and academic fields (Gül et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2021; Pearson, 2020; Vezeau et al., 2024).
The imbalance in the proportion of women in executive leadership correlates with the quantitation of overall inequity, such as with the United Nations’ Gender Inequality Index values, on a regional level. Despite the used dataset disproportionally representing middle-to-highly developed countries, only 34.6 percent (784/2263) of individuals at the executive level of veterinary academic institutions are women and 25.5 percent top executives (187/733) (Vezeau et al., 2024).
Why is there gender disparity in veterinary leadership?
Gender bias remains a pervasive issue in academic institutions, where decision makers may not open the doors to leadership roles to women at the same rate as men
Many academic works have begun to describe explanatory factors behind the attrition in gender representation in medicine and academia.
Women often face greater pressure to balance work and familial responsibilities compared to their male counterparts, making it difficult to accept more time-intensive roles. Moreover, gender bias remains a pervasive issue in academic institutions, where decision makers may not open the doors to leadership roles to women at the same rate as men, carrying entrenched perceptions of leadership qualities that align more closely with male stereotypes (Carr et al., 2015; James-McCarthy et al., 2022).
The chicken-and-egg problem continues with under-representation itself being a barrier to women (as with racial, religious and other demographic minorities) perceiving upper leadership as appropriate – or even safe and well-supported – roles to apply for (Carnevale et al., 2020; Goswami et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021; Zhuge et al., 2011).
What is being done to bridge the gap?
Though the topic of the under-representation of women in veterinary academia is, in general, not yet well researched, several institutional changes have been proposed in both medicine and related fields to ameliorate the gap in gender representation in leadership and faculty roles.
Fostering gender inclusivity in veterinary leadership requires structural changes to the systems disadvantaging those with increased pressures and responsibilities outside of work
Fostering gender inclusivity in veterinary leadership requires structural changes to the systems disadvantaging those with increased pressures and responsibilities outside of work (Alwazzan and Al-Angari, 2020; Shannon et al., 2019; Woods et al., 2018). This includes offering flexible working arrangements and robust parental leave, supporting the overall ability of women to balance higher-responsibility roles in a healthy manner.
Coaching and leadership training programmes have also been shown to help high-level roles feel more accessible, as does the knowledge that an institution participates in anti-bias training and offers formal mentorship opportunities (Carnevale et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2024; Gill and Singh, 2020). These policies are essential for consistent retention of even initial attraction of female applicants, particularly in roles that require wearing multiple “hats”.
Conclusion
More research is needed to identify the causal factors behind both the under-representation of women in veterinary academia and the changes that have or will lead to its improvement
Addressing the leaky pipeline is a complex and individualised task. Professional cultures vary not only across nations and disciplines but even across departments. Thus, the combination of bias interventions, structured mentorship/sponsorship systems, flexible work options and bias-relieving selection programmes that work for some may not work for others.
More research is needed to identify the causal factors behind both the under-representation of women in veterinary academia and the changes that have or will lead to its improvement. This begins with an increase in collaborative discussions on the topic, learning and reading more and deciding not to accept the current inequities as a permanent reality.