Building bridges: allyship as a catalyst for gender diversity and inclusion in experimental biology communities

Academia thrives through diversity, with research showing that diversity positively influences innovation, creativity and problem solving (Hong and Page, 2004; Specht and Crowston, 2022). Diverse scientific teams publish more novel papers and gain more citations per paper (AlShebli et al., 2018; Macari et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2022). Despite progress made in past decades, women remain vastly underrepresented in academia (Bourke et al., 2023). In this Perspective, we examine the current representation of women in academia, with a focus on visibility (see Glossary). We also discuss strategies for active allyship (see Glossary) to advance diversity and inclusion in experimental biology communities. Active allyship – through continued self-education, self-reflection, name dropping in rooms of opportunity, advocating for women and amplifying their voices – creates more welcoming environments and improves gender diversity.

Women are still significantly underrepresented in higher academic ranks (Rossi, 1965; De la Croix and Vitale, 2023). However, the number of women obtaining PhDs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines in the USA almost doubled over the last decade: women now constitute 50% of PhD graduates (National Science Foundation, 2023). One-third (34%) of European STEM PhD graduates identify as women (Brett, 2022; https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=485469, accessed 15 April 2024). However, only 22% and 44% of these graduates obtain a tenure-track position in the USA and Europe, respectively (https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/, accessed 6 May 2024). Men are twice as likely as women to hold full-professor positions in STEM fields in the USA (European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2021); furthermore, only 32% of full professors in Europe are women. Briscoe and Brown (2020) analyzed papers published from 2006 to 2018 in leading biology journals, and found gender parity among first authors (∼50% women), but disparity at senior levels; only 30.3% of corresponding authors were women. This study found that papers from women corresponding authors have lower overall acceptance rates than those from men corresponding authors, are less likely to get reviewed (67.3% versus 71.0%), and have lower acceptance rates after the first round of revisions (52.9% versus 56.2%). Furthermore, only 26.1% of invited reviewers are women (Briscoe and Brown, 2020). Regarding awards, our analysis of 296 awards granted by four major professional societies across biology and biomechanics between 1980 and 2024 revealed that only 26% of awards went to women (Table 1).

Academic visibility is crucial for advancing rank, increasing impact and role modeling (Käfer et al., 2018; Chikere et al., 2022); thus, increasing women's visibility is essential for achieving gender balance in experimental biology (Briscoe and Brown, 2020). Although men and women scientists publish similar numbers of papers and have comparable career impacts, differences in productivity and impact likely result from variations in publishing, career lengths and dropout rates (Huang et al., 2020). One significant factor is balancing demanding careers with family life, which leads to over 40% of women leaving STEM jobs after their first child (Cech and Blair-Loy, 2019). Issues extend beyond pregnancy and childbirth; care and domestic responsibilities are often unevenly distributed, with women in Europe performing on average 2 h more unpaid work daily than men (Campaña et al., 2023), which can hinder career progression.

Participation in scientific meetings is another form of academic visibility – and is affected by parenthood, a factor that disproportionately impacts women's careers (Morgan et al., 2021). Including (young) children in professional meetings or fieldwork enables parents to participate in scientific debates. However, concerns about negative impacts on reputation or career advancement deter some from taking up such opportunities. Attending meetings while pregnant and/or with children (Schwaner et al., 2020) is still subject to discrimination (Ziegler et al., 2023).

Although visibility of women role models is key for inspiring women early career researchers (ECRs) to choose STEM fields and for increasing retention of female talent (Lockwood, 2006), men allies play important roles in experimental biology research, especially in academic hiring (Drury et al., 2011). To achieve gender parity, efforts should go beyond mere support of women scientists; we need active allies advocating for women and opening doors to professional networks. Active allyship fosters respect and inclusion by supporting those who benefit from allyship, rather than focusing on those who perpetrate bias (De Souza and Schmader, 2024), and is crucial for enhancing diversity and inclusion, and closing the gender gap. Male allies are vital to ensuring gender equity in STEM fields, benefiting both female recipients and the allies themselves (Moser and Branscombe, 2022). Yet, there is often a disconnect between identifying as an ally and actively engaging in allyship (Sumerau et al., 2021).

Rather than focusing on ‘fixing’ women, efforts of allies should target systemic changes that address underlying structures perpetuating gender inequality, including societal norms, stereotypes, work–non-work balance policies, value of care work, binary views of gender and myths around meritocracy (Ryan and Morgenroth, 2024). Here, we outline actionable strategies for early- and late(r)-career academics in experimental biology communities to implement active allyship (Fig. 1). Although we focus on gender diversity, many of these strategies also apply to other dimensions of diversity (e.g. age, country of origin). We categorize strategies based on these two career stages, but we acknowledge that some can be implemented by both. Allies of all gender identities are essential for effective implementation, and we recognize that implementation is challenging and requires sustained effort and thoughtful engagement from members of experimental biology communities, underscoring the ongoing necessity of this work.

Senior allies are encouraged to lead informed discussions on gender bias and other barriers to women's career advancement, leveraging knowledge, personal experience and findings of diversity research. By facilitating difficult conversations, they can challenge stereotypes and assumptions in decision making – such as hiring, promotion or funding allocation (Régner et al., 2019) – while emphasizing that silence may be perceived as acceptance of biased behavior (Chaudhary and Berhe, 2020). Discussions can be structured around speaker sessions, workshops, readings of peer-reviewed articles relating to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI; see Glossary), and collaborative brainstorming of actionable steps (Santos et al., 2022). Senior allies can facilitate discussions by motivating participants to share diverse perspectives and creating safe environments for difficult conversations. It is important to use realistic language highlighting that diversity is beneficial when its challenges are effectively addressed (Leslie et al., 2023).

Senior allies can advocate for targeted recruiting and inclusive hiring practices and awardee selections, within departments, research teams and professional societies. It is important to actively seek out candidates from marginalized groups and encourage them to apply for jobs, invite them as guest speakers and nominate them for professional acknowledgments (e.g. Davies et al., 2021). Initiatives to diversify applicant pools can be supported or spearheaded (Dover et al., 2020) by collaborating with professional organizations focusing on diversity in academia, by participating in outreach programs to connect with underrepresented communities and by creating platforms to showcase the achievements of diverse scientists (Porter and Serra, 2020). Resources such as 500 Women Scientists offer a ‘Request a Woman Scientist’ database that includes experts from various scientific fields (McCullagh et al., 2019). As another example, DiversifyEEB serves as a directory of women and underrepresented minority ecologists and evolutionary biologists (diversifyeeb.com).

Although literature on mentor–mentee relationships in experimental biology communities is limited, here we apply findings from diversity research in academia and industry to inform practices for researchers. Senior allies can act as proactive mentors or sponsors (see Glossary) to scientists from underrepresented groups by actively identifying mentees and highlighting their achievements (Collier-Spruel and Ryan, 2024). Tailored guidance and networking opportunities are crucial for ECRs to navigate academic pathways; allies can confront sexism, boost visibility of women scientists by involving them in co-authoring papers and writing grants, help mitigate backlash against women's self-advocacy and assist in navigating challenges such as balancing parenthood and tenure by voicing support and giving credit (Warren et al., 2021). For mentees, effective mentorship is associated with increased productivity, pioneering novel research topics, higher likelihood of receiving awards, higher satisfaction and fewer barriers to career advancement (Ma et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2022). Mentoring programs and informal mentoring connections promote a more equitable academic career environment for women and other underrepresented groups (Yousaf and Schmiede, 2017; Montgomery and Page, 2018). Furthermore, mentor–mentee relationships are reciprocal, benefiting mentors with professional development, institutional recognition and personal satisfaction (Kalpazidou Schmidt and Faber, 2016). Lastly, peer mentoring at senior levels can improve institutional culture (Thomas et al., 2015).

Senior allies can lead by example and foster welcoming environments by promoting respectful communication, valuing diverse perspectives and proactively addressing inequities, discrimination and harassment in the workplace (Collier-Spruel and Ryan, 2024). Men leverage professional networks more easily for career benefits compared with women (Diehl et al., 2020; van Helden et al., 2023), yet networks are key to career advancement and retention of women (Spoon et al., 2023); allowing women to participate in and leverage these networks improves diversity. Senior allies can create inclusive environments by avoiding scheduling meetings outside standard working hours, supporting flexible/remote working and organizing family-friendly (networking) events (Masterson et al., 2021). In addition, hosting symposia focusing on work–non-work balance (Casper et al., 2024) and highlighting achievements of women scientists can provide role models for ECRs. Furthermore, in response to perceived organizational inequalities, some women scientists may adopt masculine behaviors to distance themselves from stereotyped views of their group to enhance their individual success (Derks et al., 2016; Veldman et al., 2021); creating more inclusive environments can mitigate this need for self-distancing (Faniko et al., 2021). Emphasizing commitment to fostering inclusive environments can raise awareness and drive meaningful change in daily practices (Casad et al., 2021).

Senior allies can advocate for policy changes at institutional and systemic levels, addressing structural barriers to diversity and inclusion. This includes spearheading/advocating for initiatives to reduce pay gaps and promote equitable hiring, funding and promotion practices, the last of which can be achieved by formalizing clear evaluation criteria to reduce ambiguity in decision making (Heilman, 2012). Policy changes supporting underrepresented scholars aid hiring efforts and contribute to retention (Bodkin and Fleming, 2019). Active listening (see Glossary) to mentees and students helps to identify their needs and reveals where senior allies can advocate effectively (Aiston and Fo, 2020). Promoting research on DEI – such as studies assessing the impact of diversity on innovation and scientific excellence (AlShebli et al., 2018) – can strengthen the case for institutional changes, and highlighting evidence of the positive impacts of diverse and inclusive research teams can persuade decision-makers to adopt inclusive policies.

Women ECRs in experimental biology can build supportive networks of peers and colleagues who can provide encouragement, advice and resources for navigating academia. Women peer mentors have been shown to increase women's positive academic experiences and retention in STEM and academic medical fields (Dennehy and Dasgupta, 2017; Venegas-Muggli et al., 2023). These connections provide valuable guidance on career planning, competency awareness, network establishment as well as moral support (Wu et al., 2022). Building peer mentor relationships can have many formats, including organizing shared coffee or lunch breaks or initiating after-hours get togethers. Peer-mentoring groups or networks can also be established within professional societies, such as through active membership in already-existing focus groups (i.e. International Women in Biomechanics, www.intwomenbiomech.org).

ECRs can actively engage in student- or ECR-led diversity initiatives, such as employee resource groups and student- or ECR-led committees. These are instrumental in promoting DEI by creating supportive, safe spaces that provide platforms to share experiences and facilitate allyship for underrepresented groups, including women, at all academic stages (Stephenson, 2024). ECRs can participate in both large-scale events (e.g. panel discussions) and smaller activities (e.g. journal club or film screening) that foster necessary conversations for change and raise awareness within the community.

Women ECRs should seek out mentors who are willing to provide empowerment, guidance and allyship through utilizing networking events to broaden their mentorship network (Shen et al., 2022). Mentor diversity is important. For example, male mentors may be less likely to address concerns such as discrimination, sexual harassment, bias and the impact of work–non-work balance that disproportionately affect women academics (Mayer et al., 2008). Instead, they may focus more on technical skill development and ‘more practical’ mentoring. As different aspects of one's career require different perspectives, having a variety of mentors is highly beneficial (O'Connell and McKinnon, 2021). Mentoring schemes can help ECRs build a network of mentors; these are often organized at conferences (i.e. American Society of Biomechanics), but can be offered more generally (i.e. Society for Experimental Biology).

It is important for ECRs, when safe, to speak up against discrimination, harassment and microaggressions (see Glossary) in academic settings, whether directed at themselves or others (Bourke et al., 2023). We acknowledge that this can be challenging, especially at earlier career stages or in less-inclusive environments (McKinnon and O'Connell, 2020). Support can be sought from trusted advisors, mentors and campus or society resources, if needed. Beyond reacting to negative behaviors, ECRs can also take proactive steps to foster positive, inclusive relationships with their peers (De Souza and Schmader, 2024). This involves initiating conversations around DEI, celebrating achievements of underrepresented peers or creating collaborative opportunities that respect and value diverse perspectives. Proactively setting this tone can help establish a culture of mutual respect and inclusion within the field. Ideally, ECRs should be able to speak up about these issues and proactively shape experimental biology communities as freely as senior academics. Practicing this early in one's career makes a difference for peers and future generations of scientists in experimental biology.

All ECRs are encouraged to actively listen to peers from underrepresented groups to better understand their needs and regularly reflect on implicit bias (see Glossary), privilege, cultural competence and inclusive teaching and mentoring practices. Regular reflection helps cultivate a growth mindset, encouraging experimental biologists to adapt their approaches and foster a more-inclusive environment within the field. Being in academia requires a life-long learning strategy, in regard not only to one's scientific topic but also to the building of connections within experimental biology communities (Applebaum, 2019).

Although implementing the proposed strategies is challenging, we are optimistic that, collectively, we can create a more diverse and inclusive academic environment within experimental biology communities – one that fosters creativity, innovation and scientific excellence, ultimately closing the gender gap. To achieve this goal, professional societies and academic institutions need to address these issues and actively work on solutions. This process is similar to a lifestyle change rather than a temporary diet; it requires ongoing awareness, education about DEI topics, regular reflection and active advocacy for change. Ensuring that women and scientists from historically underrepresented groups feel heard and included, highlighting their accomplishments and defending them against biased comments can make a significant impact. Given the benefits to individual scientists, their research and the broader academic community, practicing active allyship seems to be an obvious choice for academics at all career levels.

The authors acknowledge the valuable support received through mentorship and insightful conversations with their own (peer) mentors on how to make academic communities more welcoming, especially for women and mothers. We also note that Table 1 is based on data from society websites, which may not fully reflect the gender balance of awardees because of potential missing information. Nonetheless, we believe that it offers valuable insight into areas where we can help close the gender gap. Given the current makeup of experimental biology communities, our Perspective focuses on binary gender identities (men and women), despite the broader spectrum of gender identity. Future research should expand to explore other aspects of gender identity and intersectionality.