Research reveals how subtle gender imbalances persist at scientific gatherings, creating a "chilly climate" for women in ecology and science
Image: Unsplash
Picture a major international science conference—hundreds of researchers gathered to share groundbreaking discoveries, forge collaborations, and advance their field. On the surface, it appears balanced, with nearly equal numbers of men and women in attendance. But look closer at who's delivering the prestigious keynote talks, who's leading the sessions, and who's speaking up during question periods, and a different, more troubling picture emerges.
This was exactly the scenario that played out at the 1st Meeting of the Iberian Society of Ecology (SIBECOL), where researchers decided to investigate not just who was in the room, but how they were participating. Their findings reveal a landscape where gender imbalances persist in subtle yet significant ways, creating what researchers call a "chilly" environment for women—one that can ultimately push talented scientists out of the field 1 .
At the SIBECOL conference, researchers employed a multidimensional approach, analyzing three critical aspects: representation, behavior, and perception 1 . While attendance was nearly balanced (48% women, 52% men), the distribution of prestigious roles told a different story 1 .
The last author position on scientific papers is typically reserved for the senior researcher or team leader. The significant underrepresentation of women in this role (only 29%) suggests a leak in the academic pipeline where women are not advancing to leadership positions at the same rate as their male counterparts 1 .
This visibility gap matters because conferences are crucial for career advancement. They're where researchers build professional networks, establish reputations, and find collaborators 1 . When women are less visible in prominent roles, it creates a vicious cycle: less visibility leads to fewer invitations and awards, which in turn limits career progression and reputation building 1 .
To move beyond anecdotes and assumptions, a team of 26 volunteers conducted systematic observations during the conference . They documented:
The observers used standardized templates and received training to ensure consistent data collection. In total, they monitored 218 talks, with more than half assessed by multiple observers to guarantee reliability .
Additionally, researchers conducted a post-conference survey to understand attendees' perceptions and personal experiences, allowing them to compare objective data with subjective feelings about the conference environment 1 .
Team of 26 volunteers trained in systematic observation techniques
Monitored 218 talks with standardized templates
Collected survey data on perceptions and experiences 1
Multiple observers for reliability assessment
Only 32% of questions during Q&A sessions were asked by women, significantly lower than their representation among attendees 1 . This questioning gap narrowed somewhat when the speaker or convener was a woman, suggesting that representation can influence participation 1 .
Perhaps most surprisingly, while the data showed clear gender biases, most attendees—both men and women—did not perceive the conference as a "threatening context" for women 1 . However, subtle differences in survey responses indicated that women tended to have a less positive experience than their male colleagues, even if they couldn't pinpoint why 1 .
The phenomenon observed at the SIBECOL conference reflects what gender researchers call a "chilly climate"—a environment characterized by subtle forms of bias and exclusion that signal to women they don't fully belong in academia 1 . This isn't necessarily about overt discrimination, but rather:
Being mistaken for administrative staff rather than researchers 9
Not receiving appropriate credit for contributions 9
Exclusion from informal networking and conversations 9
Having ideas overlooked in meetings 9
These "microaggressions" might seem minor individually, but collectively they create significant barriers to women's advancement and satisfaction in scientific careers 9 .
The traditional explanation for gender gaps in science has been the "leaky pipeline" metaphor—the idea that women gradually drop out of academic careers at various stages 9 . However, many gender researchers now argue this metaphor is insufficient because it implies a passive process rather than acknowledging the active barriers women face 9 .
Implies passive attrition of women from science careers 9
Acknowledges active barriers women must navigate 9
The alternative metaphor? A "hostile obstacle course" filled with both visible and invisible barriers that women must navigate throughout their careers 9 . These range from subtle microaggressions to explicit harassment, all of which can push women out of academia not by choice, but due to accumulated resistance 9 .
The research doesn't just identify problems—it points toward solutions. Based on their findings, the SIBECOL researchers and other experts recommend several strategies for creating more inclusive scientific meetings 1 9 .
Scientific societies are increasingly recognized as crucial agents of change in this process. By establishing gender committees and implementing targeted actions—such as travel grants for early-career women researchers and codes of conduct—these organizations can transform conference culture 9 .
The theory that current gender imbalances simply reflect past discrimination and will naturally correct over time. The SIBECOL study found this doesn't fully explain contemporary biases 1 .
The recognition that people experience inequality through multiple aspects of identity (gender, race, ethnicity, disability status, etc.) that interact in complex ways 9 .
Unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that affect our understanding and decisions without our awareness 1 .
The framework of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion that provides guidance for creating fairer academic environments 9 .
The research from the SIBECOL conference reveals a crucial insight: achieving numerical gender balance is only the first step. True inclusion requires attention to subtle patterns of participation, visibility in leadership roles, and the unspoken atmosphere of scientific gatherings.
As one analysis noted, "Although our results showed clear gender biases, most of the participants... failed to detect it" 1 . This disconnect between measurable reality and perception underscores why systematic studies are essential—they make visible what might otherwise remain unnoticed.
The path toward women-inclusive ecology—and indeed, inclusive science overall—requires both structural changes in how conferences are organized and a cultural shift in how we understand participation and leadership. By implementing evidence-based strategies and maintaining awareness of these subtle dynamics, the scientific community can create environments where all researchers can thrive, ensuring that the future of ecology benefits from the full range of talent and perspectives available 1 9 .