First, three databases were used: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar. These databases were selected because of the characteristics they offer. WoS and Scopus are multidisciplinary databases containing a wide range of high-impact research (Pranckutė, 2021). However, both databases require a subscription to access their content. Using Google Scholar, we sought to complement our search and ensure broader coverage. This online search platform is known for its open access and the dissemination of many academic studies (Dávalos-Sotelo, 2015). By employing these two search strategies, we ensured that we covered the most relevant and prestigious studies and those available from other platforms. In this way, we obtained a more complete and encompassing perspective of the existing literature on the research topic. It should be noted that the first search was conducted in February 2022 by combining keywords that could capture the relevant literature (i.e., “women faculty,” “academic women,” “female academic,” “female faculty,” “higher education,” “university,” “college,” “gender”).

The keywords aim to search for scientific articles in English and Spanish that have addressed the situation of women in academia to explain their challenges, difficulties, and experiences. For this reason, we restricted the search to women’s experiences in academia. “Gender diversity,” which refers to people whose gender identities do not match the sex assigned at birth (Rubin et al., 2020) and who may go beyond the binary male/female construct, is not part of the focus of this research.

Second, the search was repeated in July 2022 in the WoS database to incorporate recently emerging literature related to the main theme.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were adjusted according to the objective of this review to ensure continuity in the article selection process. The records had to meet the following requirements to be included:

(a) It must be peer-reviewed studies; (b) focus on women working in academia, either as professors or in a board position (i.e., studies that addressed women as students in higher education and graduate school were excluded); (c) the research focus must be on higher education (i.e., records examining the phenomenon in the context of higher education were included); (d) Be written in English or Spanish (including articles in English and Spanish in the literature reviews ensures a broad view of the scientific literature since much of it is published in English. In addition, it is crucial to consider articles in Spanish to cover different perspectives of what has been written in Ibero-America, especially if the researchers are skilled in both languages because, in Latin America, we speak Spanish. We wanted to include what has been written in this region and Spain); (e) Be within the covered years; the present review only considered articles published during the last 10 years (i.e., We include articles published since 2012); (f) studies with methodological variety (studies that employ different methodologies, either qualitative, quantitative, or both); (g) finally, it must be a scientific article that reports empirical results (i.e., conference papers; systematic reviews; meta-analyses; book chapters; theses; and bibliographic studies were excluded).

The database search resulted in a total of 600 articles, which were organized in an initial form with the following information: (1) author; (2) year of publication; (3) title; (4) abstract; (5) research topic; (6) objective of the study; (7) method. To check the adequacy of the data, each author carefully reviewed the studies and classified them as potentially included (1) or excluded (0) according to the agreed criteria. Once the duplicates were eliminated, the titles, keywords, and abstract were revised, which resulted in the retention of 180 articles. The second review considered the complete text; 129 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were retained. This process, which followed PRISMA recommendations and its extension for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018), is described in Figure 1.

The management of references throughout the review was carried out with EndNote X9. The 129 selected articles were analyzed through a thematic analysis following the guidelines of Saldaña (2021) further to emphasize the discussion of results and their conclusions. This method was selected because it contributes to the purpose of this research to identify the themes written about women in academia. The thematic analysis was carried out in the following steps (Braun and Clarke, 2023): Familiarization with the data from reading the articles; Coding the data; Developing initial themes; Revising and developing initial themes; Refining; Defining and stating themes; Writing analyses. The reading was guided by what has been written about women’s academics in higher education. In this sense, five main themes were identified, which classify the topics that have been addressed about women’s careers in academia (Figure 2).

In the thematic content analysis (Saldaña, 2021; Braun and Clarke, 2023), five thematic categories were identified: underrepresentation of female academics, difficulties in academic trajectories, facilitating factors of female academics’ courses, the impact of neoliberalism on academic careers, and impact of the COVID19 pandemic on an academic career. Each category presents subcategories that account for different factors influencing women’s career development (Figure 2).

A total of 33 articles in the review addressed the underrepresentation of women in academia. This category is based on four subcategories: Intersectionality, underrepresentation in high-level academic and leadership positions, participation in research, and the STEM area.

The first subcategory, the intersectionality of women belonging to minority groups (six articles), reveals that the relationship between gender and ethnicity influences the academic career advancement of women of color. The research by Thomas (2019) reports on the perceived inequity of African American female teachers. Respondents described how their experience as African American or black female professors in academia affects their decisions and outcomes. They feel the need to justify their presence in academia and thus take on more workload and experience more pressure and stress than their peers. Sang (2018) informs the lived experiences of women academics from ethnic minorities who feel marginalized in academia. In addition, ethnic minority feminist women reported the absence of their experiences in broader feminist discourse. Both papers highlight the impact of race, ethnicity, and gender on the identity of female faculty in the academy.

Regarding women’s participation in senior academic hierarchy and academic leadership positions, 18 studies described low involvement and, at the same time, showed transversality of this situation in university contexts (Mabokela and Mlambo, 2015; Leberman et al., 2016; Maxwell et al., 2019). The underrepresentation of women in academia is accentuated when analyzing the place that women have in leadership positions and decision-making spaces (Aiston, 2014; Morley, 2014; Suğur and Cangöz, 2016; Parker et al., 2018; Semela et al., 2020). This gap remains despite the implementation of gender equity policies, as shown by Igiebor (2021).

The analyzed literature reveals that the underrepresentation of women is observed in the same way in scientific production (four articles), as measured by number of publications in peer-reviewed journal, citation count, and number of citations, competitive research funding. In this area, disparities between men and women are regarded in publication rates (Aiston and Yang, 2017) and participation in scientific review processes (Willis et al., 2021). This situation could be explained by the marginalization of women academics in science and industry (Tartari and Salter, 2015).

The underrepresentation of women academics in STEM is referred to in the literature as horizontal segregation (O'Connor, 2020). The works of Smith et al. (2017), Hutchins and Kovach (2019), Casad et al. (2021), and Verdugo-Castro et al. (2021) analyze the underrepresentation of female academics as researchers in STEM fields. In this area, Lendák-Kabók (2021) shows that gender stereotypes influence women’s decisions regarding their academic careers and withdrawal from STEM areas, reflected in the underrepresentation documented in other studies and contexts.

A total of 51 articles addressed the difficulties experienced by women in their academic careers, many of them linked to the structure of the academic world (Aiston and Jung, 2015). Among these difficulties, those related to gender inequalities are identified (14 articles), expressed in different areas. In terms of salary, women earn, on average less than their male counterparts and have fragmented work experience (De Angelis and Grüning, 2020; Samper-Gras et al., 2021). Regarding leadership and management positions, women occupy undervalued positions (Peterson, 2016) that tend to be highly demanding in terms of time and management.

Similarly, gender prejudices and stereotypes are barriers women encounter in academia. The studies analyzed showed that cultural stereotypes related to gender roles affect the academic career of women (Afiouni, 2014; Rogus-Pulia et al., 2018), influencing educational development spaces such for example, leadership positions in highly masculinized faculties (Dengate et al., 2021). Added to this barrier are those linked to intersectionality. In effect, the migratory status of women is presented as a factor when advancing in their academic careers (Sang et al., 2013; Hollis, 2022). Similarly, the current economy of prestige that governs universities is presented as an indisputable barrier to women’s careers (Kandiko Howson et al., 2018).

On the other hand, research reveals difficulties in achieving a work-family balance between personal life and academic work, along with a lack of time, which translates into complex scenarios that women academics must overcome to develop their careers. This situation occurs in different contexts: Rhoads and Gu (2012) address it in China, Toffoletti and Starr (2016) in Australia, and Vithanage and Arachchige (2020) in Sri Lankan universities, revealing the transversality of this problem.

Finally, another difficulty founded in the trajectories of female academics is reaching leadership positions. Indeed, there is persistence at the international level of the so-called “glass ceiling” that prevents women from accessing leadership positions (Muberekwa and Nkomo, 2016; Abalkhail, 2019; Chacha, 2021). This situation demonstrates the need to generate strategies that support women from a cultural perspective.

There is a predominance of articles that address the difficulties contributing to women’s disadvantaged situation in academia. Also, we found papers that identify actions that facilitate and support women in developing their careers. The following steps are gender equity policies, academic development opportunities, and mentoring or networks.

Among the factors that favor the advancement of women in academic career are mentoring, where there is the figure of the mentor who inspires and advises professional development (Ali and Coate, 2013; Duran-Bellonch and Ion, 2013; Hassan et al., 2017; Argyle and Mendelberg, 2020; Leenders et al., 2020; Bhatti and Ali, 2021). Mentoring programs for women have a transformative effect, as they are part of an intervention to achieve gender equity and recognize gender inequalities as a structural issue. It also promotes collaboration and empowers mentors and mentees to become agents of change concerning gender norms and work practices (Leenders et al., 2020). Peer mentoring is critical to the success of women leaders in universities, helping them to challenge male dominance in these spaces (Bhatti and Ali, 2021). Likewise, mentoring, role modeling, and collaborative conversations build team cohesion (Lorenzetti et al., 2022). On the other hand, the literature also highlights professional networks—also called relational capital—in the development of an academic career and the achievement of more equitable professional development opportunities (Cabezas et al., 2014; Hill and Wheat, 2017; Bhatti and Ali, 2021; Lorenzetti et al., 2022).

Another factor that supports the development of female academics is the presence of gender equity-oriented policies in universities. Highlight the importance of pay equity policies and using audits as a strategic tool to reduce gender inequalities (Currie and Hill, 2013) and some procedures that guarantee all the rights of women academics and safeguard their scientific participation at different levels of academia (Albashir and Areiqat, 2021).

Likewise, in the articles reviewed, opportunities for academic development emerge as another factor that facilitates women’s academic careers in universities (Barnard et al., 2021). The work of Blithe and Elliott (2020) neatly summarizes the characteristics that create opportunities for women’s academic career development: research on gender inequality, implementation of mentoring, communication, training, research support, and hiring policies. Thus, the capacity for agency, mentoring, resilience, and control over their lives are critical factors in addressing the academic career difficulties identified by women, as demonstrated by Ramadan (2022) study. Finally, Subbaye and Vithal (2017) argue that there is a need to go beyond considering only research as a meaningful activity in academic evaluations to encourage the development of women’s careers in academia and facilitate women’s access to senior positions within universities.

Another recurring theme in the articles reviewed was the impact of neoliberalism on women’s careers. Although academia already has a masculine character due to the nature of its work. The neoliberal productivity and performance criteria are remasculinization of the academia and masculinization of women (Lipton, 2015, 2017a,b). In this context, female academics experience the contradiction of “empowered women” but also “different” and “subordinate” to the re-masculinized institution (Lipton, 2020).

The impact of neoliberalism increases the challenges women face. Those who enter academia do so at a personal cost (Göktürk and Tülübaş, 2021). Neoliberal academia has repercussions on the women’s sphere, where childlessness is consistent with the responsibilizing imperatives of neoliberal academic culture (Reuter, 2018). Furthermore, the neoliberal nature of academia affects women entering academia, particularly early in their careers (Caretta et al., 2018), and has resulted in a casualization of women’s academic work (Stringer et al., 2018; Ivancheva et al., 2019).

The literature focusing on female trajectories reveals that the neoliberal agenda has affected all areas of academic development: research and productivity (Acker and Wagner, 2019) and research funding (Grant and Elizabeth, 2015), among others. It stands out in the field of gender equality policies, where the contradictions faced by gender equality programs in the neoliberal context are observed (Tzanakou and Pearce, 2019). For example, Chen and Hsieh (2019) show that the horizontal and vertical division of academic labor, as well as roles, organizational practices, rewards, and promotions, are linked to gender, hindering women’s more significant achievements and participation in leadership spaces.

Starting in 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic generated concern about what was happening to women academics in confinement. We found 12 studies about the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first instance are articles that analyze the problem of reconciling distance working with childcare and homework (Nash and Churchill, 2020; Walters et al., 2021; Davis et al., 2022) which affected the productivity and well-being of female academics. The health crisis has also increased the research deficit among female researchers (Brown et al., 2022).

Furthermore, several articles have been identified addressing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the increase in gender inequalities, especially in early-career female academics (Górska et al., 2021; Spencer et al., 2021). In this context, the discussion about the opportunity to correct the systemic disadvantages underpinned by the ideal worker’s image and that disadvantaged women in academia were lost in the pandemic (Constantinescu and Pozsar, 2022). The pandemic, in addition to intensifying inequalities, disregarded the institutional commitments defined in pursuing gender equity. Indeed, institutions expected the same academic outcomes without additional support (Clark et al., 2022; Walters et al., 2022).

The present study provides relevant information about how women have been conceptualized in the academy over the past 10 years. Some limitations are transversal to all the studies included. On the one hand, the review was restricted to works published in English and Spanish, which could imply a loss of relevant information in another language. Similarly, the review excluded studies published before 2012, which means another loss of information. On the other hand, the predominance of qualitative studies reviewed limited the possibilities of obtaining data that would allow us to investigate the characteristics of each group or sample involved (e.g., age of the interviewees, data collection instruments, and scores obtained).

The aim of this scoping review was intended to identify what has been written about women in academia, thus excluding publications on men and gender diversities in academia.

Finally, these limitations, the results presented in this scoping review can be considered a guide for future studies since it integrates different results that account for the multifactorial nature of the trajectory of women in academia and makes visible the need to delve deeper into this topic.