A groundbreaking new study delves into the intricate relationship between grant acquisition, gender discrimination, and academic promotion, revealing how status can radically reshape the landscape of career advancement in academia. This research, conducted by Marini and Meschitti, sheds light on the persistent gender disparity in promotions across the academic world while simultaneously uncovering how securing prestigious grants might shield recipients from such biases. Their findings challenge conventional wisdom about systemic inequalities and suggest that status achieved through elite research funding has the power to disrupt longstanding patterns of discrimination.
At the heart of this inquiry is an analysis of two highly coveted individual grants, the European Research Council (ERC) and the Italian FIRB grants, set against a control group of academics who have not received either. By controlling not only for gender and grant status but also various performance and productivity metrics, the researchers offer a nuanced portrait of how these variables interplay to influence career trajectories. The study’s design allows for precise examination of whether grant prestige can erase the gender penalty typically seen in academic promotion processes.
Productivity and international engagement form the backbone of academic success, and as expected, ERC recipients exhibit significantly higher levels in both. However, even within this elite group, subtle gendered differences persist; women tend to be marginally less productive and less internationally active than their male counterparts. This echoes broader concerns raised in the literature, where gender disparities in publishing output and global collaboration networks remain well documented. Earlier studies have noted that employing quality indicators can narrow this gap, but the underlying mechanisms influencing these differences extend deeply into social and structural domains.
Moreover, the research spotlights the role of gendered career expectations ingrained early in life, contributing to women’s generally lower academic ambitions and consequently, outputs. Despite these differences, the elite status conferred by receipt of prestigious grants appears to transcend the typical gendered narrative. Both female and male ERC and FIRB awardees represent a select, high-performing cohort, setting a complex stage for understanding how status functions to mitigate or exacerbate inequality.
When the researchers examined predictors of grant acquisition, they found that performance-related measures overwhelmingly outweigh gender as determinants. This aligns with contemporary literature emphasizing meritocratic ideals in grant decision processes, although some evidence points to lingering, albeit waning, gender discrimination in competitive grant environments. Intriguingly, the study also identifies subtle bias against male recipients, hinting at a nuanced dynamic where under-recognition affects men in specific contexts, a phenomenon sometimes described as a reversal of traditional biases.
This subtle male disadvantage may indicate a compensatory mechanism or a preference bias favoring women in the highly competitive ERC grant arena, potentially linked to efforts to address historical disparities or to enhance diversity. Supporting this line of thinking, analogous findings from studies on academic promotions in psychology and other fields suggest that gender intersects with funding success in complex ways that defy simple categorization.
Central to the authors’ argument is Model 3 from their analytical framework, which offers the highest explanatory power for promotion outcomes by integrating grant status, gender, and research performance. Crucially, the data demonstrate that holding a prestigious grant significantly increases the likelihood of promotion, regardless of gender. This fact challenges the assumption that gender discrimination uniformly disadvantages women and instead points to the powerful role of status in shaping academic advancement.
Notably, gender discrimination is primarily observed among non-recipients of the ERC and FIRB grants. Given that these awardees comprise fewer than 1% of the academic population, the broader picture reveals a persistent gender–promotion gap afflicting the majority. The study places this insight at its conceptual core: while grant acquisition confers considerable advantage, including a shield against gender bias, it does not equate to systemic equality. Instead, it acts as a status signal that overrides gender as a salient category in evaluative settings such as promotion committees.
The mechanics of this phenomenon are deeply intertwined with social theories about status beliefs. Ridgeway and Markus argue that status emanates from widely shared beliefs that influence expectations and interactions. In the context of academic promotion, a grant winner’s elevated status creates an aura of unquestionable excellence that overshadows gendered stereotypes, thereby facilitating fairer treatment in evaluative processes. This ‘halo effect’ bolstered by prestigious funding heralds what is sometimes called the Matthew effect, where initial advantages magnify further opportunities and recognition.
From this vantage point, grant acquisition signifies more than financial support or research validation; it serves as a badge of exceptionalism that disrupts discriminatory patterns. This disruption, however, is selective and contextual. The elevated status associated with prestigious grants operates within a specific institutional and national milieu, reflecting and reinforcing prevailing norms about academic excellence. Thus, the access to such status-enhancing resources becomes a critical gateway for underrepresented groups to escape entrenched inequalities.
The implications of these findings for policy and institutional reform are profound. If the path to equitable promotion is effectively gated by prestigious grant acquisition, then access to these resources acquires new urgency as a lever for change. Yet, since grant competitions themselves may harbor subtle biases or barriers, addressing inequities early in career development and funding decisions remains essential. Without such interventions, the privileged few who succeed in securing high-status grants will continue to thrive while broader patterns of inequality persist or even worsen.
Importantly, the study highlights how promotion committees respond to status signals. Social expectations about the acceptability of women in high-ranking roles intersect with the legitimacy conferred by prestigious grants, tipping the scales in favor of equitable treatment. This shifts the dynamics of bias from overt discrimination to more complex processes where visibility and perceived merit intertwine. Nonetheless, this positive effect remains confined to the elite grant-winning minority, leaving the majority of academics vulnerable to persistent gender penalties.
Despite its illuminating findings, the research acknowledges limitations arising from its national context. Conducted within a single country, the results may reflect idiosyncratic institutional practices and cultural norms that differ elsewhere. Furthermore, the study focuses on promotion post-grant acquisition, a stage that already selects for exceptionally successful academics. Biases likely play a more pronounced role earlier in career stages or in the intermediate phases of grant evaluation, underscoring the layered and cumulative nature of inequality.
In sum, this compelling study reframes the conversation around gender discrimination in academia by foregrounding status as a transformative factor. Grant acquisition emerges not only as an academic achievement but as a potent status signal that can neutralize the salience of gender in promotion decisions. Yet, this phenomenon stratifies academic careers, shielding a privileged few while leaving systemic inequities largely intact for the majority. Recognizing the power of status beliefs urges institutions to consider multifaceted strategies that expand access to prestigious resources and dismantle enduring structural barriers.
As discussions about equity and excellence continue to evolve in the academic world, these insights offer a nuanced perspective on how prestige and recognition intersect with identity to shape professional trajectories. By understanding the intertwined mechanisms of status and bias, stakeholders can better design interventions that do more than protect the elite—they can aspire to transform the system as a whole. The reverberations of these findings are expected to ignite further research and debates, pushing academia toward a more inclusive and genuinely meritocratic future.
Subject of Research: The interplay of gender discrimination, status acquisition via prestigious grants, and academic promotion outcomes.
Article Title: Shielding the few and perpetrating the pattern for the many: interaction of gender discrimination and status in predicting promotion.
Article References:
Marini, G., Meschitti, V. Shielding the few and perpetrating the pattern for the many: interaction of gender discrimination and status in predicting promotion.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1153 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05402-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
