International Day of Women and Girls in Science

Efforts to advance the participation of women and girls in science have expanded significantly over the past two decades. Programmes to increase enrolment, scholarships, mentorship initiatives, and visibility campaigns have contributed to measurable gains in access at various stages of the education and research pipeline. Yet despite this progress, disparities in retention, leadership, recognition, and influence remain persistent. This suggests that the challenge is not solely one of participation, but of how scientific institutions build credibility, distribute power, and sustain trust over time.

Historically, many scientific institutions operated with a presumption of neutrality and meritocracy. Under this assumption, increasing access was expected to lead naturally to equitable outcomes. However, experiences shared by women and girls across academic, research, and applied science settings increasingly call this premise into question. Trust in scientific institutions is shaped not only by stated commitments to gender equality but by the consistency between those commitments and everyday practices within laboratories, classrooms, funding systems, and professional networks.

In this context, the role of communication and institutional narrative becomes more than a matter of visibility. Celebrating individual success stories or reporting participation figures may demonstrate effort, but they offer limited insight into whether scientific environments are genuinely enabling. Stakeholders now seek clarity on what changes when women enter scientific spaces: whether decision-making becomes more inclusive, whether research agendas broaden, and whether barriers to advancement are meaningfully addressed. The shift is from counting presence to examining consequence.

This reframing also raises questions about how success is defined and measured. Common indicators, such as the number of girls enrolled in STEM education or the number of women in early-career roles, are necessary but insufficient. They often obscure points where attrition accelerates, particularly during transitions into senior research positions or leadership roles. More informative measures consider authorship, grant ownership, tenure, and influence over research priorities, alongside qualitative assessments of institutional culture and safety.

Scientific communication plays a critical role in shaping these perceptions. In complex institutions with high turnover and long research timelines, communications outputs often become the most enduring record of institutional values and intent. What is documented, amplified, or omitted over time influences how inclusion efforts are understood by current and future stakeholders. Institutions that acknowledge learning, adaptation, and unresolved challenges tend to be perceived as more credible than those that present linear narratives of progress.

The information environment surrounding science has also become increasingly contested. Women scientists, in particular, are often subject to heightened scrutiny, credibility challenges, or gendered forms of public engagement. Institutional responses to such dynamics signal whose authority is protected and whose contributions are defended. Clear, measured communication that explains constraints, trade-offs, and decision-making processes can strengthen trust without resorting to defensiveness or over-assurance.

Another important shift is moving from treating women and girls as target audiences to recognising them as central contributors to scientific knowledge. This involves creating space for women scientists to shape research agendas, governance structures, and institutional priorities, rather than limiting their participation to outreach or representational roles. Similarly, portraying girls primarily as future scientists can overlook their present capacity for inquiry, insight, and innovation.

Ultimately, advancing women and girls in science is as much an institutional governance question as it is an educational or workforce issue. It requires alignment between policy, practice, and communication, and a willingness to examine how power operates within scientific systems. As scrutiny of science and scientific institutions intensifies globally, credibility will increasingly depend on whether inclusion efforts are reflected not only in statements and programmes, but in sustained structural change.

Repositioning the conversation in this way does not diminish the importance of access or representation. Rather, it situates them within a broader assessment of how scientific institutions earn trust, steward knowledge, and remain relevant in a changing world.