̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Given that seven of Ireland¡¯s 12 general public universities were led by women in 2024 (now down to six), you could assume the country¡¯s higher education sector has made a lot of progress on gender equality in recent years. And that impression is supported by the fact that while no Irish university has yet won a gold Athena SWAN award, as of October 2025, six have silver institutional awards.

Athena SWAN was adopted in Ireland in 2015 ¨C a decade after its UK launch by Advance HE ¨C and is seen by the Irish Higher Education Authority as a key pillar of national strategy for gender equality. Often described as a quality mark, the awards seek to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women within universities.?The scheme offers institutional and departmental awards at bronze, silver and gold levels, and variations of it have also been adopted in Australia, Canada, India, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden and Norway.

Athena SWAN¡¯s ¡°making and mainstreaming sustainable structural and cultural changes to remedy the effects of structural inequalities and social injustices¡±. Thus, it appears to recognise that it is not sufficient to introduce measures to simply increase individual women¡¯s chances of success. Tackling gender inequality effectively involves a challenge to established gendered power relations, including ideas about the gender-neutrality of higher education organisations and ideas about merit.

So Athena SWAN could be transformative. But is it?

from has previously shown that although an award does make it easier to raise gender equality issues and can stimulate innovations to deal with specific, limited issues (such as returning after maternity leave), Athena SWAN has not had an impact on the gender pay gap or on the gender profile of the professoriate. And my recent research bears out its limitations.

I examined the successful applications of two Irish public universities for institutional silver awards. I looked at the frequency of particular words, such as gender inequality, and references to processes that reproduce inequality, such as bullying, harassment and devaluation, and experiences of inequality, such as powerlessness, marginalisation and oppression. I also examined statements relating to promotion and recruitment; to individual-focused solutions, such as training and mentoring; and to organisational solutions, such as targets, quotas and the cascade model (whereby the proportion of those promoted reflects the proportion in the applicant pool).

The two universities in question differed in age, but both had previous successes in tackling gender inequality in their decision-making structures. Nevertheless, there were gaps between the data presented in their Athena SWAN applications, their commentary on that data and the ways in which it was used in their four-year action plans. These action plans were characterised by a lack of specificity and ambition.

For instance, even when the university in question¡¯s own data highlighted structural problems or examples of best practice in particular areas, this was ignored. Instead, their action plans focused on women as ¡°the problem¡± and ignored data implicitly suggesting that variation in the proportion of women at full professor or associate professor levels could reflect internal organisational procedures.

The universities also ignored the organisational implications of their own data showing that women were five times more likely than men to see the taking of parental leave as impacting on their careers. Big issues, such as the precariousness of researchers and the absence of career pathways for professional and administrative staff, were kicked into the long grass. Instead, there was a focus on limited initiatives for specific groups of women, such as devising a policy on domestic abuse leave, highlighting the supports available to pregnant students, and looking for an additional lactation room: things human resources should be doing anyway.

It is important to note that both of the universities I looked at were led by women (on 10-year presidential assignments) who endorsed the application, including the action plan. Thus, the research shows that the presence of women in leadership positions is not sufficient to make a real difference.

In addition, both universities¡¯ applications were coordinated by senior women. However, such figures typically serve at the pleasure of the president/rector for a time©\limited period and often don¡¯t have senior permanent academic or administrative posts to return to. This may well have a chilling effect on the content and ambition of the applications, particularly the action plans.

Many of those compiling the application are also on short-term contracts. Such precarity is not conducive to the identification of stretch institutional targets, particularly in a context where most senior leaders/managers may have little interest in, or commitment to, ending gender inequality (even if they are women). If the content of the action plans is not ambitious, implementation is moot.

Even those on permanent contracts ¨C typically junior women?¨C do not receive career benefits from playing their part in the arduous task of compiling Athena SWAN applications, which run to 180-220 pages. Even in the small minority of departments in the UK with gold awards, academic men are still more likely than women to be encouraged to apply for promotion.

In short, while Athena SWAN awards could, in principle, provide opportunities for really impacting on gender inequality, the content of these award©\winning silver institutional applications shows that they are not even attempting to do this. Instead, they are focusing on cosmetic, superficial change. That is, they are genderwashing.

This is wasteful and disappointing. Higher education institutions and Advance HE can and should do better.

Pat O¡¯Connor?is professor emeritus of sociology and social policy at the?University of Limerick?and a visiting full professor at the Geary Institute,?University College Dublin. Her , ¡°Athena SWAN Silver Applications and Gender Equality Action Plans: A Driving Force in Irish Higher Education or Genderwashing?¡± is published by Gender, Work & Organization.