INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, a trend toward the feminization of the labor market has become evident. This development has been driven by feminist social movements, the legislative reforms they inspired, broader societal changes linked to demographic and economic shifts, and sustained academic research. While this trend has been positively evaluated from a quantitative standpoint and is often cited as progress in gender equity, there has been limited critical examination of its actual outcomes. Questions remain about whether women’s increased participation has resulted in tangible benefits such as pay equity, access to benefits, improved working conditions, or leadership roles, or whether it has come at social and personal costs, given that many of these spaces continue to operate according to masculine logics and modes of participation.

^{De Oliveira and Ariza (1999)}, ^{García (2001)}, ^{García and De Oliveira (2001)}, and ^{Rendón and Maldonado (2005)} argue that labor opportunities and conditions for Mexican women and men continue to reflect a traditional sexual division of labor. This enduring structure, in turn, shapes the broader organization of the Mexican labor market. According to data from the Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo, Nueva Edición (ENOEN; National Survey of Occupation and Employment, New Edition), conducted by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI; National Institute of Statistics and Geography), as of February 2024, the economically active population included 60.9 million individuals aged 15 and over, corresponding to a labor force participation rate of 60.2%. Disaggregated by sex, the participation rate was 75.8% for men and 46.6% for women (^{INEGI, 2024}). To illustrate the unequal conditions under which women access the labor market, the following indicators are especially relevant:

Beyond this traditional sphere, women represent only 33.3% of the global workforce in science (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2021b). Moreover, women “tend to have more limited access to funding than men and to be less represented in prestigious universities and among senior faculty” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 34). Within this professional field, UNESCO highlights that the regions with the highest female researcher participation are Southeastern Europe (49%), the Caribbean, Central Asia, and Latin America (44%).

Although data on women’s participation in scientific research are increasing, significant gaps remain regarding their performance and the barriers they face in establishing career trajectories comparable to those of their male counterparts. For instance, in countries such as Brazil, India, and Nigeria, sex-disaggregated data are not collected. Additionally, because data from North America and China cannot be reliably compared with other sources, these regions are often excluded from international statistics (^{UNESCO, 2021a}).

In Mexico, women make up 38% of those pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (^{Andrade Baena, 2023}), although only 14.3% of university graduates hold degrees in these fields (^{Hernández, 2024}). Several studies suggest that the choice of academic and professional paths is influenced by gender stereotypes and societal expectations (^{Alam & Sánchez Tapia, 2020}; ^{Juvera & Cruz-Sánchez, 2024}), which often steer women toward careers traditionally viewed as feminine and associated with service, caregiving, entertainment, grace, and beauty. Furthermore, the limited visibility of female role models, partly due to the underrepresentation of women’s contributions in science, along with familial influences, serve as additional factors shaping these career choices (^{Peterson et al., 2018}; ^{Reinking & Martin, 2018}).

It is also important to note that the gender wage gap in Mexico varies by women’s field of study or occupation. In STEM fields, the average gap is 18%, while in non-STEM fields it increases to 22% (^{García Doberganes & Masse Torres-Tirado, 2022}). These structural conditions have led to persistent gender inequities across many aspects of social life, and women’s work in science is no exception to these disparities.

This article presents an analysis that revisits several of the previously mentioned dynamics, highlighting the geopolitical position of the institutions where women conduct their scientific work as a key factor in understanding the complexity of their participation in this professional field. This constitutes the primary theoretical contribution of the current research.

The structure of this article is as follows. It begins by presenting general aspects of the country’s main regulatory body for science and the work of its scientists. Next, it reviews the literature on key factors explaining the conditions under which female scientists practice their profession in Mexico, including gender issues and the geopolitical position of the institutions where they work. Then, it outlines the methodological approach used, followed by the presentation of the survey results. Finally, the paper discusses the findings and concludes with final reflections.

MEXICO AND THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF RESEARCHERS (SNII)

On December 29, 1970, Mexico’s Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología⁴ (CONACYT) was established with the goal of coordinating federal public policies to promote scientific, technological, and innovation research in the country. In 1984, the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores⁵ (SNI) was created to recognize individuals primarily dedicated to producing scientific and technological knowledge. It also serves as a mechanism to evaluate science dissemination efforts and to strengthen professional study plans and programs. Since its inception, this recognition has been granted through peer evaluation, awarding the title of national researcher in one of the following categories based on academic output: candidate, level I, level II, level III, and emeritus.

According to the current Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (SECIHTI),⁶ the entity now known as the Sistema Nacional de Investigadoras e Investigadores (SNII) supports the training and consolidation of researchers with the highest level of expertise. Membership in this select group provides opportunities to hold better job positions, take on managerial roles, and receive additional income beyond the standard salary benefits granted to regular employees (^{Aguilar Ramos, 2022}, p. 4).

Nevertheless, multiple studies have confirmed that the scientific research process—which encompasses the consolidation and recognition of researchers—exhibits a gender bias that favors scientists identified as male, thereby limiting the participation and recognition of women (^{Hernández Hernández, 2020}; ^{Bracamontes Ramírez et al., 2021}; ^{Estrada Mota, 2022}). When this incentive program was launched, there were five men for every woman in the system (1 143 men versus 253 women), reflecting a gender participation gap of 64 percentage points. As of June 2024, among the 17 800 members of the SNII, 40.4% were women (10 609 men and 7 191 women). Although the number of women has grown, significant progress remains to be made. For example, only nine women currently hold senior leadership positions within the public research centers of the SECIHTI, representing just 35% of the total (^{SECIHTI, 2025}).

To critically assess gender equity in scientific research in Mexico, Cárdenas Tapia (2015) analyzed data on the total number of researchers affiliated with what was then the SNI during 2012, 2013, and 2015. Her findings revealed several persistent disparities:

An analysis of the updated 2023 Registry of Scientists indicates that the trends identified by Cárdenas Tapia (2015) persist, with little progress in improving women’s conditions. The 2023 registry includes 43 979 members; however, unlike previous years, the data are not disaggregated by sex—an important change that effectively obscures ongoing disparities and the minimal reduction of gender gaps. This occurs despite the presence of a left-leaning government, parliamentary gender parity, and reforms to the Ley General de Educación⁷ and other Mexican regulations aimed at reducing gender inequality. It is worth noting that these data remained available in CONACYT’s historical archive at least until April 2024, but since the establishment of the new SECIHTI, this information has not been included on its new online portal (^{SECIHTI, 2024}).

As evidence of this, El Colegio de México conducted an analysis in the context of International Women’s Day (March 8) 2024, reporting that in 2023 the composition of the SNII was as follows: level I, 39.7% women and 60.3% men; level II, 34.7% women and 65.3% men; and level III, 23.8% women and 76.2% men (^{El Colegio de México, 2024}). These data demonstrate that the gender gap widens progressively with each higher level within the SNII. Furthermore, the analysis excluded researchers at the Candidate level, revealing a bias against the lowest tier, where female participation has historically been the highest.

Evidence from various studies has explored women’s participation in the SNI/SNII (^{Meza Mejía et al., 2019}; ^{Contreras Gómez et al., 2022}; ^{Carrillo Espadas & Flores Galaz, 2023}). However, to date, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the participation of women and men engaged in scientific work in Mexico who, for various reasons, are not members of the SNII. Furthermore, no intersectional analysis has examined how gender intersects with the positioning of scientists within universities situated at the center, semi-periphery, or periphery of the Mexican research system, nor how labor conditions structurally disadvantage certain groups in their pursuit of a scientific career in Mexico.

Within this context, the present research aims to examine the organization of scientific work in Mexico through an intersectional lens. Using full-time faculty members with doctoral degrees at a public university in northwestern Mexico as a case study, the study seeks to highlight the multiple ways in which gender and other labor conditions influence the career progression of scientists within the country’s scientific system.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework is grounded in gender theory (^{Rubin, 1996}; ^{Scott, 2003}) and world-systems theory (^{Frank, 1966}, ¹⁹⁶⁷; ^{Wallerstein, 1979}; ^{Alderson & Beckfield, 2004}). Drawing on ^{Rubin (1996)}, the framework recognizes the sex-gender system as the foundation upon which social structures worldwide are organized. This system is a historical construct based on dichotomies where two sexes (female/male) are represented as opposite and complementary, and this relationship of dependency forms the basis of social life. As a result, the sexual division of labor is constructed, primarily in Western contexts, through processes of meaning-making that positively value traits considered masculine (associated with rationality, non-assertiveness, provisioning, and the public sphere) while negatively valuing traits deemed feminine (linked to emotion, assertiveness, care, and the private sphere).

To define gender as a category of analysis, ^{Scott (2003)} proposes the following:

Gender is a constitutive element of social relations based on the differences that distinguish the sexes. It constitutes a primary form of significant power relations comprising four interrelated elements: first, cultural symbols that evoke multiple representations, including myths of light and darkness, purification and contamination, innocence and corruption; second, normative concepts that interpret the meanings of these symbols and attempt to limit and contain their metaphorical possibilities; third, political notions and references to institutions and social organizations; and fourth, subjective identity. (pp. 289-291)

The category of gender constitutes the primary division of social exclusion, as it is a construct that divides and organizes the distribution of power and agency among social actors based on the meaning ascribed to their sex. It positions them within the established social hierarchy according to the delineation of functions and practices deemed valid, aligned with polar identities shaped through subjectivity and intersubjectivity within a specific temporal and spatial context.

From a gender perspective, it is important to consider concepts such as the feminization of the labor force, workplace discrimination, the glass ceiling, and the double burden. The feminization of the labor force primarily refers to the numerical increase of women in occupations socially constructed as feminine—such as cleaning services, food preparation, secretarial work, and caregiving for the sick, children, or elderly. It also encompasses women’s broader entry into the labor market and their growing participation in professions traditionally viewed as masculine, though not yet in majority, but with enough presence to have a noticeable impact in those fields.

This development has often been viewed as a positive outcome of the feminist movement’s struggle and efforts to promote gender equity. However, from a more critical and nuanced perspective, the feminization of the labor market has coincided with job devaluation and increased precarity, that is, a decline in symbolic value and a form of stigmatization affecting how women’s and men’s labor is perceived. As women increasingly enter the workforce, they contribute to a labor surplus that has strained social security systems, often by participating in informal or socially unprotected employment.

Likewise, the average wages earned by women have declined, as the majority are employed in temporary and precarious jobs. Women are often paid less than men for performing the same work, which contributes to their recruitment into lower-skilled positions (^{Gómez Solórzano, 2008}). In other words, although women have increased their participation numerically, they continue to do so under disadvantaged conditions. In this context, the feminization of the workforce and the labor market has generated spaces and dynamics that perpetuate oppression and violence against women, particularly in fields deemed more “relevant” by dominant social perspectives—such as knowledge production, science and technology, finance, economics, and politics.

Gender-based labor discrimination and the apparent inclusion of women in the workforce demonstrate that, even today, the traditional division of labor rooted in gender stereotypes continues to shape the roles and positions available to men and women. As a result, mechanisms such as the glass ceiling and sticky floor have emerged to explain how the gender gap endures in the labor market.

Why is discrimination an obstacle to the genuine inclusion of women in the labor market? According to article 1, section III of the Ley Federal para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminación (LFPED),⁸ discrimination is defined as:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference, whether by action or omission and whether intentional or not, that is not objective, rational, or proportional and that has the purpose or effect of obstructing, restricting, impeding, undermining, or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of human rights and freedoms (^{LFPED, 2003, p. 1}).

That is, individuals should not face discrimination based on ethnic origin, skin color, sex, gender, disabilities, pregnancy, family situation, family responsibilities, marital status, migration status, or other similar factors. In the context of the labor market, workplace discrimination can be understood as any action or omission that differentiates, excludes, restricts, or favors the hiring, retention, or advancement of any individual in decent working conditions based on these factors. This article focuses on the workplace discrimination experienced by Mexican female scientists due to sex, gender, pregnancy, family situation and responsibilities, and marital status, and how these factors affect their positioning at the periphery of the country’s scientific system.

The concept of the glass ceiling has been recognized for four decades and refers to an invisible barrier that prevents qualified women from advancing to higher positions within their organizations. It is called the “glass ceiling” because, while it blocks the progress of those below it, it remains difficult to perceive since it is rooted in cultural meanings. For women, these meanings relate to traditional gender roles, which translate into social conventions that justify their exclusion and lack of promotion, particularly due to conflicts arising from time demands such as family, domestic and caregiving responsibilities, pregnancy, and similar factors that are not typically expected of men. Additionally, the glass ceiling is reflected in the high availability requirements of senior roles and decision-making positions, as well as in gender stereotypes associating leadership with traits like rationality, assertiveness, and aggressiveness, which are viewed as necessary for effective organizational management (^{Camarena Adame & Saavedra García, 2018}).

On the other hand, the sticky floor refers to organizational, normative, and cultural conditions that systematically confine women to lower-level positions with fewer responsibilities, lower salaries, reduced benefits, and other disadvantages. According to ^{Ramos et al. (2003)}, this sticky floor is constructed through several barriers. Internal barriers are linked to female gender identity, meaning the internalization of traditional gender roles that each woman experiences during her identity formation. External barriers include informal rules and male networks, often referred to as “old boys’ clubs,” within organizations; human resources policies related to personnel selection and promotion; a lack of strategies to support the reconciliation of family and work life; the absence of female role models to guide and open paths for other women; and the scarcity of female support networks. Additionally, barriers arise from the incompatibility between women’s productive and reproductive responsibilities, such as the triple role women often perform as wife, mother, and executive.

Alternatively, the sticky floor refers to organizational, normative, and cultural conditions that systematically confine women to lower-level positions with fewer responsibilities, lower salaries, reduced benefits, and other disadvantages. According to ^{Ramos et al. (2003)}, this sticky floor is constructed through several barriers:

The concept of the double or triple shift arises in this context, referring to the extended hours women work both inside and outside the workplace. These extended hours generate stress and reduce the time available for rest and self-care. Together, these concepts help explain the negative aspects of the feminization of the labor market, especially when the prevailing rules are androcentric, meaning they are designed by men and based on male interests. This makes it difficult for women to comply. This situation is particularly evident among highly qualified women, such as scientists at a peripheral university in northern Mexico, whose career trajectories often differ from those of the broader female population.

To develop the second category, intersectionality, world-systems theory is used, particularly ^{Frank (1966)}, who describes development and underdevelopment as dependent and extreme relational phenomena. Through capitalism, satellite regions become dependent on metropolitan centers, subordinating the development of the former to the latter and creating exploitative relationships that repeat indefinitely. Building on Frank’s framework, ^{Wallerstein (1979)} explains that market growth and the resulting global division of labor generate differences among nations, positioning them as either core or peripheral. These positions are linked by asymmetric power relations that produce unequal exchanges. The core produces goods with high wages, low supervision, high profitability, and capital-intensive processes, while the periphery produces goods with low wages, high supervision, low profitability, and low capital intensity. In the core, production relies on free labor compensated with appropriate wages, whereas in the periphery, production depends on forced labor with little or no remuneration.

Other authors contributing to the theoretical framework of this work include ^{Alderson and Beckfield (2004)}, who identified a global capitalist urban system that divides and organizes labor in cities into three zones: central, semi-peripheral, and peripheral. Central cities host monopolistic companies engaged in the most productive activities, supported by governments that promote free-market competition through deregulation. While domination relations do not exist within central cities themselves, these cities initiate the relations that control and dominate semi-peripheral and peripheral cities. Semi-peripheral cities are dominated by central cities but, in turn, dominate peripheral cities. This means they contribute through their services to the domination exerted by central cities, yet their position allows them to avoid complete exclusion from the benefits of the market and free competition. Finally, peripheral cities are those subjected exclusively to domination and, due to structural disadvantages, are unable to establish relations of domination or mobilize toward improved positions within the global urban system.

Building on these arguments, it is contended that contemporary societies remain organized according to this global urban system, where the social division of labor reproduces underdevelopment and dependency across three zones: the core, which hosts monopolies engaged in the most productive activities with the highest social value; the semi-periphery which supplies services and skilled or semi-skilled labor to the core; and the periphery, where exploitable resources and raw materials are produced, serving as the site for the externalization of global production costs.

In addition to cities, transnational corporations, governments, international organizations, global banks, educational institutions, and the networks connecting them play a significant role in shaping the core-periphery world system. The core-periphery category is based on these premises, aiming to highlight the dependent and underdeveloped conditions of researchers according to their geographic location. It also considers the roles and functions researchers perform both in scientific production and in the reproduction of the national educational system, which itself responds to the geopolitics of the national and international urban system.

METHODOLOGY

This applied, descriptive, mixed-methods study was conducted in two phases: the first in 2021 and the second between 2023 and 2024. The initial phase was exploratory and quantitative, involving a survey administered to researchers at the Universidad Estatal de Sonora (UES) to identify and define those working as scientists at an institution considered part of the periphery of the Mexican higher education system. In the second phase, in-depth interviews were conducted with female researchers from the same institution, guided by analytical categories derived from the survey. This article presents the results of the quantitative phase, during which the core-periphery category was developed based on the premises outlined above.

The criteria for defining UES as a higher education institution situated at the periphery of the national education system is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria, presented below in order of application:

RESULTS

The following results are organized according to the categories of family situation, gender and work, labor conditions, and double or triple work shifts.

FINAL REFLECTIONS

The feminization of higher education and the increased entry of women into scientific work have resulted in greater numerical representation and some positive outcomes for this population group. However, the anticipated benefits have yet to be fully realized. This is largely because the division of labor remains traditional, rooted in the local sex-gender system that places men and masculinity at the center of structures of domination and privilege (^{Bourdieu, 2000}). Specifically, women’s integration into scientific work is complex, as sexual differences, assigned values, and functions permeate the Mexican higher education system. These factors contribute to inequitable conditions that render women vulnerable through low wages and employment contracts affected by aspects such as marital status, pregnancy, and maternal caregiving responsibilities. These conditions, combined with the traditional sexual division of labor, sustain the reproduction of double and triple work shifts for female researchers.

This highlights the persistence of the glass ceiling, which prevents women from accessing leadership and decision-making positions within organizations, and consequently limits their ability to fully benefit from the Mexican scientific system. Such benefits become attainable only for those who, through personal strategies and sacrifices, such as remaining single, divorcing, foregoing having children, or extending their work hours, manage to move out of the periphery and integrate into the semi-periphery. In this intermediate space, scientists at the Universidad Estatal de Sonora enjoy more equitable working conditions related to salaries, productivity, recognition, and research support. However, at both the core and peripheral poles, female scientists and researchers remain more vulnerable compared to their male counterparts.

It was confirmed that women continue to bear high social costs in practicing their profession, particularly in research and the development of new knowledge, regardless of their position within the system. These costs often involve sacrificing or foregoing private and family life, as well as leisure time for recreational activities. In general, female researchers have fewer children, marry less frequently, and divorce more often than their male counterparts. Additionally, they spend more hours on reproductive work.

There are also economic costs that affect how effectively female scientists at UES can use their salaries. To free themselves from certain reproductive tasks, these women often need to pay for services such as prepared meals, laundry and ironing, home cleaning, or enrolling their children in private schools with extended hours that better accommodate their work schedules, among other examples.

The sex-gender system shapes social structure and defines the distinct roles and functions of women and men within a given context. This framework helps explain why the feminization of education and the labor market in Mexico, particularly in Sonora, has not translated into genuine progress in gender equity. Traditional structures and asymmetric power relations that exclude women—both directly and indirectly through gender-based discrimination—remain unchallenged. Therefore, the progress observed has been primarily quantitative rather than qualitative. To advance toward a more equitable society, it is essential to deconstruct the prevailing sex-gender system.

The feminization of professions offers little benefit if the rules of the game and the exercise of power continue to be constructed and legitimized based on logics of male domination. As explained earlier, the negative aspect of feminizing the labor market has involved the deterioration of working conditions not only for women but also for men within it. This process of deterioration is also evident among the surveyed female scientific population, who, despite being highly qualified, face more adverse working conditions, particularly at the core and periphery of the system.

The complexity of women’s participation in scientific work is increased by the intersection of the traditional sex-gender system and the core-periphery system that shapes academic job opportunities. It is therefore important to place these issues on the labor agenda, making them visible and encouraging reflection to find ways not only to promote the entry and retention of women in academia and research but also to ensure their mobility under equitable conditions. This requires ending the privileging of men whose qualifications are equal to or lower than those of female scientists at UES or any other higher education institution in Mexico and worldwide.

Women should not have to bear high social costs to pursue a career trajectory equal to or better than that of their male peers, nor should they be forced to choose between professional advancement and family life in order to reduce their vulnerability within academia. It is time to develop strategies that challenge gender-based stereotypes, dismantle the sticky floor that confines women to teaching, administrative, and mid-level management roles, and promote the creation of statutes, manuals, and institutional practices that, above all, make the glass ceiling visible. Only then can the internal and external barriers that prevent female scientists at UES from leading networks, academic groups, and research projects be meaningfully addressed and removed.

To achieve this, it is essential to recognize male privilege and the dynamics of male domination that continue to shape the labor market. Acknowledging these realities is a necessary step toward the development of equitable public policies capable of transforming the feminization of higher education into substantive progress in gender equity, rather than allowing it to remain a mere statistical increase with limited impact on the quality of life for women in Mexico. It is of little value for women to achieve high levels of education if their access, retention, and mobility within the labor market continue to relegate them to peripheral or semi-peripheral positions. Feminization cannot be understood solely as increased female participation in academia and science; it must be accompanied by a shift in the underlying paradigm. This requires rewriting the rules that currently govern the system, denaturalizing androcentrism, and promoting the positive feminization of the structures and norms that shape Mexico’s scientific and labor institutions.