
Glass Ceilings in Academia: Strategies for Overcoming Systemic Barriers
Academia often promises merit-based advancement. Yet hidden obstacles—popularly called “glass ceilings”—continue to hold back many scholars. These barriers are often rooted in gender, origin, immigration status, language proficiency, systemic knowledge, and socio-economic background. Unlike overt discrimination, glass ceilings are subtle within the structural framework of institutions, making them harder to identify and dismantle.
Recognizing how these barriers form and why they persist is essential for anyone committed to fairer, more inclusive institutions. In this session, Birte Seffert (GSO) spoke with three experts who bring varied experiences to the table:
- Dr. Saumya Pant: University of Bremen’s Equal Opportunities Office
- Dr. Taiwo Fagbemigun: Senior Project Manager at Horizon Resource Network
- Dr. Verena Haage: Neuroimmunologist at Columbia University and co-founder of the Sustainable Leadership for Science Initiative
Intersectional Challenges in Academia
German academia, or academia in general did not historically anticipate a diverse pool of researchers. People who do not fit established norms (e.g., being a German man, fluent in German, and on a linear research track) may find career progression painfully slow if not outright blocked. A single-minded focus on publication counts and grants leaves little room for alternative qualifications or lived experiences. Rigid department structures rarely accommodate such diversity, underscoring the need for policies that address these realities rather than adopting one-size-fits-all solutions.
In addition to that, repeatedly juggling short-term contracts and lacking mentors with similar backgrounds lead people to leave academia. Many departments have no roadmap for how to integrate or support scholars from migrant or Global South communities, making advancement erratic at best.
In addition to that, problems like opaque hiring processes and precarious residency status amplify stress for researchers, especially when combined with minimal leadership training or inconsistent mentoring.
Key point: These barriers are not personal failings. Rather, they’re baked into an institutional design that historically excluded broad groups from academic life.
Building Community and Mentorship
Support networks can counteract isolation and doubt. Small groups, online forums, alumni networks, or conference gatherings offer emotional support and shared resources. Certain platforms—whether related to open science, leadership training, or grassroots initiatives—can further improve communication skills and raise one’s professional profile over time.
Having more than one mentor prevents reliance on a single viewpoint or advisor, and can add opportunities for different collaborations. Even if mentorship can be more effective when integrated into structured programs, informal peer networks can fill critical gaps and change the feeling of being alone, especially for internationals.
Reframing Your Individual Experience
International backgrounds or nontraditional research paths often appear “unusual” in academic settings. But, seeing them as credentials such as multilingual proficiency, cross-cultural adaptability, or independent thinking can help with your own visibility. Framing these traits as assets rather than deficits helps when seeking funding, submitting applications, or exploring new collaborations. Be proactive when self-advocating, because standard evaluation criteria do not always highlight these qualities.
Practical Take Away: In your cover letter or interview, highlight why your background and skill set add value. Ask the hiring committee direct questions about support for newcomers, including language assistance or resources that address cultural integration.
Transparency and Institutional Responsibility
Yes, individuals can adopt strategies for self-empowerment. Yet institutions owe a duty to dismantle exclusionary practices, as ad hoc solutions at institutions rarely serve; the progress requires deep reflection about who sets the rules in hiring, grant funding, authorship, and departmental culture:
- Hiring committees should publish clear criteria.
- Departments should articulate what “excellence” means beyond archaic publication metrics.
- Leadership must reflect on the ways implicit bias shapes decisions—from who gets invited to speak at colloquia, to who secures lab funding, to who is encouraged to pursue professorship.
Red flags include departments writing about inclusivity in job ads but failing to show any real track record of diverse hires or robust anti-discrimination policies. If you suspect tokenism—where you alone represent an entire demographic—ask pointed questions about existing mentorship, workload distribution, and cultural support.
Mental Health & Neurodiversity: Further Reading
A frequent question is how or whether to disclose mental health challenges or neurodivergent traits in applications, interviews, or at the work place. The answer is deeply personal: in a genuinely supportive setting, disclosure can improve acceptance. However in less inclusive environments, disclosing might trigger more barriers. Be aware that you are not obligated to share anything that a workplace cannot respectfully handle.
For anyone in academia struggling with mental health or neurodivergent conditions, these online platforms and communities offer firsthand accounts, mentorship, and support:
- Voices of Academia
Improves mental health in academia by highlighting diverse lived experiences. - Sparks of Change (eLife)
Showcases grassroots efforts and personal stories aimed at reforming academic culture. - Dragonfly Mental Health
Advocates for sustainable mental well-being among students, postdocs, and faculty.
Final Thoughts on Glass Ceilings in Academia
Academia’s glass ceilings are far from shattered. But open dialogue, collective action, and conscientious policies can gradually reshape the ivory tower into a space where diverse voices thrive. “We’re not alone,” reminds Birte Seffert, encouraging participants to keep sharing experiences and pressing for institutional accountability. The more researchers challenge implicit bias, share personal narratives, and demand structural fixes, the closer we get to equal academic structures.
Our Partners
The *Tbh-Conference was supported by AlumNode – your network by Klaus Tschira Stiftung, and made possible by funding from the foundation Klaus Tschira Stiftung. Thank you to TwentyOne Skills for the support!