The paradox of participation: gender, autonomy, and suppression in academic science

Women have made significant contributions to science, yet continue to face barriers to full participation and recognition within academic institutions. While research has examined gender disparities in career outcomes, less attention has been paid to how structural conditions constrain women’s autonomy and academic voice. This study addresses that gap by analyzing survey data from a nationally representative sample of 780 Croatian scientists and scholars across six disciplines. Using a quantitative approach, including t-tests, hierarchical regression, and cluster analysis, we examine gender differences in research productivity, leadership, institutional belonging, scientific values, and perceived suppression of academic voice (SAVE). Findings show that women’s research productivity is largely comparable to men’s, but they report significantly higher levels of suppression, particularly at senior ranks and in fields such as the natural sciences and humanities. Gender emerged as the strongest predictor of suppression, even after accounting for rank, output, and job satisfaction. Women also expressed stronger identification with their institutions and a more socially engaged view of science, yet were more likely to fear professional repercussions for expressing critical or controversial views. These findings reveal a structural paradox: women are key contributors to science’s public mission, yet face systemic constraints on their ability to speak, lead, and shape academic discourse. Addressing gender equity in science therefore requires not only improving representation, but transforming the institutional cultures that limit academic autonomy and participation.