Despite notable gains in women’s participation in science careers in South Africa, women remain underrepresented across STEM fields. While more women are graduating from universities, studies continue to show that men dominate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers — a gap that is even more pronounced among Black women. Although women form the majority of young university graduates nationally, only about 13% of STEM graduates are women, and Black women remain significantly underrepresented in senior academic and research leadership positions.

These disparities stem from systemic barriers including gender bias, limited access to mentorship, and inconsistent availability of resources. Such obstacles continue to hinder the full and equitable participation of women in scientific careers.

At the University of the Free State (UFS), where I work, there is a growing institutional commitment to support emerging researchers — particularly women — through mentorship and research development initiatives. This aligns with Vision 130, which aims to foster research excellence and increase societal impact. I am fortunate to be part of the university’s Transformation of the Professoriate Mentoring Programme, designed to build a strong cohort of emerging scholars. The programme provides academic and research mentorship, supports access to networking and funding opportunities, and nurtures candidates toward assuming senior academic and research roles. It also helps lay the groundwork for future centres of research excellence.

Those of us who benefit from such opportunities carry a responsibility to extend mentorship to more women researchers, especially from underrepresented groups. Expanding women’s participation in science requires addressing the barriers that continue to limit progress. Key interventions include expanding mentorship and networking opportunities, increasing financial support and scholarships for women in STEM, and promoting national policies that support work–life balance and the needs of working mothers.

There is also an urgent need to raise awareness about women’s contributions to science and challenge persistent stereotypes that discourage girls from pursuing scientific careers. Building inclusive, diverse work environments where women feel valued and supported is essential to increasing both participation and retention. Progressive policies that promote the employment of Black women academics in STEM leadership roles are also critical. A diverse cohort of women in authority can provide gender-sensitive mentorship and create pathways for future scholars.

Pursuing a career in science demands hard work, resilience, and a commitment to continuous learning. It is a challenging journey, but deeply rewarding for those passionate about contributing to the advancement of humanity through research. It requires uncovering new insights, developing innovative solutions, and sharing knowledge that can transform lives. Marie Curie captured this spirit beautifully when she said, “I am among those who think that science has great beauty… like a fairy tale.” This sense of wonder should fuel every aspiring researcher.

Science is also fundamentally collaborative. Seek mentors, build networks, remain humble, and embrace learning from others. Your contributions — even those that seem small — form part of a larger scientific story that future generations will build on. If you are driven by curiosity, purpose, and a desire to contribute to the greater good, a career in science may be the path for you…

In modern mathematics, where imagination meets deep abstraction, Dr Laura Monk has quickly become one of the field’s most exciting young geometers. In 2024, she was awarded the Maryam Mirzakhani New Frontiers Prize, an honour regarded as one of the most prestigious recognitions for early-career women mathematicians and presented at the Breakthrough Prize ceremony—often called the “Oscars of Science.” A mathematician whose work explores the geometry of negatively curved spaces, Monk’s path into the field was shaped not only by intellectual fascination but also by uncertainty, self-doubt, and the search for belonging—a journey familiar to many women in STEM. Growing up in France, she found early encouragement from teachers who pushed her to think harder and explore deeper. Later, mentors like Nalini Anantharaman and the pioneering legacy of Iranian math genius Maryam Mirzakhani helped her see that mathematics could be a creative, expansive world—not an exclusive club.

A Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow and Lecturer at the University of Bristol, Monk works on the geometry of negatively curved spaces and the behaviour of objects moving within them. In this conversation with Dipin Damodharan, she speaks candidly about intuition, representation, hyperbolic geometry, and the courage required to stay in mathematics when you’re not sure you fit.

‘Go for it! Math is super cool and useful’

To start with, could you tell us how your journey in mathematics began? Was there a defining moment when you realised this would become your life’s work?

I always enjoyed mathematics at school and thought it would be a good idea to study it, as I was interested in it and it opens the door to many jobs. After my first two years of study, I realized I loved the subject itself more than the idea of finding a job using it, and decided I wanted to work in mathematics (probably as a teacher).

I faced many challenges and doubts—I somehow never felt sure mathematics was “for me,” even though I loved it. But I’m very happy I stuck with it and made a few leaps of faith at the right times. At the end of my master’s, I decided to start a PhD because it is required for certain higher education teaching positions in France. I thought: three years is a lot of time, better get excited and really go for it! Luckily, I met my PhD advisor, Nalini Anantharaman, who introduced me to a fascinating research project.

The way she ventured into different areas of mathematics, tackling ambitious new projects with no apparent fear, was an incredible inspiration. She was very different from the image I had of “the mathematician.” Her mentorship made me feel confident I could do it if I wanted to. And then I did!

Growing up in France, were there specific teachers, mentors, or institutions that played a pivotal role in shaping your mathematical thinking?

Mathematics is taught and shared, and I have many teachers to thank for my mathematical upbringing. My high-school teacher had extremely high standards and told me off a few times for doing the minimum instead of pushing myself. My second-year teacher gave me a first glimpse of how exciting venturing into the unknown can be during a research project.

One of the ways maths is taught in France is through a two-year intensive preparatory school followed by further studies at university. I found this structure gave me a strong basis to build on, as well as methods to organize myself and work well.

What were some of the challenges you faced as a young woman entering a field often dominated by men? How did you navigate them?

Mathematics is, indeed, a very masculine field, and one could imagine sexist behaviours to be common. I have to say, luckily perhaps, that this has not been my experience. I have always felt extremely welcomed into this community, whether as a student or a researcher.

However, I did still struggle very much as a student with finding a sense of place and purpose in what I was doing. Though these difficulties are quite universal, I think they were amplified by being one of the only girls in my cohort. Identifying this was very helpful in overcoming these feelings, because it led me to build strong connections with my peers, to find female mentors and role models, and to invest myself in events for young women, all of which helped tremendously.

Much of your work lies at the intersection of geometry and dynamics. Could you explain your research focus in simple terms?

I study certain types of surfaces called “hyperbolic surfaces.” Unlike a piece of paper (which is flat) or a sphere (which is positively curved), hyperbolic surfaces have negative curvature: they look like Pringles. There exist many, many hyperbolic surfaces, and they appear in very different fields of mathematics: number theory, mathematical physics, dynamics…

I am trying to understand what these surfaces “look like” a bit better. In order to do so, I put all of them in a (big) bag, take one at random, and try to describe it.

Mathematics often requires deep abstraction. How do you stay connected to the beauty or “reality” behind these abstractions?

I relate more to the beauty than the reality! To me, mathematics is a gigantic world that we are building or exploring together. I find a lot of joy in how different parts of this world interact and how bridges can be built; simple ideas can come together from far apart and create something new.

What role does intuition play in your mathematical process?

A big role! One of the reasons why I have been drawn to mathematics is that, once you understand a formula or a theorem, you don’t really need to memorize it by heart anymore: it just makes sense. When I learn something new, I go through a lengthy process of unravelling everything and I often feel very confused (or sometimes even a bit desperate!).

But, one day, all of a sudden, everything becomes clear, to the extent that it is even hard to remember why I was so lost initially. I think this is one of the reasons why it is so hard for us to share and convey what we do to one another, or to the general public.

Maryam Mirzakhani’s groundbreaking work in geometry and moduli spaces continues to inspire mathematicians globally. In what ways has her work influenced your own research? You have worked on topics that build upon or are inspired by Mirzakhani’s legacy. Could you speak about this continuity—how do you see her influence evolving in your field?

Maryam Mirzakhani created my research field, and I have studied a certain part of her work in great detail. My research consists in picking a hyperbolic surface at random and looking at it. She was one of the first people to have had this amazing idea. At the time, there existed a probability model allowing one to pick hyperbolic surfaces at random, but it was completely abstract and unusable.

Through several beautiful breakthroughs, she created a method that made this possible. We are still at the beginning of the wide variety of applications following from these advances.

If you could give a message to a young girl fascinated by numbers but unsure about pursuing math, what would you say?

Go for it! Math is super cool and useful, so you will have loads of fun and learn a lot. It is ok if you don’t identify with the image of the “math guy”; there are a lot of ways to enjoy math. It is not just about proving theorems or solving exercises, it is about creativity and sharing.

Outside of mathematics, what brings you joy or fuels your curiosity?

I quite like jigsaw puzzles and knitting, both of which relax me and make me appreciate how a lot of little steps can come together to create something big. Right now, my main source of joy is my two-year-old daughter, and seeing her discover the world. If only we could stay this curious and observant about every single little thing!

Do you think artificial intelligence and computers are changing the way we do mathematics?

Computers definitely have! We used to pay people to perform long lists of computations for researchers, and to publish entire books of randomly generated numbers in order to study probabilities. Now both of these activities seem very silly. Mathematicians use computers all the time, whether to perform experiments, find the answer to a simple question, or write and share their work.

I personally choose to be optimistic about the future of AI. You would have a very hard time conveying to someone in 1980 the role that computers play in everyone’s lives, but for mathematics, they have greatly enlarged our experience and allowed us to go faster, further. Things are scary now because we do not know what is ahead of us.

When a young astrophysicist in Buenos Aires packed up her telescope after her PhD, she had every intention of continuing her research. Five years later, she works in data analytics, far from the night skies she once studied.

EdPublica met her by chance at Kuala Lumpur airport. Her story is echoed across continents — from lab benches in Lagos to computing centres in Bengaluru — where women enter science full of promise, only to find themselves on the margins of it.

According to UNESCO’s latest data, only one in three researchers worldwide is a woman — a number that has barely moved in two decades. For all the progress in girls’ education and gender equality elsewhere, science — the very field meant to advance humanity — remains caught in an old equation that continues to leave women out.

The slow revolution

‘UNESCO’s Status and Trends of Women in Science (2025)‘ reveals a striking paradox: more women than ever are pursuing higher education, yet their presence in scientific research and leadership has barely expanded.

Globally, women account for about 35 percent of graduates in STEM fields, but that average conceals deep divides. In life sciences, they have reached near parity. In engineering, physics, and computing, their numbers plummet below a quarter.

“Girls are not opting out of science,” says Shamila Nair-Bedouelle, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences. “They are being filtered out by systems that were never designed for them.”

That “filter” begins early. Subtle stereotypes about what girls are “good at” shape subject choices long before university. The absence of visible role models compounds the message.

Dr. Julia Puseletso Mofokeng, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry at the University of the Free State, South Africa, recalls that absence vividly:“When I was doing my honours degree, I was the only female student in a class of six. Later, in a research group, I found myself surrounded by men. During international collaborations, out of 18 participants, I was the only woman. That realization motivated me — I decided that if I wanted to see more women in science, I had to be that role model,” she tells EdPublica.

Her reflection captures a global truth: women’s participation rises where mentorship and visibility intersect. Where they don’t, even ambition finds itself isolated.

From classrooms to corridors of power

Getting a degree is only the first hurdle. The next — and far harder — challenge is staying in the system. UNESCO data show that women hold just one-third of research positions globally, dropping to around 22 percent in G20 nations.

In industrial and corporate R&D, the numbers shrink further. Temporary contracts, uneven access to grants, and opaque promotion systems form invisible barriers. Even where hiring begins on equal footing, women’s participation thins out with every rung of seniority.

A 2025 bibliometric analysis of 80 million scientific papers found that men dominate the top ten percent of most productive and cited researchers in almost every field. Women start at comparable rates but face higher attrition and fewer opportunities to lead multi-author studies or secure large grants.

“Science is not short of capable women,” says Dr. Claudia Ntsapi, a researcher at the University of the Free State, in conversation with EdPublica.

“Systemic barriers — gender bias, lack of mentorship, limited resources — continue to hinder true equality in science careers.”

She points to South Africa’s paradox: women make up the majority of university graduates, yet only 13 percent of STEM graduates are women, and Black women remain severely underrepresented in leadership.

“We need mentorship networks, scholarships, and policies that promote work-life balance. And we must raise awareness about the contributions of women in science to challenge the stereotypes that keep girls away,” Dr. Claudia adds.

The gender of knowledge

The problem, UNESCO argues in its Call to Action: Closing the Gender Gap in Science (2024), is not merely one of representation — it’s one of perspective. Who participates in science shapes what science studies, and how it studies it.

When most clinical research was designed around male physiology, women’s health outcomes suffered. When engineers ignored how climate disasters displace caregivers, adaptation models missed critical social realities.

“Science cannot be sustainable if it is exclusive,” UNESCO notes. “Gender equality is a prerequisite for scientific excellence.”

Mathematician Professor Neena Gupta, recipient of the Infosys Prize 2024 in Mathematical Sciences, agrees that inclusion isn’t charity — it’s strength. In her interview with EdPublica, says, “Women constitute half of our strength and are equally capable of contributing to science and mathematics. But they often shoulder additional family responsibilities. With the right support — from family, government, and institutions — women can contribute freely to science and technology.”

Why women leave

Behind the statistics are systems built on old assumptions — that a researcher’s productivity must be uninterrupted, that career gaps signal lack of commitment, that caregiving is a private burden.

Across countries, more than 70 percent of women in research are on temporary or part-time contracts, compared to 55 percent of men. When funding tightens, they are often the first to go. Maternity leave resets grant eligibility. Mentorship networks skew male, perpetuating cycles of exclusion.

Dr. Laura Monk, a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow and Lecturer at the University of Bristol (UK), captures this invisible struggle, “Mathematics is indeed a very masculine field. I’ve been lucky not to face overt sexism, but I struggled deeply as one of the only girls in my cohort. Finding female mentors and peers was crucial — it gave me a sense of belonging and purpose. That’s what many young women lack: the feeling that they belong here.”

Professor Neena Gupta echoes that sentiment from India’s perspective, “there are now more women in mathematics than there were earlier, and the number is growing. Having role models helps. We must continue supporting these women so young girls can see proof that they too can succeed.”

Flickers of progress

Still, the global picture is not uniformly bleak. Central Asia now hovers near gender parity in research, and Latin America’s public research systems have pushed women’s representation close to 45 percent. Eastern Europe has stabilized near 40 percent.

In Asia, change is slower but visible. India reports that 43 percent of PhD students are women, yet only about 18 percent work in industrial R&D. Government initiatives like KIRAN, Vigyan Jyoti, and SERB’s POWER grants are slowly rewriting that equation by funding re-entry fellowships and supporting mid-career researchers.

“I have faced the challenges most women face — balancing family, raising children,” says Professor Gupta. “But I was fortunate to have a supportive family that shared my responsibilities. That support made it possible for me to focus on research.”

Her story, echoed in laboratories across continents, underlines a pattern: where family and institutional support converge, women stay and thrive. Where they don’t, science loses talent it cannot afford to waste.

Leadership and the glass microscope

If entry and retention are the first two bottlenecks, leadership is the third. Less than 15 percent of national science academy fellows are women. Nobel Prizes, large-scale grants, and directorships of major research facilities remain overwhelmingly male.

Promotion criteria reward uninterrupted publication and global visibility — metrics that inherently penalize those who take career breaks. “It’s not that women aren’t producing excellence,” UNESCO notes. “It’s that the system measures excellence through a lens that erases them.”

The Call to Action lays out a clear roadmap: transparent promotion processes, gender audits for research grants, institutional accountability, and gender-responsive budgeting. It calls on governments to publish annual data — because what isn’t measured isn’t fixed.

India in the global equation

India’s story sits at the intersection of progress and persistence. Female enrolment in STEM has surged, and the country now ranks among the top producers of women science graduates. Yet in leadership, the gap yawns wide.

Only one in four senior faculty positions in India’s universities is held by a woman. In industrial research, that number drops to one in five. Cultural expectations and workplace rigidity continue to limit re-entry for mid-career women.

But India’s policy landscape offers lessons: the Department of Science and Technology’s women-focused grants, INSPIRE fellowships, and the inclusion of gender equity in the National Science and Technology Policy draft all point toward systemic change — if implementation follows intent.

Why it matters now

Women’s equal participation in science is not a “women’s issue.” It is a scientific, developmental, and democratic imperative. Every dataset or discovery that excludes half the population leaves the world poorer in ideas.

UNESCO’s twin reports — one analytical, one urgent — make the same argument: the gender gap in science is measurable, correctable, and indefensible. Closing it is not about fairness alone; it is about unlocking the full imagination of science itself.

As Dr. Mofokeng puts it, “if I wanted to see more women in science, I had to be that woman.”

The next generation shouldn’t have to say the same.

Note: This story is part of the EdPublica Women in Science Initiative, an ongoing global editorial effort to document the data, experiences, and policies shaping women’s participation in research and leadership. The series celebrates women in science while examining mentorship networks, policy interventions, and structural inequalities in depth. Readers and researchers are invited to share insights or stories with EdPublica’s Women in Science Desk, contact@edpublica.com, or dipin@edpublica.com