Interview with Skerdilajda Zanaj (Gender equality officer at the University of Luxembourg)

“There was a time, not so long ago, when some scientists claimed that women’s brains were smaller than men’s, and that they were therefore less suited for mathematics.” This anecdote makes Skerdilajda Zanaj, Gender Equality Officer at the University of Luxembourg, smile, but it clearly illustrates the progress still needed before we can stop worrying about positive actions to reduce gender inequality in technical and scientific studies and professions. If even the scientific community was once resistant… Even today, it is telling to see how often women’s work is exploited by men when it comes to gaining media attention.

The road is long. Even longer, according to Skerdilajda Zanaj, since achieving balance in STEM fields largely depends on children’s education and the elimination of stereotypes from an early age. In short, for more girls to enter scientific fields—and, more importantly, to stay in them—significant progress must be made, and the responsibility does not lie solely with academic institutions.

When the law established the position of Gender Equality Officer at the University of Luxembourg in 2018, Skerdi Zanaj felt she was meant for the role. She grew up in Albania until the age of 18 before pursuing studies in Italy and then Belgium, eventually becoming one of the pioneers of the University of Luxembourg, where she teaches economics. She is therefore intimately familiar with the institution’s inner workings. “It is a truly international environment, more diverse than any other I know,” she notes.

What is your role as Gender Equality Officer?

This position is responsible for assisting the rectorate in implementing gender equality policies. Practically speaking, I started from scratch: there was no formal gender equality policy. Staying true to my research background, I began by conducting a comprehensive survey among the staff — more than 700 people participated. The goal was to identify the issues to be addressed in a gender policy, as well as the necessary measures for its implementation.

What immediately struck me was the perception of a significant gap between the advantages enjoyed by men and those available to women. I emphasize “perception.” 87% of women felt they were at a disadvantage in terms of mentoring, access to responsibilities, and the resources needed to perform their work. However, I was pleased to note that there was no significant gender-related impact regarding harassment.

Initially, I referred to “perception.” But when cross-referencing this with concrete data, we can see who holds leadership positions, who the tenured professors are, and who the department heads are. Today, we have two female vice-rectors. The institution had reached maturity, and we had strong female candidates.

What initiatives have you implemented?

With my team, we immediately set up a mentoring program for young female researchers or assistants. They are paired with a mentor, either internal or external, preferably a tenured professor, and they participate in “peer mentoring” sessions where they can share their experiences. Our goal is to build their confidence and encourage them to pursue a career. We provide them with examples of success—female professors they can relate to and aspire to emulate.

These initiatives are too recent to measure their long-term impact. However, we have collected feedback from mentees, who rated the program 5.8 out of 6.

We also created the “Marie Speyer Excellence Grants.” These scholarships aim to enhance existing research or facilitate the development of innovative research concepts. In 2025, up to four female researchers at the university will each receive a grant of €130,000, to be spent over three years on their research. For context, Marie Speyer was one of the first two female PhD students from Luxembourg, along with Anne Beffort. The latter’s name will also be given to another program, this time focused on professorship. We want to attract top female researchers as professors.

In academia, women are still in the minority at every level: postdoc, assistant, associate professor, full professor… But this is generally the case in the countries around us. Around the world, there are nuances. In countries where university professors are less well paid, men are turning away from this profession, where there are more women.

There are also nuances in medical training, where women are more present. In economics, my field, because it includes mathematics, you’d expect to find fewer women… and that’s indeed the case.

What about students?

It depends on the field. In some programs, women are already significantly underrepresented at the bachelor’s level. Naturally, the fewer women there are at the starting point, the fewer there will be at the finish line. Generally, this pyramid, with very few women at the top, is a universal trend, not specific to Luxembourg.

Is this an inevitable reality?

We know why this happens. Many studies indicate that biases exist in recruitment, career advancement, and funding (women apply for and receive less funding). We are working to address this. For instance, even though gender roles in couples are evolving, women still bear the brunt of childcare and household responsibilities. This was particularly evident during the Covid crisis. Men working from home were generally more comfortable because they could focus on their work, while women had to juggle both professional and domestic responsibilities. There is a narrow window in life where everything accumulates—studies, career choices, relationships, child-rearing. If society is structured in a way that makes you the “second wheel,” everything becomes complicated, and many women abandon their careers or at least stop making long-term career plans.

What solutions can you implement?

For parents, we have established two initiatives: if you are a researcher at the University of Luxembourg, a parent, and you need to attend a conference, we will cover travel expenses for your child and provide babysitting. Additionally, if you are organizing a conference in Luxembourg, we have the infrastructure to set up a daycare on campus for all participants’ children.

My big project is to partner with a childcare provider to accommodate the children of university staff and students.

I chair a Gender Equality Committee, bringing together representatives from across the university, staff and students.

A girl once said to me, “I’m not sure I want to pursue a PhD in Economics: you’re the only female professor in my degree program.” I figure that if we had more women on staff, the girls would want to continue, to follow their example, rather than possibly looking to enter the job market sooner.

What made you decide to take on this role? Even if it’s paradoxical, you can’t deny that not all women feel concerned about gender equality.

That is true. And it’s certainly not an obligation. I too, for example, note that not all women are in favor of gender quotas. My opinion on this particular subject is quite clear, and it’s based on scientific fact: studies show that it makes things happen faster. In an ideal world, with no biases, no oriented processes, they would be useless. But that, alas, is not the case. Quotas are still necessary, and they have proved their worth.

I come from a family of teachers: my mother was a biologist and my father a philosopher. They would have liked me to go into politics. I understood that in Albania it was particularly complicated for a woman, without really knowing why. They never pushed me towards activities based on my gender. There was no notion of “that’s for boys, that’s for girls”. I did whatever I wanted. I was always quite aware of discrimination. I soon became a member of a feminist association, and defending minorities has always stimulated me.

And yet, women make up the majority.

Not in academic circles! And that’s the irony, or rather the absurdity: we are the majority, yet there are places where we are left out, sometimes forever. So I had a definite interest in the job, and I fit the bill. What’s more, I’m working on diversity issues and taking part in gender research.

What did you think of Mark Zuckerberg’s statement on the need for masculinity in business?

I’m not sure why he took that attitude. One got the impression that he was driven by fear, as he lives in a rather feminine family environment. I’m not sure, in fact, that he would have said the same thing after a Kamala Harris victory.

Does it still make sense to talk about gender equality in a world in upheaval, especially after the new election of Donald Trump?

On the contrary, it’s an encouragement to keep going! If everyone stops, what will happen? What will happen if we can no longer talk about diversity or do research on the subject? It would be a disaster. We’d be giving victory to Trump and Musk without a fight. I want to remain optimistic. Europe has sound policies and solid institutions. Of course, Trump and Musk’s actions will have a major impact in the USA on diversity and inclusion policies. I sure hope we resist! Researchers are generally reluctant to be driven by political injunctions. I represent Luxembourg in a research group on gender equality set up by the European Commission. We’re obviously continuing our work, which is more useful than ever.

It’s said that a diverse team produces better scientific work. Can you prove it?

But really, can you prove me wrong? Let’s imagine we assign perfect clones to a project: they’ll all have the same opinion, there will be no contradictions, no alternative paths. On the contrary, it’s a proven fact that diversity is a source of creativity and innovation, and allows us to consider different perspectives. And if there are analytical biases, they are more detectable in dissimilar individuals than in a homogeneous group. Diversity also has an impact on communication, as it helps to address results to different audiences.

A case in point? Very little is known about the effects of menopause on the brain. How is this possible? Simply because the doctors involved were almost exclusively men for decades. They never thought about it. So, yes, diversity is an asset, and it’s indispensable. It’s not all good, of course. It requires inclusion, and that coordinators are able to bring different points of view into positive confrontation.

Is artificial intelligence a help or a hindrance to gender equality?

AI is a double-edged sword for gender equality—it depends on how it is developed and used. A well-designed AI can help identify and mitigate unconscious biases in hiring, making it a valuable tool for gender equality. However, if AI models learn from existing data that reflect societal biases, they can pose a significant threat to gender equality. Without corrective measures, AI risks perpetuating and even amplifying these biases. Therefore, the impact of AI on gender equality ultimately depends on the choices made by developers and policymakers. Ethical AI development, diverse teams in the tech sector, and regular audits of AI models are essential to ensuring that AI serves as a tool for equity rather than a vehicle for discrimination and inequality.

Why are statistics so poor for women in scientific fields?

The number of women in STEM fields varies widely across the globe. It is not correlated with a country’s wealth or its progress in gender equality. In Scandinavia, for example, there are no more women in STEM than elsewhere. The relationship is complex.

Some argue that girls do not enter these fields because they are less capable in mathematics. This prejudice has no scientific basis. I see it as a result of socialization. The problem is how society guides girls from birth. Differences emerge early—certain colors are for girls, certain books are for boys, girls can cry, boys cannot. Parental choices have lifelong consequences for their children. Teachers and society then reinforce these patterns, often unconsciously. Career choices are more about socialization than inherent abilities. We need broad societal change, not massive upheaval, but a shift in approach.

At the risk of standardization?

No, I don’t want girls and boys to become the same! In fact, girls are very different from each other, as are boys. What I’d like is for no girl or boy to feel trapped in a life path determined simply by his or her gender. The rest is a matter of preference and aptitude. I simply don’t believe that there are any inherent group aptitudes. Yet today, by the time you reach university at the age of 18, certain career choices have already been implicitly imposed by society.

With “Girls in Science”, we’re taking action at secondary school level to ensure that girls understand the process and are able to extricate themselves from it in time, if they so wish.

In science courses, we start with 28% female students, and end with 8% female teachers. So, obviously, there are things to be done within the institution itself.

In any case, women need to be aware of the problem, since it has an influence on their career choices, and they need to make informed choices.

• Also read: Eurostats – faits et statistiques
• Note: on March 3, World Engineering Day is celebrated