Persistent gender inequality continues to shape the landscape of UK higher education (HE), despite more than two decades of equality legislation and the widespread adoption of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategies. National statistics reported a 13.1 per cent gender pay gap (GPG) for all employees and 7.0 per cent among full-time employees in 2024, with professional occupations, including higher education, showing a gap of 10.0 per cent (ONS, 2024). Within universities, the Higher Education Policy Institute identified a median gender pay gap of 11.9 per cent and projected that parity may still take decades to achieve (Stephenson, 2024). Although universities often present themselves as progressive institutions committed to inclusion, these figures have been interpreted by scholars as indicating that structural inequalities may remain embedded within academic employment systems.
Scholars argue that persistent inequality in academia arises less from individual shortcomings than from entrenched structural and cultural norms. Naik (2024) and Leathwood (2006) associate these inequalities with opaque promotion processes, the undervaluation of caring responsibilities, and the dominance of masculine leadership models. These factors can directly shape pay progression and seniority outcomes. Ahmed’s (2012) concept of non-performative diversity highlights how institutions may publicly commit to equality while failing to produce substantive organisational change. Similarly, Tzanakou and Pearce (2019) caution that initiatives such as Athena Swan may risk operating primarily as compliance mechanisms rather than transformative interventions. Crenshaw’s (1989) theory of intersectionality further demonstrates how overlapping identities, particularly gender, race, and class, can compound disadvantage and influence access to leadership and pay advancement. Recent evidence by Coleman et al. (2025) reinforces this concern, revealing the continued marginalisation of women of colour from leadership pipelines and mentoring networks within UK higher education.
Building on these critiques of institutional performativity, this study addresses a relative lack of comparative empirical evidence examining how EDI implementation corresponds with reported gender pay gap patterns within university settings. While prior research has extensively theorised gender inequality and organisational culture (Ahmed, 2012; Bhopal & Henderson, 2022; Ely & Padavic, 2020), fewer comparative studies have systematically examined the relationship between EDI implementation and gender pay gap outcomes across institutions. To address this gap, the study investigates how three public universities in Manchester, the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University, implemented EDI strategies between 2020 and 2025. The study also examines how documented implementation corresponded with reported gender pay gap trends and workforce representation indicators.
Guided by a Critical Realist perspective (Bhaskar, 2013; Danermark et al., 2019), this study adopts a comparative case-study design to examine both observable outcomes, such as gender pay gap data, and the deeper organisational mechanisms that may sustain inequality. Critical realism distinguishes between what is immediately visible, for example published pay statistics, and the underlying institutional structures, norms, and practices that generate those outcomes. This approach is particularly relevant in the context of gender pay disparities because prior research suggests that inequalities may be shaped by promotion systems, leadership cultures, workload allocation, and forms of symbolic compliance with equality policies that are not fully captured in headline data.
Accordingly, the study addresses the following research questions. The analytical structure linking these research questions is illustrated in Figure 1.
RQ1: How have institutional EDI strategies been implemented to address the gender pay gap for academic women across Manchester’s public universities?
RQ2: To what extent have these strategies contributed to changes in gender pay gap trends and career progression outcomes between 2020 and 2025?
RQ3: What organisational and structural factors have supported or constrained the effectiveness of EDI initiatives in promoting pay equity?
Figure 1. Visual Representation of the Research Questions
The analysis is further informed by Crenshaw’s (1989) concept of intersectionality, which highlights how overlapping identities, such as gender, race, and class, can shape access to leadership, progression, and pay. Ahmed’s (2012) critique of “non-performative” diversity suggests that organisations may publicly commit to equality while failing to implement structural change in practice. In addition, Thomas and Ely’s (1996) diversity perspectives framework helps distinguish between compliance-oriented approaches and more systemic change models. Together, these perspectives provide a conceptual foundation for examining the relationship between EDI policy rhetoric and measurable equity outcomes within higher education.
This paper contributes to ongoing debates on the effectiveness of EDI strategies in UK higher education by offering a comparative, regionally grounded analysis of institutional gender pay gap trends and governance arrangements. Rather than presuming direct causal relationships, the study examines how documented EDI implementation and governance structures correspond with reported pay equity indicators across institutions. It therefore seeks to contribute to a systems-oriented understanding of how leadership practices, accountability structures, and organisational design may be associated with reported pay equity patterns.
Given increasing scrutiny of pay transparency and diversity leadership across the sector, this research is relevant to higher education leaders, HR practitioners, and policy stakeholders seeking to move beyond symbolic compliance towards structural change. The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. The next section reviews literature on gender pay gaps and EDI strategies. The methodology outlines the comparative research design. The findings present institutional trends and patterns. The discussion interprets the underlying mechanisms shaping outcomes. The conclusion summarises implications for policy, practice, and future research.
By examining three public universities within the same regional higher education context, this study provides a comparative evaluation of how Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategies correspond with observable gender pay gap trends and governance arrangements affecting academic women.
This section reviews existing research on gender pay inequality and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) governance within UK higher education. Although universities increasingly promote equality through formal policy frameworks, research highlights ongoing debate about whether such initiatives translate into measurable organisational change. The literature therefore focuses on three key areas that inform the study: (1) gender pay gap patterns and reporting within higher education, (2) the implementation of institutional EDI strategies and equality frameworks, and (3) organisational governance structures that shape monitoring and accountability for gender pay equity. These themes provide the conceptual foundation for examining how equality initiatives are implemented and monitored across institutions.
Given that the present study analyses publicly available institutional documents, such as Gender Pay Gap reports, EDI strategies, and governance frameworks, the review focuses primarily on literature addressing policy implementation, reporting systems, and institutional monitoring mechanisms. Accordingly, the analysis concentrates on formal institutional structures and documented governance arrangements through which equality initiatives are implemented and monitored within universities. While broader research on gender inequality in higher education often examines lived experience and informal organisational dynamics, such perspectives fall outside the empirical scope of this document-based study. Instead, the present analysis focuses specifically on institutional strategies, reporting practices, and governance frameworks that are publicly documented and therefore comparable across institutions.
Research consistently shows that gender pay inequality in UK higher education is systemic and persistent. National data highlight an ongoing pay gap overall and within professional occupations, and sector-level commentary suggests that progress towards parity remains slow (ONS, 2024; Stephenson, 2024). Studies attribute HE pay disparities to structural features such as occupational segmentation, unequal access to senior roles, and organisational norms that shape progression and reward (Woodhams et al., 2022; Healy et al., 2024). Harris et al. (2023) argue that pay inequality can persist even when controlling for role and grade because cultural and institutional norms still influence who is rewarded and recognised. Collectively, this research emphasises the role of institutional and structural factors in shaping gender pay disparities, alongside individual-level explanations.
A key issue in the literature is whether statutory gender pay gap reporting leads to meaningful organisational change. While reporting improves visibility of disparities, research provides mixed evidence regarding its effectiveness in reducing pay inequality. Benedi Lahuerta et al. (2023) and Gamage et al. (2024) highlight that reporting can become procedural, with limited enforcement and uneven organisational follow-through. Other work suggests that reporting systems may not capture the underlying drivers of inequality, particularly when institutions publish headline figures without clear accountability mechanisms for addressing them (Brown, 2019; Pfeffer, 2020). As a result, some scholars argue that reporting may increase transparency while having uneven influence on institutional reform.
Within higher education, EDI strategies are commonly presented as formal commitments to fairness and inclusion. However, research suggests that the implementation of such strategies can vary considerably depending on how they are embedded within governance structures, monitoring systems, and institutional decision-making processes. Studies indicate that equality initiatives may become concentrated in policy documents and action plans while organisational practices evolve more slowly (Ahmed, 2012; Fanshawe, 2021). Consequently, scholars increasingly emphasise the importance of governance design, including who holds responsibility for EDI leadership, how progress is reviewed, and how institutions translate strategic commitments into operational practices.
In this context, it is helpful to define a key concept used throughout this paper, non-performative diversity. Ahmed (2012) uses this concept to describe situations in which institutions appear to enact diversity through policies and statements while structural change remains limited. The concept therefore highlights a potential gap between policy commitment and organisational practice rather than assuming that equality initiatives are inherently ineffective.
For the present study, this literature helps clarify why examining documented implementation mechanisms is analytically important. In particular, attention to institutional structures, such as committees, governance boards, reporting cycles, and monitoring dashboards, provides insight into how EDI strategies are operationalised within universities. This focus is consistent with the document-based methodology adopted in the study, which examines publicly available governance and reporting materials.
A major feature of equality governance in UK higher education is engagement with external frameworks and charter marks, particularly Athena Swan. Athena Swan is often treated as an indicator of institutional commitment to gender equality. However, research presents mixed evaluations of its impact. Tzanakou and Pearce (2019) argue that Athena Swan can operate within an audit-oriented environment where institutions prioritise compliant submissions and reporting processes rather than deeper organisational reform. Armstrong and Sullivan (2025) similarly suggest that progress associated with charter participation can be uneven, and that institutional change may depend on how strongly equality objectives are embedded within governance systems and organisational practices.
This body of literature highlights that participation in charter frameworks does not necessarily guarantee measurable organisational change. Rather, scholars emphasise that the influence of such frameworks often depends on how equality initiatives are integrated into institutional governance, monitoring processes, and accountability structures. Consequently, charter frameworks may provide institutional guidance and incentives for action, while outcomes may vary depending on how these mechanisms are embedded within organisational systems.
Thomas and Ely’s (1996) diversity perspectives framework provides a useful lens for interpreting this variation. Their work distinguishes between compliance-oriented approaches focused primarily on fairness as adherence to rules and more systemic “learning” approaches where diversity is integrated into organisational practice and continuous improvement. This distinction highlights the importance of examining how equality initiatives are operationalised within institutional structures rather than assuming that the existence of policy frameworks alone produces organisational change.
A central theme across recent scholarship is that progress on pay equity may require more than policy statements alone. It may instead involve accountability systems that connect strategy to monitoring, evaluation, and institutional decision-making. Researchers argue that equality governance operates through organisational architecture, including committees, leadership roles, data systems, and review cycles. These arrangements are often discussed as shaping how institutions interpret and respond to pay disparities (Ahmed, 2012; Kalev et al., 2006).
Kalev et al. (2006) are often cited in organisational research to suggest that diversity initiatives are more likely to be influential when they are linked to formal accountability structures rather than optional training alone. While the present study does not test causal mechanisms, this literature helps explain why scholars emphasise governance and monitoring systems when analysing institutional approaches to equality.
This governance lens also provides a useful perspective for examining how universities organise responsibility for equality work, including arrangements such as central EDI directorates, oversight committees, faculty structures, data dashboards, and annual reporting cycles. Existing research therefore highlights the importance of monitoring and reporting mechanisms in shaping how equality initiatives are implemented and reviewed within institutions.
Another concept that must be clearly defined early is intersectionality. Crenshaw (1989) introduced intersectionality to explain how overlapping identities, such as gender, race, and class, can create compounded disadvantage. In higher education, intersectionality is widely cited as important, but research shows that it is often unevenly operationalised within organisational reporting and monitoring systems (Bhopal & Henderson, 2019; Lukkien, Chauhan, & Otaye-Ebede, 2025).
A consistent issue raised in the literature is that pay gap reporting often centres gender alone and does not fully integrate other characteristics, such as ethnicity or disability. This can mask inequalities that are intensified at intersections (Brown, 2019; Pfeffer, 2020). Ahmed (2012) also cautions that intersectionality can be absorbed as a “policy term” without transforming organisational practice, particularly when institutions do not develop robust data infrastructure or accountability systems for intersectional monitoring.
This literature highlights two related issues frequently discussed in studies of organisational equality monitoring:
Institutions may reference intersectionality or broader equality monitoring, but the extent of practical integration often varies.
Data infrastructure, such as dashboards, reporting frameworks, and annual equality reports, can become an important organisational mechanism through which pay equity is monitored and evaluated.
Because the present study relies on published documents and pay gap reports, intersectionality is treated here as an analytical perspective for examining reporting and monitoring practices rather than as an investigation of lived experience, which would require primary qualitative data.
Universities frequently include leadership development, mentoring, and workforce development initiatives within EDI strategies. The literature often frames such initiatives as responses to gendered patterns of representation in senior roles, where unequal access to progression contributes to pay gaps over time (Leathwood, 2006; White & Burkinshaw, 2019). However, research also cautions that leadership programmes alone may not produce structural change unless they are supported by governance and monitoring mechanisms that address how progression and reward systems operate (Thomas & Ely, 1996; Kalev et al., 2006).
This body of research therefore highlights leadership and workforce development initiatives as commonly used institutional policy tools within equality strategies. At the same time, scholars emphasise that the effectiveness of such initiatives often depends on how they are embedded within wider organisational governance, monitoring, and accountability structures.
Flexible working and hybrid working frequently appear in higher education EDI discourse, especially after the pandemic. Research suggests that flexible working can support inclusion, but it can also create uneven outcomes if organisational norms and progression systems remain unchanged (Ely & Padavic, 2020; Barhate & Hirudayaraj, 2021). The CIPD emphasises that flexibility policies are most meaningful when linked to clear management practice, workload allocation, and monitoring (CIPD, 2022a; CIPD, 2025).
In this study, flexible working is treated in a narrower way, consistent with the document-based methodological scope of the research. Rather than evaluating lived experience, the study examines how flexibility is referenced and formalised in institutional documentation and governance frameworks as part of EDI implementation.
Overall, the literature identifies several recurring themes that inform the focus of this study.
First, gender pay gaps in higher education are widely documented in the literature, and transparency through statutory reporting has been discussed as an important mechanism for visibility. However, research debates the extent to which reporting alone leads to organisational change (Benedi Lahuerta et al., 2023; Gamage et al., 2024; Stephenson, 2024).
Second, EDI strategies and charter frameworks are widespread, but their implementation and organisational integration appear to vary across institutions, particularly in relation to governance, monitoring, and accountability systems (Ahmed, 2012; Tzanakou & Pearce, 2019; Armstrong & Sullivan, 2025).
Third, intersectional monitoring is frequently recognised as important within equality research. However, studies suggest that its integration within institutional reporting and data systems remains uneven, which may limit the visibility of compounded pay inequalities (Crenshaw, 1989; Bhopal & Henderson, 2019; Brown, 2019).
Despite this substantial body of scholarship, comparative empirical research examining how universities operationalise EDI governance and gender pay monitoring within specific institutional contexts remains limited. In particular, relatively few studies examine, in a structured comparative way, how universities within the same regional policy environment:
• implement EDI strategies through documented governance and monitoring systems
• report gender pay gap trends over time
• structure accountability for pay equity monitoring
Addressing this gap requires closer examination of institutional documentation and reporting practices across comparable universities. Accordingly, this study conducts a comparative analysis of three public universities in Manchester between 2020 and 2025, drawing on published institutional documents, EDI strategies, and statutory Gender Pay Gap reports to examine how equality initiatives are implemented and monitored across institutions.
The research questions translate the literature gap into a structured comparative inquiry:
• RQ1: How EDI strategies are implemented through formal institutional mechanisms
• RQ2: How reported gender pay and representation trends change across time and across institutions
• RQ3: Which organisational and governance conditions shape monitoring and accountability for gender pay equity
This study adopted a comparative case study design integrating qualitative document analysis with a descriptive quantitative review. The strategy was structured explicitly around the study’s three research questions: (RQ1) how EDI strategies were implemented; (RQ2) to what extent EDI strategies corresponded with reported gender pay gap outcomes; and (RQ3) which organisational and structural conditions shaped implementation and monitoring processes.
The design enabled systematic comparison across Manchester’s three public universities, the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University, over the period 2020–2025.
A mixed-methods framework facilitated triangulation between institutional policy documentation and statutory gender pay gap reports. This integration enabled examination of both formal EDI commitments and reported pay gap trends across institutions. The quantitative component provided descriptive context and supported structured cross-institutional comparison of measurable outcomes.
The research was guided by a Critical Realist philosophy (Bhaskar, 2013; Danermark et al., 2019), which supports examination of observable institutional outcomes alongside the organisational and structural mechanisms documented within formal governance frameworks. Critical realism posits that institutional outcomes, such as gender pay inequality, are shaped by structural, cultural, and policy-driven forces embedded within organisational processes and accountability systems rather than reducible to individual-level factors. This perspective is particularly suited to the study’s research questions, which examine how EDI strategies were implemented (RQ1), how documented implementation corresponded with reported gender pay gap trends (RQ2), and which organisational and governance structures framed implementation and monitoring processes (RQ3).
While interpretivist approaches prioritise subjective meaning and lived experience, the present study focuses on institutional frameworks, policy design, and documented organisational patterns across universities. The aim is not solely to interpret individual perceptions but to analyse how formal EDI commitments are articulated and embedded within institutional governance and reporting structures in relation to gender pay monitoring. Critical realism therefore provides a more appropriate explanatory framework for investigating documented policy implementation and the structural conditions associated with reported equity outcomes.
The study employed abductive reasoning, defined as an iterative process of moving between empirical observations and theoretical frameworks to identify the most plausible interpretations of documented institutional patterns (Danermark et al., 2019). This approach enabled interpretation of institutional documents in relation to theories of organisational inequality and diversity governance.
In this context, non-performative diversity refers to institutional declarations of commitment to equality that do not result in substantive structural change (Ahmed, 2012). Together with intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), these concepts informed analysis of how EDI commitments were articulated, operationalised, and embedded within university systems, particularly in relation to gender pay gap reporting and governance practices.
The study relied exclusively on publicly available secondary data drawn from institutional and sector level sources. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select three case universities based on regional comparability, participation in national equity frameworks such as Athena Swan, and the availability of gender pay and EDI documentation. The unit of analysis was institutional documentation relating to policy, governance, and reporting practices rather than individual participants, consistent with the study’s focus on organisational mechanisms and institutional accountability structures.
Documents were included if they (1) were published between 2020 and 2025, (2) were publicly accessible via university or sector repositories, and (3) directly addressed gender pay equity, leadership, or EDI strategy. Institutional materials comprised statutory Gender Pay Gap Reports, EDI Strategies, Athena Swan submissions, HR and People Strategies, and academic promotion frameworks. Sector level materials included reports from Advance HE, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), the University and College Union (UCU), and Office for National Statistics (ONS) datasets.
This multi-layered dataset enabled analysis of how EDI strategies were articulated and operationalised (RQ1), how gender pay trends were reported and monitored (RQ2), and how institutional accountability structures were framed (RQ3). It therefore supported comparative evaluation across the three case institutions within a shared regional context.
Qualitative document analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase thematic process: familiarisation, coding, theme development, review, definition, and narrative synthesis. Initial codes were generated inductively from institutional documents to capture patterns in EDI implementation, reporting practices, and organisational discourse. Given the exploratory nature of the study, themes were first allowed to emerge inductively from the document set before being refined in relation to RQ1–RQ3. Codes were subsequently organised to align explicitly with the three research questions in order to enable structured cross institutional comparison.
Three overarching thematic domains were developed to structure the analysis:
• Implementation of EDI strategies and governance mechanisms (RQ1)
• Reported gender pay trends and progression outcomes (RQ2)
• Organisational and governance structures framing implementation and monitoring processes (RQ3)
Abductive interpretation, defined as an iterative process of moving between empirical data and theoretical frameworks, enabled emergent themes to be examined in relation to concepts such as non-performative diversity (Ahmed, 2012) and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). This approach supported identification of how institutional rhetoric aligned with, or diverged from, documented governance arrangements and reported gender pay patterns.
Manual coding was supported by a structured codebook, reflexive journaling, and peer review to enhance transparency and dependability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017). A transparent audit trail was maintained through the presentation of coding tables in the appendices, which strengthened methodological transparency.
The qualitative analysis was complemented by a descriptive statistical review of institutional gender pay data to contextualise and triangulate findings across the three case universities. This quantitative strand directly addressed RQ2 by examining gender pay gap trends between 2020 and 2025, including mean and median hourly pay gap figures, bonus pay gaps, and representation across pay quartiles.
Although institutional gender pay gap reports include all university employees, the present analysis focuses specifically on how EDI strategies relate to gender pay inequality and career progression among academic women within these institutional contexts.
Comparative charts and tables were used to present institutional differences and temporal patterns over the five year period. The quantitative analysis remained descriptive and was used to illustrate longitudinal gender pay trends across the three institutions. It provided empirical context for interpreting qualitative findings concerning EDI implementation and reported gender pay patterns. The integration of statistical trends with document analysis supported structured cross institutional comparison of reported gender pay indicators.
Ethical approval was granted by the University of Salford Business School Research Ethics Panel (Ref: 8811). As the study relied exclusively on publicly available secondary data, no individual participant consent was required. Ethical integrity was maintained through accurate citation, careful interpretation of institutional documents, and adherence to the University’s research ethics and data management protocols. The study prioritised transparency and accountability in the presentation of organisational evidence, ensuring that all institutional claims are fully referenced to publicly accessible sources. Further documentation relating to the ethical approval process is provided in Appendix 5.
The study was based on publicly available secondary data, which meant that it did not capture staff lived experiences or informal organisational practices that may influence equality outcomes but are not reflected in official documents. Institutional reports may combine strategic messaging with operational information, and differences in reporting formats across universities limited full comparability. Furthermore, intersectional data relating to ethnicity, disability, and socioeconomic background were not consistently available throughout the review period.
Nonetheless, integrating qualitative document analysis with quantitative gender pay data enhanced analytical coherence by allowing institutional commitments to be examined alongside reported gender pay indicators.
The comparative mixed methods case study design provided a structured framework for examining institutional responses to gender pay inequity within a shared regional context. By integrating qualitative document analysis with descriptive gender pay data, the methodology enabled systematic examination of EDI implementation processes (RQ1), reported gender pay trends (RQ2), and organisational and governance conditions shaping implementation and monitoring (RQ3). This design ensured analytical alignment between the study’s research questions, data sources, and interpretive framework, establishing a clear foundation for the findings that follow.
This section presents the study’s findings in relation to the three research questions. The analysis draws on institutional Gender Pay Gap Reports, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategies, Athena Swan documentation, and sector level reports published between 2020 and 2025. Evidence is presented comparatively across the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). The section remains descriptive and provides the empirical basis for subsequent interpretation and evaluation in the Discussion. Information on the coding of the qualitative data and further raw data supporting the findings for each of the below findings sub-sections is provided within the appendices.
All three universities, the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University, published formal Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategies between 2020 and 2025 that positioned gender equity within structured governance and accountability frameworks (University of Salford, 2024a; University of Manchester, 2024a; Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a). Each institution incorporated statutory Gender Pay Gap (GPG) reporting and participation in Athena Swan into its equality agenda. Common implementation mechanisms included structured governance oversight, charter framework engagement, leadership development initiatives, and the use of institutional equality data to inform monitoring and action planning.
Detailed qualitative coding is provided in Appendix 1 (Tables A1.1–A1.3).
The University of Salford’s EDI Statement of Ambition 2023–2028 and related Concordat Action Plan 2022–2025 positioned race and gender equity as core institutional priorities, supported by a robust EDI governance and operating framework (University of Salford, 2022; 2024a; 2024b). Governance responsibility for gender equity oversight was assigned to a Gender Equity Group, co chaired at senior leadership level (University of Salford, 2024a). Institutional documentation further demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements to publish gender pay gap information, alongside commitments to examining pay gaps in relation to ethnicity and disability (University of Salford, 2024b).
Published materials outlined leadership development initiatives, including continued support for the Aurora programme and leadership workshops for early career researchers (University of Salford, 2024a). The Concordat Action Plan additionally referenced mentoring initiatives, such as a researcher buddy scheme and targeted funding opportunities for early career researchers and returners to research (University of Salford, 2022). Flexible working arrangements were explicitly recognised within the Concordat framework (University of Salford, 2022). The University retained its Athena Swan Bronze award during the review period and reported progress through annual EDI reports and governance monitoring mechanisms (University of Salford, 2024a).
At the University of Manchester, gender equity was embedded within a structured Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy organised around three institutional priorities: inclusive environment and culture, diverse representation, and inclusive practice (University of Manchester, 2025). Implementation was coordinated through the EDI Directorate, which held overall oversight for the development and monitoring of the EDI strategy. This work was supported by designated academic leads and faculty based EDI colleagues operating across schools and professional services. Staff networks also contributed directly to the EDI Committee, reinforcing distributed governance and accountability mechanisms (University of Manchester, 2025).
Strategic implementation was operationalised through inclusive recruitment guidance, enhanced workforce training provision, and alignment with charter mark frameworks including Athena Swan and the Race Equality Charter (University of Manchester, 2025). Structural reform was further evidenced in the appointment of a new Executive Director of EDI and the reshaping of the People Directorate, including the introduction of Centres of Expertise for Talent Development, Talent Acquisition, and Reward (University of Manchester, 2024a). Monitoring mechanisms included real time EDI dashboards tracking recruitment, promotion, and turnover, alongside annual pay gap reporting used to inform institutional action planning and accountability processes (University of Manchester, 2024a).
At Manchester Metropolitan University, gender equality was embedded within the Inclusive and Diverse Culture (IDC) Strategy, launched in January 2024 to advance institutional priorities relating to inclusive culture, representation, and equitable practice across faculties and professional services (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a). Implementation was supported through a structured engagement programme designed to embed and mobilise strategic priorities across the institution, with oversight provided by the EDI Strategy Board. Governance arrangements were further reinforced through charter based frameworks, including Athena Swan activity and action planning linked to gender equity objectives (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a).
Operational implementation mechanisms included the delivery of the Intentional About Inclusion programme, the introduction of cultural competency training, and the review and refresh of mandatory EDI training provision (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a). Inclusive recruitment practices were strengthened through the development of an updated recruitment toolkit, training for recruiting managers, diverse advertising approaches, and the inclusion of positive action statements within recruitment materials. Leadership and progression initiatives included participation in programmes such as Aurora and StellarHE (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a).
Monitoring and accountability were embedded through the People Equality Data Framework (PEDF), described as “the first of its kind in the HE sector,” enabling faculties to analyse representation, progression, and pay trends across protected characteristics (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a). Statutory gender pay gap reporting was complemented by the voluntary publication of ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation pay gaps (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025c). Annual equality reporting and pay gap disclosures tracked representation across pay quartiles and progression rates, linking implementation activities to measurable workforce outcomes (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025b; 2025c).
Across the three institutions, EDI implementation frameworks incorporated statutory gender pay gap reporting, participation in Athena Swan, and structured leadership and workforce development initiatives. Governance oversight was embedded within senior leadership and formal committee structures within each university. Institutional documentation also indicated structured monitoring of gender pay disparities, workforce representation, and career progression indicators during the 2020–2025 period. However, the extent to which these institutional commitments translated into measurable improvements in gender pay equity is examined through the comparative outcome data presented in RQ2.
This section addresses RQ2 by presenting comparative gender pay gap (GPG) and career progression data across the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) between 2020 and 2025. Data were drawn from statutory Gender Pay Gap Reports published annually by each institution. This comparison provides an empirical basis for assessing whether institutional EDI strategies corresponded with measurable changes in gender pay outcomes during the review period. These reports provided consistent metrics on median hourly pay gaps and women’s representation across pay quartiles, which enabled longitudinal comparison across institutions. A comprehensive dataset is presented in Appendix 2, Table A2.1. Detailed qualitative coding is presented in Appendix 3 (Tables A3.1–A3.3).
Figure 2 illustrates the five-year trend in median gender pay gaps across the three institutions.
At the University of Salford, the median gender pay gap decreased from 11.1 per cent in 2020–21 to 5.7 per cent in 2024–25.
At the University of Manchester, the median gender pay gap decreased from 11.8 per cent in 2020–21 to 8.2 per cent in 2023–24 before increasing to 9.8 per cent in 2024–25 (University of Manchester, 2021; 2022; 2023; 2024; 2025).
At Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), the median gender pay gap increased across the five-year review period. The median gap was 2.6 per cent in 2020–21, rising to 3.2 per cent in 2021–22, 4.5 per cent in 2022–23, 8.3 per cent in 2023–24, and 8.5 per cent in 2024–25.
The mean gender pay gap fluctuated during the same period. It was 5.0 per cent in 2020–21, increased to 6.4 per cent in 2021–22, decreased to 5.2 per cent in 2022–23, rose slightly to 5.3 per cent in 2023–24, and increased further to 7.5 per cent in 2024–25.
Figure 2. Median Gender Pay Gap (%) Across Manchester Public Universities (2020–2025)
Note. Data derived from statutory Gender Pay Gap Reports published annually by the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University (2020–2025).
Representation of Women in the Highest Pay Quartile
At the University of Salford, the proportion of women in the highest pay quartile increased from 45.0 per cent in 2020–21 to 52 per cent in 2024–25.
At the University of Manchester, the proportion increased from 40.8 per cent in 2020–21 to 43.9 per cent in 2024–25 (University of Manchester, 2021; 2022; 2023; 2024; 2025).
Women’s representation in the highest pay quartile remained relatively stable over the review period. The proportion was 51.0 per cent in 2020–21, 48.8 per cent in 2021–22, 50.3 per cent in 2022–23, 51.0 per cent in 2023–24, and 48.9 per cent in 2024–25.
Across the five-year period, women consistently comprised approximately half of the highest pay quartile.
Figure 3. Percentage of Women in the Highest Pay Quartile by Reporting Year (2020–21 to 2024–25)
Note. Data derived from statutory Gender Pay Gap Reports published annually by the University of Salford, the University of Manchester, and Manchester Metropolitan University (2020–2025).
This section reports structural and governance mechanisms identified in institutional documentation that were associated with the implementation and monitoring of gender pay equity between 2020 and 2025. The analysis focuses on leadership accountability structures, committee oversight, reporting mechanisms, and monitoring frameworks referenced in published institutional documents. Detailed qualitative coding is provided in Appendix 4 (Tables A4.1–A4.3).
At the University of Salford, EDI governance operated through a structured governance framework led by the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Team and overseen by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development) and Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) (University of Salford, 2024a). Institutional documentation identified the Equity Assurance Committee and Gender Equity Group as key coordinating bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation of EDI action plans and reporting progress to senior leadership structures (University of Salford, 2024a; 2024b).
The Researcher Development Concordat Action Plan established formal reporting lines to the Research, Enterprise and Innovation Committee (a committee of Senate), embedding oversight within institutional governance arrangements (University of Salford, 2022). Statutory compliance mechanisms required the publication of gender pay gap information, alongside commitments to examining pay gaps in relation to ethnicity and disability. Progress was communicated through annual internal audits, EDI Annual Reports, and monitoring via the EDI governance and operating framework.
At the University of Manchester, organisational oversight of EDI implementation was coordinated through the EDI Directorate, which holds overall responsibility for EDI coordination and management and leads the development and monitoring of the institutional EDI strategy (University of Manchester, 2025). Governance capacity was supported through designated academic leads for equality objectives and staff networks contributing directly to the EDI Committee, alongside faculty-based EDI colleagues acting as strategic partners in implementing EDI initiatives across institutional units (University of Manchester, 2025).
Structural conditions shaping implementation were further reinforced through the appointment of a new Executive Director of EDI and the restructuring of the People Directorate, including the introduction of Centres of Expertise for Talent Development, Talent Acquisition and Reward (University of Manchester, 2024a). Gender pay monitoring was supported through statutory pay gap reporting and real-time EDI dashboards tracking recruitment, promotion and turnover data, which informed institutional planning and accountability processes (University of Manchester, 2024a).
At Manchester Metropolitan University, EDI implementation was shaped by formal governance and data-led monitoring structures. Oversight was provided through the EDI Strategy Board within the People and Organisational Development framework, with reporting aligned to Equality Act (2010) and Public Sector Equality Duty requirements (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a).
Monitoring capacity was strengthened through the People Equality Data Framework (PEDF), described as the first of its kind in the higher education sector, enabling faculties to analyse representation, progression, and pay trends across protected characteristics (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a).
External charter frameworks, including Athena Swan, informed action planning and progress monitoring (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025a). Gender pay governance was supported through statutory gender pay gap reporting and the voluntary publication of ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation pay gaps (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025c). Annual equality reporting included data on gender representation across grades and pay quartiles, providing structured monitoring of workforce outcomes (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2025b; 2025c).
Across the three institutions, published documentation described senior-level governance structures, formal committee oversight arrangements, and annual reporting cycles relating to gender pay monitoring and EDI implementation. Monitoring mechanisms referenced in institutional reports included gender-disaggregated reporting, structured action plans, and data-driven review processes aligned with published equality strategies.
The findings demonstrate that all three Manchester public universities embedded gender equity within institutional EDI strategies between 2020 and 2025. Implementation mechanisms included statutory gender pay reporting, Athena Swan participation, and structured leadership and workforce development initiatives. Governance oversight was structured through senior leadership roles and formal committee frameworks, supported by annual reporting and monitoring processes.
Comparative gender pay data indicated variation in median pay gaps and upper-quartile representation across institutions during the review period. Institutional documentation referenced structured monitoring systems and progression metrics as part of equality governance arrangements. These differences suggest that while EDI strategies were widely implemented across the institutions, their observable outcomes in relation to gender pay equity varied across the three universities.
This section interprets the findings presented in Sections 3.1–3.3 in relation to existing research on diversity governance and gender pay inequality in higher education. The discussion is structured around the study’s three research questions, examining: (1) how EDI strategies were implemented across the three institutions (RQ1), (2) how documented implementation corresponded with reported gender pay gap trends and representation outcomes (RQ2), and (3) the organisational and governance conditions framing monitoring and accountability processes (RQ3).
Across the three case universities, formal EDI frameworks, statutory gender pay reporting, charter participation, and structured governance arrangements were consistently documented. However, comparative pay-gap data demonstrated variation in median gender pay trajectories and upper-quartile representation across the review period. This variation suggests that while EDI strategies were widely adopted across the institutions, their effectiveness in addressing gender pay inequality differed across the three universities.
The discussion therefore focuses on how these documented governance and monitoring configurations are interpreted in relation to observable gender pay patterns, without assuming direct causal relationships between policy commitments and measurable outcomes. This analytical approach is informed by organisational scholarship that emphasises the role of governance structures, accountability systems, and institutional monitoring processes in shaping equality outcomes within higher education organisations (Ahmed, 2012; Kalev et al., 2006).
The findings presented in Section 3.1 indicate that all three universities embedded gender equity within formal EDI strategies between 2020 and 2025. Across the cases, statutory gender pay reporting, participation in Athena Swan, leadership development initiatives, and structured governance oversight were consistently documented. These patterns align with wider higher education scholarship that identifies formal strategy development and charter engagement as central mechanisms of institutional equality governance (Tzanakou & Pearce, 2019; Armstrong & Sullivan, 2025).
However, while strategic frameworks were present across all three institutions, their operational configuration varied. Differences were evident in the scope of governance oversight, the integration of equality monitoring systems, and the formal reporting structures through which EDI commitments were reviewed (Section 3.3). This variation reflects broader debates in the literature concerning how equality policies are embedded within institutional structures rather than merely articulated at a strategic level (Ahmed, 2012). Ahmed’s concept of non-performative diversity highlights how organisations may formally articulate commitments to equality while the depth of structural integration varies across institutional contexts.
From a Critical Realist perspective, the presence of formal EDI strategies can be understood as part of the observable institutional layer, while governance configurations and monitoring mechanisms represent deeper organisational arrangements through which policy commitments are operationalised. This distinction is consistent with organisational research emphasising the importance of accountability structures and monitoring systems in shaping how diversity initiatives are implemented within organisations (Kalev et al., 2006). The findings therefore suggest that while strategic adoption of EDI frameworks was common across institutions, the structural embedding of these frameworks varied in documented scope and integration.
The findings presented in Section 3.2 demonstrate variation in gender pay trajectories across the three institutions during the 2020–2025 review period. While all universities maintained statutory gender pay reporting and formal EDI strategies, median gender pay gap trends differed. This indicates that the presence of EDI policies and reporting mechanisms does not automatically translate into consistent reductions in gender pay inequality. The University of Salford recorded a sustained reduction in its median gender pay gap, the University of Manchester demonstrated fluctuation across reporting years, and Manchester Metropolitan University experienced an increase following a comparatively lower baseline.
These patterns are consistent with existing scholarship suggesting that transparency through pay reporting does not in itself produce uniform convergence in gender pay outcomes across institutions (Benedi Lahuerta et al., 2023). Research on pay transparency regulations suggests that while reporting can enhance visibility of pay disparities, it does not automatically generate organisational accountability or structural change. Although statutory reporting was consistently embedded across the three cases (Section 3.1), measurable pay trajectories varied, indicating that the presence of reporting mechanisms alone does not correspond consistently with reductions in gender pay disparities.
Variation was also observed in women’s representation within the highest pay quartile. These differences reinforce the importance of evaluating not only the presence of EDI strategies but also how effectively they are embedded within institutional structures and career progression systems. While incremental increases were recorded in some institutional contexts, representation trends were not uniform across the three universities during the review period. This reinforces literature highlighting that changes in senior representation and measurable pay gaps may progress unevenly across higher education institutions (Woodhams et al., 2022), reflecting structural factors such as promotion pathways, workforce composition, and organisational career progression systems.
Importantly, the analysis does not assume that EDI initiatives directly caused observed pay-gap changes. Rather, the findings indicate that documented governance arrangements, monitoring systems, and pay reporting structures were present alongside differing gender pay trajectories. From a Critical Realist standpoint, this distinction underscores the importance of examining how institutional structures and measurable outcomes coexist without presuming direct causal relationships between them. In this sense, formal equality commitments may operate alongside persistent organisational inequalities, reflecting broader debates concerning the relationship between policy adoption and structural change within institutions (Ahmed, 2012).
The findings presented in Section 3.3 demonstrate that all three universities embedded gender pay monitoring within formal governance and accountability structures during the review period. Senior leadership oversight, committee-based monitoring, statutory reporting compliance, and structured equality reporting cycles were documented across each institutional case. These arrangements reflect broader sectoral expectations that gender pay governance should be situated within formal organisational accountability frameworks.
However, variation was evident in the configuration and integration of these governance mechanisms. Differences were documented in committee reporting lines, the scope of equality data infrastructure, and the extent to which monitoring systems were embedded within institutional planning and review cycles. For example, some institutional documentation described more extensive integration of pay-gap monitoring within centralised governance committees and data dashboards, while others demonstrated alternative structural configurations.
These findings align with scholarship suggesting that equality governance operates through organisational architecture rather than policy declaration alone (Ahmed, 2012; Kalev et al., 2006). Kalev et al. (2006) argue that diversity initiatives are more likely to influence organisational outcomes when they are embedded within formal accountability structures such as monitoring systems, reporting mechanisms, and leadership oversight. Rather than conceptualising diversity policies as inherently symbolic or inherently transformative, the comparative analysis highlights that institutional accountability structures are configured differently across universities, even within a shared regional context.
From a Critical Realist perspective, governance committees, reporting systems, and monitoring frameworks represent structural mechanisms through which equality commitments are operationalised. The findings therefore emphasise institutional heterogeneity in the documented embedding of gender pay monitoring processes, without presuming that particular governance models directly determine measurable pay outcomes. This distinction highlights how observable pay-gap indicators coexist with deeper institutional structures that shape how equality monitoring is organised and implemented within universities.
The study’s findings provide a theoretically informed interpretation of institutional variation in gender pay monitoring and governance practices. By distinguishing between observable gender pay gap trends (Section 3.2) and documented governance and accountability arrangements (Section 3.3), the analysis reflects a Critical Realist emphasis on examining how measurable organisational patterns coexist with underlying structural configurations (Bhaskar, 2013; Danermark et al., 2019). Rather than treating pay statistics as isolated indicators, the study situates them within formal reporting systems and committee-based oversight structures.
The findings also offer nuance to Ahmed’s (2012) concept of non-performative diversity. While all three institutions demonstrated formal commitment through EDI strategies, statutory reporting, and charter participation (Section 3.1), variation in gender pay trajectories (Section 3.2) indicates that policy adoption alone does not correspond uniformly with measurable reductions in pay disparities. At the same time, documented differences in governance integration and monitoring scope (Section 3.3) suggest that institutional embedding of equality commitments varies across contexts. In this sense, the findings extend debates on non-performative diversity by illustrating how equality commitments may be formally articulated across institutions while the structural integration of monitoring and accountability mechanisms differs in practice. This interpretation refines debates on performativity by highlighting structural heterogeneity rather than assuming symbolic compliance.
Finally, variation in the scope of intersectional reporting and equality data infrastructures across the three universities (Sections 3.1 and 3.3) reinforces the relevance of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) as an analytical lens. While gender disaggregated pay reporting was consistently present, the extent of broader data integration differed across institutions. This suggests that institutional data infrastructures play an important role in shaping the visibility of intersecting inequalities within organisational monitoring systems. Equality governance therefore appears not as a uniform institutional practice but as a configuration shaped by the design of monitoring frameworks and reporting systems.
Overall, the study does not propose a new theoretical model. Instead, it applies established frameworks to a regionally comparative dataset, illustrating how documented governance configurations and measurable gender pay outcomes coexist within differing institutional contexts.
The comparative findings indicate that while all three universities maintained statutory gender pay reporting and formal EDI governance structures, variation was evident in monitoring integration, reporting configuration, and gender pay trajectories. These patterns suggest that the design and embedding of accountability arrangements may be an important consideration for institutions seeking to strengthen gender pay transparency and monitoring practices.
For HR and policy practitioners, the findings highlight the value of situating gender pay monitoring within formal governance and review cycles rather than treating reporting as a standalone compliance exercise. As documented in Sections 3.1 and 3.3, structured oversight committees, equality dashboards, and formal reporting channels were embedded across institutions, though with differing configurations. Embedding pay-gap metrics within existing institutional planning and accountability processes may enhance organisational visibility of gender pay indicators while supporting more systematic institutional review of pay equity trends.
The findings also underscore the importance of maintaining consistent and transparent data infrastructures. Variation in the scope of equality monitoring and intersectional reporting suggests that the integration of gender pay analysis within broader equality data systems remains uneven across institutional contexts. Strengthening alignment between pay reporting, representation metrics, and governance oversight may therefore support clearer institutional evaluation of gender equity patterns over time.
From a regional perspective, the comparative analysis indicates that even within a shared policy environment, governance architectures differ. This suggests potential value in structured dialogue and knowledge exchange across institutions to enhance comparability and consistency in monitoring approaches, while recognising institutional autonomy in governance design.
This study contributes to existing scholarship on equality governance and gender pay inequality in four specific ways.
First, it provides regionally grounded comparative evidence across three universities operating within a shared metropolitan context. By examining institutional documentation and statutory gender pay reports between 2020 and 2025, the study demonstrates variation in governance configuration and gender pay trajectories within the same policy environment. This comparative lens highlights institutional heterogeneity rather than assuming uniform sectoral patterns.
Second, the research refines debates on non-performative diversity (Ahmed, 2012) by distinguishing between the formal adoption of EDI strategies and the documented integration of monitoring and accountability mechanisms. While all three institutions maintained strategic commitments and statutory reporting compliance, variation in gender pay trends suggests that policy presence alone does not correspond consistently with measurable pay-gap reduction. The study therefore contributes additional nuance to debates on diversity performativity without assuming symbolic or transformative extremes.
Third, methodologically, the study illustrates the value of integrating qualitative document analysis with descriptive longitudinal gender pay data. By linking documented governance arrangements (Sections 3.1 and 3.3) with reported pay indicators (Section 3.2), the research demonstrates how a mixed-methods comparative case study design can support structured cross-institutional comparison within a Critical Realist framework.
Finally, the study contributes practice-relevant insight by identifying variation in how gender pay monitoring is embedded within institutional governance systems. Rather than proposing universal solutions, the findings underscore the importance of examining institutional governance configuration and reporting integration when evaluating organisational approaches to gender pay equity.
This study relied on publicly available institutional documentation and statutory gender pay reports covering the period 2020–2025. Future research could extend the temporal scope to examine whether observed gender pay trajectories persist over longer reporting cycles. Longer-term longitudinal analysis beyond annual reporting periods may provide additional insight into the stability of pay-gap trends within higher education institutions.
Second, while this study examined gender-disaggregated pay data and documented references to intersectional monitoring, the availability and consistency of intersectional pay reporting varied across institutions. Quantitative research incorporating ethnicity, disability, contract type, and grade-level data could further deepen understanding of how multiple structural dimensions intersect with gender in shaping pay patterns.
Third, the present analysis focused on documented governance and monitoring arrangements. Qualitative inquiry involving interviews with institutional leaders, HR practitioners, and academic staff could complement this document-based approach by examining how formal accountability structures are interpreted and enacted in practice.
Finally, comparative research across additional regions or institutional types may help determine whether the variation observed within this metropolitan context reflects broader sectoral patterns or remains specific to particular institutional contexts.
This discussion has interpreted the comparative findings in relation to existing scholarship on diversity governance and gender pay inequality in higher education. Across the three universities examined, formal EDI strategies, statutory gender pay reporting, and structured governance arrangements were consistently documented between 2020 and 2025. However, variation was observed in gender pay trajectories and upper-quartile representation across institutions during the review period.
The analysis indicates that the presence of formal EDI frameworks does not correspond uniformly with measurable reductions in gender pay gaps. This suggests that the effectiveness of EDI strategies depends not only on policy adoption but also on the depth of institutional governance integration and monitoring mechanisms supporting their implementation. Differences in documented governance configuration, monitoring integration, and reporting infrastructure were evident across the three cases. From a Critical Realist perspective, this highlights the importance of distinguishing between observable pay outcomes and the underlying organisational structures within which equality commitments are embedded.
Overall, the study demonstrates that gender pay governance operates within institution-specific governance and accountability architectures. By linking documented policy arrangements with reported pay indicators, the research contributes structured comparative insight on how equality monitoring is embedded across higher education institutions within a shared regional context.
This study examined how three public universities in Manchester implemented Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategies between 2020 and 2025 and how these documented arrangements corresponded with reported gender pay gap trends among academic women. Across all three institutions, formal EDI strategies, statutory gender pay reporting, charter participation, and structured governance oversight were consistently in place. However, gender pay trajectories and representation in the highest pay quartile varied across the review period. These findings indicate that the presence of formal equality strategies does not correspond uniformly with reductions in gender pay disparities.
Although the universities operated within the same national policy and legislative framework, differences were observed in how governance systems, monitoring processes, and reporting structures were organised and integrated. This highlights that institutional design and accountability arrangements vary, even within a shared regional context. From a Critical Realist perspective, the findings reinforce the importance of examining both measurable outcomes, such as gender pay data, and the organisational systems through which equality commitments are implemented. Rather than assuming that policies directly cause pay-gap changes, the study situates reported pay trends within broader governance structures.
The research contributes to debates on equality governance by refining discussions of non-performative diversity. While all three institutions formally committed to gender equity, variation in pay trajectories suggests that policy adoption alone does not consistently correspond with measurable pay-gap reduction. By combining analysis of governance documentation with longitudinal gender pay data, the study provides comparative evidence that strengthens understanding of how institutional structures and reported outcomes coexist within higher education.
In practical terms, the findings highlight the importance of embedding gender pay monitoring within formal governance and review processes rather than treating reporting as a standalone compliance requirement. Consistent data systems, transparent monitoring practices, and clear accountability structures may support more coherent evaluation of gender pay trends. While the study does not propose a single governance model, it underscores the value of examining how equality monitoring is integrated within institutional decision-making systems.
Several limitations should be acknowledged. The study relied on publicly available documentation and statutory pay reports, which limits insight into informal organisational practices and lived experiences that may also influence pay outcomes. Intersectional pay reporting was not consistently available across institutions, restricting deeper analysis of how gender intersects with other structural factors. In addition, the five-year timeframe does not capture longer-term institutional change.
Despite these limitations, the study offers structured comparative insight into how EDI governance arrangements and reported gender pay patterns relate within a metropolitan higher education context. Its contribution lies in providing evidence-based analysis that connects policy implementation, governance structures, and measurable pay trends without assuming direct causal relationships. As attention to pay transparency and diversity governance continues to grow, this research offers a grounded perspective on how institutional systems shape the monitoring of gender pay equity.
Future research extending the timeframe, incorporating more detailed intersectional data, and examining governance practices through qualitative inquiry may further strengthen understanding of how institutional arrangements relate to sustainable progress in gender pay equity.
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. In On being included . Duke University Press. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780822395324/html
Armstrong, J., & Sullivan, A. (2025). A critical analysis of Athena Swan as a policy‐scoring scheme. British Educational Research Journal , 51 (1), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4071
Barhate, B., & Hirudayaraj, M. (2021). Emerging Career Realities during the Pandemic: What Does it Mean for Women’s Career Development? Advances in Developing Human Resources , 23 (3), 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223211017851
Benedí Lahuerta, S., Rejchrt, P. and Patrick, A. (2023) The UK pay transparency regulations: apparent transparency without accountability? Legal Studies (forthcoming). UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15/2023. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4373799
Bhaskar, R. (2013). A realist theory of science . Routledge. A Realist Theory of Science | Roy Bhaskar | Taylor & Francis eBooks, R
Bhopal, K., & Henderson, H. (2019). Advancing equality in higher education: An exploratory study of the Athena SWAN and Race equality charters. British Academy/Leverhulme Research Report . https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-social-sciences/education/reports/advancing-equality-and-higher-education.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, A. (2019). Transparency without accountability? The limitations of gender pay gap reporting. Industrial Relations Journal , 50 (3), 234–250. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886368719895934
CIPD. (2022 a). An update on flexible and hybrid working practices . Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/flexible-hybrid-working-practices/
CIPD. (2022 b). Female leadership in higher education institutions: Exploring female leaders’ experiences amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK . Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Retrieved June 22, 2025, from https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/bitesize-research/female-leadership/
CIPD. (2025). Flexible working practices . Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/factsheets/flexible-working-factsheet/
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum , 1989 (1), 139–167.
Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences . Routledge
Ely, R. J., & Padavic, I. (2020). What’s really holding women back. Harvard Business Review , 98 (2), 58-67.
Fanshawe, S. (2021). The power of difference: Where the complexities of diversity and inclusion meet practical solutions
Gamage, D. K., Kavetsos, G., Mallick, S., & Sevilla, A. (2024). Pay transparency intervention and the gender pay gap: Evidence from research‐intensive universities in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations , 62 (2), 293-318. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjir.12778
Harris, R., Maté-Sánchez-Val, M., & Ruiz Marín, M. R. (2023). The gender pay gap in UK universities 2004/5 to 2019/20. Studies in Higher Education, 49 (11), 1822–1836. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2280205
Healy, G., Pfefer, E., & Sevilla, A. (2024). Women’s representation and the gender pay gap: rank, institutional research intensity and ethnicity in UK business schools. In Research Handbook on Inequalities and Work (pp. 157-179). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781800886605/book-part-9781800886605-21.xml
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American sociological review , 71 (4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224060710040
Leathwood, C. (2006). Gender, equity and the discourse of the independent learner in higher education. Higher Education , 52 (4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-2414-3
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1988). Criteria for Assessing Naturalistic Inquiries as Reports . [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 5-9, 1988)
Lukkien, T., Chauhan, T., & Otaye‐Ebede, L. (2025). Addressing the diversity principle–practice gap in Western higher education institutions: A systematic review on intersectionality. British Educational Research Journal , 51 (2), 705-736. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/berj.4096
Manchester Metropolitan University gender pay gap report for 2020-21 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/8053/reporting-year-2020
Manchester Metropolitan University gender pay gap report for 2021-22 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/8053/reporting-year-2021
Manchester Metropolitan University gender pay gap report for 2022-23 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/8053/reporting-year-2022
Manchester Metropolitan University gender pay gap report for 2023-24 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/8053/reporting-year-2023
Manchester Metropolitan University gender pay gap report for 2024-25 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/8053/reporting-year-2024
Manchester Metropolitan University. (2025a). Annual equality, diversity and inclusion report 2023–2024 . https://www.mmu.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/Annual%20EDI%20Report%2023-24%20-%20PART%20A_0.pdf
Manchester Metropolitan University. (2025b). Annual equality, diversity and inclusion report 2023–2024: Part B – Data . https://www.mmu.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/Annual-EDI-Report-23-24---PART-B-Data.pdf
Manchester Metropolitan University. (2025c). Pay gaps report 2024 . https://www.mmu.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/Pay-Gaps-Report-2024.pdf
Naik, S. (2024). Women professors in engineering: a critical inquiry of gender inequality in academia. [PhD Thesis, University of Loughborough] https://doi.org/10.26174/thesis.lboro.26053465
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods , 16 (1), 1609406917733847.
Office for National Statistics. (2024). Gender pay gap in the UK: 2024 . Differences in pay between women and men by age, region, full-time and part-time, and occupation. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2024
Pfefer, E. D. (2020). The silence of transparency: a critical analysis of the relationship between the organisational salary environment and the gender and gender/ethnic pay gap in UK higher education [PhD Thesis, Queen Mary University of London). https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/67809
Stephenson, R. (2024). Show me the money – An exploration of the gender pay gap in higher education (HEPI Report 171). Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/03/14/gender-pay-gap-data/
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter. Harvard business review , 74 (5), 79-90. MAKING_DIFFERENCES_DIFFERENT-libre.pdf
Tzanakou, C., & Pearce, R. (2019). Moderate feminism within or against the neoliberal university? The example of Athena SWAN. Gender, Work, and Organization , 26 (8), 1191–1211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12336
University of Manchester gender pay gap report for 2020-21 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/12620/reporting-year-2020
University of Manchester gender pay gap report for 2021-22 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/12620/reporting-year-2021
University of Manchester gender pay gap report for 2022-23 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/12620/reporting-year-2022
University of Manchester gender pay gap report for 2023-24 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/12620/reporting-year-2023
University of Manchester gender pay gap report for 2024-25 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/12620/reporting-year-2024
University of Manchester. (2024a). Gender Equality and Athena Swan Action Plan 2023–2024 . University of Manchester. https://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/rbe/rs/preparing/gep/
University of Manchester. (2025). Equality Information Report 2025 . University of Manchester. https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=76105
University of Salford gender pay gap report for 2020-21 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/14313/reporting-year-2020
University of Salford gender pay gap report for 2021-22 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/14313/reporting-year-2021
University of Salford gender pay gap report for 2022-23 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/14313/reporting-year-2022
University of Salford gender pay gap report for 2023-24 reporting year . (n.d.). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/14313/reporting-year-2023
University of Salford gender pay gap report for 2024-25 reporting year . (n.d.-b). https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/employers/14313/reporting-year-2024
University of Salford. (2024a). Delivering change at Salford: EDI Annual Equality Report 2024 . University of Salford. Retrieved from https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-04/EDI%20Annual%20Equality%20Report%202024-compressed.pdf
University of Salford. (2024b). Delivering Change: Equity at Salford – Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Statement of Ambition 2023–2028 (Version 2). University of Salford. https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/uos-edi-edistatementofambition-v2-2024.pdf salford.ac.uk+9salford.ac.uk+9salford.ac.uk+9
University of Salford. (2024c). Concordat Action Plan 2023–2025 . University of Salford. https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Concordat%20action%20plan%202022-2025%20%282%29.pdf
University of Salford. (2025). Equity Pay Gap Report 2023/2024: Gender, Ethnicity, and Disability . University of Salford. https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/uos-equity-pay-gap-report-2024-2025.pdf
White, K., & Burkinshaw, P. (2019). Women and leadership in higher education: Special issue editorial. Social Sciences , 8 (7), 204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8070204
Woodhams, C., Trojanowski, G., & Wilkinson, K. (2022). Merit sticks to men: gender pay gaps and (In) equality at UK Russell Group Universities. Sex Roles , 86 (9), 544-558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01277-2