Intersecting Inequalities in Doctoral Mobility: A Mixed-Methods Study from the Global South

• In Event: Navigating Cross-Border Higher Education: Student Perspectives

Proposal

Intersecting Inequalities in Doctoral Mobility: A Mixed-Methods Study from the Global South
Over the past two decades, scholars have increasingly called for intersectional approaches to analyze inequality in higher education and academic careers (Crenshaw, 1989; Idahosa & Mkhize, 2021; Nash & Moore, 2022). Originally developed by Black feminist scholars, intersectionality highlights how systems of power such as classism, racism, and sexism intertwine to produce complex and layered forms of advantage and exclusion (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Crenshaw, 1991; Yuval-Davis, 2015). Despite this growing recognition, empirical applications of intersectionality remain rare in the study of doctoral education, especially in the Global South (McGee et al., 2021; Sparks et al., 2023).
This study addresses that gap through a mixed-methods analysis of Chile’s doctoral mobility patterns, focusing on how gender, social class, and undergraduate institutional quality shape access to prestigious doctoral programs. It centers on Chilean students in STEM fields who received government-funded doctoral fellowships to study domestically and abroad. Using a sequential mixed-methods design with a quantitative emphasis, the research examines the extent to which intersectional dimensions impact the likelihood of being awarded a fellowship and attending top-ranked universities in the Global North.
Why Chile?
Chile offers a compelling case. Since 2008, the country has dramatically expanded its doctoral fellowship programs, awarding over 14,000 scholarships between 2008 and 2021—equivalent to nearly 80% of the country’s current doctoral degree holders (MINCYT, 2021). This effort aimed to enhance Chile’s position in the global knowledge economy and followed a decade of higher education massification (Espinoza et al., 2024), resulting in wider access for women and low-income students (Chiappa & Labraña, 2023).
Yet Chile remains highly stratified along class lines (Chancel et al., 2022), and gender disparities persist in higher education—especially in STEM, where women comprise only 25% of enrollments (SIES de Mineduc, 2023). Access to prestigious doctoral programs, especially abroad, remains a significant determinant of future academic career opportunities (Celis & Kim, 2019; Lee et al., 2021), making it critical to understand how intersecting inequalities influence these pathways.
Research Design and Methods
The study uses a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2017), combining large-scale quantitative analysis with in-depth qualitative insights. The dataset includes 1,498 doctoral fellowship recipients across STEM fields, and the quantitative phase focuses on two outcomes: (1) the likelihood of being awarded a fellowship to study abroad, and (2) admission to a top 150 university, as ranked by the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities.
Statistical analysis draws on the Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA), a method increasingly recognized as one of the most robust for intersectional research (Evans et al., 2024; Humbert, 2024). MAIHDA enables the assessment of both individual-level variation and group-based intersectional effects.
The second, qualitative phase focuses on nine low- and middle-income fellows, exploring how class and gender dynamics shape decision-making, institutional selection, and academic experiences. All participants were enrolled in doctoral programs of varying prestige and aspired to academic careers.
Key Findings
Two key findings stand out. First, the quantitative analysis revealed that intersectional groupings (e.g., low-class women from non-elite universities) did not explain significant additional variance beyond the main effects of gender, class, and undergraduate institutional quality. Among these, social class was the most powerful predictor. Fellows from high socioeconomic backgrounds were more than twice as likely to study abroad (OR = 2.064, p < .01) and to attend a top 150 university (OR = 2.227, p < .01), underscoring persistent class-based advantages.
Second, gender alone was not a statistically significant predictor. Female applicants were slightly less likely to study abroad (OR = 0.850) and to attend top-ranked institutions (OR = 0.948), but these differences were not statistically significant. One interpretation is that women who reach this level—particularly in male-dominated fields like engineering—have already overcome significant structural barriers, becoming “exceptional survivors” within an exclusionary system (Bloodhart et al., 2020). However, this statistical invisibility of gender does not mean that it is irrelevant—only that it may operate through subtler, context-dependent mechanisms.
The qualitative narratives bring these subtleties into sharper focus. Women from low-income backgrounds reported consistent patterns of exclusion during undergraduate education, including gendered expectations and lack of mentorship in engineering programs. They described feeling out of place, unsupported, and less likely to receive guidance on applying to prestigious programs abroad. In contrast, men from similar class backgrounds described more freedom in institutional choices and fewer familial constraints.
The qualitative data also reveal the importance of institutional cultures and mentoring structures. Some universities mitigated class-based disadvantage by offering robust support and equitable access to resources. However, these supports were unevenly distributed and often failed to address gender-specific dynamics. Without intentional engagement with how class and gender intersect, well-meaning equity initiatives may inadvertently reinforce existing hierarchies.
Contribution and Implications
This study contributes to the growing body of research that seeks to empirically operationalize intersectionality in higher education, particularly in the context of global academic mobility. It shows that class remains a decisive factor in determining access to prestigious doctoral education—even among a highly qualified, government-funded cohort. At the same time, it suggests that intersectional inequalities cannot be fully captured through quantitative main effects alone. Qualitative findings demonstrate how gendered experiences intersect with class-based constraints, influencing decision-making, mentorship access, and perceptions of legitimacy.
The Chilean case also invites broader reflection on the global geopolitics of knowledge. Despite well-funded initiatives to expand doctoral training, structural hierarchies—both within Chile and between Chile and dominant knowledge-producing nations—continue to shape whose academic aspirations are recognized, supported, and rewarded.
By highlighting both the limitations and the potential of equity initiatives, this study points to leverage points for structural change. Programs that address class alone may fail to create equitable outcomes if they do not also consider gender, institutional culture, and the broader landscape of epistemic and geopolitical power.

Author

• Roxana Chiappa, Universidad de Tarapacá