The emergence of universities is linked to the birth of cities. The first aim of universities has been and still is, to achieve the commitment of their members in the constitution of a more fair, caring and democratic world. It has also been in cities where the strongest social movements in favour of equity have emerged. For all these reasons, it is relevant to research in which way universities, as an urban phenomena, contemplate the processes to overcome all discrimination breaches, in general, and gender discrimination in particular.

Although, the discrimination of female researchers in the Spanish science and technology system (FECYT, 2007; MEC-UMYC, 2007) continues today, it is also clear that the female presence in the academic field has grown considerably however, it is nowhere near an equitable balance yet. The male presence is very high in the Spanish university system (Men: 66 %; Women: 34%; INEBASE, 2010). At the University of Alicante these differentials are similar (Men: 66.3%; Women: 33.7%). For example, out of 176 full professorships only 22 (12.5%) are occupied by  women; and this is even slightly lower than the country percentage (14.3%). In this situation, the university has to adapt its structures, dynamics, and the distribution of management and government responsibilities to achieve the complete participation of academic women.

In general, it  is necessary to inquire into which ways the institutions must act to change the practice and the culture in the politics of gender equity. The objective of this research is to identify, from the perspective of female academic voices, the habits of this collective; and analyze the aspects that these women consider positive and/or negative, in her professional development. The participants have been women professors, lecturers, part-time teaching staff, and PhD assistants.

The research questions have tackled the thoughts and experiences of academic women to inquire into the conditionings and realities that can make equity possible or hamper it (Silverman, 2000). The research has offered women the opportunity to discuss their difficulties, doubts, worries and the affections and disaffections of their professional life as an action-reflection (Schön, 1983, 1987) that, through a qualitative analysis, allows us to enlighten the dense and deep network that exists in the life of women (Holley and Colyar, 2009).

This article is part of a larger project but, in this presentation the aims are reduced to two questions:

1.Have academic women perceived differences in professional opportunities, in promotion, team insertion, training opportunities, and the distribution of responsibilities?

 2.Have academic women perceived differences in professional mentoring?

In the methodological choice, we consider that the consensus in current debates agree that quantitative evidence (Slavin, 2008) as qualitative approaches (Day, Sammons and Gu, 2008; Ercikan and Roth, 2006; Green and Skukauskaité, 2008) are valuable evidence (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005). In this case, the qualitative methodology offers a way to interpret the answers in its own social knowledge framework.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AREA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: AERA-Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Day, C., Sammons, P. and Gu, Q. (2008). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies in Research on Teacher’s Lives, Work, and Effectiveness: From Integration to Synergy. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 330-342. Ercikan, K, and Roth, W-M. (2006). What Good Is Polarizing Research Into Qualitative and Quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23 FECYT (2007). Mujer y Ciencia. La situación de las mujeres investigadoras en el sistema español de ciencia y tecnología. Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología, Madrid. Green, J. L. and Skukauskaité, A. (2008). Becoming Critical Readers: Issues in Transparency, Representation, and Warranting of Claims. Educational Research, 37(1), 30-40. Holley, K. A. and Colyar, J. (2009). Rethinking Texts: Narrative and the Construction of Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher, 38, (9) 680-686. Huber, G.L. (2003) AQUAD Six for WINDOWS. INEBASE (2010). Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Consulta realizada el 20 de abril de 2010, de http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm MEC-UMYC (2007). Académicas en cifras 2006-07. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia: Unidad de Mujeres y Ciencia. Recuperado el 25 de octubre de 2009,http://genet.csic.es/biblioteca/mujeres%20en%20la%20universidad%20publica.pdf Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 821-834). London: Sage Publications, Inc. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York: Jossey-Bass Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on Evidence-Based Research in Education. What Works? Issues in Synthesizing Educational Program Evaluations. Educational Research, 37, (1) 5-14.