A Structured Literature Review on Equity in the Financial Services Profession: Unpacking Gender Barriers and Advancing Women’s Participation Globally
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s involvement and influence in the financial landscape have risen markedly, with a growing share of global wealth now under their control. If current projections prove accurate, women are expected to manage about 55% of the world’s wealth by 2030, fundamentally transforming the financial services and advisory industries. Alongside this shift, a more holistic, solution-focused, advice-oriented approach is emerging—departing from the historically product-centric, male-dominated financial sales industry of the past. Despite this progress, gender equity within financial services remains elusive. Women currently comprise only about 17% of financial advising professionals in Canada and the United States. Research consistently underscores the importance of gender diversity, noting that many female clients prefer advisors who understand their distinct needs. Yet systemic, cultural, and societal barriers continue to limit women’s full participation in the profession. This structured literature review examines these barriers, particularly within the realms of financial advising and planning. It also explores the implications for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers, offering strategies for employers and the broader profession to enhance organizational structures. Emphasis is placed on transparency and the development of policies and procedures that actively integrate a gendered perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it