THE GREAT OVERLOOK: A PILOT STUDY ON INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AMONG STUDENTS AND FACULTY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MILANO-BICOCCA

Despite growing awareness of intersectional discrimination in academia, research in Europe—and particularly in Italy—remains focused on gender-based discrimination, neglecting critical inequalities related to socio-economic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability. This narrow scope limits understanding of discrimination’s impact on well-being in academia. While universities have intensified their commitment to inclusive policies addressing gender-based discrimination, little attention is given to how multiple forms of inequality may compound academic careers and well-being. For instance, socio-economic status and disability, although acknowledged in institutional frameworks, remain underexplored in terms of their intersecting effects. This pilot study examines these gaps by analysing the impact of overlooked factors on well-being, comparing student and faculty experiences within the Department of Human Sciences for Education at the University of Milano-Bicocca. The study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. In the first quantitative phase, a large- scale questionnaire (N=319 students; N=50 faculty) assessed how discrimination affects work-life balance using the Work and Family Conflict Scale (WAFCS), quality of life via the WHO Quality of Life-Bref Scale, and overlapping discrimination experiences through the Day-to-Day Discrimination Subscale (InDi-D) from the Intersectional Discrimination Index. In the subsequent qualitative phase, focus groups explored dimensions not fully captured by the survey. Findings highlight the importance of considering different areas of discrimination and their impact on well-being in target groups: while faculty report gender-related career barriers, students primarily experience discrimination linked to disability and sexual orientation. Focus groups reveal an overlooked factor: precarious employment, tied to socio-economic status and gender, significantly impacts quality of life and work-related experiences. These results could provide the groundwork for the development of more inclusive and detailed institutional policies. However, the predominantly white, able-bodied sample poses a limitation of the study design, while also reflecting broader structural barriers to academic participation, reinforcing the need for more inclusive institutional regulation.