Diversity in the teams designing technology is not optional but essential
Across the landscape of science, technology, and entrepreneurship, women have long been present but rarely centered — their contributions noted as exceptions rather than as the fabric of progress itself. By the close of 2025, a publication's sustained commitment to documenting both the barriers and the breakthroughs had begun to reframe the story: not one of absence, but of leadership quietly reshaping artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, medicine, and sustainable business. The structural gaps — in enrollment, in funding, in representation — have not vanished, but the narrative has shifted, and in that shift lies the seed of something more durable than a statistic.
- Women hold only 23% of cybersecurity roles and just 5.3% of female entrepreneurs successfully consolidate their businesses — gaps that are not accidental but structural, compounding from education onward.
- The urgency is not merely symbolic: who designs AI systems and digital infrastructure determines what biases get encoded into tools that govern daily life, making diversity a question of integrity, not optics.
- Leaders across HP Spain, AWS Iberia, UNESCO, and the startup ecosystem are pushing past awareness into concrete organizational action — demanding that investment filters, hiring criteria, and team composition be actively rethought.
- Female scientists and founders are demonstrating an alternative model — rigorous, impact-driven, and skeptical of hype — that challenges the dominant logic of rapid growth at any cost.
- The trajectory is not resolution but recalibration: structural inequalities persist, yet the stories being told have moved from documenting absence to chronicling leadership, signaling a slow but meaningful normalization.
By the end of 2025, something had quietly shifted in how the technology sector narrated itself. Women were no longer footnotes — they had become part of the story's main current, appearing in coverage of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, marine science, and startup culture as practitioners, not as inspiring anomalies.
El Español's technology section had been tracking this change since its founding in late 2020, beginning with pieces marking International Day of Women and Girls in Science. The editorial commitment was dual: document the barriers honestly, and tell the stories of women whose work deserved the same serious attention given to their male peers. By 2025, that approach had matured. Scientists like Natalia Trayanova, Isabel Abánades, and Ariadna Mechó appeared in coverage of digital heart models and advanced medical materials not as symbols but as researchers solving hard problems.
Yet the numbers remained sobering. Women represented less than 30% of students in many technical degree programs — a figure barely changed in a decade. In cybersecurity, only 23% of professionals were women. Among entrepreneurs, just 5.3% of women successfully consolidated their businesses, compared to 8.2% of men. These were not random disparities; they emerged early in education and compounded at every stage of professional life.
A March special on technological leadership asked a pointed question: who decides, and how? Executives at HP Spain, Fossa Systems, and KM Zero submitted to scrutiny from their own teams. Paula Felstead of HBX Group argued that moving from awareness to action required concrete organizational decisions. Suzana Curic of AWS Iberia went further: diversity in the teams building and deploying technology was not optional — there could be no single model of generative AI, and innovation could not be genuinely cross-cutting without it.
The stakes of that argument were clarified by those working at the intersection of AI and ethics. Alessandra Sala from UNESCO contended that artificial intelligence could close gaps if designed from the outset with diverse teams and inclusive criteria. Verónica Bolón, a National Research Prize winner, pushed back against hype, calling for AI that was rigorous and honest about its limits. In cybersecurity, leaders like Laura Parra and Irene Hernández emphasized that gender imbalance had real consequences for how critical systems were governed — and that diversity was essential for building the trust those systems required.
The entrepreneurship ecosystem offered its own paradox. Despite its reputation for disruption, it remained historically male-dominated, shaped by investment gaps, scaling difficulties, and the absence of networks and role models. Yet the founders profiled revealed a coherent alternative: businesses built around sustainable returns rather than rapid growth, more careful risk management, and a model of entrepreneurship anchored in real impact. Investor Maite Fibla made the underlying point plainly — investment filters talent, and how potential is measured needed fundamental rethinking.
As the year closed, the structural gaps had not disappeared. But the way the story was being told had changed. Coverage no longer centered on absence. It focused on the work itself — on leadership, experience, and consequence. That shift, modest as it might appear, meant these stories were no longer exceptions. They were becoming the norm.
By the end of 2025, something had shifted in how the technology sector told its own story. Women were no longer the exception to be noted and set aside—they had become part of the narrative itself, woven into coverage of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, marine science, and startup culture the way any other professional presence would be.
El Español's technology section had been tracking this change since its launch in late 2020, when it first published pieces marking International Day of Women and Girls in Science. The commitment was straightforward: document the barriers that remained, yes, but also tell the stories of women whose work deserved the same serious attention given to men in equivalent roles. By 2025, that approach had matured into something more integrated. When the publication covered research into digital heart models or new materials for medical applications, the scientists leading that work—Natalia Trayanova, Isabel Abánades, Ariadna Mechó—appeared not as inspiring exceptions but as practitioners solving complex problems.
Yet the numbers told a different story. Women made up less than 30 percent of students in many technical degree programs, a figure that had barely budged in a decade. In cybersecurity, only 23 percent of professionals were women, a proportion below even the already-skewed average for tech employment overall. Among entrepreneurs, just 5.3 percent of women successfully consolidated their businesses, compared to 8.2 percent of men. These gaps were structural, appearing early in education and compounding through every stage of career progression.
When El Español published its March special on technological leadership, the framing was deliberate: who decides, and how do they lead? Inés Bermejo at HP Spain, Arianna Silva at Fossa Systems, and Beatriz Jacoste at KM Zero submitted to scrutiny from their own teams about daily management and decision-making. Paula Felstead, CIO of HBX Group, offered a diagnosis: moving from awareness to action required concrete organizational decisions. Suzana Curic, leading AWS for Iberia, went further, arguing that diversity in the teams designing and deploying technology was not optional but essential—that there could be no single model of generative AI, and that innovation could not be truly cross-cutting without it.
The question of who designs technology mattered because design decisions made early determined what biases would be baked into digital tools. Alessandra Sala from UNESCO argued that artificial intelligence could close gaps if built from the start with diverse teams and inclusive criteria. Verónica Bolón, a National Research Prize winner, pushed back against hype, calling for AI that was rigorous, applied, and honest about its limits. In cybersecurity, leaders like Laura Parra at Cellnex and Irene Hernández at Gataca, alongside Eduvigis Ortiz and Eva Moya, emphasized that the gender imbalance had real consequences for how critical systems were governed and that diversity was essential for building trust and attracting talent.
The entrepreneurship ecosystem presented its own paradox. Despite its reputation for innovation, it remained historically male-dominated. Investment gaps, difficulty scaling, and lack of networks and role models appeared repeatedly as barriers. Yet the founders profiled—Ana Lozano, Mafalda Soto, Yanina Hallak, Cristina Corchero—revealed a pattern: businesses prioritizing sustainable returns over rapid growth, more cautious risk management, and a model of entrepreneurship tied to real impact. Investors like Begoña Ortiz explained how capital could accompany founders over the long term and blur the false boundary between profitability and purpose. Maite Fibla made the point plainly: investment filters talent, and how potential is measured needed rethinking.
As 2025 closed, the relationship between women and technology had not been solved. The structural gaps remained. But the way the story was being told had changed. Coverage no longer centered on absence. It focused on leadership, experience, and impact—on the work itself. That shift, modest as it might seem, meant these stories were no longer exceptions. They were becoming the norm.
Notable Quotes
To achieve real parity, we must move from awareness to action— Paula Felstead, CIO of HBX Group
There cannot be a single model of generative AI, and diversity in the teams that design and deploy technology is not accessory but necessary for innovation to be truly cross-cutting— Suzana Curic, AWS director general for Iberia
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter how a publication tells these stories? Isn't the data what counts?
The data is crucial, but data alone doesn't change how people see possibility. When women in tech are always framed as remarkable exceptions, it signals to young people that this isn't a natural place for them. When they're covered as practitioners solving problems—the way men are—it normalizes their presence.
But the numbers are still terrible. Five percent of female entrepreneurs succeed versus eight percent of men. That's not a narrative shift.
No, it's not. The narrative shift is real but incomplete. What changed is that publications stopped treating women's presence as a separate story. They started asking: who designs the AI? Who leads the team? Who decides? Those questions matter because the answers determine what gets built and for whom.
You mentioned that diversity in design teams prevents bias in AI. How direct is that connection?
It's not magic. But when the people building a system don't reflect the people using it, blind spots are almost inevitable. A diverse team catches assumptions that a homogeneous one won't. That's not ideology—it's engineering.
What struck you most about the entrepreneurship data?
That the women who succeeded seemed to be building differently. Not chasing growth at all costs, but asking what sustainable impact looked like. Whether that's because they had less access to capital and adapted, or because they thought differently, I'm not sure. Probably both.
So what actually changes in 2026?
That's the question, isn't it. The narrative shifted, but the structures haven't. Real change requires what Paula Felstead said: moving from awareness to action. Concrete decisions inside organizations. That's harder than publishing good stories about women in tech.