Gender Discrimination in Higher Education in Pakistan: A Survey of University Faculty

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 56 Sayı: 56, 1 - 17, 01.03.2014

Sadia Shaukat Aishah Sıddıquah Anthony William Pell

https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2014.56.2

Öz

Problem statement: Gender disparity is a worldwide phenomenon. This disparity is not only with respect to opportunities and resources but also in rewards, and exists in all regions and classes. Gender disparity exists in the field of education as well. Females experience overt and subtle gender discrimination to some extent nearly at every stage of their career. Males represent the majority of the faculty of higher education institutes across the globe. Managerial positions are usually held by males, who not only have more decision making power but also have more opportunities of social networking. Women have to achieve a successful career at the cost of their family life.

Purpose of the study: The present study aimed at exploring the current situation regarding gender discrimination in the higher education institutes of Pakistan.

Method: Gender equality has been investigated by a questionnaire survey of 180 faculty members on the five aspects of the working environment, namely Decision Making, Professional Development, Utilization of Resources, Academic Affairs and Job Satisfaction.

Results and findings: Two-way analysis of variance shows that post-level is the strongest significant contributor to the differences in the five scores from the equality questionnaire. Gender contributes only in Decision Making, where females tend to be excluded.

Conclusions and recommendation:

There are significant differences in perceptions of gender equality that are attributable to the respondent's post-level. Those at the higher levels see less inequality. Those at lower levels, especially lecturers, see more. With a high proportion of females at the lecturer level, this can appear as a straight forward gender polarization of views, as happens with Professional Development, Academic Affairs and Job Satisfaction. The fact that the concurrent introduction of post-level into the analyses removes the significance of the gender variable points to the impact of the relatively few promoted females, who do not see inequalities in Professional Development and Academic Affairs. These promoted females will have high Job Satisfaction scores because of their achievement in acquiring their positions. This suggests real movement in Pakistani higher education in the direction intended by the adoption of national equality policies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Attitudes; Gender discrimination; Higher education; decision making, job satisfaction, academic affairs.

Kaynakça

• Acker, S. 1994. Gendered education. Buckingham, Open University As cited in Lund, H. (1998). A single sex profession: Female staff numbers in commonwealth universities. London: Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service. Aikman, S., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). Practising gender equality in education. UK: Oxfam GB.
• Alireza, M. (1987). Women of Arabia. National Geographic, 172 (4), 423-453.
• Arends R.I., Winitzky N.E., & Tannenbaum M.D. (1998). Exploring teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Asian Development Bank. (2008). Releasing women’s potential contribution to inclusive economic growth: country gender assessment—Pakistan. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
• Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2007). Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring and organizational change. New York: State of New York Press.
• Bond, S. (1996a). Women in leadership positions in higher education: Strategies for change. In Management development for women in higher education. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
• Bond, S. (1996b). The experience of feminine leadership in the academy. In M-L Kearney & A. H. R¢nning, (Eds.)Women and the University Curriculum: Towards Equality, Democracy and Peace (pp.35-52). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Caparros, M. J. M., Jiménez, M. J. L. & Pagola, A. I. E. (2010). Diagnosis of gender parity in universities: An indicator-based analysis. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del conocimiento, 7(2), 1-14.
• Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371-386.
• Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M.W. (1995, April). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), no pp., [electronic version].
• Diaz-Serrano, L., & Cabral Vieira, J.A. (2005). Low pay, higher pay and job satisfaction within the European Union: Empirical evidence from fourteen countries , IZA Discussion Papers No.1558, Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA). Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp1558.html
• Drudy, S., Martin, M., Woods, M. & O’Flynn, J. (2005). Men in the classroom: Gender imbalance in teaching. London: Routledge.
• Duff, A. (1997). A note of reliability and validity of a 30-item version of Entwistle and Tait's Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 529-539.