Conference Agenda

Generating greater gender justice for diverse students, academics and professional staff is currently stated as a priority for higher education institutions and this is encouraged by many national governments and international policymakers (e.g. European Institute for Gender Equity, 2022; OECD, 2023). Paradoxically, universities are both places where knowledge and theories about justice are taught and developed but also spaces in which inequities are reproduced and even exacerbated daily (McLean et al, 2019). However, initiatives aimed at generating equities for students, academics and others have been a longstanding and burgeoning trend in universities' but inequalities of genders, sexualities, ethnicities, (dis)abilities, and more remain intransigent (Ahmed, 2021; Bhopal, 2016; Blackmore, 2022; Dolmage, 2018). It is striking that intersecting gender inequalities are a global phenomenon across universities. Whilst there is variation in the specific types of inequalities, what they look like and how they play out in national contexts, there are vertical inequalities (with different genders being focused in particular disciplines being the most well-understood) and horizontal inequalities (with males prevalent in taking up higher status and more influential positions) across the international higher education sector (EIGE, 2022). Even those disciplines most enmeshed in building knowledge that explains inequities, such as the social sciences and humanities, have the same inequities embedded within their research, teaching and administration: within universities and in their professional associations and conferences (Biggs et al 2018)). Consequently, there are questions about how those of us who work in universities can remain hopeful and try to generate more just relationships and practices from within the unequal academy.

The four papers presented in this session present research that is making significant efforts to generate changes toward greater equity. They focus on intersecting gender inequalities. The first presentation relates to a project called Women Can, which is taking place at the University of Bath, UK. It is funded by UKRI (national research funding) and it focuses on how promotion practices might be changed to address a lack of women taking up leadership positions in universities. The second, third and fourth papers are linked by a UNESCO Global Chair Project, led by the University of Newcastle Australia and are partly funded (in the University of Bath, UK and Cairo University Egypt) by the British Council. All focus on attempting to promote equity in STEM by generating research findings exploring how staff in Engineering and STEM faculties see current equity practices and then working with colleagues in these faculties to turn these findings into materials that can be used in pedagogical work with faculty members to co-construct knowledge and practices for their contexts. Each university team works independently on their project but they are related and we learn and work together to build understanding and practices. The projects are theoretically framed with critical and transformative theories and they use pedagogical methodologies and critical pedagogical approaches as fit their contexts (Burke et al, 2016; Burke and Lumb (2018).

This paper focuses on the origination, development and implementation of a women academics’ change agents network in a UK university. Data informing this paper were gathered during a UKRI funded research project: WomenCAN: Breaking Promotion Barriers, Changing University Cultures, and include narrative interviews with 21 women academic leaders in a range of disciplines, and two follow-up participatory workshops with women academics at all career levels from a range of disciplines. Widespread statistical and research evidence indicates that, despite increased diversity in the workplace and greater numbers of women academics in universities, women are still under-represented in leadership roles (Bierema, 2017, p.148), that there is still a gender pay gap, and that women in leadership positions are often marginalised, isolated and experience epistemic injustices (Madsen, 2017). The WomenCAN project focused specifically on how promotions practices and cultures maintain gendered patterns of inequality regarding a ‘women’s leadership gap’, and the practical measures needed to change this. Situated at the theory-praxis interface, and drawing on feminist theories of organizational change within higher education (Acker, 1990), the project generated nuanced, situated insights into how the structure-culture-institutional nexus produced powerful micropolitical effects that disadvantaged women in very specific ways. Building on feminist critiques of how institutions ‘bear responsibility for social justice, equality, solidarity and care for others’ (Benschop, 2021, p.2), the paper discusses how the Women Academics’ Change Agents Network sought to ‘develop alternative value systems’ (Benschop, 2021, p.2) to current hierarchical and individualizing practices, and contested ‘oppressive organization structures that have not worked, are not working, and will not work’ (Bierema, 2017, p.145). Morley and Lund (2021, p.114) argue the need to ‘consider how we “do” gender in the academy.’ Project data indicated that the proposed network should be there ‘to help and guide women’; be a place for ‘sharing the challenges’; and provide ‘a confidential space for women to get advice from other women.’ The two workshops were a clear call to collective action (‘let’s get organised!’) to ‘influence relevant university policy’ on promotions practices, and to improve the ‘visibility of women academics.’ Envisaged as a driver for change, fuelled by women’s collective agency, and embedded within changes to university cultures and structures to ensure its sustainability (Kassotakis, 2017), the WomenCAN network activates feminist praxis (and activism) through the aim to ‘trouble power relations, imagine better worlds and work to achieve them’ (Ferguson, 2017, p.283).

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society. 4: 139–158. Benschop, Y. (2021). Grand Challenges, Feminist Answers. Organization Theory. 2: 1–19. Bierema, L.L. (2017). No woman left behind: critical leadership development to build gender consciousness and transform organizations. In, Madsen, S.R. (Ed). Handbook of research on gender and leadership. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ferguson, K. E. (2017). Feminist theory today. Annual Review of Political Science. 20: 269–286. Morley, L., & Lund, R.W.B. (2021). The affective economy of feminist leadership in Finnish universities: class-based knowledge for navigating neoliberalism and neuroliberalism. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 42:1, 114-130. Madsen, S.R. (2017). Handbook of research on gender and leadership. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Kassotakis, M.E. (2017). Women-only leadership programs: a deeper look. In, Madsen, S.R. (Ed). Handbook of research on gender and leadership. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

In recent decades Australian universities have tried to strengthen forms of equity in STEM fields. While there has been some progress, inequitable outcomes remain in relation to intersecting disparities around gender, class, race, and (dis)ability (Australian Government Department ISER, n.d.). This situation is compounded by uneven regulation and commitments to equity, which are often relegated to peripheral roles with limited capacity and resources. Despite a broad understanding of the need to attend to discipline-specific strategies across the diversity of STEM, little attention has been directed towards building this understanding to foster more equitable and inclusive practices. This paper discusses a research project on the different perspectives of students and academic and professional staff in the diverse environment of a large comprehensive STEM faculty at an Australian regional university. The focus of the project is to examine how equity is articulated within and between disciplinary, teaching, research and administrative contexts and to generate practical recommendations and pedagogical resources to strengthen staff engagement and awareness of equity issues. A question the project pursues is how does the relegation to peripheral roles and units affect differently positioned staff and the capacity institutionally to address complex questions of inequality that impact all levels of activity including teaching and curricula development? Drawing on data from over 200 surveys and 51 in-depth interviews with staff and students this research shows how understandings of equity emerge through different experiences related to positionality (how participants are socially, politically and culturally located). We explore how academic and professional staff and students experience forms of structural marginalisation and exclusion that are often ignored or hidden. Our analysis is framed by an intersectional lens drawing on critical feminist, decolonial social justice theory (Battiste, 2013; Behrendt et al., 2012; Fraser, 2005). A critical approach to understanding the tensions raised by participants focuses on deconstructing power structures and hierarchies that continue to reproduce systems of inequity through White-centric, masculinised, neoliberalism and ‘Eurocentrism in science’ (Dudgeon & Walker, 2015). Through a pedagogical methodology (Burke, Crozier and Misiaszek, 2017; Burke and Lumb, 2018), the project brings a social justice lens to equity by calling for collective spaces and dialogue that challenge socially oppressive environments and enable deeper reflections and engagement with equity issues. The outcomes of this research have the potential to inform future policy decisions within higher educational institutions and guide the development of professional learning programs that promote equity in STEM education.

Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. (n.d.). Focus on understanding progression of different demographic groups through STEM. https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/stem-equity-monitor/data-focus/focus-understanding-progression-different-demographic-groups-through-stem Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Purich publishing Behrendt, L. Y., Larkin, S., Griew, R., & Kelly, P. (2012). Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: final report. Canberra, A.C.T.: Dept. of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education Burke, P. J., Crozier, G., & Misiaszek, L. (2016). Changing pedagogical spaces in higher education: Diversity, inequalities and misrecognition. Routledge. Burke, P. J., & Lumb, M. (2018). Researching and evaluating equity and widening participation: Praxis-based frameworks. Evaluating equity and widening participation in higher education, Trentham, London 11-32. Dudgeon, P., & Walker, R. (2015). Decolonising Australian psychology: Discourses, strategies, and practice. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 276-297. Fraser, N. (2005). Reframing justice in a globalising world. New Left Review, 36.

Egypt boasts a rich history of national and international efforts aimed at promoting women's participation across various levels of higher education, particularly in STEM fields (National Council for Women, 2017; Egypt National Observatory for Women, 2015). While these initiatives have led to a notable increase in female enrolment in STEM higher education, there remains a pressing need to establish robust standards of equality (El Nagdy & Roehrig, 2019; Kyoung, Fernandez & Ramon, 2022). Despite widespread acknowledgement of this need, there has been insufficient focus on developing inclusive strategies and practices. This paper delves into the diverse perspectives of both academic staff and students regarding equity issues within the Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University. Through an examination of the supportive and obstructive factors influencing equity across various domains within the faculty—such as teaching, research, and administrative contexts—the study sheds light on the nuanced dynamics at play. The paper draws on data obtained from 200 surveys and 50 in-depth interviews conducted with faculty members and students at the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University (Egypt). Thematic analysis is used to identify key themes related to equity issues across different dimensions of teaching, research, funding and administrative practices. By critically examining these themes, the study aims to uncover both the supportive factors that promote gender equity and the hindering aspects that perpetuate inequitable practices (Nakayiwa et al., 2020). The research uses feminist theory which offers a powerful framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of gender equity experiences within the Egyptian academic setting, considering the unique social, political, and cultural contexts in which female academic, professional staff, as well as students, encounter various forms of structural marginalisation and exclusion that often go unnoticed or unaddressed. Through its intersectional approach, feminist theory acknowledges the intersecting axes of identity that shape the participants’ experiences and opportunities within their educational institution. By centring the voices and experiences of female academics and students, feminist theory exposes the underlying power structures and systemic biases that perpetuate inequality. The study aspires to inform evidence-based interventions and policy recommendations aimed at fostering a more inclusive, equitable, and empowering academic environment for all (Mott, 2020).

National Council for Women (2017). National Strategy for the Empowerment of Egyptian Women 2030 Vision and Pillars. Available via: https://ncw.gov.eg/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/final-version-national-strategy-for-the-empowerment-of-egyptian-women-2030.pdf Egypt National Observatory for Women (2015). Women’s Empowerment Strategy Vision 2023. Available via https://en.enow.gov.eg/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A4%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%81%20%D9%81%D9%8A%202030 Kyoung, R. O., Fernandez, F. & Ramon, E. (2022). Gender Equity in STEM in Higher Education. New York: Routledge. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/eee1ae49-405f-4a98-ba2d-9b3050feebf0/doi.org/ Mott, H. (2020). Going Global Partnership Gender Equality in Higher Education: Maximising Impact. British Council. Available via https://www.britishcouncil.org/gender-equality-higher-education-maximising-impacts Nakayiwa, F., Elhag, M., Santos, L. & Tizikara, C. (2020). Strengthening higher education capacity to promote gender-inclusive participation in Science, Technology and Innovation. African Journal of Rural Development, 5(3), pp.65-86. Bothwell, E., Roser-Chinchilla, J., Deraze, E., Ellis, R., Galán-Muros, V., Gallegos, G., Mutize, T. (2022). Gender Equity: How Global Universities are Performing. Times Higher Education and the UNESCO International Institute of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC). Available via Gender equality: how global universities are performing, part 1 - UNESCO Digital Library El Nagdy, M. & Roehrig. (2019). Gender Equity in STEM Education: The Case of an Egyptian Girls’ School. In K. G. Fomunyam: Theorizing STEM Education in the 21st Century. Intech Open. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87170

This paper will describe and reflect on the methodology, processes and practices of the workshops and activities the research team will undertake with students, academics, professional staff and leaders based in the Faculty of Sciences and the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Bath. The workshop materials will draw upon 50 qualitative interviews and 200 surveys exploring students, academics, professional staff, and leaders' experiences and perceptions of current equity practices in the university and their faculty. The workshop will aim to develop new understandings of equity practices that are framed in ways that feel appropriate to colleagues and students in STEM subjects and can be used to develop more contextually appropriate practices and processes. The workshop materials, content, and pedagogical approaches will be collaboratively developed by the research team with representative members of these faculties. We do not anticipate this task will be easy when it is carried out in April 2024. Our preliminary analysis of the data so far indicates that there are a wide variety of views and likely to be conflicting views and forms of intersectional inequalities that need to be considered and included. Hence, in doing this work we will employ a range of ideas and practices around co-creating knowledge, decolonising knowledge; and we will use feminist and other critical pedagogies, and models of interdisciplinary research to generate spaces for different voices and inputs into the process. For example Bryson;s (2003) Webb's (2004) principles for feminist pedagogy and generating inclusive spaces. Also, Fam et al's (2018) ideas about collaborative and transdisciplinary learning and Danermark's (2019) model for interdisciplinary knowledge generation.

Bryson, Bj. (2003) The Teaching and Learning Experience: Deconstructing and Creating Space Using a Feminist Pedagogy, Race, gender & class. 10.2 (2003): 131-146.. Danermark, Berth. (2019) Applied Interdisciplinary Research: A Critical Realist Perspective. Journal of Critical Realism 18.4 (2019): 368-382. Fam, Dena., Linda. Neuhauser, and Paul. Gibbs (2018). Transdisciplinary Theory, Practice and Education: The Art of Collaborative Research and Collective Learning. 1st ed. 2018. Cham: Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Springer, 2018. Print. Webb, Lynne M. (2004) Feminist Pedagogy in the Teaching of Research Methods International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7.5: 415-429.