Downloading conditions


Downloads are for personal use only and are not to be distributed
Downloads are for educational purposes only
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Misogyny Posing as Measurement: Disrupting the Feminisation Crisis Discourse
Professor Louise Morley, Centre for Higher Education and Equity Research
(CHEER), University of Sussex, UK
Abstract
Feminisation discourses appear to represent a melancholia and nostalgia for
patriarchal patterns of participation and exclusion in higher education. It is curious
why this particular formulation has gained currency in the context of higher education
today, raising questions about the misogynistic impulse seeking to set a ceiling on
women’s current success by assuming it must have come about by disadvantaging
men. This paper will raise questions about the norms, values and assumptions that
underpin the binaried conceptualisation that situates women’s achievements in
relation to men’s putative underperformance. I wish to suggest that feminisation
discourses are unsatisfactory as they work with mono-dimensional, stable concepts of
identity, ignore intersectionality, are parochial in so far as they fail to examine gender
globally, reduce gender inequalities to quantification, and treat gender as a noun,
rather than a verb or adjective. Higher education is gendered in terms of its values,
norms, processes and employment regimes, even when women are in the majority as
undergraduate students.
Feminisation debates overlook the volumes of international feminist scholarship that
have demonstrated that gendered power relations are relayed on a daily basis e.g. the
gender pay gap (EU, 2007), gender insensitive pedagogy (Welch, 2007), promotion,
professional development and tenure (Knights and Richards, 2003), the absence of
women in research (Husu, 2009), sexual harassment (Morley and Lussier, 2009;
Townsley and Geist, 2000), gendered knowledge production and dissemination
(Hughes, 2002) to name but a few. While feminist scholarship has elegantly
deconstructed the misogyny that informs feminisation crisis discourses (Leathwood
and Read, 2009; Quinn, 2003), reports such as HEPI (2009) on male and female
participation and progression in higher education realign equity initiatives to an
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
examination of male participation and achievement and represent resistance to
distributive justice and a subversion of gender equality successes.
Is the Present the Future That We Imagined in the Past?
The academy today is characterised by a mixture of hyper-modernisation via the
development of global, entrepreneurial, corporate, commercialised universities and
speeded up public intellectuals on the move. However, this is underpinned by the
archaism of casual research labour, poor quality employment environments and
conditions, and widespread gender inequalities. The present day situation seems to
have taken many by surprise. Feminism, the left, counter hegemonic advocates did
not necessarily predict the scale of neo-liberal driven change in higher education.
Traditionalists did not foresee the industrialisation and massification of higher
education. Change has been rapid and extreme. However, transformation has been
driven more by neo-liberal policies than the academic imaginary. Indeed, it appears
that change is only embraced by the mainstream establishment when it is driven by
neo-liberalism. Areas such as gender equity remain remarkably resistant to change
processes despite four decades of legislation.
One change that has received mixed responses is that women have become highly
visible as students, or consumers of higher education, while simultaneously remaining
invisible or partially visible as leaders and knowledge producers. Women are
simultaneously constructed as winners and losers. Winners because they are gaining
access, as undergraduate students, in significant numbers, but losers because of their
lack of representation in leadership and in prestigious disciplines. There is a curious
two-step of recognition and misrecognition that threatens to confuse and confound
debates on gender in the academy.
Women have been allowed into higher education, embassy style, as micro-level
representatives of a wider diverse community. However, women continue to be
benchmarked in relation to male norms, entering a matrix of declared and hidden
rules (Lynch, 2009). In this paper, I wish to explore how gender needs to be
conceptualised beyond access, and beyond a solitary social construct. I also aim to
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
interrogate the feminisation discourse in an attempt to unmask the misogynistic
impulses that are driving current moral panics about women taking over the academy.
It would be easy to rehearse yet another pessimistic repertoire of challenges for
gender equity in the academy. Gender and melancholy are often deeply connected
(Butler, 2002), with a sense of loss, hurt and grief often underpinning studies of
gender and power in higher education. Desire, as well as loss, needs to be considered.
Indeed, writing on gender equality means that we have to refer to something that does
not yet exist. The tendency therefore is to critique, rather than to engage in
futurology. Questions about the desired morphology of the university of the future
seem to be eclipsed by pressing concerns in the present. However, the melancholia
has been productive! There have been multiple questions and production of texts on
the obduracy of gender inequities in the face of policy interventions. There has also
been recognition of how gender is formed and reformed in the spatial and temporal
context of higher education. Studies have been conducted on gender (in)sensitive
pedagogy (Sandler et al’s 1996; Welch, 2006); sexual harassment (Townsley and
Geist, 2000); gendered curricula and subject choices (Lapping, 2005); gendered
micropolitics (Morley, 1999); women’s access (Kwesiga, 2002), and how differing
spatial and temporal modalities impact on women’s engagement with higher
education (Moss, 2006). Employment, representation and exclusion have been
explored in relation to women’s limited opportunities for promotion and professional
development (Knights and Richards, 2003; Morley et al, 2006); the underrepresentation of women in senior academic and administrative positions (Blackmore
and Sachs, 2001; Husu, 2000), or in high-status disciplines (Bebbington, 2002), and
prestigious institutions (Dyhouse, 2003). Women’s relation to knowledge itself has
been theorised in terms of the way in which gender structures relations of production
and reproduction and is linked to knowledge construction, research opportunities and
dissemination (Mama, 1996; Stanley, 1997; Spivak, 1999). Studies have revealed
how liberal and strategic interventions for change such as equality policies
(Bagilhole, 2002; Deem, 2008; Deem et al., 2005), and gender mainstreaming are
poorly conceptualised, understood and implemented (Charlesworth, 2005; Morley,
2007). All reasons to be cheerful indeed, raising questions about what form the
gender equitable university of the future would take. A somewhat reductive and
liberal indicator is quantitative change.
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Counting Women In
A decade ago, the World Declaration on Higher Education identified equitable
participation for women as an urgent priority for the sector (UNESCO, 1998, Article
4). This included changing gendered patterns of participation at different levels within
the system of higher education, and across all disciplines of study (UNESCO, 1998).
There have been marked gender gains. Globally, the Gender Parity Index (GPI) for
higher education is now 1.08 (UNESCO, 2009) (compared with 0.96 in 1999),
suggesting that now overall rates of participation are slightly higher for women than
for men. If we consider that women were barred in the UK until the late nineteenth
century (Dyhouse, 1995), this represents progress. Indeed there is a morality to the
whole widening participation debate that suggests that a democratising state
intervention is promoting meritocratic equalisation and redistributing an unquestioned
‘good’ (Morley and Lugg, 2009). However, there are multiple engagements with
women’s increased participation. It is constructed as a victory for gender equity by
some (Leathwood and Read, 2009), and as an indication of a feminisation crisis and
an assault on masculinities by others (HEPI, 2009).
Widening participation is driven by both economic and social justice concerns.
Increasing the numbers of women in higher education is perceived as a redistributive
intervention, as higher education currently carries a graduate premium. In the UK,
prior to the recession and increases in graduate unemployment, this was estimated to
be in the range of £400,000 in a professional life time (DfES, 2003). This figure is
rarely gendered or intersected with policy debates about gender pay gaps, which are
now estimated to be in the region of 17% (EU, 2007). However, there is evidence to
suggest that women enter disciplinary locations that have the lowest exchange rate in
the labour market (World Bank, 2002). According to the tertiary education figures of
the 2009 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, women comprise 70 per cent
of university students in Education and 63 per cent of students in the field of Health
and Welfare (UNESCO, 2008). In regions where enrolment rates of women are lower
than for men, men also dominate these disciplinary areas (UNESCO, 2006, 19). Only
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
16 per cent of students in Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction are women.
In Science, women account for 29 per cent of students (UNESCO, 2008). Academic
identity is often constructed and enacted via disciplinary choice and location. The
gendering of disciplinary choice is important because higher education subject areas
track students into different types of occupations and social hierarchies, thus
contributing more widely to gender inequities in civil society.
Women’s participation in higher education is also unevenly distributed across national
boundaries. In 2006, there were more women than men in: Northern America,
Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and
Central Asia, and more men than women in: East Asia, Pacific, South and West Asia
and Sub-Saharan Africa (UN, 2008).
When gender difference is marked in international higher education policy, it is
invariably in relation to access (DfES, 2003). In international policy, there is a liberal
feminist approach to gender, with gender as a noun, rather than a verb or adjective
(Makuchi Nfah-Abbenyi, 2008; Weiner, 1994). The endpoint is to count more women
into education and into male-dominated disciplines- particularly Science,
Technology, Education and Maths – now known as the STEM subjects. This technoscience approach and privileging of higher education in terms of its economic impact
does little to remove the gendered code from the domain, or to challenge gender
regimes and processes. It simply marks the disciplinary domain as an unquestioned
good and suggests that women need more of it, as currently they occupy a space of
remediation and demonstrate poor choice literacy when attempting to enter higher
education. However, I wish to argue that there is an equity paradox. As soon as an
under-represented group decode the mysteries of access and participation, there are
contamination and devaluation fears. This is currently crystalising, in some national
locations and in some academic disciplines e.g. medical education, into a crisis
discourse of feminisation.
The Feminisation Debate as Fear of the ‘Other’
Happily, some western feminist scholars are taking issue with popularist beliefs that
women are taking over the academy and that their newly-found professional and
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
economic independence is responsible for societal destabilisation and a crisis in
masculinity (Evans, 2008; Leathwood and Read, 2009; Quinn, 2003). The
feminisation debate itself is partial and exclusionary. First, it does not include
consideration of leadership in higher education and only seems to relate to female
participation at undergraduate level in some programmes and in some geopolitical
regions. This approach positions women as turbo-charged consumers, but not in
powerful positions as knowledge producers and gatekeepers. Second, it is debateable
as to whether quantitative change has allowed more discursive space for gender? For
example, in the UK, increasing numbers of women students have been accompanied
by the demise of women’s and gender studies in the curriculum. Third, it fails to
deconstruct the unified category of ‘woman’ or intersect gender with other structures
of inequality including social class. Fourth, it reduces gender to quantitative change
and confuses sex and gender. Fifth, it reinforces the gender dichotomy and constructs
equalities in terms of a seesaw, rather than as a jigsaw, in which one groups must
always be down when the other comes up in the world. This analysis contributes to
the reconstruction of the dominant group as victims, and essentialises gender
differences. One of the most dangerous aspects of the feminisation hysteria, in my
view is that it silences advocacy for gender equality.
I wish now to turn my attention to a closer interrogation of the HEPI (2009) Report.
The report examines male and female participation and progression in higher
education (note the gender order), and concludes that we need to change the ‘mindset
that continues to see males as advantaged and females as disadvantaged’ (p.10). This
seesaw analysis of binaried gender relations suggests that gender inequities are
cognitive, rather than material and we simply need to think differently and gendered
power relations. It also suggests that a ceiling needs to be set on women’s current
success by assuming it must have come about by disadvantaging men.
This report is full of castration anxieties! The author refers to the ‘dominant position
of females’ (p.3). We are also informed that ‘Their {women’s} performance is
superior in all types of institution.’ (p.4) This is about fear of the ‘Other’ –
particularly about women being on top. Men are constructed as victims, and women
constructed as rapacious and turbo-charged consumers. Women’s hyper-visibility
makes them dangerous. The report, like the feminisation discourse itself, is
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
underpinned with the semiotics and imagery of greedy, rapacious women taking over
the academy and desiring too much (Quinn, 2003). It is evocative of the obesity
hysteria. Women’s ‘over performance’ is women getting too big. They are newcomers
who do not know their place. The tone of the report extends this notion to female
researchers too. The report attempts to counter feral female scholarship with a series
of ‘facts’. For example, the one contrary feminist voice in the entire report is that of
Penny Burke who argued that many women are studying in low-status universities.
The author of the HEPI Report claims that ‘None of this is so’ (p.2). It seems as if
Burke is only cited in order to put her back in the ‘right’ place too and to clarify that
the HEPI Report is most definitely not a feminist inquiry but its obverse. However, it
is a text from somewhere masquerading as disinterested ‘science’. Ultimately, this
report represents resistance to distributive justice and a subversion of gender equality
successes. It uses data selectively in a socially de-contextualised way. The narrative is
ill-informed by wider scholarship on gender and higher education, and in embodying
a melancholia and nostalgia for patriarchal patterns of participation in higher
education, would have us return to the past when women were banned from higher
education on the grounds that it would harm their fragile reproductive organs. We do
need policy texts that work with disaggregated data about Higher Education. It is
though, important that it is accompanied by reflexive analytical commentary preempting the tendency to treat gender as a norm or noun.
This is not a report that celebrates women’s achievements. It prefers to problematise
men’s putative underperformance. Moreover, throughout its countering hysteria with
facts style of reportage it invites a common-sense rather than an analytical
understanding of gender, evocative of the males as victims discourse commented
upon previously in feminist scholarship. (Epstein, Ellwood, Hey, and Maw, 1998). It
is valuable to consider why this particular formulation has gained new currency in the
context of higher education now, and whether the economic recession is fuelling a
crisis that allows misogyny to (re)surface.
In times of social change and the knowledge recession, there are dangers of seeking
scapegoats. There is also an urgency that suggests that equity is a luxury product that
we can no longer afford. The Confederation for British Industries stated that
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Labour's flagship target – to get 50% of 18 to 30-year-olds into higher education –
should:
be suspended as an emergency measure to stop the ballooning costs to the
taxpayer and protect the quality of higher education under fierce competition
from other countries (Curtis, 2009: 2).
Not only are new constituencies seems as contaminators of higher educational quality
and standards and threats to the nations’s economic competitiveness, but they are also
seen as a potentially destabilising and polluting impact on higher education
specifically, and to wider social and civic relations generally. ‘Non-traditional
students’ are too far from the ideal construction of university students to warrant
investment in austere times. Privileged social groups must be left free to rule unimpaired by the drag factor of social justice. The feminisation discourse implies
that a woman’s place is in the self-minimising minority. If they dare to fight their way
out of that role, they are conceptualised as a threat to social cohesion.
The HEPI report confuses sex and gender and reduces gender to quantitative change.
Gender is a verb and adjective as well as a noun. It is a social, economic and cultural
relation constantly recalibrated in discourse and in quotidian social and micropolitical
practices. Higher education can still be highly gendered in terms of its values, norms,
processes and indeed employment regimes, even when women are in the majority as
undergraduate students. The report takes undergraduate enrolment as the unit of
analysis:
women’s participation rates in all types of institutions in all modes of study are
higher that that of men’s at undergraduate level. It seems that now, in all types
of institution, apart from Oxbridge, women have higher participation than men.
For Oxbridge the participation rates are equal (p.4)
However, women’s representation in postgraduate programmes, senior academic or
management positions in the higher education sector is left unproblematised.
While the report makes some attempt at intersectionality by including some
discussion on ethnicity, age, and social class differences, the evidence bases are not
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
always clear for statements such as:’ It appears that the poorer performance of men is
common to all social groups, but is getting worse among the poorest.’ (p.5)
Where is all this HE success taking women? The report includes statistics on
women’s continued lower pay in the labour market and informs us that ‘In general it
appears that males are more likely to be unemployed after graduation, but that those
who are in work tend to have higher salaries than women’. (p.6) It seems that the
value of the educational capital is reduced when it is owned by women. It would have
been interesting to hear slightly more about women’s power in wider civil society. For
example, the UK is now ranked 15 in the Global Gender Gap Index (it was 13 in
2008) (World Economic Forum, 2009). This Index benchmarks national gender gaps
on economic, political, education - and health based criteria, and provides country
rankings that allow for comparisons across regions and income groups, and over time.
The rankings suggest that increased participation in higher education does not
necessarily change wider gendered power relations, or enhance the collective rights of
women.
The explanatory power of Section 23 of the report is troubling and reductive. We are
told that the reasons for women’s increased participation are:
family planning and the increased opportunities for women to combine having a
family with progressing in a career. Two others that are suggested are the
economic drivers which may provide a greater incentive for women to invest in
higher education and changes in childhood experience which may have a
different impact on the intellectual development of girls and boys (p.9).
Apart from the heteronormative assumptions that position all women in sexual
relations with men, these observations show a lack of knowledge of international
scholarship on the links between education and reproduction. Which comes first educated women’s ability to take charge of their reproduction, or reproduction
shaping women’s choices to participate in education?
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Lastly, I am concerned about how the international is constructed in terms simply of
high and middle-income countries in the OECD. This excludes consideration of lowincome countries, where women’s participation rates are still low in higher education.
I wish now to move away from the HEPI Report (2009) and turn briefly towards the
study: Widening Participation in Higher Education in Ghana and Tanzania:
Developing an Equity Scorecard (Morley and Lugg, 2009; Morley and Lussier, 2009)
www.sussex.ac.uk/education/wideningparticipation. Some gender gains might be
masking more persistent inequalities in higher education access, particularly in
relation to poverty. In the UK, only 16% of undergraduate students come from
working class backgrounds in spite of decades of state investment (Burke, 2009).
Poverty and the uneven distribution of material, social and cultural capital influences
who has capacities to aspire to higher education (Appadurai, 2004; David, 2009).
Hence, the importance of intersectionality.
In addition to conducting 200 life history interviews with students and 200 semistructured interviews with academic staff and policymakers, the Widening
Participation in Higher Education in Ghana and Tanzania: Developing an Equity
Scorecard has constructed 100 Equity Scorecards from statistical data to examine
both advantage and disadvantage simultaneously. These have measured intersections
between social variables e.g. gender, socio-economic status (based on deprived
schools’ indicators), and age, in relation to educational processes: access, retention
and achievement in two public and two private universities, and four programmes of
study in each university. The following Equity Scorecards demonstrate intersections
between the 3 structures of inequality in relation to 4 programmes in public universities
in Ghana and Tanzania.
Equity Scorecard 1: Access to Level 200 on 4 Programmes at a Public University
in Ghana According to Age, Gender and Socio Economic Status (SES)
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
% of Students on the Programme
Programme
B.Commerce
B.Management
Studies
B.Education
(Primary)
B.Sc. Optometry
Women
Age 30
Low
or
SES
over
Mature Women
and
and
Low
low
SES
SES
Women Poor
30
Mature
or over Women
29.92
1.66
5.82
0.00
1.11
0.28
0.00
47.06
2.94
6.30
0.00
1.68
3.36
0.00
36.36
8.08
65.66
8.08
2.02
21.21
2.02
30.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Equity Scorecard 2: Access to Level 200 on 4 Programmes at a Public
University in Tanzania According to Age, Gender and Socio Economic Status
(SES)
% of Students on the Programme
Women
Low
SES
Age 30
or over
Mature
and
Low
SES
Women
and low
SES
Women
30 or
over
Poor
Mature
Women
B. Commerce
32.41
8.59
1.13
0.16
0.32
0.0
0.0
LLB. Law
56.18
13.48
0.0
0.0
5.06
0.0
0.0
25.05
11.65
1.36
0.0
1.36
1.17
0.0
11.20
28.00
4.80
1.6
0.80
0.0
0.0
Programme
B.Sc.
Engineering
B. Science with
Education
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
In spite of the measures taken in both public universities to enrol more women overall
and more students from lower socio economic background, we can see that
participation rates of poorer women are still low. It appears that some programmes
e.g. the B.Sc. Engineering in Tanzania (which has an Affirmative Action entry
programme for women) have been successful in recruiting older women. However,
these women are not from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Both public
universities are highly selective in terms of academic entry qualifications. The success
of some gender equality and access programmes means that some university
programmes are now filling up with ‘doctors' daughters rather than doctors' sons’
(Williams, quoted in Eagleton, 2008).
So far, all the Equity Scorecard data suggest that access of women, poor and older
students varies significantly from one programme to another. It is by no means a
uniform access to the sector as a whole. It seems that entry into higher education in
general, and to certain disciplines in particular, can represent a transgression for
poorer and older students. In this sense, participation rates are not keeping up with the
hyper-modernisation of the globalised higher education sector, but seem to follow
archaic patterns of inclusion and exclusion.
Summing Up
Today, women are participating, in increasing numbers, in higher education, in a
range of national locations. Yet, women’s academic identities are often forged in
otherness, as strangers in opposition to (privileged) men’s belonging and entitlement.
The gender debates are full of contradictions. Quantitative targets to let more women
into higher education can fail, or be meaningless, while femaleness continues to be
socially constructed as second class citizenship. Women are positioned as a remedial
group, failing to enter prestigious disciplines and senior positions, while
simultaneously threatening to take over or feminise (and hence devalue) the sacred
space of academe.
Measurement is used highly selectively in relation to gender. It is ignored when
women suffer discrimination or under-representation e.g. in management, and the
Gender Pay Gap. Yet it is trumpeted in crisis form when women start to be ‘overLouise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
represented’, and pose a threat to the dominant group’s sense of entitlement.
Measurement is also used, without acknowledgement of intersectionality. While there
have been significant gender gains in terms of increased representation of women at
undergraduate level in some disciplines and in some geographical regions, a microlevel statistical examination of gender in Ghana and Tanzania - two countries with
policy commitments to gender equity - reveals that when gender is intersected with
other structures of inequality such as poverty and age, poor and older women are
absent or present in low numbers- particularly in the elite STEM subjects.
Feminist scholars and researchers will continue to critique, theorise, audit and grieve
power and privilege in higher education, as it is a major site of cultural practice, identity
formation and symbolic control. Knowledge continues to be seen as the engine of
development. Yet there are some major areas of under-development in the knowledge
society. The former UK Secretary of State for Higher Education (Denham, 2008) had a
wish list for the next 15 years that includes the expansion of technology, innovation and
research-based wealth creation. Gender was not mentioned. Neither was it a category of
analysis in Peter Mandelson’s recent strategy document (2009) Higher ambitions: the
future of universities in a knowledge economy. This hyper-modernisation of
technologically driven liquified globalisation is underpinned by the archaism of unequal
employment and participation practices. There is an urgent need to build on the
momentum of women’s increased participation and imagine or re-imagine a different
future.
References
Appadurai, A. (2004). The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition.
In V. Rao and M. Walton (eds) Culture and Public Action. Stanford, Stanford
University Press.
Bagilhole, B. (2002). "Challenging Equal Opportunities: Changing and Adapting
Male Hegemony in Academia." British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(1): 1933.
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Bebbington, D. (2002). "Women in Science, Engineering and Technology: A Review
of the Issues." Higher Education Quarterly 56(4): 360-375.
Blackmore, J., and Sachs, J. (2001). Women Leaders in the Restructured and
Internationalised University. In, A. Brooks, and McKinnon, A., (eds) Gender and the
Restructured University. Buckingham, Open University Press: 45-66.
Burke, P. (2009) Accessing Higher Education: Gender, Participation and
Subjectivity, Inaugural Lecture, University of Roehampton, 16 November.
Butler, J. (2002) Melancholy Gender-Refused Identification in Dimen, M., and
Goldner, V. (eds) Gender in Psychoanalytic Space: Between Clinic and Culture.
New York: Other Press.
Charlesworth, H. (2005) Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and
Human Rights in the United Nations. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18, 1-18.
Curtis, P. (2009) CBI Advises Raising University Fees to £5,000 A Year to Tackle
Funding Crisis. The Guardian, 21 September, p.2.
David, M. (2009) Social Diversity and Democracy in Higher Education in the 21st
Century: Towards a Feminist Critique. Higher Education Policy 22 (1) 61-79.
Deem, R. (2008). "Managing a Meritocracy or an Equitable Organisation? Senior
Managers' and Employees' Views about Equal Opportunities Policies in UK
Universities." Journal of Education Policy 22(6): 615 - 636.
Deem, R., Morley, L., and Tlili, A. (2005). Negotiating Equity in UK Universities.
London, HEFCE.
Denham, J (2008) Check Against Delivery, Wellcome Collection Conference Centre,
London - 29 February 2008.
www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/denham_hespeech_290208.html
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
DfES (2003). Widening Participation in Higher Education. London, Dept. for
Education and Skills.
Dyhouse, C. (2003). "Troubled Identities: Gender and Status in the History of the
Mixed Colleges in English Universities since 1945." Women's History Review 12(2):
169-194.
Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V. and Maw, J., (1998). Failing Boys? Issues in Gender
and Achievement. Buckingham, Open University Press.
European Union (2007). The Gender Pay Gap — Origins and Policy Responses: A
Comparative Review of 30 European Countries. Luxembourg, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Evans, M., (2008) The Silence of the Girls. Paper presented at the Centre for Higher
Education and Equity Research (CHEER) Seminar, University of Sussex, 21 January
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/education/documents/cheer_seminar_papers__the silence of
the girls.pdf
(HEPI) Higher Education Policy Institute (2009). Male and Female Participation and
Progression in Higher Education. Oxford, Higher Education Policy Institute.
Hughes, C. (2002). Key Concepts in Feminist Theory and Research. London, SAGE.
Husu, L. (2000) ‘Gender Discrimination in The Promised Land of Gender Equality’,
Higher Education in Europe, Volume XXV (2): 221-228
Husu, L. (2009) The Gender Challenge in Research Funding. Brussels: Office for the
Official Publications of the European Communities http://tinyurl.com/ecgender
Knights, D., and Richards, W., (2003). "Sex Discrimination in UK Academia."
Gender, Work and Organization 10(2): 213-238.
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Kwesiga, J. (2002). Women's Access to Higher Education in Africa: Uganda's
Experience. Kampala, Fountain Series in Gender Studies.
Lapping, C. (2005). Antagonism and Overdetermination: The Production of Student
Positions in Contrasting Undergraduate Disciplines and Institutions in the UK. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 26, 657-671.
Leathwood, C. and B. Read (2009). Gender and the Changing Face of Higher
Education: A Feminised Future? Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill/ Open University Press.
Lynch, K. (2009). Carelessness: A Hidden Doxa of Higher Education
Paper presented at the Centre for Higher Education and Equity Research (CHEER)/
ESRC Seminar Series ‘Imaging the University of the Future’, University of Sussex,
April 27th 2009.
Makuchi Nfah-Abbenyi, J. (2008). "Africa after Gender?" Research in African
Literatures 39(4): 147-148.
Mama, A. (1996) Women's Studies and Studies of Women in Africa During the 1990s,
CODESRIA Working Paper Series 5/96.
Mandelson, P. (2009) Higher Ambitions: The Future of Universities in a Knowledge
Economy. London: BIS.
Morley, L. (1999). Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy.
London, Macmillan.
Morley, L. (2007). "Sister-matic: Gender Mainstreaming in Higher Education."
Teaching in Higher Education 12(5/6) 607-620.
Morley, L., Gunawardena, C., Kwesiga, J., Lihamba, A., Odejide, A., Shackelton, L.
and Sorhaindo, A. (2006). Gender Equity in Selected Commonwealth Universities.
Research Report No. 65 to the Department of International Development. London,
DFID.
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
Morley, L., and Lugg, R., (2009). "Mapping Meritocracy: Intersecting Gender,
Poverty and Higher Educational Opportunity Structures." Higher Education Policy
22(1): 37-60.
Morley, L., and Lussier, K., (2009). Sex, Grades and Power: Gender Violence in
African Higher Education, Paper for the Annual Conference of the SRHE, December.
Celtic Manor, Wales.
Moss, D. (2006) Gender, Space and Time: Women and Higher Education. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books
Quinn, J. (2003). Powerful Subjects: Are Women Really Taking Over The University?
Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.
Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L.A., and Hall, R.M., (1996). The Chilly Classroom
Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women. Washington, DC, National
Association for Women in Education.
Spivak, G. (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, London: Harvard University
Press.
Stanley, L., (Ed.) (1997) Knowing Feminisms, London: Sage.
Townsley, N. C., & Geist, P. (2000). "The Discursive Enactment of Hegemony:
Sexual Harassment and Academic Organizing." Western Journal of Communication
64: 190–217.
UNESCO (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First
Century: Vision and Action. Adopted by The World Conference on Higher Education.
Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO (2009) Global Education Digest 2009: Comparing Education Statistics
Across the World. Montreal: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission
.
Weiner, G. (1994). Feminisms in Education: An Introduction. Buckingham, Open
University Press.
Welch, P. (2007). "Feminist Pedagogy Revisited." LATISS: Learning and Teaching in
the Social Sciences 3(3): 171-199.
Williams, R. quoted in Eagleton, T. (2008) Culture Conundrum: The Age-Old
Conflict Between Civilisation and Barbarism Has Lately Taken an Ominous Turn
The Guardian, Wednesday 21 May.
World Economic Forum, (2009) The Global Gender Gap Report 2009. Geneva: The
World Economic Forum.
Louise Morley
Not to be quoted without the author’s permission