Gender and the transformation agenda in South African higher education

29 (2006) 572–580www.elsevier.com/locate/wsif

Women's Studies International Forum

Gender and the transformation agenda inSouth African higher education

Lesley Shackleton a,⁎, Sarah Riordan b, Desireé Simonis b

a University of Cape Town and HERS-SA, IAPO, Middle Campus, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africab HERS-SA, South Africa

Available online 27 November 2006

Synopsis

Higher education in South Africa is undergoing significant transformation within a policy environment supportive of bothgender and racial equity. A detailed study of different aspects of gender equity in a historically white, advantaged institutionhighlights some of the remaining challenges. This article presents a study of these challenges. One component of the study lookedat women students entering the Engineering Faculty, the faculty with the lowest proportion of women students, and identified keysuccess factors which have increased this proportion over the years. Whilst transformation of the student body has been relativelysuccessful, there has been less success in transforming the gender (and racial) composition of the staff, despite a favourableinstitutional policy environment. A second component of the study explored initiatives aimed at achieving greater gender equityamong staff and found that little effort is put into providing any developmental programmes that might affect a change in thegender climate.© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The South African higher education context

The academy is a dichotomous environment. On theone hand universities are the incubators of new ideasand the nurseries of future savants. On the other, they areamong the most conservative and patriarchal oforganisations, changing little over centuries, replicatingtheir epistemologies and cultures through an interna-tional code of embedded practice (Davies & Holloway,1995; Morley & Walsh, 1996). This contrast betweenfermenting ideas and ideologies that can change theworld and institutions' inertia to aligning themselves tothat changed world is particularly stark to the increasingnumbers of people who might be deemed ‘the other’who are now moving into the academy.

⁎ Corresponding author.

0277-5395/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2006.10.004

In South Africa, political and social change emanat-ing from the new democracy demands transformation ofthe established higher education system. Increasing thenumbers of black people and women participating in theacademy, both as students and staff is a key componentof this transformation. The 1997 Education White Paper3 (Department of Education, 1997) highlights the inequi-table distribution in South Africa of access and opportu-nities for students and staff along lines of race, gender,class and geography. ‘This includes gross discrepanciesin participation rates from students from different popu-lation groups, indefensible imbalances in ratios of blackand female staff compared to whites and males andequally untenable disparities between historically blackand white institutions in terms of facilities and capa-cities.’ (p.4). The White Paper envisions a transformed,democratic, non-racist and non-sexist system of highereducation (p.6).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2006.10.004

573L. Shackleton et al. / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 572–580

In this article we analyse aspects of gender equityamong students and staff in a leading South Africanresearch university grappling with transformation. Theuniversity studied is a historically “white” universityand one of the few universities in the country notrequired by government to merge with another institu-tion. As such, the challenge of achieving equity andtransformation falls directly to the institution itself. Inthis it is assisted by the positive policy environment withrespect to both racial and gender equity in the new SouthAfrica. The issue of gender equity as a national priorityis articulated in the: South African Constitution, Act108/1996 (The Bill of Rights); Employment Equity Act55/1998; Skills Development Act 97/1998; EducationWhite Paper 3: A Programme for Higher EducationTransformation, 1997; Higher Education Act 101/1997;National Plan for Higher Education 2001.

The National Plan for Higher Education drawn upby the Department of Education explicitly states: ‘Thestaff composition of higher education has not changedin line with the changes in the student composition.Blacks and women remain under-represented in aca-demic and professional positions, especially at seniorlevels. Institutions will therefore be expected to developemployment equity plans with clear targets for recti-fying race and gender inequities. The Ministry will useplanning and funding as the primary levers for ensu-ring that race and gender inequities are eradicated’(National Plan for Higher Education, 2001, p.47). Insupport of this plan the Ministries of Education andLabour require annual reporting from each institution onthe numbers of women students, academics andadministrative staff in each institution. The Ministry ofEducation also has a Gender Equity Unit to advise theDirector-General on all aspects of gender equity in theeducation system. Despite these requirements ouranalysis of national policy documentation shows thatthe need to redress gender equity imbalances is fre-quently limited to an indication of intent. What is lessclear is evidence of effective policy implementation.Distinctly lacking in the documents analysed, is anindication of consequences for institutions and indivi-duals for non-compliance with gender policies.

Against this policy background, 53% of the gradu-ates from South African high schools qualifying foruniversity entrance are women. Women also constitute53% of students in all higher education, but still tend tocluster in certain fields, in particular health sciences andhumanities. The percentage of women also decreaseswith increasing level of degree, with fewer than 40% ofdoctoral degrees in South Africa being undertaken bywomen (Department of Education, personal communi-

cation, 2003). In 2001, women made up 48% of thepeople employed in the higher education sector (ibid ).However the majority of these women are located inlower academic and administrative ranks. Only 10% ofthe professors are women while 48% of those at lecturerlevel or below are women (Cooper & Subotsky, 2001).

The case institution selected for this study is arguablyone of the most diverse campuses in South Africa,having students from all over South Africa, from over80 different countries around the world, and from avariety of religious persuasions. Being historicallyadvantaged the case institution cannot be seen as typicalof the wide range of universities in South Africa,however it has a liberal tradition and a history ofopposing apartheid for decades before the democratiza-tion of the State, and was one of the first institutions tohave an Equal Opportunities Office in the early 1990s. Itis also relevant that during the period being researched ithad its first black female Vice Chancellor. In 2003approximately 49% of the students enrolled in Honours,Masters or Doctoral programmes were women and 48%were black. The proportion of students undertakingpost-graduate studies was 31%.

This article addresses two aspects of gender equity asan identified transformation priority in the caseinstitution. The first focuses on students and the secondon staff. The student study looked at the entry of womeninto the Engineering Faculty which had the lowestproportion of female students. The staff study exploredinitiatives aimed at achieving greater gender equityamong the staff.

Methodology

The methodology employed in this study includedthree distinct approaches. Documentary analysis of bothnational and institutional policies and statistics provideda contextual framework for an increased understandingof individual women's experiences. Such documents aredeemed attractive to social scientists for the purposes ofanalysis as they are perceived to be authoritative,credible objective and factual (Denscombe, 1998). Theanalysis specifically sought (and found lacking) evi-dence beyond policy formulation to that of policyimplementation and accountability.

Thereafter, the main research method employed wasqualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews withstudents and staff. The task of the qualitative researchinterview is to gather descriptions of the life-world ofthe subjects for the interpretation of the deeper meaningof the described phenomena (Hummelvoll & da Silva,1998). Thus the level of analysis in this study is that of

574 L. Shackleton et al. / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 572–580

the individual within the case, and individuals wereresearched with respect to their own perceptions andexperiences of gender equity initiatives at the university.Stratified samples of seven female Engineering studentsand eleven women staff members were interviewedfrom which thematic interpretations of their experienceswere obtained. Both common and contrasting responseswere included thus enabling qualitative research find-ings to be inductively derived (Maykut & Morehouse,1994).

Finally, observations of gender interactions in ninecommittee meetings, a staff training session and fourstudent recruitment presentations were also undertakenin order to enrich the findings. Observations duringmeetings and presentations were recorded using pre-determined observation schedules from which findingswere derived.

Women's access into engineering

National and institutional documents reveal thatstrong emphasis is placed on ensuring that studentnumbers at South African universities reflect thedemographics of the broader population. Howeveraccess remains a complex issue that is impacted uponby a number of factors, including social class, poverty,race and preparedness for higher education. Womenstudents also still tend to be found in certain fieldsparticularly health sciences, humanities. Nationally,statistics show that the Classification of EducationStudy Material (CESM) category (i.e. the field of study)that has the lowest proportion of women students isEngineering and Engineering Technology. In 2001, only17.1% of the students in this category across SouthAfrica were women (Department of Education, 2004).

Matching this national picture, the EngineeringFaculty in the case institution has the lowest percentageof women students. In 2003, only 26% of studentsregistered in the Engineering Faculty were women(although it should be noted that this represents anincrease of nearly 300% in real numbers over the pastten years). It is interesting to note that the greatestincrease has been amongst black women entering thefaculty. This increase can be attributed in part toconcerted efforts by faculty staff to attract women andblack students, and some of the staff have conductedconsiderable research on women's access to engineeringsubjects. This previous research revealed that womenare attracted to engineering because it offers careerscharacterized by perceived challenge and variety(Jarwitz & Case, 1998). A further finding of thisresearch, supported by the current study is that women

students are attracted to the field because they perceivethat engineering provides opportunities to contribute tosocial development (Jarwitz & Case, 1998). Priorresearch also revealed that engineering as a careeroption competes with medicine and business science forwomen students who often view these fields morefavourably because of the high public profile that theyenjoy (Jawitz, Case, & Tshabalala, 2000). Jawitz andCase (2002) have suggested that, in order to attract morewomen into the field, the ‘engineering culture’ had toshift to become more ‘women friendly’.

Interviews with staff in the Engineering Facultyconfirmed that they were acutely aware of the genderimbalance in student numbers and the initiatives toaddress this disparity. Women staff members played asignificant initiating role in these activities, often overand above their core academic responsibilities. TheFaculty actively recruits women students from highschools. This involves personal visits from academicstaff who address potential students and encourage themto apply to the Faculty. Female staff often volunteer todo this and feedback indicates that it makes a significantdifference to women students' career choices. Inaddition each year in June, a week-long recruitmentprogramme is organized by the Faculty for school pupilson the campus. Care is taken that promotional literaturedistributed to potential students, in both print and videoformat, consciously displays women and men in equalproportions, performing experiments, studying, engag-ing in group discussions and working in the field.Besides conducting research into women's access,retention and recruiting drives, one female academicstaff member had run a very successful ‘managementcourse’ for engineering students, the focus of which wasmanaging diversity in the workplace, including genderdiversity. This had been attended by both male andfemale students. Unfortunately funding to continue thishad not been forthcoming. As one member of staffcommented, they had become wary of continuing topursue gender equity related activities as they felt that“unless you have institutional buy-in things will fizzleout.”

This previous research and the interviews with keyengineering staff members provided background to thequalitative interviews conducted amongst registeredwomen students for the current study. Through womenlecturers in the Faculty, women students in their secondyear and above were invited to volunteer to beinterviewed for this study. These interviews revealedconsistent findings with respect to their experienceswithin the Engineering Faculty. The young womenreported no structural impediments to entering the faculty


beyond the high level of competency in bothmathematicsand science at school level that is required. Often thedecision to study engineering was serendipitous andfrequently resulted from exposure to a woman facultymember having visited their school to discuss previouslyunexplored career options with them. One participant justhappened to pick up a leaflet on Geomatics1:

…it was really by accident that it was lying aroundand I think I was bored…otherwise I would not haveknown about Geomatics…

For all of the young women interviewed going touniversity was a social expectation and they all carry theburden of these expectations. One participant reported that:

I always knew I was going to university, it was almosta given thing. My dad was at varsity and so was mymum, so I was expected to go, it's a society thing.

Another participant noted that her parents insisted:“that the only way we better our family is througheducation.” One subject felt that by going to universityshe would be able to make a difference in her country:

… in the country where I come from there is a bigdemand for electrical engineers so once I finish Ithink I will have a very large impact on my country.

The vital importance of women role models, both asstaff members and as senior students was underscored.This applies right from the initial recruitment, throughthe years of study. Speaking of their female lecturers, theyoung women said:

I feel very comfortable though having Alison as afemale lecturer there and it is very assuring to knowthat and also good to see that there are female sur-veyors doing what we are doing.

and

there is the one lecturer who I suppose I can identifymore with, she is like the head of the department andstuff. I get along quite well with her, probably becauseshe is female and I can identify with that.

Once registered in the Faculty, students report agenerally supportive environment although most of thesubjects commented on the heavy work load and severalof them said that they had considered dropping out. “Itwas sort of my darkest hour”, and, her course “was notwhat I had been sold.” However, all of them laterovercame these initial difficulties with support fromfamily, fellow students and staff: “my tutor is reallywonderful” and “ our class is so close and we help eachother out”.

The women report being “more hardworking thanthe guys”:

… The girls work harder, its just a general fact. Wesit down for hours and we work and the guys don'ttake it that seriously.

The interviews also revealed that the young womenremain alert to theirminority statuswith respect to gender.This manifests in caution about their attire, sensitivityabout perceptions of their femininity and beliefs:

… I do think, sometimes I will think well I am notgoing to wear this top because if we are going to bein a lab and I suddenly have to bend over…

All the participants describe experiences that includ-ed male lecturers only referring to “he” in examples andjust “getting used to” laughter from male students if theyasked a question. Personal safety and security concernswere also noted, especially when working outdoors. Itwas interesting that several of the women interviewedexpressed retrospective doubt about their career choice:“I don't know if what I am doing now is where I want tobe…”, and “I realized that I had made a total mistakeand I don't want to do this, but in a way it has made me abetter, stronger person I think.”

However, other participants indicated that theywould encourage other young girls to do Engineering.The participants identified the importance of spreadingknowledge of Engineering as a possible career choicefor women in schools, the role played by attending agirls-only school, and role models in encouraging otherwomen to enter university. One participant reportedreceiving a follow up phone call from a female facultymember after attending the Open Day. This individualattention impressed her and crystallized her decision toregister for Engineering.

Observations were carried out during the Faculty'srecruitment week and these supported the data obtainedfrom interviewing the students. During the weekpotential students are exposed to career choices withinthe faculty through short presentations from staff andopportunities to conduct laboratory experiments. In2004, girls represented close to 30% of the audience andobservations suggested they appeared to be comfortablein the environment as they asked equally as manyquestions as the male students. Male and femalepresenters were showcased and used gender neutrallanguage throughout their presentations, paying equalattention to questions from both sexes and usingexamples of both sexes in their material.

Faculty staff are clearly aware of the need for a morediverse student population. They use gender sensitive


language in their lectures and are supportive of womenstudents, who on the whole report having a positiveexperience. The valuable role that women academicsand senior women students play in raising the awarenessof Engineering as a career option for women is asignificant factor in influencing young women's careerchoice. Most important is the impact of gender rolemodels on the young women. This applies right from theinitial recruitment, through the years of study. The needfor a change in the engineering culture has beenpreviously identified (Jawitz & Case, 2002) and ourstudy supports this. Currently Engineering is perceivedas being a tough, academically challenging, sink-or-swim, male environment, in many ways a somewhatfrightening, if exciting, place for a young woman to be.This perception combined with the high mathematicsand science requirements will continue to limit thenumber of women who qualify and are adventurousenough to enter Engineering.

Gender equity developmental programmes for staff

The development of people in South Africa is a highprofile issue as highlighted by significant numbers ofpolicies and plans (e.g. the Skills Development Act. 97/1998). Added to this, as noted above, the South AfricanConstitution and other legislation provide a verypositive gender equity policy environment. Implemen-tation is encouraged by the State through statutoryreporting mechanisms such as the annual Equity Plan, 3-year rolling plans, Workplace Skills Plan and fundingallocations. At an institutional level, people develop-ment is widely articulated as a key priority of the caseuniversity. However, staff development as a realityremains largely an individual choice.

In this study we assessed the impact on women staffof initiatives aimed at achieving greater gender equityand explored attitudes of women staff towards genderequity training. These issues were explored by review-ing policy about staff development, analysing currentstatistics, interviewing policy makers and women staffmembers, and conducting observations.

Gender equity is frequently mentioned in institution-al policy documents including the Mission Statement ofthe University, the Values Statement, the Guides forAction and the Employment Equity policy. Thus astrong policy environment exists at the university.However, the documents are less clear about imple-mentation strategies. Accountability for gender equityremains diffuse within the institution and is variouslyallocated to the University Council, the Vice-Chancel-lor, Executive Directors and Heads of Department.

Consequences for non-compliance are negligible andgender equity training per se is unknown.

The academic gender profile portrays a distinctpyramid shape with women constituting 70% of assistantlecturers and 7% of full professors. A similar pattern isseen among administrative staff. This paucity of womenat higher levels is also reflected in the statistics of theirrepresentation in important leadership positions in theuniversity in 2003 as shown in the table below:

Staff category
% Women
VC and DVCs
20 Deans 22 Executive Directors 33 Council Members 29 Members of Senate 15 Full Professors 7 Institutional Forum⁎ 45 Fellows 5
⁎Statutory body formed to advise Council.Interviews conducted with certain institutional policy

makers revealed very little understanding of gendertransformation among staff on campus. As one said: “…we definitely don't have a gender framework in our mindsat [this institution] at the moment.” The staff develop-ment office admitted that training to address genderequity was clearly not a priority at present: “…we don'thave the sort of gender, the sort of women-specific sort ofinterventions or programmes…”However, a few pocketsof action in this regard are visible, notably within theGender Institute which holds occasional academicseminars, the Discrimination and Harassment Officewhich offers training workshops on discrimination andsexual harassment for students, and a recently initiatedprogramme aimed at developing youngwomen and blackresearchers. The only gender-focused staff developmentprogrammes available to women in the institution are theHERS-SA programmes. The feeling was expressed thatif gender or racially focused programmes were proposedby the human resources development office for Univer-sity staff, they would not be turned down:

“… but it's like, well you go off and do it if you wantto do it. I don't think there is a high profile”

HERS-SA developed from the successful HERSMid-America programme that has been operating in theUnited States for thirty years. HERS-SA was not aninitiative of the case institution, however the institutionwas supportive of its development and continues tosupport its activities. Essentially HERS-SA is a managednetwork dedicated to the advancement of women inhigher education in South Africa. Its activities emphasise


women-only professional development programmes,and include networking, lobbying and challenginginstitutional culture. It does not provide gender equitytraining per se but it does provide a safe space whereissues pertaining to gender equity can be raised. Thesample of academic and administrative women whowere selected for interview for this research was a subsetof the mid- to senior-level women who had been selectedby the institution to attendHERS-sponsored professionaldevelopment programmes in America.

The focus of the interviews was on examining theavailability and impact of gender equity training withinthe case institution, and perceptions and suggestionsabout gender equity training. As the results show, itrapidly emerged that there was confusion about themeaning of gender equity training, particularly as most ofthe women had little awareness of what it constituted:

… [F]unnily enough… I was about to ask you [theinterviewer] what is meant by gender equity train-ing…. I mean I am not certain I would know what toexpect.

It became clear that gender equity training as a stand-alone concept does not exist at the case institution.However, all the subjects referred to their HERSexperience. The HERS programmes were not viewed(rightly so) as gender equity training. The purpose ofHERS interventions is to develop women to assumeleadership positions thus programmes cover a range ofhigher education topics. Nevertheless all participantsacknowledged that their awareness of gender equityissues was significantly enhanced as a direct result oftheir attendance at HERS programmes. The localHERS-SA workshops and overseas programme areviewed very positively by the subjects. Responses totheir experience on the programme included commentssuch as “I found the HERS programme extremelyuseful…” and “I think I am more conscious now whenI am doing anything…” (referring to outcomes of theexperience). One subject notes:

What I did gain was a sense of empowerment and myown rights and responsibilities as a woman…and Iwasn't clued up on those things before.

One of the women academics who had said that shedid not “feel very comfortable with” HERS focusingspecifically on women, later admitted that:

One of the strongest things coming from the HERSprogramme is I did read up about women's leadership. Ihad never before read about women's leadership…it was

quite startling for me to see…that is exactly what I amdoing.

Despite an implicit recognition of need, there wasconsensus that any attempt to implement gender equitytraining would probably not be welcomed on campus:

I am not convinced that I need specific training ongender equity…it would be better in my mind to havegender training as a theme through other trainingprogrammes. Because a lot of people will not go ontraining if it is specifically on gender issues.

One of the most interesting differences in perceptionsabout gender status that emerged in this study is theview of how academic, professional and support staffregard the position of woman academics on campus.The two academics (both in the sciences) report littleconcern about gender equity in their field. Theyrespectively describe concerns as “a non-issue” and“not a big issue”, maintaining that they “have never hadany problems as a woman”. However the perception ofthe support staff is that women academics have a “muchtougher time” than the support staff. These perceptionsare formed by observations about the limited numbersof visibly senior women amongst the academic staffand the numbers of academic women who do nothave children. As one support staff respondent explains:

The model for success in academics is not genderneutral…it pretends to be gender free but it isactually a model that works well for a man who hasa wife who takes care of his needs…if you want to bean academic woman, don't get married and havekids because you cannot have both.

This view is supported by both academics inter-viewed, neither of whom had children: “…academia isa, it's a career that is difficult to fit in with otherpressures that are on women.”

Further perceptions of gender status on campusinclude the belief that women are still discriminatedagainst. One woman noted that all the men in onedepartment enjoyed repeated job grade increases whilethe one woman stayed at the same grade but was nevergiven any negative feedback about her performance.One female academic attempted to describe the moresubtle discrimination she felt:

You know it's hard to put a finger on any outrightsexism that ever happens, but I think that it does. Ithink there is, as I say that expectation that men do abetter job than women and so perhaps women arenot selected for committees to the same degree,


perhaps not promoted to the same degree. But it, thisis very wishy-washy. I don't have evidence.

Another recurrent theme in the interviews was thatissues of race supercede issues of gender:

I know that [the university] has a number of equityprogrammes, but I think it is more along the lines ofrace than gender. Gender is a bit of an afterthought.My sense is that the priority is, and I don't say it iswrong, but my sense is that the priority is moreabout race than gender.

The HERS programme was welcomed as providing aspace in which to raise issues not raised in other fora oncampus: “It was very helpful for one thing it openedissues that weren't being opened in any other area.” Anumber of subjects called for more and wider discussionof gender and all equity issues on campus. There was astrong feeling that men needed to be involved in thesediscussions. Overall the dominant feeling was thatwomen in the institution are not overtly targetednegatively, but neither are they actively promoted.

In addition to the interviews, gender interactionsamong staff and leadership were observed at Councilmeetings, a staff training session and preliminary meet-ings of selection committees responsible for appointingnew staff. In all cases, language used and documentationpresented was gender sensitive and the atmosphere wasgenerally relaxed. Women and men served equally aschairs and participated freely in discussion. It was notedthat in Council meetings, women participated in debatesproportionally more than the men present, taking intoaccount the numbers of each sex present.

From the interviews with staff and management, it isclear that gender equity is not entertained in anysustained way at the case institution. Women are notdiscriminated against nor actively supported. Policiesmention gender, language is gender-sensitive, numbersare counted, and women are welcomed at the institutionbut are then left to fend for themselves. They are notprevented from (or encouraged to) rise to leadershippositions and very few of them do. In a perceivedhierarchy of discrimination, gender falls well below thepredominant issue of race.

Discussion

Sparks (2003, p.123) reflecting on the first decade ofSouth Africa's democracy quotes T.J. Hultman's PhDthesis submitted to the University of North Carolina(1997) saying: “…the process of transformation is slow,messy, fraught with continual setbacks, and much more

complicated than anyone setting out to pursue it wantedto believe.” Transformation in the higher educationenvironment in South Africa involves a multifacetedcomplex of interdependent interactions. Issues of race,gender, class, ethnicity, efficiency, accountability, cul-ture, language, collegiality, academic integrity, episte-mology and social responsiveness all contribute towardsshaping an environment which is differentially per-ceived by different individuals and groups.

The gendered culture

Measuring transformation is not easy. Authors suchas van Wyk (2005) caution against universities focusingon numbers (‘excessive performativity’) and neglecting‘deep transformation’ involving change in culture. Ourqualitative look at the gender transformation in oneinstitution supports this need for a change in culture. Inthe case of the student study the sink-or-swim, toughculture of the Engineering Faculty was challenging foryoung female students who coped through determina-tion and support from peer-groups and family. This iscongruent with studies in another male-dominated areas,where family support and especially supportive fathersare frequently cited as success factors for business-women (The Economist Newspaper Limited, 2005).

The staff study revealed more of a laissez faireenvironment. Women were free to participate fully in alllevels of the institution, but were given little encour-agement. Programmes raising gender equity awarenessin the institution were not considered a priority. Kettle(1996) calls for a shift from policies and procedures toaction addressing cultures and attitudes. To foster thiswe believe that it is important for government andinstitutions to support awareness-raising and develop-mental initiatives such as the HERS-SA network.

Hierarchies of discrimination

An interesting discussion that arises from this re-search is the interplay between structures of discrimi-nation with respect to race and gender, and whether thiscan be mutually beneficial (as is possibly the case in thetargeted recruiting of both black and women studentsinto the Engineering Faculty) or competitive, resultingin the eclipsing of gender equity as a transformationissue in the staff. Mahlck (2001) argues that both menand women are trapped in gender relations but in dif-ferent power positions and that it is the power positionsthat are further complicated when race and class areintertwined with gender. The interviews clearly high-light a need to create safe spaces on campus which

1 Geomatics incorporates Land Survey and mapping usinggeographic information systems.


encourage the exploration of diversity issues, includinggender.

Gender equity interventions

A further discussion centres around the effectivenessof gender equity training. Does it work and is it worthinitiating in a hostile campus? Our research suggests thatwithin an institution that sees itself as holding liberalvalues and having progressive policies, gender equitytraining per se will not be accepted. However, twosuccessful interventions, the management course of-fered to Engineering students and the HERS-SAprofessional development opportunities have had pos-itive gender outcomes. Under the guise of managementand leadership training these programmes were able tocreate environments where gender issues could beraised. This approach has been successful at anindividual level in the United Kingdom where a genderinclusive paradigm for human resource development isadvocated (Brown, 2000). Betz and Fitzgerald believethat isolated interventions are not as successful as aholistic approach. They conclude that ‘training pro-grammes for women, organizational interventions, sexrole flexibility and strategies aimed at effectingfundamental social change are all necessary to improvewomen's vocational adjustment’ (Betz & Fitzgerald,1987, p.258). Also, as evidenced by the few examples inthis study, the powerful impact that women exert as rolemodels to other women and students cannot be over-emphasised. Such examples should be given a higherprofile in the university system and efforts of individualsto encourage gender equity should be rewarded. Moremechanisms and events are required that profile theachievements of leading women in higher education.

Implementation gap

The implementation gap between policy andpractice with respect to staff in senior positions isclearly an issue of concern which has been noted byother authors (eg Kettle, 1996; Morley, 1999). Whilstpolicy provides a supportive environment it is clear thatwithout effective reward and sanction mechanisms thepace of change is slow. The collection and reporting ofstatistics needs to be supported by active steering me-chanisms including funding, access to resources, fo-cused interventions, and leadership from positions ofpower. The responsibility of the individual managersshould also be stressed, and achieving equity should bea key performance requirement for all heads ofdepartments.

This research has provided some insights andsuggestions around gender issues in the transformingSouth African higher education environment. As pointedout by Fletcher (1998, p.181), “Transformation…willrequire far more than an exhortation to changeorganizational culture or re-engineer the work process.Rather it will require an acknowledgement of and anengagement with the complex, gendered forces under-lying current organizational norms.” This is a challengestill faced by South African institutions.

Endnote

Acknowledgements

The research team in South Africa would like tothank the Department for International Development inthe United Kingdom for the financial support for thisproject. Special thanks go to Professor Louise Morleyfor her guidance, advice and enthusiasm.

References

Betz, Nancy, & Fitzgerald, Louise (1987). The career psychology ofwomen. Florida: Academic Press, Inc.

Brown, Rosemary (2000). Personal and professional developmentprogrammes for women: Paradigm and paradox. The InternationalJournal for Academic Development, 5(1), 68−75.

Cooper, David, & Subotsky, George (2001). The skewed revolution,trends in South African higher education 1988–1998. Bellville:Education Policy Unit, University of the Western Cape.

Davies, Celia, & Holloway, Penny (1995). Troubling transformations:Gender regimens and organisational culture in the academy. InLouise Morley, & Val Walsh (Eds.), Feminist academics: Creativeagents for change London: Taylor and Francis.

Denscombe, Martyn (1998). The good research guide. Maidenhead,Berkshire: Open University Press.

Department of Education. (1997). Education white paper 3: Aprogramme for higher education transformation. Pretoria: GazetteNotice 1196 of 1997, 386 (18207).

Department of Education (2001). National plan for higher education.Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2003).Gender equality in education.Pretoria:Department of Education. Retrieved September 22. Retrieved fromhttp://education.pwv.gov.za/index.asp?src=dvie&xsrc=64

Economist Newspaper Limited. (2005). The conundrum of the glassceiling.The Economist Special report, 23 July 2005.

Fletcher, Joyce (1998). Relational practice: A feminist reconstructionof work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2), 163−186.

Hummelvoll, Jan Kare, & da Silva, Antonio Barbosa (1998). The useof the qualitative research interview to uncover the essence ofcommunity psychiatric nursing. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 16(4), 453−479.


Jawitz, Jeff, & Case, Jenny (2002). Women in engineering: Beyond thestats. Guest editorial. Part 1—Special issue on women inengineering. In Jeff Jawitz, & Jenny Case (Eds.), InternationalJournal of Engineering Education, Vol. 18 (4). ( pp. 390−391).

Jarwitz, Jeff, & Case, Jenny (1998). Exploring the reasons SouthAfrican students give for studying engineering. InternationalJournal of Engineering Education, 14(4), 235−240.

Jawitz, Jeff, Case, Jenny, & Tshabalala, Matseliso (2000). Why notengineering? The process of career choice amongst South Africanfemale students. International Journal of Engineering Education,16(6), 470−475.

Kettle, Jane (1996). Good practices, bad attitudes: An examination ofthe factors inf luencing women's academic careers. In LouiseMorley, & Val Walsh (Eds.), Breaking boundaries: Women inhigher education London: Taylor and Francis.

Mahlck, Paula (2001). Mapping gender differences in scientif ic careersand bibliometric space. Science, Technology and Human Values,26(2), 167−190.

Maykut, Pamela, &Morehouse, Richard (1994). Beginning qualitativeresearch: A philosophic and practical guide. London: The FalmerPress.

Morley, Louise (1999).Organising feminisms. The micropolitics of theacademy. Houndmills: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Morley, Louise, &Walsh, Val (1996). Breaking boundaries: Women inhigher education. London: Taylor and Francis.

South Africa (1996). The Constitution, no. 108 of 1996. Pretoria:Government Printer.

South Africa (1997). The Higher Education Act, no. 101 of 1997.Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa (1998). The Employment Equity Act, no. 55 of 1998.Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa (1998). The Skills Development Act, no. 97 of 1998.Pretoria: Government Printer.

Sparks, Allister (2003). Beyond the miracle. Inside the new SouthAfrica. Jeppestown: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

van Wyk, Berte (2005). Performativity in higher education transfor-mation in South Africa. South African Journal of HigherEducation, 19(1), 5−19.

Documents

Gender and the transformation agenda in South African higher education