Insight Into the Organizational Culture and Challenges Faced by Women STEM Leaders in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to their men counterparts, women do not rapidly climb up the leadership ladder due to a glass ceiling obstacle. This study aims to explore the inhibiting factors demotivating Africa women's leadership pursuit in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). A qualitative approach was adopted using online open-ended questions to seek narratives from African women leaders on their roles and experiences of a STEM career. Data were collected using a non-probability, purposive sample of African women leaders in STEM in African research institutes and universities. Forty-two women in leadership positions in 12 African countries participated in the study, which was content analyzed, seeking patterns and themes to explore the narratives. A common thread exists in the tone and life experiences of the African women leaders in STEM. Scholarship, supportive organizational structure, commitment, hard work, and tenacity were all experienced as enablers of the career path process and their attained positions. The education level contributed to a strong leadership position. Women experience less acceptance than males in STEM leadership as the organizational culture still devalues women in leadership positions in several African countries. The study's contribution, the limitations, recommendations, and managerial implications are discussed, with suggestions for further research are made.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".