Review of research for two decades for women leadership in higher education around the world and in Vietnam: a comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to find the studies conducted on women leadership in higher education (WLHE) in the past 20 years to understand as to how the trend has changed over the past two decades around the world and particularly in Vietnam for women leaders in higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach This paper used a systematic review of 93 articles published in the past 20 years in WLHE. The articles were classified based on the country of research and the research methods used. Findings The study concluded that most of the research in WLHE had been done in the USA and Canada, with a dearth of literature on WLHE in Asia, and only six studies so far have been done in Vietnam, with only two studies being done before 2017. Vietnam is gaining importance in research in WLHE may be because of the increased female labour participation rate and growth in the gross domestic product. Practical implications This study provided some recommendations at the societal, institutional and individual levels, which can help in women empowerment and help women take up the leadership roles. Originality/value Although a variety of reviews have been conducted focusing on different areas in higher education, there is a small number of literature review studies in the field of women leaders in higher education, especially in Vietnam and Asia. Hence, the current study will add this missing part to the growing body of literature in WLHE.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".