Leadership gender disparity in the fifty highest ranking North American universities: Thematic analysis under a theoretical lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite changes in the discourse around gender distributions within academic leadership, women continue to be under-represented in academia. Our study aims to identify the extent of gender disparity in the academic leadership in the top 50 North American universities and to critically analyse the contributing factors through a comprehensive theoretical framework. METHODS: We adopted the theoretical framework of leadership continuum model. A retrospective analysis of the gender of the leadership ranks was conducted between December 2018 and March 2019 for the top 50 universities in North America (2019 Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking system). The leadership hierarchy was classified into six tiers. RESULTS: A total of 5806 faculty members from 45 US and five Canadian universities were included. Women were overall less likely to be in a senior leadership role than men (48.7% vs 51.3%; p value=0.05). Women accounted for fewer positions than men for resident/chancellor (23.8% vs 76.2%; p value<0.001), vice-president/vice-chancellor (36.3% vs 63.7%; p value<0.001), vice provost (42.7% vs 57.3%; p value=0.06), dean (38.5% vs 61.5%; p value<0.001) and associate dean (48.2% vs 51.8%; p-value=0.05). Women however were in a greater proportion in the assistant dean positions (63.8% vs 36.2%; p value<0.001). CONCLUSION: Leadership gender imbalance is trans-organisational and transnational within the top 50 universities of North America and progressively widens towards the top leadership pyramid. This correlates with the lack of women leadership progress and sustainability in later cycles of the leadership continuum model (beyond assistant dean).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".