Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout most of its history, higher education has been the exclusive domain of men. Women and other historically underrepresented groups, such as persons with disabilities, racialized people, and gender and sexual minorities, have made inroads into academia only in the last century. Still, higher education structures—built around affluent, able-bodied, heterosexual cisgender men—continue to create barriers for participants who do not fall within those narrow identity dimensions. Even though women and gender-diverse individuals have made immense progress in carving out their place in the academy—women constitute the majority of college students in many countries—challenges remain in reaching parity. Women’s concentration in lower faculty and management positions and overrepresentation in fields with limited financial rewards, such as arts and humanities—as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields continue to be chilly to women—is quite troubling. Trans individuals and people with nonbinary gender identities also face massive obstacles to participation and advancement in academia. Obstacles to participation are further compounded for people with intersectional marginalized identities. Top leadership at universities remains dominated by mostly cisgender male, white, and affluent individuals, while inclusion of the full spectrum of gender identities in data collection has only begun recently and remains scarce and uneven across institutions. The sole focus on cisgender women when considering gender in higher education has (rightly) become obsolete. However, since cisgender women outnumber men in most areas of higher education, arguments are made that systemic barriers for women are no longer an issue in higher education. A majority of contemporary feminist scholars push back on this argument while continuing to expand the notion of gender itself to be more inclusive and paying particular attention to intersectionalities of gender identities. Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in some Western universities have contributed to making the academy more democratic and inclusive of historically marginalized identities, however a critical examination of gender in higher education indicates that much remains to be done. Since the author received her doctorate in the United States and is employed at a university in Canada, this bibliographic collection is skewed in favor of resources originating from and focusing on gender and higher education in the United States; however, the author has taken care to include influential cross-national works available in the English language. For the purpose of this collection, the term “critical” is firmly grounded in critical race theory and critical feminist perspectives (again with origins in primarily North American scholarship) that posit that higher education structures are inherently racist and gendered, to underscore higher education’s contested relationship with gender and resistance to gender equality. Hence, works included in this bibliography provide a critical examination of the historical and current challenges for an in-depth understanding of the origins and status of gender disparity in higher education.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".