View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Comprehensive Analysis of Gender Dynamics in Organizations: Integrating Social, Structural and Individual Dimensions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Comprehensive Analysis of Gender Dynamics in Organizations: Integrating Social, Structural and Individual Dimensions
Language: English
Authors: M. Hundera (ORCID 0000-0002-3271-7626), H. L. M. Mudde
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(4).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Gender Differences, Gender Bias, Foreign Countries, Vocational Education, Individual Characteristics, Institutional Characteristics, Social Influences, Environmental Influences, Females, Mentors, Barriers
Geographic Terms: Ethiopia
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12722
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: This study delves into gender dynamics in 12 Technical Vocational and Education Training (TVET) organizations in Ethiopia, using qualitative methods. We conducted 96 face-to-face interviews and triangulated the data through observations, employee records and document reviews. Thematic analysis revealed that gender inequality in organizations persists due to the interplay of social, structural and individual factors. Emphasizing individual or societal aspects hinders transformative efforts. A holistic approach considering these dimensions is crucial for understanding and addressing gender inequality. Identifying and dismantling structural barriers is essential for gender transformation. Focusing solely on individual-level issues, like female-only mentoring, is insufficient for achieving gender equality. A combination of strategies is needed to tackle structural problems and societal assumptions, fostering organizational transformation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450384
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFA44kWWEmde3JD1SsleirOAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDK_6k5jdKtW7ZxHJkwIBEICBmwXfkFPdZ6cEsUcEwl3kE6VeR4zs4lz5Vs1dOsqUBysn-NgtL9H4FsY_BJp1Zd8Tx6rtcOMrT-OwbbCe2CQXiZvj50067uqB2T4GK4NTwz05IDNqqdyv7SxmKGOTHzLyspphB6sasLGJNYY2IrWWx6SW6lp_v2RWKUoZJJUDP10rql1d_rOa9Bfqtod4VBABP3KWtsGdHtOnL2Iv
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181057326;eje01dec.24;2024Nov26.04:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181057326-1">A comprehensive analysis of gender dynamics in organizations: Integrating social, structural and individual dimensions </title> <p>This study delves into gender dynamics in 12 Technical Vocational and Education Training (TVET) organizations in Ethiopia, using qualitative methods. We conducted 96 face‐to‐face interviews and triangulated the data through observations, employee records and document reviews. Thematic analysis revealed that gender inequality in organizations persists due to the interplay of social, structural and individual factors. Emphasizing individual or societal aspects hinders transformative efforts. A holistic approach considering these dimensions is crucial for understanding and addressing gender inequality. Identifying and dismantling structural barriers is essential for gender transformation. Focusing solely on individual‐level issues, like female‐only mentoring, is insufficient for achieving gender equality. A combination of strategies is needed to tackle structural problems and societal assumptions, fostering organizational transformation.</p> <p>Keywords: Ethiopia; gender inequality; organization; structure; technical and vocational education training</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Gender refers to the societal constructs governing the roles, responsibilities and behaviours attributed to individuals as men/boys and women/girls (O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]). As these gender dynamics significantly influence personalities and social interactions, the educational system emerges as a powerful influencer in shaping society and individual traits. Therefore, in pursuing a more gender‐equitable society, establishing gender parity within the education sector becomes indispensable. This imperative underscore a particular emphasis on TVET organizations, a focus justified by the substantial attention garnered from governmental bodies and donor agencies. This attention is primarily driven by TVET's potential to cultivate skills and enhance the employability of youth. In line with the observations made by the African Development Bank, the TVET organizations are positioned as a viable remedy for the prevalent shortages and skill mismatches, bridging the gap between training and labour market demands across Africa. These organizations' elevation is propelled by their envisaged capacity to foster heightened employment rates and economic development, empower the youth and facilitate attaining SDG objectives and the aspirations outlined in Agenda 2063 for Africa (Kraemer‐Mbula, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, persistent gender inequality in TVET organizations constrains their contribution to achieving SDGs in Africa (Bray‐Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]). In Ethiopia, despite the reductions in the gender enrollment gap, the inadequate representation of women at advanced academic tiers within TVET organizations remains a concern. Effectively rectifying this gender inequality necessitates pinpointing its sources (Wynn, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref4">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Literature indicates that sources of gender inequality in organizations encompass individual, structural or societal factors (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; González Menéndez & González, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]; Jeanes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>]). However, most literature examines these sources of gender inequality in organizations separately, not as integrated. Organizations are not neutral entities but sites where gender norms are reinforced, produced and perpetuated through interconnected factors (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]). Gender inequality in organizations is systemic; therefore, processes contributing to it are pervasive, simultaneous, mutually constitutive and operate at multiple levels (Van den Brink & Stobbe, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]). Focusing solely on isolated sources of gender inequality limits an organization's potential for achieving gender equality (Wynn, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref10">51</reflink>]). Thus, our study investigates the interplay of societal, structural and individual factors in producing gender inequality within Ethiopian TVET organizations. Accordingly, the primary research question of this paper is: How do social, structural and individual factors collectively influence gender inequality within TVET organizations in Ethiopia?</p> <p>The remainder of the paper follows this structure: Section two outlines the theoretical framework, encompassing discussions on gender construction, power relations, masculinity, the production and reproduction of gender within organizations, and exploring sources contributing to gender inequality. Moving to section three, we elaborate on the study's methodology. Section four presents the study's findings, followed by an in‐depth discussion and the drawing of implications from the study's results.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-3">THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057326-4">Gender construction, power relations and masculinity</hd> <p>The intricate interplay between the construction of gender, gender power relations and masculinity significantly shapes societal perceptions and the organization of gender roles and behaviours. Gender, as elaborated by Butler ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]), is far more than the mere biological distinctions between males and females. Instead, it encompasses the multifaceted expectations, behaviours, roles and attributes attributed to being male or female within a specific cultural context (Lorber & Farrell, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]). This construct is not an inherent trait but a learned concept reinforced through socialization, cultural norms and institutional structures (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]). Diverse societies construct gender differently, leading to cultural discrepancies in gender expectations and roles (Street & Dardis, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref14">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Manifesting in unequal power distribution, resource allocation and opportunities between men and women, gender power relations are a central facet of societal dynamics (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]; Davis & Duncan, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]; Street & Dardis, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]). These power differentials stem from entrenched social, economic and political systems favouring one gender. Historically, patriarchal societies prioritizing male authority and control have perpetuated the subordination of women (Davis & Duncan, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]). The implications of gender power relations encompass access to education, employment, political representation and decision‐making processes (McGinn & Oh, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref19">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The construction of gender intricately shapes the roles and expectations assigned to individuals based on their perceived gender identity (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]), thereby influencing the distribution of power in society. Particularly within patriarchal contexts, traditional notions of masculinity often align with dominance and power, reinforcing gender power relations that disadvantage women and other gender minorities. In turn, these power dynamics reciprocally shape the construction of gender and masculinity. As one gender is afforded greater power and privileges, the associated norms and expectations gain prominence, further entrenching traditional masculinity and sidelining alternative expressions of gender and masculinity (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref21">17</reflink>]; Connell & Messerschmidt, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>A central theoretical debate surrounding the construction of gender and gender power relations revolves around the origin of gender differences and roles. Essentialism argues for innate and unchanging gender differences, while social constructionism contends that gender is a product of historical contexts, societal norms and expectations (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]). Another lens, intersectionality, accentuates the interconnectedness of gender with other social categories like race, class, sexuality and ability (Belkhir & Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]), underscoring how these identities shape experiences and power dynamics. Recognizing the intersectionality of gender is pivotal for comprehensively analysing gender power relations.</p> <p>The lens of "feminist institutionalism" offers a penetrating analysis through the framework of new institutionalism (Kenny, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>], p. 98), underscoring the significance of integrating gender into institutional research. This perspective emphasizes that gender relations encompass personal experiences and institutionalized social structures nested within specific institutions (Paantjens, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]). These dynamics, in turn, influence and confine interpersonal interactions within these institutions. Although gender dynamics within institutions are fluid and context‐dependent, institutions often exhibit a perceptible masculine bias that permeates their structures, practices and procedures (Mackay, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>]). Viewing institutions through a gendered lens enhances the understanding of gender norms within these contexts, unravelling the intricate interactions between institutions, individuals, power dynamics and the gendered nature of their interactions (Kenny, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following the feminist institutional perspective theoretical framework (O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref29">38</reflink>]), we examine how organizations' structures, practices and social systems perpetuate gender inequality. We examine factors beyond individual behaviours and explicitly on organizational factors that contribute to and perpetuate gender inequality.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-5">Gender and organization</hd> <p>Gender influences organizational processes, a fact that remains inaccessible without a thorough gender analysis (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>], p. 146). Embracing a social constructionist standpoint, individuals, regardless of gender, actively shape and reshape gender dynamics within their social spheres, either perpetuating or challenging prevailing inequalities, power hierarchies and submissive norms (Jeanes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]). Thus, gender is not a static attribute but a dynamic outcome of actions and interactions.</p> <p>Galea and Chappell ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]) asserts that hegemonic masculinities embed themselves in organizational structures, reinforcing gender‐based exclusion and upholding segregation patterns. This results in the perpetuation of gender imbalances. The concept of a gendered organization underscores that gender is not confined to individuals but rather intricately interwoven throughout organizational policies, practices and behaviours. This intrinsic gendering of organizations reveals that they have been historically shaped, crafted and steered by male perspectives, thereby reflecting their vested interests.</p> <p>The inconspicuous nature of male dominance and the reinforcement of this dominance through normative discourses further harden the continuation of gender disparities and male‐centric power dynamics within organizational realms (Lewis & Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-6">Gender inequalities in organizations</hd> <p>Scholars studying career development, human capital and preferences examine the individual factors contributing to gender inequality within organizations. A prominent manifestation of this inequality is the limited representation of women in leadership roles, often attributed to attitudinal factors. Women may need to display more ambition and career‐focused behaviour than men (Chevalier, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]). Women often must accumulate skills, knowledge, experience and robust networks to access high‐level career opportunities. Men are sometimes seen as possessing inherent human capital that directly benefits organizational productivity (Baron & Bielby, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]). As a result, seemingly gender‐neutral administrative policies can unintentionally favour men's recruitment and advancement, perpetuating gender imbalances.</p> <p>However, it is vital to recognize that the individual‐related factors perspective only partially understands gender inequality within organizations. While individual‐level explanations illuminate how women's attitudes and actions affect disparities, they do not capture the entire picture. Gender inequality also arises from broader systemic factors, including biased decision‐making processes. Research has revealed that qualified and motivated women may still encounter fewer career opportunities due to personal gender biases among decision‐makers (González Menéndez & González, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]). These biases can manifest in recruitment, role assignments, access to training, pay disparities, performance evaluations, promotions and even terminations.</p> <p>Structural factors offer a comprehensive explanation for systemic gender inequalities, explaining why women encounter limited opportunities, reduced access to resources and decreased motivation to pursue positions of power (Orser & Leck, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref37">39</reflink>]). The "glass ceiling" concept symbolizes the subtle but formidable barriers obstructing women's career progress, hindering their hiring, promotions and rise to top leadership, regardless of qualifications or performance (Davis & Maldonado, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>], p. 250). While women may reach middle‐tier roles, entrenched structural barriers often prevent them from attaining top‐tier positions fueled by covert discrimination and organizational exclusivity.</p> <p>The challenge persists as women's advancement towards better career prospects and mid‐level roles is hindered by the "sticky floor" phenomenon, anchoring them in entry‐level positions conforming to traditional gender roles. This perpetuates their confinement to underpaid roles with limited growth (Mandel & Semyonov, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref39">33</reflink>]). The "leaky pipeline" metaphor encapsulates how women leave careers due to barriers impeding upward mobility despite their qualifications (Rauhaus & Carr, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref40">42</reflink>], p. 350). One key factor in the "leaky pipeline" is the lack of gender‐equitable progression opportunities across all organizational levels. Studies show that mid‐level leadership role segregation significantly limits women's access to top ranks. Unlike men, who often focus on strategic managerial roles, women often take on supportive administrative positions with fewer pathways to top leadership (Rauhaus & Carr, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]). Furthermore, women frequently assume leadership during organizational crises, potentially affecting their performance (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref42">43</reflink>]). Women face heightened scrutiny even after reaching top leadership positions (Bendl & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Societal explanations for gender inequality consider the impact of individuals and organizations within the broader social, political and economic landscape. Gender's social construct influences choices, opportunities, aspirations and assumptions about men and women in organizations. Women often face barriers to career advancement due to perceptions of prioritizing family commitments (Eagly & Carli, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]). Institutional rules reinforce traditional gender roles, limiting women's mobility and persisting in organizational hierarchies and beliefs. Bendl and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]) likened organizations to a "firewall," highlighting how they comprise various elements like practices, values, norms and gender assumptions that collectively shape and sustain gender dynamics. Gender inequality within organizations can be attributed to a complex interplay of individual, structural and social factors. These facets, while distinct, often overlap and interact in intricate ways. Take, for example, the scenario where individual decision‐makers within organizations leverage gendered expectations to reinforce gender inequality. Here, it is evident that all three factors—personal, social and structural—are interwoven. Notably, the societal‐level explanation holds significance and is inherently intertwined with the other dimensions. Thus, these factors cannot be viewed in isolation; they collectively form a dynamic framework. This framework operates within the context of organizational structures and institutions while being profoundly shaped by cultural components like societal norms and expectations. The confluence of these factors results in a synergistic and intricate web of influences on individuals. This dynamic interplay shapes behaviours and ultimately leads to various outcomes (Eagly & Carli, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref46">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-7">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057326-8">Research design</hd> <p>The research design employed for this study is qualitative and grounded in a constructivist framework. Our approach aims to comprehensively understand (Tomaszewski et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]) the intricate interplay among social, structural and individual factors contributing to gender inequality within TVET organizations in Ethiopia. We conducted in‐depth individual interviews and Focus Groups Discussions (FGDs). In each TVET organization, we conducted one to two FGDs with separate groups of trainers and students. The study emphasizes delving into firsthand experiences and perspectives to explain the multifaceted nature of gender inequality within this specific context. Rooted in a constructivist research approach, we highlight the interactive and collaborative process of co‐creating a shared understanding between the researcher and study participants. Our primary focus is to explore how gender inequalities manifest and persist through the interactions of various factors within organizational contexts (Kalev & Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref48">27</reflink>]). Rather than framing questions about whether differences are attributed to biological sex or social gender, our inquiry seeks to understand how social, structural and individual factors are interconnected and contribute to or reinforce gender inequality.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-9">Sources of data</hd> <p>We researched in 12 TVET organizations in four Ethiopian Regional States (Oromia, Amhara, SNNPR,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>] and Tigray) and Addis Ababa city administration, see Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE The TVET organizations studied, their location and number of participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">TVET organization</th><th align="left">Location</th><th align="left">Participants</th></tr><tr><th align="left">F</th><th align="left">M</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Kombolcha Agricultural TVET (ATVET) college</td><td align="left">Oromia region, Kombolcha</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bako ATVET College</td><td align="left">Oromia Region, West Showa Zone</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bishoftu polytechnic college</td><td align="left">Oromia Region, Bishoftu</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Alage ATVET</td><td align="left">Oromia Region, Alage</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Holeta Satellite Campus</td><td align="left">Oromia Region, Holeta</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Oromia Regional State TVET Bureau</td><td align="left">Addis Ababa</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Federal TVET Institute</td><td align="left">Addis Ababa</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Amhara Regional State TVET Bureau</td><td align="left">Amhara Regional State, Bahir Dar</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Merawi TVET College</td><td align="left">Amhara Region, Merawi</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Woreta ATVET College</td><td align="left">Amhara Region, Woreta</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wolaita Sodo ATVET College</td><td align="left">Southern Region, Sodo</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wukro satellite campus, Federal TVET Institute</td><td align="left">Tigray Region, Wukro</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total F/M</td><td align="left">33</td><td align="left">63</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grand total</td><td align="left">96</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Source</emph>: Authors.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-10">Sampling and data collection</hd> <p>We used purposive sampling to select research participants. Criteria for the selection per organization included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Leadership position, trainer/faculty and students;</item> <p></p> <item> Female trainer/faculty;</item> <p></p> <item> The gender‐focal person;</item> <p></p> <item> Stakeholders from the industry and potential employers of the graduates.</item> </ulist> <p>We collected data from 96 individuals (33 women), and 13 of them were in leadership roles, such as deans, directors and department heads. The information was gathered through individual interviews and FGDs. Table 2 provides further details about the research participants and codes.</p> <p>2 TABLE Description of the research participants and codes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">No.</th><th align="left">Partcipants</th><th align="left">Gender</th><th align="left">Position</th><th align="left">Years in the organization</th><th align="left">Data collection</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">P1</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">P2</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">P3</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">L1</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">L2</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">P4</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">P5</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">P6</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">P7</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">P8</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">GF</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">P9</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">P10</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">P11</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">P12</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">GF</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">L3</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="left">L4</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">P13</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="left">P14</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="left">P15</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">P16</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">P17</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22</td><td align="left">P18</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">23</td><td align="left">P19</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">L5</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25</td><td align="left">P20</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">P21</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">27</td><td align="left">P22</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">28</td><td align="left">P23</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">29</td><td align="left">P24</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">30</td><td align="left">P25</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">P26</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">32</td><td align="left">L6</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">33</td><td align="left">P27</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">34</td><td align="left">P28</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">35</td><td align="left">P29</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">P30</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">37</td><td align="left">L8</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">38</td><td align="left">P31</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">39</td><td align="left">P32</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">40</td><td align="left">P33</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">41</td><td align="left">P34</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">42</td><td align="left">P35</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">43</td><td align="left">P36</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">44</td><td align="left">L9</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">P37</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">GF</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">46</td><td align="left">P38</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">47</td><td align="left">P39</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">48</td><td align="left">P40</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">49</td><td align="left">P41</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">50</td><td align="left">P42</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">51</td><td align="left">P43</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">52</td><td align="left">P44</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">GF</td><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">53</td><td align="left">P45</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">54</td><td align="left">L10</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">55</td><td align="left">P46</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">56</td><td align="left">P47</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">57</td><td align="left">P48</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">58</td><td align="left">P49</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">59</td><td align="left">P50</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">60</td><td align="left">P51</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">61</td><td align="left">P52</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">62</td><td align="left">P53</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">GF</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">63</td><td align="left">L11</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">64</td><td align="left">P54</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">65</td><td align="left">P55</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">66</td><td align="left">P56</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">67</td><td align="left">P57</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">68</td><td align="left">P58</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">69</td><td align="left">P59</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">E</td><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">70</td><td align="left">P60</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">71</td><td align="left">P61</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">72</td><td align="left">P62</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">73</td><td align="left">P63</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">74</td><td align="left">P64</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">75</td><td align="left">P65</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">76</td><td align="left">P66</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">77</td><td align="left">P67</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">78</td><td align="left">P68</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">79</td><td align="left">P69</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">80</td><td align="left">P70</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">81</td><td align="left">L12</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">82</td><td align="left">P71</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">83</td><td align="left">P72</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">84</td><td align="left">P73</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">85</td><td align="left">P74</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">86</td><td align="left">P75</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">87</td><td align="left">P76</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">88</td><td align="left">P77</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">89</td><td align="left">L13</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">L</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">90</td><td align="left">P78</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">91</td><td align="left">P79</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">92</td><td align="left">P80</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">FGDs&Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">93</td><td align="left">P81</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">FGDs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">94</td><td align="left">P82</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">95</td><td align="left">P83</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">96</td><td align="left">P84</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">T</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">Inter.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Abbreviations: F, female; GF, gender‐focal person; L, leader; M, male; P, non leader participant; S, student; T, trainer.</item> <item>3 <emph>Source</emph>: Authors.</item> </ulist> <p>In addition, we collected secondary data such as the profile of employees and other relevant institutional documents such as annual plans and reports. Our data collection occurred over eight months between October 2019 and November 2021. It included multiple sources, which helped triangulate our data (Bellido‐García et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]). Besides individual interviews, we reviewed documents and made observations of the organizational infrastructure's women's friendliness and people's interactions. We recorded the interviews then transcribed in verbatim after which we did manual coding.</p> <p>For the data collection and analysis, we used the 4R method, which is developed by "Svenska Kommunforbundet" in Sweden in 1996 to implement gender mainstreaming in Swedish municipalities. It is used as a common strategy when it comes to gender equality, where one step is to look at how the resources are allocated between men and women and the next step is to make a change if inequality has been found. R4 represents the following four R's:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> R1 (Representation): this is about mapping gender‐based representations at different levels of an organization;</item> <p></p> <item> R2 (Resources): this is about assessing access to material and financial resources between men and women within the organization;</item> <p></p> <item> R3 (Reality): this is about founding out the reasons for gender gaps in representation and access to resources with questions like "Why are there only a few women in leadership positions?," "Why have women and men had different opportunities to participate in meetings?";</item> <p></p> <item> R4 (Responses): based on the information on the gender gaps and underlying reasons from the first three Rs, R4 provides a guide for possible interventions towards gender equality. Questions under R4 include: "How do we respond to the issues identified?"</item> </ulist> <p>Using the first two R's, we identified gender inequality in representation and resource allocation. Then using R3, we identified individual, structural and societal reasons for gender inequality in the selected TVET organizations. Following the R4 framework, our interview's broad scope included the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Reflection on the status of men and women at different levels; leadership, teaching‐learning, academic performance and personal development programs;</item> <p></p> <item> Key gender inequality issues in the TVET organizations;</item> <p></p> <item> Reasons/sources for gender inequality.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181057326-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>We adhered to the thematic analysis approach by Braun and Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]). Our data analysis process was comprehensive, involving a dynamic interplay between the collected data and existing literature. Initially, we engaged in iterative readings of the transcripts to establish a profound familiarity with the data, honing in on discernible patterns of significance. Subsequently, our coding scheme was cultivated by synthesizing insights from participant responses, pertinent literature and emerging conceptual frameworks. Throughout the coding phase, we delved into describing and interpreting individual cases, methodically arranging and classifying them into overarching concepts and themes while anchoring our analysis in relevant theoretical foundations. Ultimately, our efforts culminated in creating a comprehensive report detailing our findings and interpretations.</p> <p>While qualitative research primarily focuses on non‐numerical data, it is vital to acknowledge that researchers often implicitly identify and quantify patterns in their observations (Sandelowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref52">44</reflink>]). Given our substantial sample size of 96, incorporating quantitative information in percentages during data analysis and presentation provides several advantages. Using percentages enhances the clarity of our data patterns, allowing us to illustrate the prevalence and distribution of specific themes more effectively. This numerical representation aids in conveying the scope and significance of our findings, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of the analytical process (Neale et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]). Moreover, in our analytical framework, R1 focuses on representation, necessitating numerical presentation to identify and highlight gaps in representation accurately to identify and highlight gaps in representation accurately. This quantitative approach supports a more robust and precise analysis, complementing our qualitative insights.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-12">Ethical considerations</hd> <p>Before starting each interview and FGDs, we gave participants an overview of the study's goals and obtained their consent to participate. During the FGDs, we ensured the group agreed to maintain confidentiality and anonymity to protect everyone's privacy. Participants were informed that their involvement was voluntary and that they could withdraw anytime. We also obtained consent to record the interviews, assuring participants that their identities would remain confidential and that only researchers would have access to the recorded data, which would be strictly used for research purposes (Goodwin et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-13">FINDINGS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057326-14">Gender inequality in representation</hd> <p>As depicted in Table 3, there is a significant underrepresentation of female teaching staff across the 12 TVET organizations, with women comprising only 11.5% of the overall teaching staff.</p> <p>3 TABLE Gender inequality in representation.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">M (%)</th><th align="left">F (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Teaching staff</td><td align="char" char=".">88.5</td><td align="char" char=".">11.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leadership positions</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Publication authors</td><td align="char" char=".">98.5</td><td align="char" char=".">1.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Source</emph>: Authors.</p> <p>A discernible gender‐based asymmetry manifests in research, technology dissemination and community outreach efforts. The involvement of female faculty in these spheres lags behind their male counterparts, indicating systemic barriers that inhibit their robust participation. Particularly noticeable is the need for more female involvement in spearheading successful grant applications for community initiatives, a trend bordering on nonexistence. Analysing the annual reports of the TVET organizations underscores the gender imbalance further, revealing a dismally low representation of women in presenting winning project proposals and authoring publications, with their presence barely exceeding 2%.</p> <p>A significant majority (60%) of the participants contend that the restricted engagement of women in research and outreach activities is a pivotal factor contributing to their underrepresentation in elevated academic ranks and leadership roles. To illustrate, P44 asserts, "...within our institution, men encounter more favourable prospects than women when it comes to participating in outreach activities and pursuing publications. Consequently, men frequently find themselves in positions conducive to promotions to higher academic ranks and leadership roles." This discrepancy is also exemplified by the absence of female deans, vice deans or directors within TVET organizations. In contrast, the limited number of women holding positions as directors in support wings and regional bureaus further underscores this issue, accounting for only 10% of all leadership positions.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-15">Gender in access to resources</hd> <p>Both male and female participants across various TEVT organizations have raised concerns about the unequal distribution of career development opportunities, particularly regarding access to short‐term training programs. These opportunities seem broadly accessible to individuals in leadership roles, which unfortunately tend to be occupied predominantly by men. This stark disparity carries significant gender‐related implications. While female staff members are indeed involved in organizational activities, their participation often gravitates towards committees associated with stereotypically "feminine" attributes, such as the social affairs committee. What remains concerning is the limited engagement of women in crucial aspects of organizational functioning, including planning, budgeting and pivotal decision‐making processes like recruitment and promotions. This absence of female representation in these key spheres results in their perspectives, needs and interests being marginalized when allocating resources and opportunities. For example, P70 captured the sentiment aptly by stating, "...if you are not a leader, your access to information and opportunities is significantly restricted." There is a noticeable lack of women's participation in short‐term training initiatives. P76's experience exemplifies this discrepancy: "Despite my decade‐long tenure at the college, I have never had the opportunity to participate in any short‐term training program."</p> <p>There is a prevailing concern among the participants, irrespective of gender, within TVET organizations regarding the uneven accessibility of career development prospects, with leadership positions being a primary gateway to such opportunities. Again, the underrepresentation of women in decision‐making severely limits their influence on organizational matters, reinforcing the unequal allocation of resources and opportunities. This becomes apparent through the experiences of female participants who feel excluded from crucial training opportunities despite their commitment and longevity within their respective institutions.</p> <p>Disparities in Internet and ICT access are evident within TVET organizations, with notable gender differences. For example, we observed that internet access in most of the cases is restricted to the offices of select senior staff and leaders, who are predominantly male. Only a few public areas offer internet accessibility for students and other staff members. Some male participants mentioned utilizing these public Wi‐Fi spaces for personal development. In contrast, most female staff members highlighted the discomfort and harassment they face, indicative of existing gender biases. For instance, P44 expressed, "I aspire to pursue overseas learning through scholarships, but the campus's internet connections pose a challenge. Only a handful of offices have reliable connections, and the library, the alternative space, is not conducive for women; some men often engage in uncomfortable conversations there. For example, a man showed my friend an offensive video from the internet in the library, creating an embarrassing moment for her." In addition, in our assessment of organizational practices in most TVETs, we observed that ICT facilities, especially laptops, are allocated primarily to leaders and, in some cases, senior staff. However, due to the limited representation of female staff in these roles, they often lack access to organizational laptops. In such instances, staff members must personally purchase laptops, which is typically financially burdensome. The scarcity of these essential ICT tools contributes to gender bias in distribution, further perpetuating gender inequality in personal development and academic advancement within these organizations. For instance, P61 articulated, "...I am enrolled in a summer program, and self‐study is crucial to completing the program on time. However, I lack a laptop for use at home during the night. My only device is a malfunctioning desktop in my office. How can we progress when only a privileged few can access laptops?"</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-16">Sources of gender inequality in TVET organizations</hd> <p>Table 4 and the rest of this section present individual, structural and societal sources of gender inequality in 12 the TVET organizations.</p> <p>4 TABLE Main findings of sources of gender inequality in TVET organizations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Sources of gender inequality</th><th align="left">Most important facts (number of participants)</th><th align="left">Exemplary quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Individual dimensions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Qualification</td><td align="left">Approximately 77% (75/96) indicated that most female staff lack leadership qualifications</td><td align="left">"...the dean position requires MA/Msc degree or BA with several many years of experiences. Most of our female staff don't meet these qualifications." (L3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Individuals' choices and behaviour</td><td align="left">Approximately 60% (58/96) cited self‐confidence and interest constraints for women in top leadership</td><td align="left">"As a female, people encourage us to apply for leadership; but I don't want to put myself into troubles...I could see a lot going on in the system, I just want to teach and go home." (P25)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Structural dimensions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Organizational plan and policy</td><td align="left">None of TVET organizations has a plan and policy that incorporated gender equality</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Around 67% (64/96) indicated inconsistency in affirmative action</td><td align="left">"Three points additions are made to the female applicants scores, but I realized that some TVET organizations add five points. There is inconsistency in the implementation of AA policy. In most cases, some male applicants complain about AA specially when they compete with female applicants for leadership." (L9)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Organizational practice</td><td align="left">Gender neutrality assumptions</td><td align="left">A total of 85% (11/13) of participating leaders implicated that organizational practices were perceived as gender‐neutral</td><td align="left">"...look...we give equal opportunity during the recruitment and promotion...even female applicants get additional points when they compete with male applicants...still female lack self‐confidence to come forward...what can we do more than this..." (L11)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lack of Transparency</td><td align="left">70% (23/33) of female participants cited unclear criteria favouring male applicants</td><td align="left">"...we don't really know how individuals come to leadership in this institution...ha...um... ... for example, a man delegates his friends if he decide to leave, then this friend of him serves as delegate for a while...the next thing we hear is that the man is formally assigned for the position...um...it is like stick transfer race for the men." (P62)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male‐dominant stature</td><td align="left">All the research participants (100%) agree that men dominate leadership, including senior positions of the TVET organizations</td><td align="left">"...ha...um...that is visible, majority of the leadership positions are filled by men. Specially we don't have female leader at the top and middle levels. That is the reality in the country nothing special in our institutions..." (P57)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No established gender unit</td><td align="left">All the TVET organizations don't allocate resources for gender‐focal persons, often treating them as token representatives, merely for the sake of claiming commitment to gender equality</td><td align="left">A gender‐focal person said, "I am a teacher, I was assigned as focal person as additional role outside my main duties...although I accepted the role...there is no job description for the position, office, budget and other important facilities at least to support female students." (P8)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lack of commitment</td><td align="left">65% (62/96) reveal insufficient commitment and support from TVET organization leaders and governing bodies for gender equality initiatives</td><td align="left">"It is just tokenism; I don't see any commitment from the institutional leaders. Lack of commitment start from higher level governing body; no one makes our leaders accountable for the gender equality activities in their institution. As a result, gender issues are no top priority for our leaders, the focal persons are there just to show the institution is addressing gender inequality but in reality, that is not the case." (P37)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Societal dimensions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gendered attitudes</td><td align="left">40% (38/96) perceive leadership roles as unfit for women's roles and behaviours</td><td align="left">"As a leader, you deal with different kinds of people and difficult circumstances. You really need 'strong shoulders. Don't get me wrong, but women by nature easily get emotional, with this, it can be difficult for them to deal with chaotic of organization as leader. I believe equality doesn't mean switching of roles, women and men are good at different types of activities...why not we build around that...?" (L13)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">74% (71/96) mentioned that female staff often are assigned to roles with feminine attributes (e.g. social committee)</td><td align="left">"When there is events and facilitation of social affairs, women are top priority to leader...laugh...I think it is because also doesn't come with material rewards and no authority associated with it...men don't want such kind of role...um...laugh..." (P29)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In 84% (78/96) of responses, the myth of women's disinterest in leadership roles was cited for their underrepresentation</td><td align="left">"Look, women themselves they don't want to apply for leadership even when we encourage them...this I think is due to the challenge comes with the role." (L5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">27% (9/33) of female participants noted reviewers' mistrust of female team project designs</td><td align="left">"Reviewers of research proposal ask more questions toward the project designed by woman, you also see the approval process being delayed...um...it is just they lack confidence on our project...um...people haven't change...still women's capacity as researcher is questionable for many senior men researcher." (P20)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Work and family responsibilities</td><td align="left">45% (43/96) cited family responsibilities as a constraint on women's leadership aspirations, while 20% (19/96) mentioned fear of not fitting the ideal leader image, which demands long hours and office presence</td><td align="left">"Being in leadership position is good opportunity, it gives the opportunity work on thing you want to see in the institution. But with the family responsivities and care roles, it hardly possible to be effective in leadership position." (P1)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Source</emph>: Authors.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-17">Individual dimensions</hd> <p>Approximately 77% or 75% of the participants mentioned gender gaps in leadership due to most female staff lacking leadership qualifications (Table 4). The essential prerequisites for leadership roles within a TVET organization encompass possessing Certificates of Competency (COC) across all four proficiency levels, along with a Bachelor's degree or higher and leadership experience. Additionally, a crucial criterion involves hands‐on involvement in developing and disseminating technology within the community. Notably, a prevailing observation is that many women need to meet these prerequisites, which numerous participants have identified as a fundamental factor contributing to their underrepresentation in leadership positions. In a FGDs, P28 aptly noted, "Securing women who meet the demanding criteria for top‐tier leadership roles presents a challenge...Even identifying individuals who satisfy the basic prerequisites for advancement to mid‐level leadership positions poses a considerable difficulty." Another insightful comment from L5 emphasized, "...the augmentation of women's presence at higher echelons can undoubtedly enhance their overall representation; however, it remains a daunting task for most women to bridge the experience and qualification gap that a majority of their male counterparts have already traversed." Furthermore, the research participants underscored a prevailing gender disparity in research and technology transfer, primarily stemming from differences in experience and expertise. This, coupled with family responsibilities that disproportionately burden women, has been identified as a significant hindrance to their progression into senior and leadership roles. However, contrasting opinions indicate that the prerequisites for securing leadership positions have significantly intensified over the past five to ten years. To illustrate, P10 in a FGDs noted, "Back when I was initially recruited as a trainer straight out of school, our dean held a diploma, and he assumed the role without prior experience... more individuals have had the opportunity to graduate from universities with Bachelor's and Master's degrees. As a result, the eligibility criteria for leadership have risen. Regrettably, many women, myself included, have been unable to pursue further education—some due to personal commitments and others due to a lack of institutional support. Consequently, while men consistently fulfil the evolving criteria, the competition for leadership positions remains predominantly male‐dominated."</p> <p>Moreover, most (60% or 58) of the participants, irrespective of gender, have pointed out that women's underrepresentation in senior and top leadership roles can often be attributed to their struggles with self‐confidence, aspirations and a perceived lack of interest (Table 4). Some have expressed that issues such as a lack of self‐assurance and a tendency towards perfectionism tend to impede many women. This, in turn, leads to instances where they believe they need to meet requirements. It is observed that some women consistently seek additional qualifications even when their existing credentials are sufficient. They tend to continuously pursue more training and hold back until they believe they possess enough experience. However, it's worth noting that proficiency is often honed through hands‐on experience, which some of my female colleagues need to be more open to acknowledging.</p> <p>A prevalent sentiment prompts the question, "Where are the women?" Although they are encouraged to step forward and actively vie for leadership roles, the number of potential female candidates seems limited. This reluctance is often attributed to a perceived lack of confidence. Many need to be more apprehensive about the intricate nature of leadership positions and tend to shy away from them.</p> <p>Acknowledging a shared issue among women, P18 laments, "We, as women, encounter a predicament." She underscores that confidence in their capabilities tends to be a trait. There's a tendency to wait until circumstances align, ideally before attempting something or pursuing advancement. This mindset prevails even among the most highly qualified female professionals. The fear of failure looms, inhibiting their willingness to take on leadership roles. Furthermore, the aspiration for higher positions often remains subdued, as there's a notable contentment with their current status.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-18">Structural dimensions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057326-19">Organizational plan and policy</hd> <p>Organizational documents show a lack of gender equality plans in TVET organizations, hindering gender initiatives (Table 4). Some have made plans with donor support but often do not continue. Leaders blame limited budgets for not developing comprehensive gender policies. TVET organizations think policy‐making power lies with regional or federal authorities, limiting their autonomy. A few federal bodies, like the Ministry of Education and Agriculture, have made policies, but they need to be better shared with TVET organizations, hampering implementation.</p> <p>Concerning recruitment, selection and promotion policies, the civil service directives emphasize the importance of TVET organizations actively striving for gender‐balanced leadership, suggesting that women should occupy at least two key leadership positions. Despite this recommendation, it is evident that only some organizations have been able to put these directives into practice successfully. The consensus among participants is that both federal and regional TVET bureaus need to catch up in their responsibility to oversee, monitor and help with implementing these civil service directives. This perceived lack of support from higher authorities has, from the perspective of TVET leaders, contributed to their waning enthusiasm for prioritizing gender equality within their institutions.</p> <p>Most (67%) of participants indicated inconsistency in affirmative action (Table 4). TVET organizations employ Affirmative Action (AA) to boost gender diversity in recruitment and promotions. Female participants seek better access to career advancement, especially in short‐term training, and aspire for increased representation in top positions. However, AA implementation varies, with some offering a three‐point advantage and others a more substantial five‐point boost for female candidates. Notably, specific organizations exclude extra points for senior roles. Concerns about AA practices exist among leaders, some male staff and students, fearing a compromise in quality and reinforcement of female inadequacy. Critiques also highlight a lack of support for disadvantaged men.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-20">Organizational practices</hd> <p>Most (11/13) of TVET leaders view their practices as gender‐neutral (Table 4), attributing gender inequality to societal norms, women's skills and confidence and the lack of female leaders. They overlook their role in perpetuating inequality and internal discriminatory practices.</p> <p>Illustratively, responses from L13 "...we actively encourage women to assume leadership roles...but they seem to opt out..." and "...opportunities are equally available to all genders...how these opportunities are capitalized upon rests with individuals..." reflect a limited understanding of the internal biases and systemic hurdles that may hinder women's advancement. Similarly, statements such as "...our recruitment and selection processes adhere to institutional guidelines...there is no indication of bias..." and "...why stress gender when aspirations for leadership appear subdued among women...ultimately, the efficacy of leadership, irrespective of gender, in propelling organizational progress takes precedence..." from L6 demonstrate an oversight regarding how internal regulations and structures might inadvertently marginalize women, thus perpetuating gender inequality.</p> <p>However, most (23/33) of the females noted unclear criteria for top/mid‐level positions favouring males (Table 4), filled via undisclosed leader appointments or informal networks. This led to transparency issues in resource allocation, development opportunities and promotions.</p> <p>TVET organizations' additional practices encompass research and community projects, and gender dynamics influence these undertakings. The feedback highlights that these projects tend to be crafted within teams predominantly composed of men. Regrettably, male staff frequently omit to invite their female counterparts to participate, often assuming that women lack the necessary time for meaningful contributions. The responses further shed light on how gender equality concerns receive insufficient attention within research and community services, primarily due to a dearth of awareness, aptitude and mechanisms for enforcement. To exemplify, P13 expressed, "...we have not yet grasped the relevance of gender in our research and community engagements...we are uncertain about the proper approach to adopt...nor do any factors compel the staff to factor in gender considerations..."</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-21">Organizational structure</hd> <p>All the research participants (100%) confirmed that men dominate leadership, including senior positions of the TVET organizations (Table 4). This pattern perpetuates gender‐biased norms, wherein responsibilities like agenda‐setting and leadership are still predominantly associated with men. The survey responses also shed light on the prevalence of informal gatherings that revolve around traditionally "masculine" activities like playing pool and sharing coffee, tea and meals at the cafeteria, often during evening hours.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-22">Commitment and follow‐up</hd> <p>TVET organization leaders and governing bodies display inadequate commitment (65%) towards gender equality initiatives, particularly in resource allocation (Table 4). This results in a lack of seriousness and necessitates more substantial support in specific contexts and sectors despite recognizing its significance. One notable deficiency is the absence of a structured approach to gender equality in TVET organizations, leading to detachment, lack of accountability and inadequate personnel selection. Gender‐focal persons need specialized expertise, and their role needs to be integrated into regular duties. Insufficient resources hinder effective gender equality promotion, often making appointments symbolic.</p> <p>The absence of proper monitoring and evaluation hinders leaders' commitment to gender equality. Oversight and assessment by influential entities promote accountability but require follow‐up from regional and federal TVET. As a result, organization's leaders indicated that they struggle to implement gender‐focused actions without an efficient monitoring framework, undermining their transformative potential and leaders' commitment to gender considerations.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-23">Societal dimensions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057326-24">Gendered attitudes</hd> <p>Many responses (40%) suggest that leadership roles are seen as unsuitable for women due to biases associating traits like dominance, decisiveness and self‐reliance more with males (Table 4). Unfortunately, this skewed perception contributes to the self‐exclusion of women from leadership roles and perpetuates biases held by others. For instance, P30 expressed her reservations by stating, "...individuals in leadership positions often exhibit authoritarian behaviour and internal conflicts, prioritizing personal interests. These aspects have deterred me from considering leadership roles."</p> <p>Compounding the issue, women frequently find themselves directed towards roles deemed more aligned with feminine attributes, such as involvement in social committees (Table 4). Regrettably, this positioning places them at a disadvantage. Notably, an underlying attitude exists that public spaces are not inherently meant for women. This notion is evident from instances of women being ridiculed while using Wi‐Fi connections in open areas.</p> <p>Adding to the challenges, cultural norms sometimes restrict women from pursuing higher education or aspiring for qualifications equal to their male counterparts. P36 in FGDs shared her predicament, "Despite holding a BA degree, I am eager to continue my education to enhance my qualifications for better opportunities. Unfortunately, my husband and family dismiss its significance, believing it might negatively impact my children's well‐being. They argue that my existing degree should suffice."</p> <p>Furthermore, a prevailing belief among many research participants is that the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles stems from apprehensions about meeting the demands of the stereotypical ideal leader, which often entails extended hours at the office. This reinforces the misguided notion that authoritative positions are primarily reserved for men.</p> <p>In most of the responses (84%), the myth of women's disinterest in leadership roles was cited for their underrepresentation (Table 4). The responses further reveal that myths continue to justify the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles. These myths encompass women's purported lack of interest in pursuing leadership positions, perceived deficiency in effective decision‐making and presumed aversion to undertaking risks. Notably, during the interviews, it became evident that gender stereotypes, including assertions like "women shy away from responsibilities" and "the demands of these roles are intricate and beyond women's capabilities," (P63) were invoked to account for the scarcity of women in leadership roles within the TVET organization.</p> <p>Contrastingly, female participants strongly contend that subscribing to the notion that women are ill‐suited for leadership within the intricate and ever‐evolving landscape of a TVET organization can yield detrimental consequences on their performance evaluations when they assume leadership roles. A compelling instance is when P45 conveyed how her colleagues habitually assign lower ratings to female candidates applying for senior leadership positions. She elaborated, "...my peers and I have observed a recurring pattern of assigning lower evaluations to female applicants for leadership roles...I believe this stem from a lack of faith in a woman's capacity to lead."</p> <p>Moreover, the limited number of female leaders often face the labelling of being "male‐like" ("wendinat," signifying "She is a man"), insinuating that female leaders must exhibit extraordinary abilities to excel both in domestic and public spheres.</p> <p>Some (27%) of the women have highlighted a prevailing tendency of scepticism towards community projects designed and led by female teams (Table 4). This scepticism becomes evident through the protracted nature of the approval process. Even after securing organizational approval, female‐led projects often face additional challenges during implementation, particularly in gaining acceptance from the project's intended beneficiaries, the community. A disheartening sentiment was conveyed by P77 who remarked, "...in most villages, development agents exhibit reduced enthusiasm when a woman takes the lead on a community project..."</p> <p>However, female staff members have voiced their frustrations regarding the reception they receive from the community during visits aimed at providing technical guidance. Compared to their male counterparts, these women are less welcome, as community members need more confidence in their ability to offer proficient technical advice. P60 in the FGDs conveyed her experience: "...whenever we engage with enterprises, our interactions are often diverted towards non‐essential matters, diminishing our professionalism...Interestingly, this discrepancy in treatment is not observed when our male colleagues are involved..." and other FGDs also shared related experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-25">Work and family responsibilities</hd> <p>About 45% of the female participants cited family responsibilities, and 20% mentioned fear of not fitting the ideal leader image due to long hours and office presence (Table 4). P82 expressed, "Engaging in leadership requires significant time and a notable presence in the office, including travel for meetings and working late beyond regular hours. However, this becomes less feasible for individuals like me with family commitments." The responses also highlight that women's access to career advancement can lead to domestic violence in the absence of family support. P44 noted, "We are presented with better opportunities for career growth, opening doors to top positions. Yet, many male spouses do not provide the necessary support, perhaps due to concerns about their positions. This disconnect sometimes triggers conflicts, potentially leading to domestic discord, violence, or even divorce. Consequently, several women opt to downplay their personal development, reluctantly forfeiting valuable opportunities." Another insight from P43 adds, "As women, our nurturing disposition sometimes contrasts with the task‐oriented focus of male leaders. This divergence can lead to decisions prioritising tasks over interpersonal dynamics, even if it means offending staff members."</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-26">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study examines how individual, structural and societal dimensions intertwine in making gender inequality persistent in organizations using qualitative research in 12 TVET organizations in Ethiopia.</p> <p>Our findings highlight that gender inequality in the leadership of TVET organizations cannot be solely attributed to women lacking the requisite qualifications. For example, O'Connor ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]) argues that structure (i.e. underrepresentation of women in senior positions) and practices that value men's perspectives over women perpetuate gender inequality in organizations. One example of this bias is the prevailing criteria for leadership positions in these organizations, such as requiring extensive prior experience, which disproportionately disadvantages women. What is particularly intriguing is that we identified that past leaders in the organizations often only held diplomas. In these predominantly male‐dominated organizations, the standards for leadership have become increasingly stringent as more men attain advanced degrees, thus heightening the competition. In addition, we observed hesitance to embrace affirmative action in leadership promotions, with an asserted commitment to meritocracy. Nonetheless, relying solely on merit‐based criteria may inadvertently sustain gender biases ingrained in masculine norms (Aiston et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>]). Therefore, it becomes evident that qualifications alone cannot adequately explain the gender inequality observed in senior positions within these organizations. Instead, a more nuanced understanding of this issue emerges when considering the complex interplay of various factors (Aiston et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>]; Orser & Leck, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some claims in our study suggest that women's self‐confidence may affect their inclination towards senior positions. These claims are in line with studies conducted in Ethiopia by Molla and Cuthbert ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]), Ademe and Singh ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]) and Alemayehu ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]), which emphasize the role of confidence and ambition in women's underrepresentation in top leadership roles. However, our holistic observations reveal that culture within the targeted organizations places the responsibility for career progression on individuals, potentially creating the perception that women lack self‐assurance. For example, Aiston et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]) identified structural issues in Hong Kong higher education, including the lack of gender centrality in organizational missions and culture hindering women's academic career progression. This emphasis on individual agency may overlooks systemic inequalities. Building on this point, O'Connor ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref63">38</reflink>]) contends that attributing sources of gender inequality solely to women‐related factors does not foster gender equality within an organization. Instead, it is imperative to identify and address biases rooted in the organizational structure and practices. For example, Barbulescu and Bidwell ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]) supports that women's self‐confidence is not inherently lower than men. Instead, gender bias in male‐dominated professions leads to lower expectations about their potential for higher‐level positions.</p> <p>Our findings reveal that within TVET organizations, structural elements such as plans, policies and practices, combined with a predominantly male‐dominated framework, continually shape and reshape gender dynamics. The absence of a clear policy framework hampers the articulation of gender equality, with management and staff often failing to embrace it as their responsibility (Aiston et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]). This suggests governmental institutions' lack of commitment to implement national gender policies, regional and international agreements ratified by Ethiopia, the National Education and Training Policy, and the Higher Education Proclamation (No. 650/2009, Article 39.6). Specifically, many TVET organizations in AA struggle to promote female leadership effectively, and the application of affirmative action needs improvement. Resistance to affirmative action may stem from the perception of "unmerited" benefits and a threat to male privilege (Soklaridis et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref66">46</reflink>]). Consequently, gender inequality persists due to unrecognized gender biases among individuals.</p> <p>The male‐dominant structures in TVET organizations may perpetuate gender inequality in the context (Benschop & van den Brink, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]). Such workplaces reflect men's experiences and values, creating challenges for women (Galea & Chappell, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref68">23</reflink>]). Despite public commitments to increase female representation, ineffective solutions are often employed. Female staff may lack a sense of belonging and confidence in male‐oriented environments, reproducing power imbalances (Galea & Chappell, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]). Socialization and organizational structures shape women's experiences and personalities (Benschop & van den Brink, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref70">11</reflink>]). Gender is reinforced through symbols defining ideal leaders and heroes (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>]), extending societal norms. TVET organizations are moulded by and serve men's interests, driven by discourses maintaining male hegemonic power (Lewis & Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]). Male dominance in senior positions results from a homosocial, hegemonic masculine culture rooted in broader societal beliefs (Seron et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref73">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The informal networks within our study organizations exhibit a clear male dominance, often resembling the prevalent "old boys' networks." These networks reinforce homo‐sociability, wherein individuals who conform to stereotypical attributes are drawn to associated advantages and privileges (Ayentimi & Abadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]). It is observable that male leaders frequently opt to recruit individuals who mirror their characteristics, thus forming an insular group with shared perspectives, social backgrounds and traits (Poorhosseinzadeh & Strachan, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref75">41</reflink>]). While female staff utilize informal networks for mutual practical support, their experience is distinct from that of their male counterparts. Within the realm of higher education, such as TVET organizations, networks and mentors hold the potential to redefine gender dynamics (Ayentimi & Abadi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another structural bias we identified is that the prevailing assumption among leaders of TVET organizations asserts the gender neutrality of organizational practices. Our finding aligns with existing research on progress and resistance in gender equality work, highlighting that denying inequality poses a challenge to organizational cultural progression (Aiston et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>]). The centrality of gender to the values and interests of key stakeholders in the organization is a critical element to the change towards gender equality (Aiston et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]). Growing evidence suggests that such practices are far from neutral and can inadvertently perpetuate discrimination (Cortis et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]). For example, gender neutrality perspective can render operational procedures susceptible to personal interpretations, consequently fostering latent biases. We observed that, although the recruitment guidelines of TVET organizations may ostensibly welcome applications from women, the underlying adherence to traditional viewpoints and attitudes can effectively side‐line them. For example, the assumption that both genders enjoy equal employment prospects whit merit‐based selection criteria is flawed. This neglects systemic barriers that may disproportionately hinder women's access to such opportunities.</p> <p>Lack of leadership commitment can hinder gender equality in TVET organizations. Influential figures are crucial for fostering diversity and addressing inequalities (Ng & Sears, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref80">37</reflink>]). Without upper‐level dedication, change efforts, including gender equality, are limited. Enforceable consequences are vital for policy success, especially in contentious areas like recruitment and promotions (Benschop & van den Brink, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref81">11</reflink>]). Leadership influence is paramount.</p> <p>Our findings also show that the persistent stereotypes link women to domestic roles, impacting their leadership opportunities in the TVET organizations. These biases lead to underrepresentation and barriers. However, framing work‐family issues as the primary factor contributing to gender inequality in leadership may conveniently deflect. Aiston et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>]) argue that the narrow focus on family responsibilities may perpetuate masculinist structures in organizations. For example, we found that women who overcome family responsibilities hurdles face challenges in male‐dominated environments, hindering their advocacy. Concepts like the "Oscar Curse" (Byrne & Barling, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref83">15</reflink>]) and the "ideal worker" notion (Benschop & van den Brink, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref84">11</reflink>]) hinder women's progress due to organizational culture. In Ethiopia, social norms exacerbate the problem, burdening women as caregivers impeding career growth and leadership acceptance (Alemayehu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]). Thus, a clearer understanding of the complexities surrounding gender inequality in organizations requires broadening the perspective and considering multiple factors at play.</p> <p>Finally, our findings show that qualified women avoid leadership positions due to the extra time and effort they demand, conflicting with family duties. Similarly, Barbulescu and Bidwell ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref86">6</reflink>]) argue that when women see roles as hard to balance with family, they become less attractive. Women often strive for outstanding performance compared to men, seeking a work‐family balance and equal success (Surawicz, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref87">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-27">IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>The findings show the intricate connections between individuals, organizational structures and societal norms, unveiling their collective role in shaping gender dynamics within organizations, thereby perpetuating gender inequality. They underscore the necessity of adopting a holistic perspective that can effectively comprehend and address the multifaceted nature of gender inequality while fostering a supportive environment for women. Within this context, a structural approach emerges as paramount, unveiling underlying issues that might remain obscured when examined solely at the individual or societal level. By embracing this structural lens, strategies for promoting gender equality within organizations gain a newfound strength.</p> <p>Accordingly, our findings contribute to broader literature on gender dynamics within organizations (Acker, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]; Kalev & Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]) by showing how organizational structures, individual qualifications and societal norms intersect in perpetuating gender inequality. Our findings underscore the need to evaluate gender inequality within organizations through the lens of interconnected dimensions. In light of this, the study asserts that relying solely on an isolated single dimension (e.g. individual factors) might fall short of effectively realizing the complex nature of gender inequality.</p> <p>Our findings also contribute to the existing theories of gender inequality (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref90">14</reflink>]; Mackay, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>]; Paantjens, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref92">40</reflink>]) by emphasizing structural barriers underpinning gender inequalities in organizations. Specifically, our findings broaden the perspective of gender inequality in organizations by challenging the predominant concentration on individual‐level factors (e.g. women's skills). Instead, we contend that the intricate interplay between individual and societal factors shapes the decisions and actions of individuals and teams, ultimately influencing the structure and practices within organizations. For instance, our research highlights the crucial insight that a male‐dominant organizational structure not only perpetuates discriminatory practices against women but also impedes efforts to address structural gender disparities and obstructs transformative changes within these organizations.</p> <p>On a practical note, our findings highlight that focusing solely on individual‐level concerns could inadvertently sustain prevailing structural inequalities within organizations. For example, assigning blame to women and broader societal influences for gender‐based organizational disparities might offer a convenient route for solutions that concentrate on modifying women themselves and attempting to alter mindsets. However, the more challenging path for leaders is acknowledging the role of intricate organizational practices in perpetuating gender distinctions and inequalities. Thus, it becomes imperative to target the structural aspects of gender inequality alongside individual and societal‐level issues to promote gender equality effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0181057326-28">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data supporting this study's findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0181057326-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples' Region.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181057326-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4 (2), 139 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref60" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ademe, G., & Singh, M. (2015). Factors affecting women's participation in leadership and management in selected public higher education institutions in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. European Journal of Business and Management, 7 (31), 18 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref56" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aiston, S. J., Fo, C. K., & Law, W. W. (2020). Interrogating strategies and policies to advance women in academic leadership: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42 (3), 347 – 364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alemayehu, E. (2021). Gender and leadership in Ethiopian higher education: Challenges and opportunities: The case of Addis Ababa University. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 25 (2), 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref74" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ayentimi, D. T., & Abadi, H. A. (2022). Why are women opting out of academic careers in higher education in Ghana? Implication for policy and practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 42 (4), 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref64" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barbulescu, R., & Bidwell, M. (2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24 (3), 737 – 756.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, J. N., & Bielby, W. T. (2018). Organizational barriers to gender equality: Sex segregation of jobs and opportunities. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life course (pp. 233 – 252). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref24" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Belkhir, J. A., & Barnett, B. M. (2001). Race, gender and class intersectionality. Race, Gender & Class, 8 (3), 157 – 174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref50" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bellido‐García, R., Cruzata‐Martinez, A., Ponce Marín, M., & Rejas Borjas, L. G. (2022). Implicit theories on learning assessment and the use of triangulation as a means of qualitative validity and reliability. Qualitative Report, 27 (5), 1276 – 1300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bendl, R., & Schmidt, A. (2010). From 'glass ceilings' to 'firewalls'—Different metaphors for describing discrimination. Gender, Work and Organization, 17 (5), 612 – 634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benschop, Y., & van den Brink, M. (2014). Power and resistance in gender equality strategies: Comparing quotas and small wins. In S. Kumra, R. Simpson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender in organizations (pp. 332 – 352). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray‐Collins, E., Andrade, N., & Wanjiru, C. (2022). Gender and TVET in Africa: A review of the literature on gender issues in Africa's TVET sector. Futures of Education, Culture and Nature‐Learning to Become, 1, 151 – 171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, J. (2003). Gender trouble. In A. J. Cahill (Ed.), Continental feminism reader (pp. 29 – 56). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, A., & Barling, J. (2017). When she brings home the job status: Wives' job status, status leakage, and marital instability. Organization Science, 28 (2), 177 – 192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chevalier, A. (2007). Education, occupation and career expectations: Determinants of the gender pay gap for UK graduates. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69 (6), 819 – 842.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, R. (2014). Margin becoming centre: For a world‐centred rethinking of masculinities. Norma: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9 (4), 217 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19 (6), 829 – 859.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cortis, N., Foley, M., & Williamson, S. (2022). Change agents or defending the status quo? How senior leaders frame workplace gender equality. Gender, Work and Organization, 29 (1), 205 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership development of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 35, 48 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, N. W., & Duncan, M. C. (2006). Sports knowledge is power: Reinforcing masculine privilege through fantasy sport league participation. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30 (3), 244 – 264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders (Vol. 11). Harvard Business School Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galea, N., & Chappell, L. (2022). Male‐dominated workplaces and the power of masculine privilege: A comparison of the Australian political and construction sectors. Gender, Work and Organization, 29 (5), 1692 – 1711.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González Menéndez, M. C., & González, L. M. (2012). Spain on the Norwegian pathway: Towards a gender‐balanced presence of women on corporate boards. In C. Fagan, M. C. González Menéndez, & S. Ansón (Eds.), Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy (pp. 169 – 197). Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, D., Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Ethical issues in qualitative research. In C. Pope & N. Mays (Eds.), Qualitative research in health care (4th ed., pp. 27 – 41). Wiley‐Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeanes, E., Knights, D., & Martin, P. Y. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of gender, work and organization. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalev, A., & Deutsch, G. (2018). Gender inequality and workplace organizations: Understanding reproduction and change. In B. J. Risman, C. M. Froyum, & W. J. Scarborough (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 257 – 269). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, M. (2007). Gender, institutions and power: A critical review. Politics, 27 (2), 91 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraemer‐Mbula, E. (2021). The African development bank. Regional development banks in the world economy (p. 55). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2012). Kanter revisited: Gender, power and (in) visibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14 (2), 141 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (Eds.). (1991). The social construction of gender (pp. 309 – 321). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackay, F. (2006). Descriptive and substantive representation in new parliamentary spaces. In M. Sawer (Ed.), Representing women in parliament: A comparative study (Vol. 14, p. 171). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2006). A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women's employment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 111 (6), 1910 – 1949.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGinn, K. L., & Oh, E. (2017). Gender, social class, and women's employment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 84 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. (2014). Qualitative inequality: Experiences of women in Ethiopian higher education. Gender and Education, 26 (7), 759 – 775.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neale, J., Miller, P., & Society for the Study of Addiction. (2014). Reporting quantitative information in qualitative research: Guidance for authors and reviewers. Addiction, 109, 175 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2020). Walking the talk on diversity: CEO beliefs, moral values, and the implementation of workplace diversity practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 164 (3), 437 – 450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, P. (2020). Why is it so difficult to reduce gender inequality in male‐dominated higher educational organizations? A feminist institutional perspective. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45 (2), 207 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orser, B., & Leck, J. (2010). Gender influences on career success outcomes. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25 (5), 386 – 407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paantjens, M. (2005). Between feminism and the new institutionalism. In Third European Consortium of Political Research General Conference, Budapest (pp. 8 – 10).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poorhosseinzadeh, M., & Strachan, G. (2021). Straightjackets of male domination in senior positions: Revisiting Acker's 'ideal Worker' and the construction of the 'ideal executive'. British Journal of Management, 32 (4), 1421 – 1439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rauhaus, B. M., & Carr, I. A. S. (2022). The leaky pipeline: Gender and public administration professional education. In Handbook on gender and public administration. Edward Elgar Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (3), 470.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3 (3), 208 – 222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seron, C., Silbey, S. S., Cech, E., & Rubineau, B. (2016). Persistence is cultural: Professional socialization and the reproduction of sex segregation. Work and Occupations, 43 (2), 178 – 214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soklaridis, S., Zahn, C., Kuper, A., Gillis, D., Taylor, V. H., & Whitehead, C. (2018). Men's fear of mentoring in the #MeToo era—What's at stake for academic medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 379 (23), 2270 – 2274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Street, A. E., & Dardis, C. M. (2018). Using a social construction of gender lens to understand gender differences in posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 66, 97 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Surawicz, C. M. (2016). Women in leadership: Why so few and what to do about it. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13 (12), 1433 – 1437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomaszewski, L. E., Zarestky, J., & Gonzalez, E. (2020). Planning qualitative research: Design and decision making for new researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920967174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Brink, M., & Stobbe, L. (2014). The support paradox: Overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30 (2), 163 – 174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wynn, A. T. (2020). Pathways toward change: Ideologies and gender equality in a Silicon Valley technology company. Gender & Society, 34 (1), 106 – 130.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By M. Hundera and H. L. M. Mudde</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>M. Hundera (PhD) is Postdoctoral researcher at University of Cologne, German, and an Assistant Professor of Management and Development at the Haramaya University (HU), Ethiopia.</p> <p>H. L. M. Mudde is Senior Project Consultant and Assistant Professor at Maastricht University, The Netherlands.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref87"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450384
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Comprehensive Analysis of Gender Dynamics in Organizations: Integrating Social, Structural and Individual Dimensions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22M%2E+Hundera%22">M. Hundera</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-7626">0000-0002-3271-7626</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22H%2E+L%2E+M%2E+Mudde%22">H. L. M. Mudde</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocational+Education%22">Vocational Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Influences%22">Environmental Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mentors%22">Mentors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethiopia%22">Ethiopia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12722
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study delves into gender dynamics in 12 Technical Vocational and Education Training (TVET) organizations in Ethiopia, using qualitative methods. We conducted 96 face-to-face interviews and triangulated the data through observations, employee records and document reviews. Thematic analysis revealed that gender inequality in organizations persists due to the interplay of social, structural and individual factors. Emphasizing individual or societal aspects hinders transformative efforts. A holistic approach considering these dimensions is crucial for understanding and addressing gender inequality. Identifying and dismantling structural barriers is essential for gender transformation. Focusing solely on individual-level issues, like female-only mentoring, is insufficient for achieving gender equality. A combination of strategies is needed to tackle structural problems and societal assumptions, fostering organizational transformation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450384
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450384
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12722
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Females
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mentors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethiopia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Comprehensive Analysis of Gender Dynamics in Organizations: Integrating Social, Structural and Individual Dimensions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. Hundera
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: H. L. M. Mudde
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1