This international cross-cultural, comparative case study was driven by the need to address education in a changing world and issues of gender equality, or lack thereof, in higher education institutions (HEIs) internationally. Our primary objective was to explore and collaboratively construct ways, means, and prospects of equitable and just, gender-sensitive higher education spaces and educational research. In this presentation, we focus the discussion on key findings about gender equality in higher education teaching and learning; specifically, we detail a comparative study conducted at an HEI in Kazakhstan and one in India, extending research on gender in curriculum (blinded for anonymous review, 2019). As part of a larger, internationally funded project, Gender on the Higher Education Learning Agenda Internationally: Co-Constructing Equitable Futures, funded by the British Academy’s Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), the process and finding have been shown applicable to Central Asian, South Asian, African, and European contexts.

As foundational to this work, our theoretical framework draws from feminist theory and the recognition of persistent gender and wider inequalities within and beyond (Costa Dias et al, 2020) higher education, the intersectional nature of this inequality (Bagihole, 2006), and the efforts of not reproducing problematic gendered discourses (do mar Pereira, 2021  The cross-cultural project compares cases, institutions of higher education, across disciplines and countries to unpack what is working and what is not as related to gendered practices and institutions. Through such a cross-cultural comparative case study, critical self-reflection and reflexivity was integral within and across teams (see blinded for anonymous review, 2022a; Tillmar, 2015). While we recognize that gender is nuanced in being more than a binary between male and female, for the purposes of this work we have identified female, male, and other gender categories for survey and interview responses. These identifiers are a common starting point for gender audits and are intended to provide a reference point for readers alongside other key aspects of participant identification.

Kazakhstan and India provide an important comparison and contrast. While Central and South Asian countries, historically have a different social and political makeup, there are some similarities: traditionally women in both countries have central roles in the social make-up of the country, yet have a low social status. In both contexts, when “foreign” empires took over (Russia and Britain, respectively), a new frame of “modern” education was introduced and expectations of gender and class roles were redefined/changed and. Today, women in both countries face competing expectations of being a professional in a modern workplace and a traditional, often submissive, homemaker. 

The key thread unifying our research team is expertise and commitment around gender equality and feminist approaches across disciplinary and international contexts, with the shared agenda of co-constructing more equitable futures. In line with the priorities of the GCRF, we are committed to the importance of equality in gender and education for its own sake, but also for the importance of this to wider processes of equality, democratization and development for all across wider, interrelated social, economic and political spheres.

Focused on teaching and learning, the research questions centered on gender inclusion (or absence) as related to curriculum and pedagogical practices across disciplines. The research set out to answer four core questions:

1.  Where is gender present and absent in the curriculum focus and approach of the institutions?

2. How is gender presented as an issue and awareness in curriculum focus and approach across the institutions? 

3. Which individuals, values and agendas are driving the inclusion, rejection and co-opting of gender as a curriculum focus and approach across the institutions? 

4. What are the challenges and opportunities in developing more gender equitable approaches in curriculum?

Our approach in this international comparative case study was of multi-directional learning (O’Shea, 2015) within and between disciplines, institutions and countries; to collaboratively build new understandings and approaches (ILO, 2012; blinded for anonymous review, 2018). The intention of such a cross-national approach is not a direct comparison, seeking out the most effective approach, but complementary parallel case studies (Hantrais, 2009) as a powerful tool to generate new perspectives on existing challenges through the benefit of what might be learned from each other (Boddy et al., 2013). In line with the principles of our funding through the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) and as feminist researchers, we set out with the aim of collaborative research design from the beginning of the research, as an international, interdisciplinary team from Kazakhstan and India (the larger project also included teams from the UK, Nigeria, and Morocco). Our goal was to identify three academic disciplines (one science, one social science, one humanities) across all partner universities. After receiving institutional ethical approval, within each discipline we invited teaching staff (n=7) and final year undergraduate students (those anticipated to have the most extensive experience of being taught within their university) (n=7) to complete an anonymous online survey that included quantitative and qualitative responses, yielding a total of 42 institutional survey responses. Initial analysis of survey responses informed our design of interview questions for four teaching staff (three department Heads and one institutional teaching lead) and three student representatives within the university. Interviews were carried out online via Zoom, generating audio recording and written transcripts automatically generated by the online platform. The transcription was then reread, clarified and anonymized for analysis by each country team’s research assistant. To analyze the data, the full team across universities and countries met to discuss the emerging themes of the qualitative and quantitative data collectively and iteratively in multiple meetings, cross-referencing the significance of each finding across data sets. The process of discussion of emerging findings was central to our work as feminist researchers, consistently seeking to hear from all members of the team and better understand the context and participants (blinded for anonymous review, 2022b, forthcoming; Dusdall & Powell, 2021; Goddard & Billot, 2006). Analysis was carried out using Excel for widest international team access. In this way, we sought to maintain the same access to all data and analysis steps for all country teams.

Findings highlighted how teachers and policies play essential roles in making HEIs equitable and socially-just spaces that allow for and encourage a multiplicity of voices to emerge. In Kazakhstan, findings highlight the struggle in the university to integrate concepts of gender equality within teaching and learning that particularly include conflicting views of responsibility for implementing policy and practice and who is included and/or excluded in the process. The most frequently cited challenges in staff and student surveys identify social constructs, underestimating women and biases against them, stereotypes, social stigma, mentality and ideology of people, misogyny, and queer-phobia. In India, participants identified the importance of gender in achieving wider development goals but lesser participants felt gender was important for HE teaching and learning, especially from the Sciences discipline. They perceived that most of the work toward ensuring gender-equality was managed by collective efforts of teachers but should be the responsibility of the whole university community. The most prominent challenges identified by the participants included the nature of policies, a finding echoed by that of Kazakhstan. While most of the participants were optimistic about working through these challenges, some of them highlighted the need for a more structural rather than surface-level approach. Unique to the Indian context, participants mentioned the need for an intersectional approach towards addressing gender-related issues especially in the Indian context, since caste and class are significant categories interlocked with gender. Recommendations in both countries demonstrate the need to incorporate more representative voices from different genders in curriculum readings by highlighting the need for pedagogy ensuring these texts are read in appropriate context. To address the uneven beliefs about gender in teaching and learning in the university, steps such as raising awareness, incorporating training, and implementing university-wide policy for gender inclusion are of particular relevance.

Bagilhole, B. (2006) ‘Exploration of the UK equal opportunities and diversity legislation and implementation agencies through the lens of intersectionality.’ Paper presented at Equal is Not Enough: Dealing with Opportunities in a Diverse Society, European Conference on Equal Opportunities; 13–15 September, University of Antwerp. Boddy, J., Statham, J., Danielsen, I., Geurts, E., Join-Lambert, H., & Euillet, S. (2013). Beyond Contact Work with families of children placed away from home in four European countries. https://mk0nuffieldfounpg9ee.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Beyond-Contact_final-report.pdf Costa Dias, M., Joyce, R., & Parodi, F. (2020) ‘The gender pay gap in the UK: children and experience in work,’ Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(4):855–881.https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa053 do mar Pereira, M. (2021). Researching gender inequalities in academic labor during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Avoiding common problems and asking different questions. Gender, Work, & Organization, 28(S2), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12618 Dusdall, J., & Powell, J. (2021) ‘Benefits, Motivations, and Challenges of International Collaborative Research: A Sociology of Science Case Study’, Science and Public Policy pp.1-11. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scab010 Goddard, T., Cranston, N., & Billot, J. (2006) ‘Making It Work: Identifying the Challenges of Collaborative International Research’, International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 10(11). Hantrais, L. (2009) International comparative research. Theory, methods, and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tillmar, M. (2015). Cross-cultural comparative case studies: A means of uncovering dimensions of trust. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. N. K. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods on Trust (2nd ed.), pp. 126–133. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547419