Printer Friendly

Gender Mainstreaming Strategies at University.

Byline: Muhammad Ramzan, Bushra Nawaz Khan, Shafqat Hussain and Muhammad Sarwar

Abstract

Gender equality is considered as the core of heart for a sustainable world. The main purposes of the study were to investigate the gender mainstreaming practices in the universities, and to compare the views of male and female teachers as well as administrative officers about gender mainstreaming strategies. The study was descriptive in nature. For the collection of data survey strategy was used. The sample of eighty eight university teachers as well as gazetted administrative staff was selected by using convenient sampling technique. Third tool (1st checklist) in the toolkit of International Labour Organization named GEMS was used. To adapt and contextualise, the questionnaire was worked out and further modified before pilot testing. The results showed high reliability with alpha coefficient and the value is found as 0.816. The obtained data were tabulated, analysed and interpreted by using descriptive as well as inferential statistics.

There was gender mainstreaming practices in the institutional structure. Analyses on the basis of comparison showed that teaching and administrative staff had same views. Hence it is concluded that there was gender mainstreaming strategies found at universities in Punjab.

Keywords: Gender mainstreaming strategies, Administrative staff, Academic staff

Introduction

Universities over the world being high seat of learning are deemed more responsible for promoting their innate nobility among men and women for their honour.

Therefore, equality, fair treatment for all, and social justice are central considerations of all universities. These requirements have a significant impact on the beauty and attraction of a university; it is now a phenomenon of global scope that men and women have assumed an important position in the university. Gender mainstreaming is very crucial (Stevens and Lamoen, 2001) in every organisation in general and university in particular. Gender biased situation may prevail in any culture, any organisation, and any university. Social standards, official structure, situational and dispositional factors as well as erratic thoughts about group members' attribute are one of the most important factors that are responsible for gender biased situation.

Some studies revealed that women have still under-representative place in academic staff, especially in the position of management (Tahiraj, 2010; Hoyt, 2012) including technologically advanced countries; since it is very complicated to have an open dialogue on fair opportunity, authority and discrimination (Henze, Lucas and Scott, 1998).

Different studies exposed that gender identifies a moot fact (Eveline, Bacchi, 2005; Rees 2005). Now gender segregation is dominated in higher education. Jacobs (1996) found three aspects: entrance, experience and outcome are separate in educational inequalities, because they are distinct to each other. Various researchers like (Walby, 1997; Lindsey, 2011) studied that in government or non-government world of work, women suffered because of the characteristics of their occupations. According to them, in the world of work gender segregation existed in its peak if compared to the period during their academic life.

Many strategies have intended to cope with gender unfairness. Sandler and Rao (2012) determined that work on gender related issues helps to reduce improper environment of both male and female. Gender mainstreaming is a method to progress that seems more broadly at the dealings between women and men in their "access to and control over resources", decision making, remuneration and rewards in culture (Masilungan, 2001). Gender mainstreaming is a recent progress in feminist procedure with the intention of regulating policies for gender fairness. It is basically to tackle with "mainstream' along with "gender equality'. There are numerous diverse kinds of gender mainstreaming as there are various perceptions as well as theories of gender equality.

The social and political systems also set up directions to this objective. Gender mainstreaming in particular demands women in the legislative body, the progress of the particular gender arrangement in administration, as well as gender proficiency in social civilization from universities to workers' organizations (Walby, 2005).

Gender mainstreaming as defined by the Council of Europe is given in the following words. "Gender mainstreaming is the (re) organization, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the players normally involved in policy-making" (Blickhauser and Bargen, 2007, p.1). Gender mainstreaming as defined by the United Nations is "the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated" (Habib, 2008, p. 12).

It is very unfortunate that there is no proper implementation of gender mainstreaming policies (Moser and Moser, 2005). While gender mainstreaming is a powerful tool to achieve the goal of gender equality; therefore, it is considered the core of polices (Rees, 2005). Gender mainstreaming is a foremost frame for globalization (Walby, 2005). Neimanis (2005) explained that gender mainstreaming is different from "women in development" (WID). It is not the only concern with women's rights, but is also concerned with man's right at all levels (policies and programs). Gender issues are changed due to state, area, actual circumstances as well as gender-responsive analysis.

These factors always show that gender-differentiated requirements, priorities, or gender inequalities are occurring in terms of occasions. Gender mainstreaming like a political approach entails a sound focal point on the background state of affairs with the intention of a medium for social renovation (Silfver, 2010).

Gender mainstreaming basically relied on organization concentration (Eerdewijk and Dubel, 2012). But in the field of education, work on gender mainstreaming is not usually familiar (Karlsson, 2010). Gender mainstreaming is like a procedure in an institutional assessment that accommodates work place to endorse gender parity (Tiessen, 2007).Gender mainstreaming is the encouragement of gender equality through its organized accumulation into all procedures of organizing an institution (Rees, 2005). So the entire phenomenon leads to evaluate the gender participation and gender mainstreaming capacity at university.

Since capacity can be observed through practices at universities therefore gender mainstreaming capacity here means gender mainstreaming practices. In gender perception, mainstreaming is focussed on the procedures reviewing the practices of men and women of any designed act, law, plan and field of life. It is basically concerned with a plan for measuring practices of male and female. Developing countries have special concerns over this strategy (Karega, and Bunwaree, 2010; Shaw, 2002). Several socioeconomic and political changes are taking place all over Asia especially in underdeveloped countries. These modifications are bringing about many transformations in organizations (Knodel, Loi, Jayakody, and Huy, 2005).

Institutional structure and capacity

It is crucial to take into account the invisibility of gender responsibility modify like not unchangeable, although it is possibly needed to consider a different perception to consider revolutions in the family and occupation areas (Crespi, 2009). The women team up with the company of democrats in country administration, to attain their considering gender justice problems located on government policy memorandum (Taylor, 2001). Perception of gender equity is modifying along with the requirement of actively increasing a fairer gender stability is currently enshrined in the Gender Equality administration applied in 2007 that requisite public organizations to completely support equality in Scotland (Riddell, 2009). In stakeholder processes, the women's issues are marginalized. This perhaps explained as a function of authority from an NGO viewpoint or of recognition and relevance from a business point of view (Grosser and Moon, 2005).

Great concentration desired toward the affairs between women along with men, specifically by means of in the division of labour, get hold of and control over resources, and potential for decision-making. There was better recognition of the value of looking for male associates and in functioning with men to mutually redefine gender responsibilities and relations. Consequently, here was a requirement to retreat "women' as a target group, toward gender equality like a development goal (Crespi, 2009). In Africa, feeble institutional capacity, inappropriate linkages between the government as well as nongovernmental sections, lack of sufficient incentives, diversity, duplicity and disconnectedness of sectorial performer among others (Chuku, 2010).

In Pakistan, Women's importance and identical involvement in decision making is very essential for sound governance, poverty reduction and even for a feasible human resource improvement in a realm. Recognize the requirement, the local governance system of Pakistan (2001) offered for 33% representation of women at all three levels, i.e. District, Tehsil (Sub District) and Union Council through the acceptance of positive action. But this major enhancement in women's representation, their contribution still marginalized. Several cultural, political, financial and demographic features are accountable for women's low contribution in administration (Jabeen and Iqbal, 2010).

Purpose of the study

1. To investigate the gender mainstreaming practices in the universities.

2. To compare the views of male and female about gender mainstreaming strategies.

3. To compare the views of teachers and administrative officers about gender mainstreaming strategies.

Methodology

The main purpose of the study was to review gender mainstreaming strategies at university level. Following procedure was adopted for this study. According to Sitko (2013) theoretical framework is defined as "the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and inform your research" (p. 3). Miles and Huberman (1994) discussed (as cited in Sitko, 2013) that it is what "explains either graphically or in narrative form the main things to be studied, the key factors, concepts or variable, and the presumed relationships between them" (p. 3). Theoretical framework of the study was based on what Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009) had proposed. Following is the snapshot of theoretical framework for present research project.

Research design

As the researcher intended to explain a specified condition in its entirety at university level and as cautiously as feasible (Fraenkel, Wallen,and Hyun, 2012) therefore the study was descriptive in nature. In this design the researcher administered a survey through an adapted questionnaire to a small group of people (called the sample) to recognize the tendency in attitudes, opinions, behaviours, or characteristics of a large group of people (Creswell, 2012).

Population and sample

Due to financial constraints and time limitation, this research was delimited to University of Sargodha and Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan. The population of the study comprised all the teachers as well as administrative officer (grade 17 and above) of all public general universities in Punjab. All the teachers as well as administrative officer of University of Sargodha and Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan were the accessible population. At University of Sargodha total number of teachers was 770 (565 men and 205 women), whereas total number of administrative officer was 1500 (1410 men and 90 women). At Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan total number of teachers was 533 (379 men and 154 women), whereas total number of administrative officer was 105 (103 men and 2 women).

The sample was selected from University of Sargodha and Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan. University teachers and administrative officer (gazetted officer) was the sample of the study. The researcher distributed 625 questionnaires at both universities, 114 (18.25%) questionnaires were returned and only (14.08%) 88 questionnaires had given proper response. Convenient sampling technique was used to select the sample for the study. It means that individuals conveniently available (Gay, Mills, and Airasian, n.d.) were included in the study.

Research instrument

The research instrument used in this study was a questionnaire adapted from the tool kit named as Gender mainstreaming strategies in decent work promotion:

Programming tools prepared by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The original tool kit, acronym of which is GEMS Toolkit, was accessible on http: //www.

ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-bangkok/documents/publi- cation/ wcms_143849.pdf (Date of Access: 2, July 2014). The GEMS Toolkit contained 12 practical tools organized under different topics. The researcher took the tool 3 (1st questionnaire) of GEMS Toolkit which addressed reviewing the gender mainstreaming strategies (GEMS) in an organization. In present study the university was taken as the organization. This tool of GEMS toolkit contained two checklists to assess where an organization did stand in implementing gender mainstreaming strategies. The first part of that very tool dealt with the organization's capacity of gender mainstreaming strategies which included the institutional structure (International Labour Organization, 2010. p, 5).

A panel of experts (list of experts has given in Annexure No 3) was requested to refine the questionnaire - its items, format and language, in order to make the questionnaires simple and understandable. The questionnaire was finalized in the light of feedback received from the experts. Reliability refers that scores from a tool are constant and reliable. Scores should be almost similar while researcher conducts the tool at several times. Moreover, scores necessitate being constant. If scores are not reliable, they are not valid (Creswell, 2012; Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun, 2012). The instrument used for this study had shown a relatively high reliability with its alpha coefficient value 0.816.

Data analysis

Data were analysed through nonparametric descriptive (frequency, percentage and mode values) and inferential techniques (Chi-square and Mann Whitney U test) using SPSS. Categorical and ordinal data are analysed through nonparametric statistic, while interval or ratio data are to the parametric (Sheskin, 2004). When scores are measured on an ordinal scale, the median and mode is always appropriate (Healey, 2005; Gravetter and Wallnau, 2013). Therefore nonparametric (descriptive as well as inferential) statistics were thought to be suitable for analysing the data collected by the researcher for this study.

Researcher avoided applying Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness-of-fit purposes, because of the uncertainty surrounding the true significance level (Pollard, 1977; Sheskin, 2004). The chi-square test is an alternative to the Anderson-Darling and Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit tests. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test can be applied to discrete distributions such as the binomial and the Poisson. Mann Whitney U test was applied for comparison of two independent samples i.e. male versus female and teacher versus administrative officer. As there were no specific predictions about the opinion, so the analysis was 2-tailed (Corder, and Foreman, 2009). For many nonparametric test participants are approximately 20 to 25 within subjects design, or pair of participants in a between design subjects (Clark-Carter, 2010). The size of two samples need not to be equal, both sample should be fairly large (at least >5) if we are to use Mann Whitney test" (Ireland, 2010, p. 186).

Results

The study aimed at reviewing gender mainstreaming strategies at university level. The data were collected through an adapted research questionnaire. It was tabulated, analysed and interpreted in the light of the objectives of the study. Data were analysed through descriptive as well as inferential statistics.

According to 34.1% respondents, university had a gender policy. Whereas 37.5% contradicted this view and the least percentage 28.4% perceived that they have no idea about it. The respondents believed (35.5% - yes, 27.3% - no and 37.5 % not sure) that the university had a gender strategy. Majority of the respondents 43.2% were not sure if there was gender specific budget. Whereas, 36.4% said categorically "no' compared to only 20% "yes'. The 20.5% respondents said that university had a gender budget, but 36.4% professed that the university has no gender budget moreover 43.2% are not aware of it.

Institutional Structure and Capacity on GEMS

Table 1. Frequency Table for Institutional Structure and Capacity

Statements###Yes###No###Not sure

1.Gender policy.###30(34.1%)###33(37.5%)###25(28.4%)

2.Gender strategy.###31(35.5%)###24(27.3%)###33(37.5%)

3.Gender budget.###18(20.5%)###32(36.4%)###38(43.2%)

4.Leadership show commitment to gender equality###53(60.2%)###19(21.6%)###16(18.2%)

promotion.

5.Operational staffs show commitment to gender###38(43.2%)###27(30.7%)###23(26.1%)

equality promotion.

6.Gender equality commitment clearly reflects in###35(39.8%)###28(31.8%)###25(28.4%)

actual implementation.

7.Proper budget to promote specific gender equality###7(8.0%)###32(36.4%)###49(55.7%)

programmes.

8. Balanced representation of women and men at all###33(37.5)###44(50.0%)###11(12.5%)

levels of personnel.

9. Men and women treated equally.###50(56.8%)###29(33.0%)###9(10.2%)

10. Routinely conduct gender analysis.###6(6.8%)###43(48.9%)###39(44.3%)

11.University cooperate with women's organization.###39(44.3%)###13(14.8%)###36(40.9%)

12.University have a gender unit, gender focal point###16(18.2%)###36(40.9%)###36(40.9%)

system.

13.Specific gender advocates and experts within the###14(15.9%)###40(45.5%)###34(38.6%)

organization

14.University have clear procedures to integrate###11(12.5%)###42(47.7%)###35(39.8%)

gender into programming.

15.University have clear procedures to integrate###10(11.4%)###33(37.5%)###45(51.1%)

gender into budget

16.University have clear procedures to integrate###38(43.2%)###21(23.9%)###29(33.0%)

gender into staff accountability.

17.Staff in your university been provided with###14(15.9%)###49(55.7%)###25(28.4%)

gender training

18.University routinely ensure that both men and###49(55.7%)###19(21.6%)###20(22.7%)

women are represented in staff (meetings and

training activities).

Mode value of all statements###1 and 2

The respondents believed (60.2% - yes), that leader are committed to gender equality promotion though 21.6% contradicted it and 18.2% were not sure of it. The respondents assumed (43.2%- yes), that operational staff is committed to gender equality promotion. Whereas 30.7% respondents indicated that it did never and 26.1% were not sure of the process.

More than 39% of the respondents said that gender equality commitment clearly reflect in actual implementation, whereas 31.8% contradict this remark in addition to 28.4% were not aware of it. Merely 8.0% respondents expressed that university had proper budget to promote specific gender equality programme; and 36.4% respondents indicated that it did never and 55.7%, were not sure of the process. More than 37% of the respondents said that there is a balanced representation of women and men at all levels of personnel, and 50.0% believed it did nothing. Moreover, 12.5% expressed ignorance of it. According to the respondents (56.8% expressed yes, and 33.0% no), men and women treated equally; further 10.2% respondents expressed ignorance about it.

Majority of the respondents 48.9% said categorically "no' routinely conducted gender analysis and compared to only 6.8% "yes' ; although 44.3% revealed ignorance of it. The respondents believed (44.3% - yes and 14.8% - no) that university cooperated with women's organization; while 40.9% respondents said they had no knowledge about it. The respondents (18.2% perceived yes), thought that university have a gender unit, gender focal point system while no and not sure had the same percentage (40.9%) of it. More than 15% of the respondents said that there were specific gender advocates and experts within the organization; and 45.5% believed it did nothing. Moreover, 38.6% respondents revealed ignorance of the process. University had (12.5% respondents) or had not (47.7%) clear procedures to integrate gender into programming and 39.8% were not aware of that action.

The respondents believed (11.4% - yes and 37.5% -no) that university had not clear procedures to integrate gender into the budget in addition 51.1% respondents had no knowledge about it. According to the respondents (43.2% expressed yes and about 23.9% expressed no), university had clear procedures to integrate gender into staff accountability and 33.0% were not sure of it. More than 15% of the respondents said that university has been provided gender training in his staff against 55.7% who thought it did never; furthermore 28.4 were not aware of it. University had (55.7% respondents) or had not (21.6% respondents) routinely ensured that both men and women are represented in staff (meetings and training activities) and disagreed with this view that the university routinely ensure that both men and women are represented in staff (meetings and training activities) and 22.7% were not sure of the process.

The mode value of all statements related to Institutional structure and capacity on GEMS were 1(Yes) and 2(No). So it was concluded that there was divided opinion about Institutional Structure and Capacity.

Table 2. Hypotheses Testing for Institutional Structure and Capacity

###Chi

###Statements###P

###square

1.Gender policy.###1.114###0.573

2.Gender strategy.###1.523###0.467

3.Gender budget.###7.182###0.2222

4.Leadership show commitment to gender equality promotion.###28.795###0.000

5.Operational staff shows commitment to gender equality promotion.###4.114###0.128

6.Gender equality commitment clearly reflects in actual###1.795###0.407

implementation.

7.Proper budget to promote specific gender equality programmes.###30.432###0.000

8.Balanced representation of women and men at all levels of###19.250###0.000

personnel.

9.Men and women treated equally.###28.659###0.000

10.Routinely conduct gender analysis.###28.114###0.000

11.University cooperate with women's organization.###13.795###0.001

12.University have a gender unit, gender focal point system.###9.091###0.011

13.Specific gender advocates and experts within the organization###12.636###0.002

14.University have clear procedures to integrate gender into###18.023###0.000

programming.

15.University have clear procedures to integrate gender into budget###21.568###0.000

16.University have clear procedures to integrate gender into staff###4.932###0.085

accountability.

17.Staff in your university been provided with gender training###21.841###0.000

18.University routinely ensure that both men and women are###19.795###0.000

represented in staff (meetings and training activities).

Values of Chi square in the table 3.2 revealed that all the statements (3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18) had same pattern except (1, 2, 5, 6, and 16) statements so the null hypotheses were rejected. Thus it was determined that institutional structure and capacity on GEMS at universities had been established. Chi square statistic in table 3.2 also established what frequency data in table 3.1 had revealed that university had not gender policy. Although revealed in table 3.2, it was again endorsed that university had not gender strategy. Though reflected in table 3.2, it was further confirmed here that university had not gender budget.

Table 3.2 explained the same fact what had already been observed in table 3.1, that the leadership showed commitment to gender equality promotion. The analysis of statement 5 (operational staff show commitment to gender equality promotion) and 6 (gender equality commitment clearly reflect in actual implementation) in table 3.2 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.1. The analysis of statement 5 (operational staff show commitment to gender equality promotion) and 6 (gender equality commitment clearly reflect in actual implementation) in table 3.2 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.1.

The analysis of statement 7 (university had proper budget to promote specific gender equality programmes) in table 3.2 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.1. Table 3.2 explained the dissimilar fact what had been observed in table 3.1, that there was a balanced representation of women and men at all levels of personnel. Though reflected in table 3.1, it was further confirmed here that men and women treated equally. The analysis of statement 10 (university routinely conduct gender analysis) in table 3.2provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.1. Table 3.2 explained the same fact what had already been observed in table 3.1, that university cooperated with women's organization. The analysis of statement 12 (university had a gender unit, gender focal point system) in table 3.2 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.1.

Chi square statistic in table 3.2 did not establish what frequency data in table 3.1 had revealed that there were specific gender advocates and experts within the organization. The analysis of statement 14 (university had clear procedures to integrate gender into programming) in table 3.2 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.1. Chi square statistic in table 3.2 did not establish what frequency data in table 3.1 had revealed that university had clear procedures to integrate gender into budget.

The analysis of statement 16 (university had clear procedures to integrate gender into staff accountability) in table 3.1 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 3.2. The analysis of statement 17 (staff in your university been provided with gender training) in table 3.2 provided insufficient evidence upon what had been reported on it in table 4.1. Though reflected in table 3.1, it was further confirmed here that university routinely ensured that both men and women are represented in staff (meetings and training activities.

At a= 0.05, all items related to institutional structure and practices on GEMS. The table 3.3 revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the views of male and female about institutional structure and capacity (practices) on GEMS. Same pattern was observed in all statements except the statement 1, 4 and 6. So the null hypotheses were failed to be rejected. Consequently it was determined that both male and female workforce had similar response. At a= 0.05, all items related to institutional structure and practices on GEMS.

Table 3. Male vs female on institutional structure and capacity

Statements###U###P

1.Gender policy.###694.500###0.025

2.Gender strategy.###800.500###0.198

3.Gender budget.###748.500###0.076

4.Leadership show commitment to gender equality promotion.###713.500###0.026

5.Operational staff show commitment to gender equality###748.500###0.078

promotion.

6.Gender equality commitment clearly reflect in actual###644.500###0.007

implementation.

7.Proper budget to promote specific gender equality###937.500###0.954

programmes.

8.Balanced representation of women and men at all levels of###910.500###0.758

personnel.

9.Men and women treated equally.###761.500###0.081

10.Routinely conduct gender analysis.###922.500###0.842

11.University cooperate with women's organization.###834.000###0.313

12.University have a gender unit, gender focal point system.###885.500###0.596

13.Specific gender advocates and experts within the###829.500###0.294

organization

14.University have clear procedures to integrate gender into###855.500###0.413

programming.

15.University have clear procedures to integrate gender into###875.500###0.524

budget

16.University have clear procedures to integrate gender into###781.000###0.141

staff accountability.

17.Staff in your university been provided with gender training###921.000###0.832

18.University routinely ensure that both men and women are###829.500###0.283

represented in staff (meetings and training activities).

Values of Mann Whitney U test in the table 3.4 revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the views of male and female about institutional structure and capacity (practices) on GEMS. Same pattern was observed in all statements except the statement 2, 3, 6 and 10. So the null hypotheses were failed to be rejected. At a= 0.05, all items related to institutional structure and capacity on GEMS.

Table 4. Teachers vs administration on institutional structure and capacity

Statements###U###P

1.Gender policy.###255.000###0.059

2.Gender strategy.###243.500###0.040

3.Gender budget.###249.000###0.046

4.Leadership show commitment to gender equality

###374.000###0.810

promotion.

5.Operational staff show commitment to gender

###374.500###0.827

equality promotion.

6.Gender equality commitment clearly reflect in actual

###251.000###0.052

implementation.

7.Proper budget to promote specific gender equality

###365.500###0.718

programmes.

8.Balanced representation of women and men at all

###358.000###0.640

levels of personnel.

9.Men and women treated equally.###377.000###0.874

10.Routinely conduct gender analysis.###245.000###0.034

11.University cooperate with women's organization.###350.000###0.565

12.University have a gender unit, gender focal point

###346.500###0.535

system.

13.Specific gender advocates and experts within the

###378.500###0.869

organization

14.University have clear procedures to integrate

###336.500###0.438

gender into programming.

15.University have clear procedures to integrate

###297.000###0.177

gender into budget

16.University have clear procedures to integrate

###289.500###0.155

gender into staff accountability.

17.Staff in your university been provided with gender

###370.000###0.766

training

18.University routinely ensure that both men and

women are represented in staff (meetings and training###349.500###.584

activities).

Discussion and Conclusion

From the results it can be concluded that institutional has insufficient capacity to address the gender related issues, moreover inappropriate linkages can be seen between the government as well as nongovernmental sections. In addition to this lack of sufficient incentives, diversity, duplicity and disconnectedness of sectorial performer among others can also be observed (Chuku, 2010).

The women team up with the company of democrats in country administration, to attain their considering gender justice problems located on government policy memorandum (Taylor, 2001). The result of this study showed that there was gender mainstreaming practices in institutional structure of universities/ organization GEMS' practices. Whereas Crespi (2009) argued that a great concentration has desired towards the affairs between women along with men, specifically by means of decision-making. This is congruent to that of present study. It can thus be concluded that teacher and administrative staff had the same views about gender mainstreaming strategies. According to Stevens and Lameon (2001) they have considered that they were the participants of gender mainstreaming.

References

Beveridge, F., and Nott, S. (2002). Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 299-31.

Blickhauser, A., and Bargen, H. V. (2007). Gender Toolbox. Berlin: Germany. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from: http: //www.gendertoolbox.org/toolbox/ toolboxEN/ Downloads/5.%20Materials/Engl_PDF mainstreaming_eng.pdf

Crespi, I. (2009). Gender differences and equality issues in Europe: critical aspects of gender mainstreaming policies. International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 19(1), 171-188.

Derbyshire, H. (2002). Gender Manual: A Practical Guide for Development Policy Makers and Practitioners. Department for International Development. Retrieved from: http: //www.google.com.pk/url, www.dfid.gov.uk

Eveline, J., and Bacchi, C. (2005).What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender?. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 496-512.

Eerdewijk, A. V., and Dubel, I. (2012). Substantive gender mainstreaming and the missing middle: a view from Dutch development agencies. Gender and Development, 20(3), 491-504.

Fischer, C. (2012). Intersectional mainstreaming and Sightsavers' Lady Health Workers Programme in Pakistan. Gender and Development, 20(3), 563-571

Grosser, K., and Moon, J. (2005). Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 327-340.

Gultekin, K., Leichtman, E. C., and Garrison, C. G. (2010). Gender issues and the women of the Turkish National Police. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(5), 423-436,

Habib, L. A. (2008). Gender Mainstreaming Reference Kit (GMRK). Retrieved from: http://www.euromedrights.org/files/Reports/Gender_mainstreaming_kit_ENG_903261576.pdf

Henze, R., Lucas, T., and Scott, B. (1998). Dancing with the Monster: Teachers Discuss Racism, Power, and White Privilege in Education. The Urban Review, 30(3).

Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Gender bias in employment contexts: A closer examination of the role incongruity principle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 86-96.

Innes, M. (2000). Accelerating Change: Resources for Gender Mainstreaming.Canadian International Development Agency. Agriteam Canada Consulting Ltd. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from: www.acdicida.gc.ca.pdf

Jabeen, N., and Iqbal, M. Z. (2010). Gender and Local Governance in Pakistan: Promoting Participation through Capacity Building. South Asian Studies: A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 25(2), 255-281.

Jacobs, J. A. (1996). Gender Inequality and Higher Education. Annu. Rev. Sociol, 22,153-85.

Karlsson, J. (2010). Gender mainstreaming in a South African provincial education department: a transformative shift or technical fix for oppressive gender relations?. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(4), 497-514.

Kenney, S. J. (2002). Breaking the Silence: Gender Mainstreaming and the Composition of the European Court of Justice. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 257-270.

Kronsell, A. (2005). Gendered practices in institutions of hegemonic masculinity. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(2), 280-298.

Karega, R. G. M., and Bunwaree, S. (2010). Gender mainstreaming in Afica: Country Experiences from Eastren and Southern Africa.Gender Mainstreaming Experiences from Eastern and South Africa,. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from: http: //books.google.com.pk/books?id=BrG49qK5PGgCandprintsec=fr ontcoveranddq=gender+mainstreaming

Knodel, J., Loi, V. M., Jayakody, R., and Huy, V. T. (2005). Gender Roles in the Family. Asian Population Studies, 1(1), 69-92.

Lindsey, L., L. (2011). Gender Roles: A Socilogical Perspective (5th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education Inc.

Lavena, C., and Riccucci, N. M. (2012). Exploring Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(2), 122-136.

Masilungan, E. (Eds.). (2001). The Rationale behind gender mainstreaming. Manila, Philippines: NCRFW. Retrieved May 26, 2015 from: http: //library.pcw.gov.ph/ sites/ default/files/gmef-book1-rationale.pdf

Mazey, S. (2000). Introduction: Integrating gender-intellectual and "real world' mainstreaming. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 333-345.

Mazey, S. (2002). Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the E.U.: Delivering on an Agenda? Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 227-240.

Moser, C., and Moser, A. (2005). Gender mainstreaming since Beijing: a review of success and limitations in international institutions. Gender and Development, 13(2), 11-22.

Neimanis, A. (2005).Gender Mainstreaming in Practice: A Handbook, (2nd ed.). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from: http: //www1.uneca.org/Portals/ngm/ Documents/ Gender%20 Mainstreaming/Gender_Mainstreaming_in_PracticeRBC.pdf

O'Connor, J. S. (2014). Gender mainstreaming in the European Union: broadening the possibilities for gender equality and/or an inherently constrained exercise? Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 30(1), 69-78.

Olowu, D. (2011). Mainstreaming women, equating men: Charting an inclusionary approach to transformative development in the African decade for women. Law Democracy and Development, 15. doi: http: //dx.doi.org/10.4314/ldd.v15i1.2. Retrieved from: http: //www.saflii.org/za/journals/LDD/2011/3.pdf

Rees, T. (2005). Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 555-574.

Reeves, H., and Baden, S. (2000). Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions. BRIDGE development- gender. Institute of Development Studies, Department for International Development (DFID), UK. Retrieved from http: //www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/sites/bridge.ids.ac.uk/files/reports/re55.pdf

Riddell, L. T. (2009). Educators' responses to policy concerns about the gender balance of the teaching profession in Scotland. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 477-493.

Silfver, A. L. (2010). Emancipation or neo-colonisation? Global gender mainstreaming policies, Swedish gender equality politics and local negotiations about putting gender into education reforms in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. Compare, 40(4), 479-495.

Stevens, I., and lameon, I. V. (2001). What is gender mainstreaming and why is it to key of success?. Manual to gender mainstreaming to universties. Retrieved from: http: //www.kuleuven.be/diversiteit/publicaties/manual.pdf

Sandler, J., and Rao, A. (2012). The elephant in the room and the dragons at the gate: strategising for gender equality in the 21st century. Gender and Development, 20(3), 547-562.

Shaw, J. (2002). THE European Union and Gender Mainstreaming: Constitutionally Embedded or Comprehensively Marginalised? Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 213-226.

Schmidt-Traub, G. (2009). The Millennium Development Goals and human rights- based approaches: moving towards a shared approach. The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(1), 72-85. doi: 10.1080/13642980802532374

Tahiraj, I. (2010) Gender Issues - Inclusion Perspectives in Teaching and Learning in Post-Conflict Kosovo. Interchange, 41/2, 133-143.

Taylor, S. (2001). Teachers Union Activism for Gender Equity: Social Movements and Policy Processes. Australian Educational Researcher, 28(1).

Tiessen, R. (2007). Everywhere/No where Gender Mainstreaming in Development Agencies. United states of America: Kumarain Press, Inc. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from: http: //books.google.com.pk/books?id=fZgTlAbqc54Cand printsec=frontcoveranddq=gender+mainstreaming

United Nations. (2014).The World Survey on the Role of Women in Development, on the theme of "gender equality and sustainable development". Retrieved from: http: //www.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/pu blications/2014/unwomen_surveyreport_advance_16oct.pdf

United Nations. (2004). Trade and Gender Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries. In Tran-Nguyen, A.,and Zampetti, A.B (Eds.),The Economics of Gender Equality, Trade and Development(pp. 1-55). New York and Geneva:. ISBN: 92-1-112634-7.

UNESCO. (2005). Measuring women's progress in a global era. Walby, USA.

Velluti, S. (2008). Promotion of Gender Equality at the Workplace: Gender Mainstreaming and Collective Bargaining in Italy. Fem Leg Stud, 16, 195-214.

Walby, S. (1997). Gender Transformations.London and New York: Routledge.

Wright, E. O., Baxter, J., and Birlelund, G. E. (1995). The Gender gap in workplace authority: A cross national study. American Sociological Review, 60(3), 407-435.

Walby, S. (2005). Introduction: Comparative gender mainstreaming in a global era. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 453-470.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ramzan, Muhammad; Khan, Bushra Nawaz; Hussain, Shafqat; Sarwar, Muhammad
Publication:Journal of Educational Research
Article Type:Report
Date:Jun 30, 2015
Words:6821
Previous Article:Prospective Teachers' Experiences during Teaching Practice.
Next Article:Relationship of Organizational Climate with Teachers' Job Satisfaction.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |