New times and new vocabularies: Theorising and evaluating gender equality in Commonwealth higher education

Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620 – 628 www.elsevier.com/locate/wsif

New times and new vocabularies: Theorising and evaluating gender equality in Commonwealth higher education Elaine Unterhalter School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, UK Available online 27 November 2006

Synopsis This article examines contrasting approaches to theorising and evaluating gender equality in higher education across the Commonwealth. The most common approach conceives gender equality as the inclusion of women in higher education. This perspective generally does not challenge the form of institutions, their power dynamics or epistemological frameworks. Critical approaches highlight gendered processes within institutions, often obscured by rhetoric and complex means of silencing. The capability approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, for example, explicitly advocates connections between aspirations for gender equality within higher education and wider social justice concerns. This approach requires a consideration of questions of gender equality within and beyond the institution pointing to the need for further work on a global ethics that deepens meanings of gender equality, higher education and Commonwealth. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction What does gender equality in higher education mean and how can we enhance evaluation and action for change? The data analysed from the research project on gender equity in Commonwealth higher education reported in this special issue (see also Morley et al., 2006) provide rich grounds for extending the theoretical vocabularies we can draw on to answer this question. In this article I first examine some debates about the meanings of gender equality and their implications for thinking about change in higher education. Second, I consider how contrasting approaches to gender equality raise different issues for how one understands higher education as a field of social relations and the implications of these understandings for actions for change. Lastly, I consider some discussion concerning social transformation and higher education in the guise of widening participation, gender mainstreaming and social justice highlighting what approaches to evaluation 0277-5395/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2006.10.008

and action have been involved and which have been neglected. While it is difficult to generalise across the many different histories and forms of higher education within the Commonwealth, my aim is to stand back from some of the specific histories and contestations over gender equality and higher education organizations in particular countries in order to suggest some approaches to mapping the field. Some of this discussion thus also has a bearing on debates about gender and schooling, while some is specific to higher education and particular issues concerning institutional form, policy and practice. What does gender equality mean in higher education? For many decades the small numbers of women in higher education institutions around the world have meant that the question of the meaning of gender equality in higher education was not difficult. The overwhelming problem was access to study and employment

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

at this level, to work in particular disciplines or at particular levels of seniority. For the majority of women in the world gender equality in higher education is still primarily a question of access. However, for women who have gained some degree of access, and for societies concerned with wider meanings of gender equality new challenges have emerged. Partly these relate to contesting the social relations inside higher education institutions that have admitted women. These challenges have also prompted engagement with different threads in the meaning of gender equality. The feminist novelist Angela Carter, who went to a university in the UK in the 1960s, when few women studied at this level, suggested a generative metaphor. Once women were invited to the dinner party of higher education, she asked, could they complain about the food (quoted in Smith, 2004)? In this article I want to take her question further. How do they ask questions about who cooked and washed up and under what work conditions? Can they consider how access to this dinner party does and does not support those who may never eat a meal on this lavish scale? And if they pose these questions are they really guests or only impostors barely tolerated, forever outsiders? The question about the meaning of gender equity in higher education resonates with longstanding debates within feminist theory. Broadly gender equality has been understood in two contrasting streams. First, in terms of sameness, that, is gaining access to the same levels of education or professional qualifications or earnings as men. Second, in terms of difference, that is, valuing particular perspectives or forms of practice associated with women, for example the establishment of Women's Studies as a particular field of enquiry, or the development of feminist approaches to teaching that highlight the social situatedness of taken for granted relations between learners and teachers. Both perspectives have attracted criticisms. The first approach which stressed equality (e.g. Lie, Malik, & Harris, 1994; Singh, 2002) has been charged with not sufficiently valuing ideas, contexts and actions associated with the relationship of institutional power and excluded groups, where gender, class, race and ethnicity intersect (Blackmore, 2002; Luke, 2001; Rassool, 1995). The second approach which has stressed difference (e.g. Kolawole, 1997) has been accused of essentialising women, failing to take sufficient account of how gender inequalities disperse across other forms of inequality linked to postcoloniality, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, age and disability, and in turn mutate and change in different settings (Kenway & Bullen, 2003; Mayberry & Rose, 1999).

621

More recently a number of theorisations have developed a threefold typology between equal opportunities (sameness), special programmes (difference) and transformation (shifting agendas of the political economy) (Rees, 1998). Judith Squires (1999) also distinguishes within a threefold typology. First, she distinguishes approaches which stress inclusion, an example of which might be widening participation in higher education. These strategies focus on evaluative approaches that present themselves as objective, view people as cognitively or morally autonomous and aspire to forms of organization that are gender neutral. Thus counting numbers of women and men in higher education, sometimes including classification by race, ethnicity or parents' socio-economic group is the most widely used form of analysis. Second, there are strategies that Squires characterises as concerned with reversal, that is they stress a politics of gender difference, work with evaluative approaches that draw on interpretative methodologies and recognise how women's experiences of higher education are different from men's experiences. The studies in this special issue are all examples of this approach highlighting particular experiences of discrimination, exclusion and gender based harassment and violence of students and staff. Third, Squires identifies strategies that advocate displacement of received ideas about gender and femininity, draw on genealogical methodologies that examine how discourses of inclusion or identity are contingently formed and reformed through historically changing institutions. Studies within this third category are concerned with shifting the subject positions inscribed through practices. They work with gender as a verb, rather than a noun. This is exemplified by the way historical and sociological study of certain spaces within higher education in particular contexts become gendered and maintain particular formations of masculinity and femininity. Research within this framework deconstructs the discursive regimes of institutions or disciplines, looks at the boundaries they establish, the ways in which these engender the subject and disruptive moments of contestation. Claudia Lapping (2005) utilises such an approach and shows how certain academic disciplines draw on other discursive fields to marginalise groups of students. Her detailed empirical work highlights how women students in a Political Thought class in a UK university engage with the learning and teaching on their course and draws out how the processes required by the forms of reasoning and performance within the subject conflict with the discursive regulation of femininity (Lapping, 2005, p.667). Sylvia Walby (2005) points out how contestations over the meaning of gender equality mix vision (ends)

622

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

and strategy (means) and entail an examination of how the interconnections between different domains are understood (Walby, 2005, pp.326–7). Evaluations often consider either processes or intended outcomes. But foregrounding gender equality points to a need to evaluate the connections between process and outcome. For example in higher education this suggests evaluating a combination of programmes to enhance women's access to higher education, whether or not there are courses in Women's Studies, and challenges to forms of decision-making in higher education that destabilise the informal networks male power generally deliver. The evaluation would consider equality, difference and transformation. Thus a new approach to gender justice is suggested that goes beyond ‘simple’ opportunities for access and the valuing of difference. In my current work on feminist theory and education I distinguish between approaches to education that are concerned with reflecting a gender order of equality or difference (inclusion or reversal in Walby's typology) and those that give more space to the agency and diversity of social actors to achieve more complex forms of equality or difference. I am concerned that this latter position is not only seen as a strategy of displacement and deconstruction, but also considered as part of a politics of deepening an understanding of rights and forming connections beyond

particular institutions (Unterhalter, 2005a). The forms of evaluation this draws on entail working a boundary between normative theory and sociology (Unterhalter, 2003). In my earlier work analysing approaches to gender education and development more generally I developed a taxonomy which distinguished between meanings of gender equality linked to different approaches to understanding political and economic change and schooling (Unterhalter, 2005b). In this article I adapt that framework to think through some different approaches to gender equality in higher education (Table 1). The taxonomy distinguishes four different forms of politics, strategies and forms of evaluation relating to gender equality in higher education. It suffers from all the weaknesses that usually attend these mappings of ideas in that it presents approaches as disconnected, when they often overlap. It suggests in its format a hierarchy of deepening understanding and social insight, which is misleading. In the names given to the approaches it appears that an approach epitomising for example inclusion, might not engage in critique. This compresses ideas too fiercely as in many contexts of discrimination and exclusion, inclusion is itself a critique. However, despite these shortcomings I think such taxonomy is useful because it allows us to see major differences between forms of policy and evaluation, even

Table 1 Framework of approaches to gender equality in higher education Approach

Linked theories

Understandings of gender

Inclusion: improve access to study and employment

Early liberal feminism Modernisation Human capital theory Radical and socialist feminism Second generation liberal feminism Structuralism Marxism

Gender = women, girls

Contestation: critique of gendered power relations in higher education

Equal opportunities Equality of resources (places, jobs, teachers, funding) Constructed and Redistribution of contested social power relations, power May take in politics of recognition

Critique: post-structuralism Cultural feminism Shifting and and postcoloniality Theories of performed identity and position identities

Connection: linking higher Liberal education with wider egalitarianism The capability justice agenda approach.

Understandings of equality

Stress on celebrating difference

Norms, Equality of rights and structures and capabilities dispositions which constrain opportunities and outcomes

Associated policies and Approach to practices in higher education evaluation Widening participation

Counting Surveys

Social justice Gender mainstreaming Some technical expertise e.g. gender budgeting De-constructive Critical perspectives within existing disciplines Creating new interdisciplinary work Developing freedoms, rights Forms of affirmative action

Qualitative analysis using interpretative research paradigm

Qualitative research or textual analysis

Eclectic Mixed modes of evaluation to explore multi-dimensionality

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

though in practice combined approaches are generally used and in particular historical moments one approach may signal or imply another. The first approach I have labelled inclusion. This focuses on increasing the numbers of women students and staff in all subject areas and at all levels of employment and decision-making. The approach connects with social theory that is concerned with economic and political efficiency, cost benefit analysis, and the ways in which the entry of women into the labour market enhances economic growth. Gender generally means numbers of women, and equality the numbers of places to study, posts available and the resources in terms of teachers and learning resources to support this. Some policies associated with the inclusion approach include widening participation in the UK, focussing on expanding access to higher education for economic growth and social inclusion with some concern with reaching young women and men from working class backgrounds. Programmes with a similar dynamic in other Commonwealth countries entail either quotas for women as staff or students in higher education or other kinds of programmes that encourage access. An assumption of this approach is that the end (increased access) is more important than the means. Thus enrolling more women in higher education is more important than the form or content of that education. Evaluations entail counting and large scale survey research which are unable to look at the fine grain of the quality of the experience of studying or working in higher education institutions. The second approach I have designated contestation. The associated politics and strategies assume a reasonable or minimally acceptable level of access to study and employment, but are concerned with the relations of power, both overt and covert that exclude women from realising their full potential. These might be the ways in which women students or staff do not sufficiently appropriate some of the: unspoken forms of cultural capital that are associated with excellent performance (Reay, 2004); hidden and informal networks of power which exclude women (Chanana, 2003; Morley, 1999) or; ways in which women develop dispositions that inhibit their success within higher education organisations (Leonard, 2001). This approach articulates with forms of social and political theory that analyse the structures of institutions, the alignment of social relations and conditions, and the forms of action that challenge these. Equality here is concerned with redistributing power to overcome historical, material and tacit forms of exclusion and exploitation sometimes acknowledging that an identity politics might be needed to effect some forms of redress (Fraser, 1997; Lynch & Baker, 2005).

623

The policies associated with this approach include gender mainstreaming in higher education which have attempted to consider gender as part of the ‘organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of the policy process’ incorporating gender equality at all stages and by all actors (Council of Europe, 1998, p.15). This has been the approach initiated at Makerere University discussed in this volume by Kwesiga and Ssendiwala. Gender responsive budgeting has been used to assess how countries spend their education budget and what the balance of expenditures are with regard to women and men (Beyond Access, 2005). To date gender responsive budgeting has not been used in assessing the accounts of higher education institutions but it may hold out particular promise as a form of audit that can be combined with other methods that illuminate structures and relations of power. It can be seen that evaluation here is concerned with interpreting the meanings of experiences of learning and working in higher education, and with discerning how structures of power and forms of subordination work. Means and ends co-construct each other and one cannot evaluate one without the other. While a number of feminist theorists have raised critical questions concerning gender mainstreaming, their overall conclusion is that the approach holds considerable potential with regard to institutional change (Squires, 2005; Walby, 2005). The third set of strategies I have termed critique. This has been less concerned with the politics and economics of institutional change, and more interested in effecting changes in ideas, the substance of what is taught, the boundaries between disciplines, and the subject positions of learners and teachers within a discursive field that connects disciplinary knowledge within higher education institutions and forms of identification outside. This relational epistemology takes precedence as a field of analytical and social engagement rather than the form and history of institutions. This approach draws on post-foundational forms of social theory that are concerned with situated knowledge and fluid identities. It is the gendering of difference, not equality that is of major concern in this approach as Claudia Lapping's work outlined above exemplifies. She shows how discursive practices construct masculinity and femininity and how students struggle with formations of gendered identities demanded both within and beyond particular higher education pedagogies (Lapping, 2005). This approach is associated with policies that support these contestations through encouraging research within post foundational frameworks, the development of new spheres for knowledge production and the acknowledgement of diverse identities and epistemologies. In the

624

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

context of higher education and development these policies might particularly encourage the recognition of subordinated languages and cultural practices and might support women's knowledge in these areas. At the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa an instance of this has been the establishment of the Gay and Lesbian Archive collecting material associated with gay and lesbian political and social activism, supporting research on sexualities and building from academic and archival work about secrecy and sexuality to challenge some of the practices that have hindered freedom of information about the apartheid past and continuing ignorance and discrimination, particularly with regard to HIV in the contemporary period (GALA, 2004). The forms of evaluation entailed are thus deconstructive, concerned with illuminating discursive fields, often discussing forms of text. More emphasis is placed on means rather than ends. The last approach I have named connection. In many ways this is a meta-approach drawing on ideas about rights and capabilities at a higher level of abstraction from the other three which are concerned with social relations within institutions and can each, in their different ways, underpin this fourth approach. However, I want to signal, through distinguishing strategies and politics concerned with rights from the other three approaches, how within this approach there are some different inflections in aspirations to link gender equality concerns in higher education with wider social justice ambitions beyond the institution. These are implicit in the other three but they become a major framing concern here. In this approach there is a focus on issues that may or may not have a bearing on the routine business of higher education institutions, for example reproductive rights, global inequalities and better understandings of tolerance. These wider goals are not of themselves entailed by any particular strategy of inclusion, contestation or critique within higher education, but in this fourth approach particular emphases are placed on the form and content of higher education that can advance or impede knowledge and action in these areas. The approach signals a concern with justice articulated with, but not collapsed into ideas about equality or difference. It draws on writings about rights and capabilities by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum which associate gender with norms, structures and dispositions that perpetuate discrimination and limit capabilities, and integrate aspirations for gender equality with wider understandings of the process freedoms and ethical obligations entailed by rights and capabilities (Nussbaum, 1997, 2000a,b; Sen, 1999, 2005). The capability approach allows us to understand how existing gender relations

might require additional resources for education to the capabilities of girls and women, that is their substantive freedoms to achieve functionings or outcomes they value (Unterhalter, 2003, 2005c). The form of these additional resources is not generally evident from evaluating opportunities or outcomes. Drawing on the capability approach allows us to develop an approach to evaluation that is more multidimensional and concerned with the complex ways in which different women and men can use higher education to develop lives (their own and others) which they have reason to value. Melanie Walker (2006) utilises this approach in formulating a vision for higher education that stresses the importance of justice as a key value. She argues for the importance of higher education pedagogies that support freedom, human flourishing and students' education development. She takes forward into the field of pedagogy, Nussbaum's (1997) ideas with regard to the content of higher education linked to critical examination of the self, the nurturing of world citizenship and the development of a narrative imagination. She melds this with Sen's concerns with agency and the distribution of capabilities to produce a rich account of teaching and learning capabilities in higher education (Walker, 2006). Walker's analysis thus draws on the capability approach for how it can help illuminate challenges in higher education pedagogies. In identifying the capability approach as a basis for the fourth formation of how one could think about gender equality in Commonwealth higher education I want to highlight not only relations within the institution but consideration of a dynamic relationship between higher education and the world beyond the institution. The assumption of all the three previous approaches is that higher education shapes social relations and identities that impact on a wider world. They work with a model of cause and effect. However, the aspiration to equalise capabilities, unlike opportunities or outcomes is not predicated on such a simple model with regard to higher education and society, but suggests a more multidimensional and coevolving relationship. Conditions in society, for example forms of gender equality and inequality are simultaneously forming and being formed by relations in higher education and ethical obligations and concerns with rights are entailed by this. The capability approach implies a connection with a theory of justice, but is not itself such a theory. Without some articulation of an approach to justice even nuanced and developed ideas regarding equality, such as Lynch and Baker's (2005) conception of equality of condition or Nussbaum's list of central capabilities for human flourishing, when applied within education institutions beg the

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

question of the form of the relationship of the institution to its wider social context (Lynch & Baker, 2005; Nussbaum, 2000a). The implications of the fourth position regarding connection are not only that higher education institutions should establish the social relations in which dispositions concerned with freedom and human flourishing with regard to gender equality and other social divisions are cultivated as Walker (2006) argues, but, in my view, situate themselves within an approach to social justice. Gender and other injustices of the world reach higher education institutions in many forms. They may be the objects of research. They may form pedagogic or managerial relations and the subjectivities of those who participate in the institution. Whatever the form, higher education institutions are significant actors with regard to redress and justice. The form of this action may vary depending on particular views of justice. For the 19th and the early 20th century social liberals, many of whom were highly educated women, it took the form of establishing education and housing for the poor and taking higher education beyond its conventional boundaries of delivery. For the mid 20th century writers as different as De Beauvoir and Arendt who had lived through the horrors and dislocations of World War 2, justice was partly about claiming a space within higher education and philosophy for aspirations that they had learned bitterly were contingent and fragile, often ambiguous. For the late 20th century post Rawlsian feminist thinkers like Radhika Coomaraswamy (1993) or Susan Moller Okin (1999), the challenge of justice is the diverse forms in which the demand is framed, be it through pleas for the recognition of cultures, of rights or of human vulnerabilities. The challenge is also how to view the intersection between public and private realms and whether gender equality has single or multiple meanings in these different settings. Higher education institutions are an important space to think about and practice an approach to justice, but they constitute one among many sites where these issues are engaged. This presents enormous opportunities for new ways of working on the meanings of gender, equality, higher education and global relations. In the context of global restructuring there has been huge attention given by higher education institutions to new markets and inadequate attention to global ethics, rights and the questions relating to gender equality this raises. Engaging the social justice dimension of this task suggests a particular meaning for the idea of Commonwealth higher education where such explorations can take place. In working on the capability approach and schooling I have tried to develop indicators that can be used to compare how countries are progressing in relation to

625

gender equality in education (Unterhalter, Challender, & Rajagopalan, 2005). This might be a fruitful area to develop with regard to considering multidimensional indicators of how gender equality in higher education links with other forms of social justice and how the global dynamics of gender equality and connections with higher education institutions can be assessed. It is evident that taking this kind of stance with regard to evaluation brings together means and ends, and does not separate them out analytically or in terms of methods of inquiry. The different approaches ‘see’ higher education in different terms. For the first approach concerned with bringing women into higher education, the stress is on the physical form of the institution, the employment contracts it offers and the pay and status these attract, the degrees it confers and sometimes the dispositions associated with this. In the second approach higher education institutions are implicated in other social relations of domination and subordination either through processes of reproduction or through networks of association and more complex forms of co-evolution of either prevailing conditions or processes of change. They may present opportunities to regulate or transform existing class or race divisions or they may fail to do so and confirm these social divisions. Sometimes, in this approach the relative autonomy of higher education institutions from existing relations of power are underexamined, but sometimes they are over-emphasised. For example some accounts of higher education in South Africa under apartheid downplayed the impact of racial segregation and gender discrimination, while others placed this centre stage (Jonathan, 2001). In the third approach the organisational formations of higher education are underplayed and what is examined and struggled over are forms of knowledge and identity. In the fourth approach higher education is seen to provide a potential space for developing insights into rights and capabilities, enhancing freedoms and widening opportunities and acting on these although this is not necessarily a linear process of learning about, say global injustice, but a more diffuse process of inculcating concern, raising critique, and helping to forge connection. But this approach pays inadequate attention to how one might address a higher education institution that failed to do this, other than point out its collusion with abuses of rights and denial of capabilities. This approach seems particularly dependent on the policies associated with the other three to enrich its very general delineation of rights and freedoms, but at the same time it requires the development of fuller understandings of social justice, particularly at the global level.

626

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

Expertise, democracy and accountability for gender equity in higher education I have shown how different meanings of gender, equality, and higher education entail different policies and practices for change and different orientations in evaluation. In conclusion I want to highlight some of the implications of the different approaches for thinking about expertise, democracy and accountability with regard to gender equality. The approach based on inclusion may place a boundary between expertise acquired within higher education and democracy. Inclusion can work within highly undemocratic states. As a white South African woman who went to a university in the apartheid era, I had access to excellent higher education, acquired expertise, but at that time there was no democratic accountability of universities to the whole South African population. Both the approaches based on contestation and critique raise critical questions about the nature of expertise and power. They both consider critical reflection about expertise as part of a process of building democracy. They aspire to make higher education accountable for processes regarding gender and other equalities. Both approaches can sometimes be read as though expertise was just a sleight of hand of those in power and that democracy in the guise of critical reflection must always trump expertise. But critical engagement is itself a particular form of expertise requiring the capacity to go beyond the appearance of the world, the formations of power, and attentiveness to ideas and issues that may be silenced. Implicit in both approaches are concerns to unmask formations of gendered inequalities and to point to knowledge in relation to forms of social action, although both approaches tend to locate the space of social action chiefly within higher education institutions. Although work is only beginning on how the fourth approach based on rights and capabilities might be utilised in relation to gender equality in higher education I think the way this approach opens out questions of expertise, justice, democracy and accountability in a new way holds enormous promise. The approach does not suggest that higher education is mechanically tied, obligated or subordinate to concerns outside. Yet it points to developing particular pedagogies that inculcate reflection on freedom and equalities. Thus a dimension of expertise is that one knows through a particular form of critical connection with other individuals and with a project concerned with social justice. The approach points to reexamining the question of the link between higher

education and projects for democracy, accountability, gender equality and justice. It seeks to highlight agency in thinking about gender equality in relation to conceptualising justice. It suggests scrutiny of the gendered power relations that a one dimensional celebration of deliberative democracy within higher education may mask. It points to the ways in which accountability is ethical and not just managerial. It suggests drawing on ethical debate to examine everyday actions and paying particular attention to global processes which affect us all. The policies associated with inclusion entail more places and resources for women. The policies associated with critique and contestation entail struggles within institutions over persistent gendered inequalities addressing for example sexual harassment or curriculum content. The policies associated with connection entail higher education concerned with gender equality and social justice both as a process of looking inward and outward. Some examples might include a scrutiny of gender, global relations and employment conditions for all staff, discussion about how freedoms and justice link with knowledge formation, pedagogy and the social relations within a university. The process of connection would suggest that this happens as part of a dynamic concern with wider social justice aspirations outside higher education. These may link to particular localities with regard to gender and the vulnerability of particular groups or to some of the gendered consequences of climate change. Aspirations for gender equality in the context of global justice may inform concerns within higher education regarding the gendered dimensions of poverty and the ways in which ideas about gender and rights can be given institutional form. In some areas this may have a direct bearing on what is studied. In others it might inform a more general orientation of higher education policy and culture. In the context of the Commonwealth this points to the need to deepen an understanding of the ways in which concern with human rights and education are as much part of the connection that draws the Commonwealth together as gatherings of Heads of State. Conclusion: who is coming to dinner? All four approaches position women at the dinner party of higher education. The politics of inclusion secures only a place at the table. The politics of contestation and critique allow women to complain about the food as honoured guests, not troublesome outsiders. But the politics of connection may mean there is no settled or comfortable meal. They are likely to entail frequent interruptions of the dinner and a request to lay more places

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

for new guests. The newcomers may bring wonderful unexpected food, but they may arrive disturbingly gaunt and ill. In welcoming them and disturbing the actions of ‘coming to dinner’ the histories of women and men engaged through inclusion, contestation and critique will be valuable. But at this new kind of dinner a different stance is required that entails engagement with the concerns raised by new guests and their connections to those far away from the meal. Gender equality in higher education here turns towards a different strategic and ethical politics as a lived form of social justice. Acknowledgements Thanks to the members of the research team on Gender Equity in Commonwealth Higher Education for the wide-ranging discussions that have helped generate some of the ideas this article draws on. Particular thanks to Louise Morley for encouraging me to connect my work on schooling with higher education and to the two anonymous referees for urging me to be more specific. References Beyond Access (2005). Gender responsive budgeting in education. Paper 7 programme insights series. Oxford: Oxfam Retrieved, January 2006, from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/ education/downloads/edPaper7.pdf Blackmore, Jill (2002). Globalisation and the restructuring of higher education for new knowledge economies: new dangers or old habits troubling gender equity work in universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), 419−441. Chanana, Karuna (2003). Visibility, gender and the careers of women faculty in an Indian university. McGill Journal of Education, 38 (3), 381−390. Coomaraswamy, Radhika (1993). To bellow like a cow: Women, ethnicity and the discourse of rights. In Rebecca Cook (Ed.), Human rights of women. National and international perspectives (pp. 39−57). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Council of Europe (1998). Gender mainstreaming. Conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practices.Strasbourg: Council of Europe Retrieved, December 2005, from http://www.coe. int/T/E/Human_Rights/Equality/02._Gender_mainstreaming/ 100_EG-S-MS%281998%292rev.asp#TopOfPage Fraser, Nancy (1997). Justice interruptus. Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. London: Routledge. GALA (2004). Annual report of the gay and lesbian archives. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand on line. Retrieved January 2006, from http://www.gala.wits.ac.za/annual_report.doc Jonathan, Ruth (2001). Democratization, modernization, and equity: Confronting the apartheid legacy in South African higher education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 34(3), 4−15. Kenway, Jane, & Bullen, Elizabeth (2003). Self representations of international women postgraduate students in the global university ‘contact zone’. Gender and Education, 15(1), 5−20. Kolawole, Mary (1997). Womanism and African consciousness. Trenton: Africa World Press.

627

Lapping, Claudia (2005). Antagonism and overdetermination: the production of student positions in contrasting undergraduate disciplines and institutions in the UK. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 657−671. Leonard, Diana (2001). A woman's guide to doctoral studies. Buckingham: Open University Press. Lie, Suzanne, Malik, Lynda, & Harris, Duncan (Eds.). (1994). The gender gap in higher education London: Kogan Page. Luke, Carmen (2001). Globalization and women in academics: North/ West–South/East. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lynch, Kathleen, & Baker, James (2005). Equality in education: an equality of condition perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 3(2), 131−164. Mayberry, Maralee & Rose, Ellen (Eds.). (1999). Meeting the challenge: innovative feminist pedagogies in action New York: Routledge. Morley, Louise (1999). Organising feminisms: The micropolitics of the academy. London: Macmillan. Morley, Louise, Gunawardena, Chanana, Kwesiga, Joy, Lihamba, Amandina, Odejide, Abiola, Shackelton, Lesley, et al. (2006). Gender equity in commonwealth higher education: An examination of sustainable interventions in selected Commonwealth universities. Research report to the Department for International Development (DFID) London: DFID. Nussbaum, Martha (1997). Cultivating humanity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, Martha (2000a). Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, Martha (2000b). Sex and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Okin, Susan Moller (1999). Is multiculturalism bad for women? In Joshua Chen, Matthew Howard, & Martha Nussbaum (Eds.), Is multiculturalism bad for women? (pp. 7−26). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rassool, Naz (1995). Black women as ‘other’ in the academy. In Louise Morley & Val Walsh (Eds.), Feminist academics: creative agents for change (pp. 22−41). London: Taylor and Francis. Reay, Diane (2004). Cultural capitalists and academic habitus: Classed and gendered labour in UK higher education. Women's Studies International Forum, 27(1), 31−39. Rees, Teresa (1998). Mainstreaming equality in the European Union. Education, training and labour market policies. London: Routledge. Sen, Amartya (1999). Development and freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, Amartya (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151−166. Singh, Jasbir (2002). Still a single sex profession? Female staff numbers in Commonwealth universities. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities. Smith, Ali (2004, May, 2–5). Uses of enchantment. The Guardian Saturday Review, 15. Squires, Judith (1999). Gender in political theory. Cambridge: Polity. Squires, Judith (2005). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. Social Politics, 12(3), 366−388. Unterhalter, Elaine (2003). The capabilities approach and gendered education. An examination of South African complexities. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 7−22. Unterhalter, Elaine (2005a). Gender, schooling and global social justice. Paper presented to 5th International Gender and Education Conference, University of Cardiff. Unterhalter, Elaine (2005b). Fragmented frameworks: Researching women, gender, education and development. In Sheila Aikman &

628

E. Unterhalter / Women's Studies International Forum 29 (2006) 620–628

Elaine Unterhalter (Eds.), Beyond access: Transforming policy and practice for gender equality in education (pp. 15−36). Oxford: Oxfam Publishing. Unterhalter, Elaine (2005c). Global inequality, capabilities, social justice and the Millennium Development Goal for gender equality in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(2), 111−122. Unterhalter, Elaine, Challender, Chloe, & Rajagopalan, Rajee (2005). Measuring gender equality in education. In Sheila Aikman &

Elaine Unterhalter (Eds.), Beyond access: Transforming policy and practice for gender equality in education (pp. 60−82). Oxford: Oxfam Publishing. Walby, Sylvia (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics, 12(3), 321−343. Walker, Melanie (2006). Higher education pedagogies: A capabilities approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.