Examining gender disparity of male undergraduates in textile technology and design at university level: the case of two universities in Zimbabwe
List of Authors
  • Mayuso, Percival M. , Mhlanga, Elphina , Mushoriwa, Taruvinga

Keyword
  • Gender disparity, inequality, textile technology and design, policies, exist

Abstract
  • This paper examined why gender disparity of male undergraduates taking Textile Technology and Design continues to exist at university level in Zimbabwe despite policies that have been put in place. Data were collected from 30 Textile Technology and Design lecturers and undergraduates pooled from two universities. The study embraced the interpretive paradigm, a qualitative approach and the case study design. It used open-ended questionnaires, face-to-face semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to collect data. Data were analysed thematically. The study found out that gender disparity continued to exist in universities as a function of, among other things, gender stereotypes, gender irresponsive teaching and learning materials, lowering the cut-off entry points for females and lack of motivation for males. The major recommendations were the need for the Government’s intervention in funding male undergraduates in order to motivate them, lowering males’ cut-off entry points, conscientising communities on the importance of Textile and Technology Design and using gender responsive resources and environments that are free from gender discrimination.

Reference
  • 1. Aikman, S. & Unterhalter, E. (2005). Introduction. In S. Aikman & E. Unterhalter (Eds.). Beyond access: Transforming policy and practice for gender equality in education (pp. 1–12). Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
    2. Akala, B. & Divala, J. 2016. Gender equity tensions in South Africa’s post-apartheid higher education: In defence of differentiation. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30 (1), 1–16.
    3. Amadioha, S. W. 2015. The importance of instructional materials in our schools and overview. New Era Research Journal of Human, Educational and Sustainable Development, (2), 61-6.
    4. American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences (2016). Columbus family consumer science. Alexandria: Columbus Publishers.
    5. Anderson, P. 2014. The Imperative of well‐being. American Journal of Stress and Health, 27 (5), 353-355.
    6. Argyris, C. Putnam, R. & Smith, D. M. (2015). Action Science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    7. Berger, P. & Luckman, T. 2014. Rethinking the theoretical base of sociology of religion: Social Construction, Power, and Discourse, 7(3), 223-236.
    8. Birt, L., Scott, S. Cavers, D. 2016. Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Member Checking Journal, 26, (1), 1-15.
    9. Carlson, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and school success. Angela Lee Duckworth: University of Pennsylvania.
    10. Charles, M. 2014. Student disengagement. Journal of It's Deeper Than You Think, 95, (8), 1-14.
    11. Chiyevo, G. E. 2013. Quality assurance in higher education in Zimbabwe Research in Higher Education Journal 23, 1- 15.
    12. Coffman, D. 2018. Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Research Journal, 1 (1), 80-91.
    13. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
    14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, C A: Sage.
    15. FAWE. (2017). Strategic plan for 2019 -2030: Enabling access to education and training for girls and women in Africa. Nairobi: Eco Media Limited.
    16. Gordon, C. (2016). Rewarding educators and education leaders in research-intensive universities. New York: Higher Education Academy.
    17. Hightower, M. B. (2009). Issues of boys’ education in United States. London: Sage.
    18. Hughes, C. 2002. Special issue: Executive functions and development: Studies of Typical and Atypical Children Journal, 11(2), 201-209.
    19. Jones, S.M., & Kahn, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting undergraduates’ social, emotional and academic development. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
    20. Kennedy, J. (2017). The gender gap in college courses. Dublin: Irish Press.
    21. Lorber, J. 2012. The variety of feminisms and their contribution to gender equality. International Journal on Gender Equality, 9 (4), 409-426.
    22. Mberengwa, A. &Johnson, J. (2012). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
    23. Michael, S. (2003). Managing successful universities. The society for research into Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    24. Millar, R., Tiberghien, A. & Le Maréchal, J.-F. (2002). Varieties of lab work: A way of profiling lab work tasks (ed.). In Psillos, D. & Niedderer, H. (2002). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    25. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, (2014). Statistics and monitoring. Paris: UNICEF Organization.
    26. Mukoni, M. (2015). Traditional gender roles of men and women in natural resource conservation among the Vhavenda people in Zimbabwe: Implications for sustainable development. Gweru: Midlands State University Publishers
    27. Murphy, J. (2008). Topological proofs of the extreme and intermediated value theorems. Chicago: University of Chicago.
    28. Nakale, A. (2018). Deputy Ministers reduced. In New Era newspaper, 14 February 2018. https://allafrica.com/stories/201802140396.html.
    29. Nascimento, M. (2015). Methodology. Paris Cedex: Sciences Po.
    30. Nhundu, T. J. 2007. Mitigating gender-typed occupational preferences of Zimbabwean primary school children: the use of biographical sketches and portrayals of female role models. Sex Roles 56, 639–649. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9204-6.
    31. Pendergast, D. 2015. Home economics literacy model: A vision for the field. Journal of Home Economics, 54(2), 1-13.
    32. Pilcher, J. & Whelehan, I. (2004). Sociology of gender: Fifty key concepts in gender studies. Manchester: Sage Publications Ltd.
    33. Pring, R. 2002. The false dualism of educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 34247-260. Retrieved from DO -10.1111/1467-9752.00171
    34. Remillard, J. & Heck, D. 2014. Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM Journal, 46, 705 – 718. Retrieved from DO- 10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4.
    35. Ricardo, C., Nascimento, M., Fonseca, V. & Segundo, M. (2010). Program H and Program M: Engaging young men and empowering young women to promote gender equality and health. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.
    36. Rose, E. 2018. Child gender and the family. Journal of the Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy, 1 (1), 259.
    37. Schmidt, B. 2010. Review of three qualitative studies of family presence during resuscitation. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 731-736. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol15/iss3/14.
    38. Sheehan, B., Welch, A. (2012). The Australian academic profession (pp. 51 –94) In Altbach, P.G. (Ed.). The international academic profession: Portraits from fourteen countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.
    39. Susan, P. 2018. Assessing school wellness policies and identifying priorities for action: Results of evaluation, Journal of Health School, 88, (5), 359-369.
    40. UNESCO, (2018). Global education monitoring report. Achieving gender equality in education: Don’t forget the boys. Paris: UNESCO.
    41. Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2008). The reversal of gender inequalities in higher education: An on-going trend, in higher education to 2030 Demography. Paris: OECD publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264040663-11-en
    42. Wood, W. & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behaviour: Advances in experimental Social Psychology. Burlington: Academic Press.