Women’s Leadership Pathways in Higher Education: Role of Mentoring and Networking

Introduction

Globally, contemporary trends have witnessed a significant increase in the participation of women at lower and middle levels of management in universities; however, they remain relatively invisible at senior leadership positions and experience slow professional growth (Coder & Spiller, 2013; Madsen, 2012). It is well established that women outnumber and outperform men in many natural and social science disciplines in universities and earn around fifty percent of all doctoral degrees (Johnson, 2017). It is also evident that women are mostly hired upon their professional achievements, whereas men are recruited based on their potential (Cook, 2012). Nevertheless, women academics are less likely to attain professorships in research-intensive universities and are often paid less (Miller & Roksa, 2020; Treviño, Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Mixon, 2015).

Several factors are believed to be responsible for gender inequalities in academia, including patriarchal norms, biased attitudes toward women, and lack of trust in women leaders among others (Morley, 2013; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). Redressing these disparities requires concerted efforts and commitments from different stakeholders, including professors and administrators. In this regard, professional networking and mentoring are considered pivotal for facilitating women to move up the leadership hierarchy in universities, in addition to academic excellence (Dunbar & Kinnersley, 2011; Morley & Crossouard, 2016). The social capital gained through professional networking and mentoring is key to overcomingstructural barriers, such as traditional socialization, lack of training, stereotyping, and hegemonic masculine order.

Networking and mentoring are integral aspects of academia. These practices, at least informally, have always been there for faculty as well as managers. Studies indicate that men gain greater advantages from these opportunities in terms of managerial recruitment, promotion, salary, and increments (Britton, 2017; Coder & Spiller, 2013). The difference is that, apparently, women tend to lack informal support, and issues of bias, homophily, and stereotyping influence their career advancement (Johnson, 2017; Meschitti & Lawton-Smith, 2017; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014).

In their discussion of women’s career development programs, Van den Brink and Stobbe (2014, p. 171) state that “the support that men receive during their academic careers tends to be taken for granted, while women are expected to advance on their own to prove that they are sufficiently qualified. In contrast, women’s programs were visible and scrutinized, leading to the perception that women cannot succeed on their own merits.” Similarly, other studies report that women academics are socially and intellectually isolated in the universities due to the lack of culture fit and the “boys’ club” tradition that is difficult for them to penetrate (Morley, 2013; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014).

Contextually, Pakistani female academic leaders do not experience similar networking and mentoring opportunities to their male counterparts because of the deep-rooted masculine culture. Many studies have documented the role of these supporting mechanisms in industrial and political organizations in Pakistan (Khalid, Muqadas, & Rehman, 2017; Qureshi & Saleem, 2016); however, the existing literature in the Pakistani context merely focuses on mentoring and networking opportunities for women in academia (Baig, Jabeen, Ansari, & Salman, 2015; Batool & Sajid, 2013) and does not address the challenges of navigating academia as women leaders. Importantly, the existing literature also does not adequately inform those who wish to use mentoring as a means of developing successful leadership careers.

Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by identifying the existing mentoring and networking opportunities available to women leaders in universities. It explores the role of these supporting mechanisms in the career advancement of female academic administrators in the Federal Capital of Pakistan (Islamabad). Based upon the relevant scholarship and the postmodern theoretical foundation, the core research questions that framed this empirical research are: (1) What kinds of networks and mentors are available for women leaders in universities? (2) How do women leaders view networking and mentoring arrangements in navigating their way to success in the presence of a powerful masculine academic structure?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation of this empirical study is embedded in the postmodern paradigm. Postmodern thinkers emphasize relativity, fragmentation, uncertainty, and individuality. This study incorporates the theoretical assumptions of Michael Foucault and a prominent feminist scholar, Raewyn Connell, to understand the mentoring and networking opportunities available to female academic managers. Foucault (2000) postulates that power structures are systematically produced and reproduced by organizations using knowledge. Knowledge induces pressure and disseminates widespread discourses in society to safeguard the relationships of power. According to Foucault (1980), power structures operate in all social institutions to regulate individuals’ behavior. In addition, Foucault argues that discourses are developed in society to define one’s position as a subject in the relationship of power. Through this lens, women academics become subjects of the dominant masculine discourses promoted by the patriarchal power structure in universities, which regulates and controls their behavior.

Likewise, in understanding the underrepresentation of female academic leaders in universities, it is relevant to take refuge in feminist theory. Several postmodern feminist theorists, such as Tisdell (1998), Collins (2000), and Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), seek to criticize the traditional male-centric approach of understanding the causes of women’s underrepresentation in institutional structures and help in understanding leadership as an interpersonal and intersubjective phenomenon between men and women. They also criticize the domination of the masculine discourse on leadership (Gordon, 2001; Weiler, 2008). In particular, the concept of “hegemonic masculinity,” given by Raewyn Connell, provides a useful framework for understanding women’s leadership in the Pakistani context. Connell defines “hegemonic masculinity” as a social norm that promotes the superiority of men and restricts women’s role as managers (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). She explains the impact of “hegemonic masculinity” in institutional structures and argues that leadership norms are systematically developed to control women’s participation in senior managerial roles. Women who attain such positions of power experience many constraints on their efforts to survive in a male-dominated organizational culture (Connell, 1995).

In this study, using a postmodern feminist lens gives voice to women’s lived experiences of mentoring and networking in higher education and allows us to deconstruct women’s leadership pathways in a patriarchal institutional culture.

Literature Review

Universities are gendered organizations, where men and women experience differential treatment (Britton, 2017; Treviño et al., 2018). The existing literature on higher education reveals the absence of accountability and transparency in organizational practices (Coder & Spiller, 2013; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). Many studies have identified that female faculty experience disparities in recruitment and promotion processes due to male-dominated selection boards (Morley, 2013; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). Similarly, opportunities for women to become full professors in universities are limited (Blackmore, 2014; Van den Brink, Benschop, & Jansen, 2010). Even when conditioned on the number of publications and citations, women are less likely to receive tenure in highly prestigious departments, such as economics and computer science (Takahashi & Takahashi, 2015; Weisshaar, 2017).

In response to the existing gender disparities and to overcome such challenges, existing social science research has documented the value of mentors for female managers in their career advancement as well as in developing influential networks within the organization (Madsen, 2012; Schipani, Sworkin, Kwolek-Folland, & Maurer, 2009). Mentoring focuses on the growth and accomplishment of an individual by providing assistance (Jacobi, 1991). Importantly, mentoring is critical for women leaders to get relevant advice and support in advancing up the status ladder in highly gendered organizational arrangements (Madden, 2011).

Historically, mentoring in academic settings has become informal. This may be due to its strength in situated learning and utility in day-to-day life (Karkoulian, Halawi, & McCarthy, 2008). However, Gardiner and colleagues show the positive outcomes of mentoring for women in academia, such as higher rates of retention, negotiating complex political structures, and networking to receive research grants and promotions (Gardiner, Tiggemann, Kearns, & Marshall, 2007). Hence, formal mentoring programs for women are available to navigate their career trajectories, while men view them as a threat to their hegemony (Darwin & Palmer, 2009; Van den Brink & Stobbe, 2014).

The gender of the mentors also matters, as many women feel more comfortable with female mentors (Dunbar & Kinnersley, 2011). Meschitti and Lawton-Smith (2017) suggest gender-homophilous mentoring relationships that female academics seem to find more comfortable. However, relatable female role models are missing in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM). It is evident that women are deliberately excluded from important networks due to the existence of masculine hegemony (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). In their study, Thomas, Bystydzienski, and Desai (2014) report that female faculty, having similar roles, serve as mentors for each other. It helps to increase their work satisfaction, provides an opportunity to discover and share real-life issues, and motivates them to work harder. However, an empirical investigation by Salas-Lopez, Deitrick, Mahady, Gertner, and Sabino (2011) makes it clear that women can better learn how to steer their career paths from male mentors, who can teach them how best to survive within a masculine institutional culture.

Generally, women underutilize professional networks because they have few research collaborations and funding agents. Consequently, they remain far behind in their career trajectories compared to their male counterparts (Coder & Spiller, 2013; Gardiner et al., 2007). Similarly, women feel reluctant to engage with male elite networks due to the prevalent gender stereotypes (Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011). Clearly, networks are never gender neutral; they are part of a hegemonic male order. In their investigation into the potential of networking in developing gender equality in UK and Australian universities, Burkinshaw and White (2017, p. 5) state that women senior managers negotiate and navigate the gendered leadership culture by “fitting in” to the male networks instead of challenging the existing masculine order. However, young women are reluctant to embrace the dominant masculine cultures to pursue their career paths, leading to their downfall. Existing scholarship reports that masculine culture is still prevalent in universities in developed countries that resist women’s professional growth (Morley, 2013; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014).

However, Hargreaves and Anderson (2014) point out that successful women take advantage of networks, mentors, and professional training to attain and maintain senior leadership positions. In her study on empowering Muslim women, Grine (2014) mentions the story of a woman who made good use of professional coaching and networking to overcome her job stress in addition to becoming confident and empowered. Her case provides a great example of agency for women intending to succeed in their professional lives. However, such opportunities are not available for many women in developing countries. A study conducted by Chanana (2013) in India reported that women’s teaching and research abilities were undervaluedat the time of university appointments. Moreover, networking is more challenging for women because of the codes of sexual propriety. Consequently, women are absent in higher educational management. Similarly, Oti and Oyelude (2006) demonstrate that female academicians experience work-life conflicts that hinder their professional growth in Nigerian universities. Hence, collegial support, networking, and job shadowing bring job satisfaction and determine leadership careers, particularly for junior women academics.

In her study of female managers in Asian universities, Morley (2013) demonstrates that mentoring must be contextualized according to the needs of women. Moreover, women should challenge the traditional male model of mentoring, which tends to reinforce patriarchy and marginalize women in academic leadership. Ismail and Rasdi (2007) find that high-flying women in Malaysian universities effectively utilize their peer relationships with other women to get emotional and social support to survive in male-dominated academic workplaces.

At the national level, Pakistan is a developing country that continues to reinforce systematic subordination of women by the force of patriarchy. Women are responsible for caretaking and domestic activities that are neither recognized nor compensated (Fakhr & Messenger, 2020; Farooq et al., 2020). According to the Human Development Report (2020), Pakistan ranks 135 among 162 countries in the Gender Inequality Index (GII), 2019, as compared to India and Bangladesh, which are ranked 123 and 133, respectively. Although women’s participation in higher education has continued to rise over the past two decades, they are still underrepresented in positions of power (Shah, Bashir, & Amin, 2020); the top management in Pakistan’s universities is predominantly masculine, which reinforces gender disparities (Morley & Crossouard, 2016). Women are traditionally perceived as weak, submissive, and dependent, and therefore unable to cope with leadership roles despite having strong academic and professional credentials (Farooq et al., 2020; Quraishi & Kalim, 2008; Shah & Shah, 2012).

The scholarship also highlights the significant role of networking and mentoring in career advancement in Pakistan. According to Arif (2011), networking is a proactive approach to achieving success by utilizing powerful contacts to obtain necessary work resources, experience, and knowledge. However, studies have reported a lack of mentoring and networking arrangements for Pakistani women in academia. For example, in a quantitative investigation of female managers in higher education, Batool and Sajid (2013) revealed that women’s slow professional advancement is the consequence of structural barriers, such as weak networking and mentoring practices, biased recruitment and promotion processes, and persistent gender inequalities.

Likewise, another quantitative research study by Baig et al. (2015) highlights that in a well-reputed university in Lahore, Pakistan, mentors are mostly male and are generally not willing to work with women. Cross-gender mentoring practices are not appreciated because of the prevalent stereotypical beliefs. Farooq et al. (2020) report that most public sector universities in Islamabad practice informal selection and promotion procedures that rely more on personal networking instead of merit. It is also found that the absence of women mentors, as well as the inability of women to forge influential bonds and networks, dent their career prospects in the masculine organizational structure.

Fakhr and Messenger (2020) demonstrate that female academics in Pakistani universities have restricted mobility due to the prevailing religious and cultural settings; therefore, they cannot socialize with their male colleagues outside their immediate workplaces and are consequently excluded from influential networks and experience slow career growth. Similarly, Quraishi and Kalim (2008) find that women avoid developing professional networks with their male colleagues due to Pakistan’s rigid religious and socio-cultural ethos. A qualitative study about the career advancement of women by Shah et al. (2020) emphasizes the need for developing relational and network support for women from among senior female academics to confront the strongly embedded stereotypical beliefs.

The reviewed literature provides sufficient background to understand the networking and mentoring experiences of women leaders in Pakistani academia. Many studies have ignored the postmodernist lens to explore these phenomena but this approach does provide a significant explanation of the existing hegemonic male order in academic leadership. Therefore, this study incorporates the postmodernist stance to reveal the subjective realities of women leaders in the socio-cultural context of Pakistan.

Methodology

Population and Sampling

In Pakistan, there are co-educational as well as women-only universities. Women-only universities, as the name indicates, offer admissions exclusively to female students, and in such universities, the faculty members are predominantly women. However, the population of this study includes female managers working in co-educational universities. These universities admit both male and female students and employ men and women. The selection of participants from co-educational universities assisted in exploring the discursive nature of mentoring and networking for women leaders in comparison to men in academia. It is important to mention here that none of the women participants held the top leadership position, that is, vice-chancellor. This highlights the invisibility of women in top university management. Potential participants were selected using a purposive sampling technique. The sample included women with the following characteristics: (1) at least one year’s experience in university management, (2) officially designated as dean and chairperson, and (3) employed in a faculty position as assistant, associate, or full professor.

Table 1

Brief Profile of the Participants

The table above presents a brief profile of the participants. It shows that of the nine women, only two were deans. Moreover, most of the women (n = 7) were 40 or above; only two were under 40. In terms of marital status, six were married, two unmarried, and one was a widow. They had a minimum of seven years and a maximum of twenty-three years of work experience in the higher education system. The majority reported having mentors at the time of the interview; however, none of them had had formal mentoring experience.

Results

The key findings of this study are presented under two core themes for a discursive understanding of the mentoring and networking experiences of women managers in higher education.

Discussion

This study explored the subjective realities of women academic leaders to understand the influence of mentoring and networking opportunities on their professional growth in higher education. The debate that emerged from this study is well supported by the scholarship on women’s networking and mentoring practices in academia worldwide. The findings of this empirical investigation contribute to the existing scholarship on women’s leadership due to the unique socio-cultural context of Pakistan, where men’s hegemony is prevalent in workspaces, including universities. The data show that meritocracy is replaced by the discourses of masculinity in several Pakistani universities. Therefore, social capital gained through professional networking and mentoring is pivotal for women to receiving tenure and climbing up the managerial ladder to achieve academic excellence and access to leadership opportunities. This is particularly true for women working in the STEMM disciplines in higher education. As Shabib-ul-Hasan and Mustafa (2014) noted in their study, while women have attained proficiency in disciplines such as science, math, and medicine, they are still underrepresented at senior levels in high-demand professions in Pakistan. Similarly, this study found that only three of nine women were serving in management positions in the STEMM disciplines, and two of them reported being the sole such presence in their departments. The language of the participants (i.e., being careful while interacting with men, keeping at a distance, maintaining a studiedly neutral tone, etc.) was filled with the discourses of their environment as outsiders; hence, they have constructed their subjectivities within the religious and cultural norms of society.

In this study, the postmodern feminist and Foucauldian stances enabled women’s voices to be heard and their narratives highlight the existence of power structures in academic organizations. These power structures exclude women from the mainstream hierarchy by institutionalizing the existing gender disparities through biased recruitment and promotion processes, as well as by limiting their access to instrumental mentoring and networking (Fakhr & Messenger, 2020; Farooq et al., 2020). It is evident that the hegemonic patriarchal spaces produce knowledge that aims to suppress women’s voices in academic institutions. The subjective reflections of the participants illustrate the undoubted importance of mentors in developing constant motivation, courage, and inspiration, as well as reducing occupational stress. Clearly, mentors pave the way for women’s leadership careers in higher education in addition to strengthening their academic skills.

Unlike previous studies conducted in Pakistan, which reported a lack of professional mentoring opportunities for women (Baig et al., 2015; Batool & Sajid, 2013), many participants in this study had more than one mentor and some of them were men. The participants reported effective mentoring experiences with these men. Wray (2007) argues that gender relations and the choices available to women are largely influenced by ethnic and cultural differences; therefore, it is important to consider the contextually situated social norms that affect the choices available to women. Pakistan represents a diversity of cultures in its various provinces that reflect the varied status of women (Raza & Awang, 2020). This study was conducted in the Federal Capital of Pakistan (Islamabad), a metropolitan area distinguished by its liberal norms in relation to women’s education and employment. The findings enable us to argue that for women in Islamabad, engaging in cross-gender mentoring and networking is not considered offensive if practiced within certain limitations. It is evident that the participants remain very careful while cross-gender networking and being mentored or acting as mentors themselvesdue to the prevalent discourse of stigmatization that questions women’s relationship with their male counterparts. For instance, they wear traditional feminine attire, keep a safe distance, and maintain a neutral. Moreover, they keep their family in their confidence in dealing with conflicting hierarchies.

Several international researchers, such as Salas-Lopez et al. (2011), also found that males can help women to better navigate their career paths by teaching them different techniques to attain and maintain leadership positions within the male-centric leadership culture. However, no prior study has highlighted the positive role of cross-gender mentoring for female managers in Pakistani academia. Moreover, these women also had an adequate peer mentoring practice within their universities, which helped them deal with powerful male hierarchies and encouraged them to strive for their professional goals. These findings are in line with the reviewed scholarship that reveals that peer mentoring increases work satisfaction among female faculty and managers (Morley, 2013; Thomas et al., 2015).

Importantly, the findings indicate an absence of formal mentoring practices in Pakistani universities, practices that wouldbenefit women leaders. Many participants highlighted the need to develop professional coaching programs in universities. The previous literature also indicates that many effective job-embedded professional coaching programs in various developed countries of the world enhance the leadership skills of women and help them survive in the contemporary competitive and research-intensive academic environment (Darwin & Palmer, 2009; Gardiner et al., 2007).

Clearly, in the absence of fundamental leadership socialization and training, networks and mentors benefited them in adjusting to the highly competitive hegemonic regimes. The gendered socialization patterns in Pakistani society prioritize women’s role in the family and develop self-doubt, making them believe they are dependent, emotional, and less competent. Similarly, leadership training is unfortunately missing in Pakistani universities (Bhatti & Ali, 2020). The dominance of traditional socialization norms in Pakistani society is clearly consistent with Foucauldian discursive formation and Connell’s explanation of gender disparities. We argue that formal networking and mentoring help women become aware of their strengths in addition to their weaknesses, weaknesses that are not only entwined within the socio-cultural context and situations but also the powerful masculine discourses and culturally shaped narrative conventions.

The analysis revealed that the participants were only able to engage in formal networking to a limited extent because of work-life conflicts. They found informal networking to be more appropriate because of their multiple identities as wives, mothers, and professionals. It is clear that women recognized the significance of formal networks in their professional growth, particularly in the initial stages of their careers. They also admitted that maintaining a work-life balance is critical in the preliminary stages of their professional life because they need to develop their research profiles as well. Nevertheless, at the same time, they struggle to adjust to their familial and marital roles. Consequently, they experience time constraints on formal networking and mentoring. The hegemonic masculine domains impose all these domestic commitments solely on women, which in turn enhances their own power in the institutional hierarchies. The reviewed scholarship also indicates the necessity of formal networking for career advancement in academia and that women have access to fewer instrumental networks due to domestic and mobility constraints (Arif, 2011; Ramaswami et al., 2014)

Hence, the results of this empirical investigation provide useful insights into the lived experiences of female academic managers in gaining access to mentoring and networking opportunities in universities. The findings of this study may be valuable for all concerned stakeholders in universities in terms of improving mentoring and networking practices for women in academia. Nevertheless, the study has some limitations, as some participants declined to participate in this empirical investigation due to unavailability or lack of interest. Their narratives could have had important implications for understanding the issue at hand.

Conclusion

Building on the theoretical contribution of Connell (2000), this study argues that hegemonic masculinity in Pakistani academia is an established norm that operates through institutional structures. Leadership norms are also developed by power structures to control women’s participation in positions of power. Such power structures are systematically produced and reproduced by organizations using knowledge (Foucault, 2000). The experiences of female academics in this study provide a space to critique the existing hegemonic power structure of society, which excludes women from mainstream hierarchal organizations through biased recruitment and promotion processes where men are favored over women and gender disparities are evident.

This paper concludes that access to instrumental networks and mentors is critical for the success of female leaders in universities. Such access provides opportunities for women to become visible in a powerful masculine academic structure. The participants had both male and female mentors who provided them with excellent supporting mechanisms within the co-educational environment. Moreover, peer mentoring facilitated them in the presence of dominant masculine discourses that hinder women’s access to top managerial positions in universities.

It is also evident that women find less time to develop formal networks due to their overwhelming domestic and professional commitments; however, informal networks are found to be extremely valuable for women in seeking to achieve their career goals. Clearly, the dominant masculine ideology criticizes women’s engagement with male networks; therefore, these women prefer to maintain professional identities that do not influence their feminine roles within society. These women are well aware of the socio-cultural context influencing their lives as women, and they maintain professional relationships with men in academia within the limits of societal expectations.

The scholarship on the mentoring and networking experiences of women leaders in higher education in Pakistan remains limited. It is therefore recommended that similar studies are needed in other universities in the country, that is, public/ private and elite/non-elite, to obtain a comparative insight into the issue. Moreover, this study identified a lack of formal networking and mentoring arrangements in universities. To address this, formal gender-sensitive mentoring and networking programs are required. Importantly, there is a strong need to acknowledge the need to develop peer mentoring structures that can be fruitful for women in challenging the existing masculine hierarchies in universities.

References

• Ansari, N. (2016). Respectable femininity: A significant panel of glass ceiling for career women. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(8), 528–541. [https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-03-2015-0012]
• Arif, S. (2011). Broken wings: Issues faced by female doctors in Pakistan regarding career development. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1, 79–101.
• Bagilhole, B., & White, K. (2011). Towards interventions for senior women in higher education. In B. Bagilhole & K. White (Eds.), Gender, power and management (pp. 192–205). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230305953_9]
• Baig, A. M., Jabeen, N., Ansari, N., & Salman, Y. (2015). Mentoring, networking, and politicking in higher education institutions: A gendered perspective. Global Management Journal for Academic & Corporate Studies, 5(2), 41–48.
• Batool, S. Q., & Sajid, M. A. (2013). Barriers faced by women managers at universities: A case of Pakistan. International Journal of Management, IT & Engineering, 3(7), 340–348.
• Bhatti, A., & Ali, R. (2020). Gender, culture and leadership: Learning from the experiences of women academics in Pakistani universities. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 8(2), 16–32. [https://doi.org/10.20547/jess0822008202]
• Blackmore, J. (2014). ‘Wasting talent’? Gender and the problematics of academic disenchantment and disengagement with leadership. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 86–99. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.864616]
• Britton, D. M. (2017). Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & society, 31(1), 5–27. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216681494]
• Burkinshaw, P., & White, K. (2017). Fixing the women or fixing universities: Women in HE leadership. Administrative Sciences, 7(3), 1–14. [https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7030030]
• Chanana, K. (2013). Leadership for women’s equality and empowerment in higher education. India International Centre Quarterly, 39(3/4), 81–94.
• Coder, L., & Spiller, M. S. (2013). Leadership education and gender roles: Think manager, think‘?’. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3), 21–51.
• Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639]
• Cook, S. G. (2012). Women presidents: Now 26.4% but still underrepresented. Women in Higher Education, 21(5), 1–3. [https://doi.org/10.1002/whe.10322]
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Darwin, A., & Palmer, E. (2009). Mentoring in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(2), 125–136. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902725017]
• Dunbar, D. P., & Kinnersley, R. T. (2011). Mentoring female administrators toward leadership success. Delta Kappa Bulletin, 77(3), 17–24.
• Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0046]
• Fakhr, Z., & Messenger, H. (2020). Gender inequality and academic freedom in Pakistani higher education. In E. Sengupta & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Faculty and Student Research in Practicing Academic Freedom (pp. 67–84). Bingley, UK: Emerald. [https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000031016]
• Farooq, M., Ahmad, N. M., Mushtaq, A. Q., Ahmad, R. M., Ali, F. H., & Mujahid, A. B. (2020). Role of women at top management in public sector universities of Islamabad, Pakistan. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 57(1), 181.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham & Kate Soper, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1976)
• Foucault, M. (2000). Power (Robert Hurley, Trans). In J. Faubion (Ed.), The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol. 2). London, UK: Allen Lane.
• Gardiner, M., Tiggemann, M., Kearns, J., & Marshall, K. (2007). Show me the money! An empirical analysis of mentoring outcomes from women in academia. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 425–442. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658633]
• Gordon, B. (2001). The only woman in the room. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha.
• Grine, F. (2014). Empowering Muslim women though executive coaching & mentoring. International Journal of Nusantara Islam, 2(1), 54–68. [https://doi.org/10.15575/ijni.v2i1.48]
• Hammersley, M. (2015). On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 433–449. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.924169]
• Hargreaves, J., & Anderson, E. (2014). Sport, gender, and sexuality: Surveying the field. In Routledge handbook of sport, gender and sexuality (pp. 23–38). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203121375-7]
• Human Development Report. (2020). The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene. New York, NY: UNDP.
• Ismail, M., & Rasdi, R. M. (2007). Impact of networking on career development: Experience of high-flying women academics in Malaysia. Human Resource Development International, 10(2), 153–168. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701347131]
• Jabeen, N., & Moazzam, A. (2014). Politics in academia: A case of University of the Punjab, Lahore. New Horizons, 8(2), 65–79.
• Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532. [https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061004505]
• Johnson, H. L. (2017). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
• Karkoulian, S., Halawi, L. A., & McCarthy, R. V. (2008). Knowledge management formal and informal mentoring. The Learning Organization 15(5), 409–420. [https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470810898384]
• Khalid, S., Muqadas, F., & Rehman, S. (2017). Women leadership and its mentoring role towards career development. Pakistan Business Review, 19(3), 649–667.
• Madden, M. (2011). Gender stereotypes of leaders: Do they influence leadership in higher education? Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies, 9, 55–88.
• Madsen, S. R. (2012). Women and leadership in higher education: Learning and advancement in leadership programs. Advances in Human Resource Development, 14(1), 3–10. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311429668]
• Meschitti, V., & Lawton-Smith, H. (2017). Does mentoring make a difference for women academics? Evidence from the literature and a guide for future research. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 7(1), 166–199. [https://doi.org/10.22381/JRGS7120176]
• Miller, C., & Roksa, J. (2020). Balancing research and service in academia: Gender, race, and laboratory tasks. Gender & Society, 34(1), 131–152. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219867917]
• Morley, L. (2013). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender & Education 25(1), 116–131. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.740888]
• Morley, L., & Crossouard, B. (2016). Women’s leadership in the Asian Century: Does expansion mean inclusion. Studies in Higher Education, 41(5), 801–814. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1147749]
• Oti, A. O., & Oyelude, A. (2006, April). Beyond the glass ceiling: Work/home conflict, networking and mentoring as determinants of females’ career path to academic leadership in Nigerian universities. Paper presented at the Women’s Executive Development Conference, Adelaide, South Australia.
• Quraishi, U., & Kalim R. (2008, June). Gender based faculty development model for higher education. Paper presented at the Oxford Business & Economics Conference, Oxford, UK.
• Qureshi, S. S., & Saleem, F. (2016). Impact of networking on career progression: Moderating role of gender. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 10(3), 419–443.
• Ramaswami, A., Huang, J. C., & Dreher, G. (2014). Interaction of gender, mentoring, and power distance on career attainment: A cross-cultural comparison. Human Relations, 67(2), 153–173. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713490000]
• Raza, I., & Awang, Z. (2020). Knowledge sharing in multicultural organizations: Evidence from Pakistan. Higher Education, Skills & Work-Based Learning, 10(3), 497–517. [https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2020-0068]
• Salas-Lopez, D., Deitrick, L. M., Mahady, E. T., Gertner, E. J., & Sabino, J. (2011). Women leaders: Challenges, successes, and other insights from the top. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 34–42. [https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.20216]
• Schipani, C. A., Sworkin, T. M., Kwolek-Folland, A., & Maurer, V. G. (2009). Pathways for women to obtain positions of organizational leadership: The significance of mentoring and networking. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 16(8), 89–136.
• Shabib-ul-Hasan, S., & Mustafa, S. (2014). Education to profession! Challenges of being women in Pakistan. AI & Society, 29(1), 131–136. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0434-y]
• Shah, S., Bashir, M. S., & Amin, M. (2020). Career progression of women academics in Pakistani universities: Enablers and barriers. Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research, 3(3), 11–21. [https://doi.org/10.36902/sjesr-vol3-iss3-2020(11-21)]
• Shah, S., & Shah, U. (2012). Women, educational leadership and societal culture. Education Sciences, 2(1), 33–44. [https://doi.org/10.3390/educ2010033]
• Takahashi, A. M., & Takahashi, S. (2015). Gender promotion differences in economics departments in Japan: A duration analysis. Journal of Asian Economics, 41, 1–19. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2015.09.002]
• Thomas, N., Bystydzienski, J., & Desai, A. (2015). Changing institutional culture through peer mentoring of women STEM faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 40(2), 143–157. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9300-9]
• Tisdell, E. J. (1998). Poststructural feminist pedagogies: The possibilities and limitations of feminist emancipatory adult learning theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 139–157. [https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369804800302]
• Treviño, L. J., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., & Mixon Jr, F. G. (2018). Meritocracies or masculinities? The differential allocation of named professorships by gender in the academy. Journal of Management, 44(3), 972–1000. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599216]
• Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2014). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 460–492. [https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12060]
• Van den Brink, M., & Stobbe, L. (2014). The support paradox: Overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 163–174. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.07.001]
• Van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y., & Jansen, W. (2010). Transparency in academic recruitment: A problematic tool for gender equality? Organization Studies, 31(11), 1459–1483. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610380812]
• Weiler, K. (2008). The feminist imagination and educational research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 499–507. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300802410219]
• Weisshaar, K. (2017). Publish and perish? An assessment of gender gaps in promotion to tenure in academia. Social Forces, 96(2), 529–560. [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox052]
• White, J. S. (2012). HERS Institutes: Curriculum for advancing women leaders in higher education. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(1), 11–27. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311429732]
• Wray, S. (2007). Women making sense of midlife: Ethnic and cultural diversity. Journal of Aging Studies, 21(1), 31–42. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2006.03.001]