Over time, international guidelines and funding conditions have influenced the formulation and orientation of gender equity policies in most African universities. For example, the Carnegie Corporation of New York has funded gender initiatives and supported the establishment of gender centres in some African universities. Additionally, the World Bank’s higher education projects in Africa often include gender-sensitive components as conditions for funding. Consequently, universities receiving such funds are compelled to integrate gender equity policies to meet donor requirements. While such influences have catalysed the integration of gender perspectives into institutional policies, their efficacy is often compromised when not adapted to local contexts and realities. Although many universities across the African continent have instituted policies purportedly aimed at bridging the gender gap, especially in academic leadership, these often exist more as formalities rather than effective catalysts for change.
Existing evidence has shown that underlying continuities of gender inequalities in the form of silence, absence, exclusion and male dominance are implicitly embedded in university gender policy documents. As such, deeply ingrained cultural and societal norms that create a structural bias against women in academic settings are continually being reproduced, resulting in a sustained institutional gender imbalance, especially in academic leadership positions. A common explanation is that academic institutions are not monolithic entities but are historically constituted and shaped by factors such as colonial legacies and cultural contexts, among others.
Unfortunately, in many cases, gender equity policies are enacted to fulfil compliance requirements or to enhance institutional reputation without sincere efforts to enforce them, therefore serving as tokens rather than as instruments for institutional gender change. While institutions may tout their gender equity policies as evidence of progressive attitudes, the lack of tangible outcomes exposes the superficiality of such measures.
