Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters by Elizabeth J. Allan (review)

Since the founding of Harvard College in 1636, “impressive gains are evident in terms of women’s presence in higher education. Despite these gains however, persistent inequities linked to gendered patterns of representation have been the subject of investigation by scholars who point to long-term economic implications for women” (Allan, 2012, p. 119). Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters is a report for the Association for the Study of Higher Education. In it Elizabeth Allan thoroughly examines the significance of current and persistent gender inequities through an exploration of feminist theories, access, representation, campus climate, and change strategies for students, administrators, staff, and faculty. This report is a “must read” for any researcher, administrator, student, activist, and/or policymaker interested in gender issues and for the women, men, and transgender people who work with women on their campus or higher education organization.

Allan starts with a brief discussion of women’s status in higher education including the historical context, legislative and policy initiatives, the curriculum and scholarship. As such, she reviews the ways that higher education employs the concept of “women’s status in education” and accurately identifies this phrase as primarily a reductive counting measure. Against the historical context for women in education from 1636 to the present, Allan segues successfully to the second section, “Framing Women’s Status through Multiple Lenses.”

This section on “Framing Women’s Status” provides a summary of the similarities and differences between a few feminist theories, each with its own assumptions that guide actions in research, programs, policies, and procedures. Allan correctly notes that such descriptions and the summative exhibit (or table) she provides in such a short report can be diminutive in nature and fail to account for the complexities within feminist theories. Thus, she names her review a “snapshot” for people interested in a thoughtful introduction to feminist theories and encourages further reading of the authors listed in the table.

In the third section, Allan discusses access and representation as key equity indicators in contemporary higher education. This section delves into the differences for women versus men in gaining entrance into the academy and gaining space throughout institutions (including co-curricular representation, students, faculty, staff, senior administrators, athletic directors, university presidents, and governing boards). The raw data for degree attainment place women in the slight majority; however, when those data are contextualized, women remain concentrated in certain areas and fields that have traditionally concentrated on women’s instructions, such as teaching and nursing. In the fourth section, she explores the complexities of campus climate in and beyond the classroom, including salary in/equities.

In the fifth section, “Advancing Women’s Status: Analyzing Predominant Change Strategies,” Allan makes a significant contribution to the field. She lays out an organizing scheme in which she links each feminist theory with problems, manifestations, goals for change, and example strategies for change (i.e., mentoring programs, recruitment, commissions, women’s centers, and women’s studies programs). Allan documents liberal feminism as the predominant feminist theory that pervades past and present higher education research, policy, and practice. Further, through an intentional analysis across the field, Allan shows the ways in which the status quo continues to reproduce gender inequity. She issues a call to the field to reframe approaches for change and to move beyond liberal feminism in order to break free from replicating the status quo. This call to move beyond liberal feminism does not negate previous advances but usefully shows ways in which choosing different feminist theories and frameworks may foster different strategies for change and work toward gender equity.

In this section, Allan again cautions against reductive schemes while she offers another exhibit (table). We appreciate Allan’s attention to the reductive nature of tables and also agree with Allan’s decision to include this table and expand upon it in the narrative as the exhibit and description provide comprehensible ways for practitioners, researchers, and...