WIXLIB

SDG 3 (good health and well-being). However, in Oceania, SDG 5 is the fifthmost-represented goal, whereas in South America it is sixth. In all other regions,it is fourth. Although these 776 universities represent a fraction of all highereducation institutions worldwide, they hail from 87 different countries or territories, and 26 of those have at least 10 institutions participating, providing a usefulinternational snapshot of how the sector is performing.Participation per SDG (N)W Figure 1. Number ofuniversities providingdata for each SDGSDG 6SDG 7SDG 8SDG 9SDG 10SDG 11SDG 12SDG 13SDG 14SDG 15SDG 16SDG 17SDG13SDG14SDG15SDG16SDG17SDG 5SDG12SDG 4SDG11SDG 3SDG10SDG5SDG9SDG4SDG8SDG3SDG7SDG2SDG6SDG100SDG 2500500SDG 1N universitiesNumberof universities1,0001000For SDG 5, each university participating was scored across six different areas,which address how universities are providing access to women and supportingtheir academic progression: research, including bibliometric indicators onresearch into gender equality, as well as the share of authors in research paperswho are women; the share of first-generation female students; measuresaddressing female student access; the share of senior female academics; theshare of women receiving degrees; and measures of women’s progress.SDG 5 explicitly focuses on supporting and uplifting women and girls, but ithas implications for achieving all SDGs, including quality education (SDG 4). Wecannot hope to develop world sustainability if the needs of more than half of ourpopulation are not addressed. In this spirit, the SDG 5 impact indicators rewardhigher shares of female students and academics (rather than rewarding parity).This method was selected based on the rationale that the long history of discrimination against and underrepresentation of women needs to be overcome withadditional counterbalancing efforts beyond the ideal balanced gender ratio.Issues relating to men being underrepresented in certain disciplines are coveredby SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), which is beyond the scope of this report.Significant limitations in the availability of comprehensive disaggregatedglobal data prevent us from taking a non-binary view of gender equality thatcovers the full spectrum of gender identities. Therefore, the analysis focuseson disparities between women and men.While performance across the world, and within nations, varied, the followingmap suggests that Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had thehighest scores on SDG 5 (in descending order). However, the score for someTHE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 20226

nations may be skewed if only a small number of universities from a countryvolunteered to participate; Sweden, for instance, has only one institution.The countries with the highest average overall scores and at least 10 participating institutions are (in descending order of score): Australia, the UK,Canada, Spain and the US. Those tend to be nations with abundant availabledocumentation of their activities in the area of gender equality, often in lineveragewithSDG5score perrequirementsfromcountrytheir respective governments.W Figure 2. AverageSDG 5 score per countryAverage SDG5 score per 40303040Source:30Times Higher EducationTurkeyPakistanIndiaRussian kistanIraqJapanAverageSDG 5 5.744.8Number gionAverageSDG 5 scoreAustraliaUnited KingdomCanadaSpainUnited ilandMexicoNumber ofinstitutionsCountry/regionWhile the average scores provide a useful overview of overall pockets ofexcellence in gender equality, in this report we will be drilling into performancein three areas: students, research and academics, and university-wide policiesand services. Country-level analysis will be restricted to the following 26countries or territories where at least 10 institutions submitted data on SDG .938.538.134.433.231.427.025.2W Figure 3. Countries/regions where atleast 10 institutionssubmitted dataon SDG 5Note: The maximum possibleaverage score is 100THE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 20227

2.2STUDENTSEight of the 18 indicators measuring impact on SDG 5 relate to the studentpopulation. Two of these are quantitative: the proportion of women receivingdegrees and the proportion of first-generation female students. The remaining indicators are based on evidence of institution-level policies and initiatives. We ask whether universities track application, acceptance andcompletion rates for female students, and whether they have a policy toaddress these rates; whether there is provision of appropriate women’saccess schemes, such as mentoring or scholarships; whether universitiesencourage applications by women in subjects where they are underrepresented; whether there are women’s mentoring schemes in which atleast 10 per cent of female students participate; and whether universitiestrack women’s graduation rate compared with men’s and, if so, whether thereis a scheme in place to close any gap. The evidence is provided directly byuniversities but evaluated and scored by THE.W Figure 4. Globalresults for studentrelated indicators% of institutions that:% of:IndicatorAverage %Women receiving degrees54First-generation female students37Track application, acceptance and completion rates for female students83Have a policy to address application, acceptance, entry and69participation rates for female studentsHave women’s access schemes, such as mentoring or scholarships81Encourage applications by women in subjects where they are78underrepresentedHave women’s mentoring schemes in which at least6910 per cent of female students participateTrack women’s graduation rate compared with men’s and scheme to64close gapTHE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 20228

For each qualitativeindicator in SDG 5, inaddition to askinguniversities whether ornot they provide theservice or fulfil thecondition, we ask them toprovide evidence of theiractivity in the form of adocument.Extra points are awardedin the scoring if thedocument is publiclyaccessible; this is importantbecause it enables theuniversity community andgeneral public to, in thecase of policies, hold theinstitution accountablefor their commitments,and in the case of services,be aware of what isoffered so they canaccess it. When we askabout the evidence of apolicy, we also assesswhether the policy isrecent (created or reviewedin the last five years); ifit is, we award an extrapoint.One caveat to theevidence-based datafor SDG 5 is that universitiesin English-speakingcountries tend to bemore likely to submitevidence; they provideevidence in 75 per centof cases versus 38 per centfor other nations.But as long as this isborne in mind whenanalysing the data bygeography, the resultsstill give interesting insightsinto the performance ofuniversities.Student-related SDG 5 scores per regionW How do we evaluateevidence?2.2.1Looking at the data breakdown by world region, as shown in Figure 5,Oceania (made up of 19 institutions in Australia and six in New Zealand forSDG 5) appears to be the furthest ahead based on institutions’ averagescores across all of the student-related indicators; its median score is arounddouble that of Africa, Asia, Europe and South America.indicatorsNorth America also achievesStudenta relativelystrong performance, with themajority of its institutions gaininga scoreof over50 out of 100.averagescoresby regionW Figure 5. Distribution ofscores per region forstudent-relatedindicators1001008075Note: The boxplots show the distributionof scores, with the middle line in eachbox representing the median score andthe ends of the whiskers showing themaximum and minimum scores, excludingany outliers. Outliers are represented bythe dots located outside the rth AmericaNorth AmericaNorth AmericaOceaniaOceaniaOceaniaSouth AmericaSouthTHE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 20229

Share of female students receiving degrees overall and by field of study2.2.2Across the 776 institutions participating in SDG 5, 54 per cent of studentsawarded a degree in 2019 were female. One might assume that this meanswomen have gained true equality, at least in terms of representation.However, subject-level data tell a different story; on average, the share offemale students drops to 41 per cent for STEM subjects and rises to 66 percent for medicine and 61 per cent for arts, humanities and social sciences.The increasing number of female students at the overall enrolment level mayalso perversely reflect gender equality issues in broader society, includingthe fact that the gap between the average earnings of people who do and donot go to university is larger for women than for men, as well as other factors,such as that female-dominated careers such as nursing and teaching nowrequire a degree. Meanwhile, there are regions, such as many parts of theMiddle East, where traditionally women have been largely excluded from theworkforce; in these cases, there might be greater incentive for women totransition to university after school. Experts on this topic have also previouslyhighlighted that there is a “premium” placed on “the educated housewife” inthe Middle East.Africa is the continent with the least disparity between the proportion offemale graduates in the three subject areas, while Oceania shows thegreatest differences, with almost twice the share of women graduating frommedicine as STEM subjects (see Figure 6).ContinentAfricaAsiaEuropeNorth AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaNumber ofuniversities49341231662564STEM (%)474142393841Medicine (%)606469737565Arts,Humanities,Social sciences(%)606063596260W Figure 6. Share ofwomen receivingdegrees per field ofstudy, per regionHowever, the six countries with the highest proportion of women in STEMare all in Asia, and in three of these nations this amounts to more than 50 percent: Thailand, Iran and Uzbekistan.THE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 202210

W Figure 7. Countries withhighest share of womenreceiving degrees inSTEM qPakistanSpainBrazilRussian FederationIndonesia% women in STEM54.451.450.449.347.647.146.245.344.844.7Note: Only includes countries where atleast 10 institutions submitted dataThe data also allow us to determine, at the level of each institution, the splitbetween female graduates who followed a STEM degree versus an arts,humanities or social sciences (AHSS) degree. We have excluded medicinefrom the analysis in this case because it is not taught by all institutions.Among all female graduates at the 776 participating institutions in 2019,54 per cent undertook a degree in AHSS, compared with 30 per cent inSTEM. As a result, the average “humanities bias” – the difference betweenthe share of female graduates in AHSS versus in STEM – is 24 percentagepoints. Countries with the highest average “humanities bias” are (in descending order) Spain, Italy, the UK, Australia and Portugal. However, more than afifth of institutions – 171 in total – have a negative “humanities bias”, meaningthat a larger share of their female graduates was enrolled in a STEM degree,rather than one in AHSS. Six countries have, on average, a STEM bias: India,Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia and Thailand. India shows a particularlylarge STEM bias of 25 percentage points on average.This appears to back up previous research which has found that women incountries with low levels of gender equality overall are more likely than thosein more equal countries to gain STEM degrees. One potential explanation isthat the value of a STEM degree is higher in less developed countries.THE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 202211

First-generation female students2.2.3Universities participating in SDG 5 are also asked to disclose the proportion offemale students who identify as being the first person in their immediate family toattend university. This shows the extent to which universities are supportingdisadvantaged female students, although national policies and economic environments may have an impact on this figure too. The average share across allparticipating institutions is 37 per cent, rising to 41 per cent at European universities and dropping to 26 per cent in North America. The countries with the highest average percentage of first-generation female students are Spain and Iraq,where the majority of female students identify as first-generation. However, somestudies have found that girls in low-income and rural areas have been particularlyvulnerable to missing out on education during the pandemic; this may have aknock-on effect on the share of first-generation female students enrolling inuniversity in future years in some parts of the world.ContinentAfricaAsiaEuropeNorth AmericaOceaniaSouth AmericaCountrySpainIraqBrazilPakistanIranAverage share offirst-generation femalestudents (%)363941264040Average share offirst-generation femalestudents (%)5551454343W Figure 8. Average shareof female studentswho identify as firstgeneration, per regionW Figure 9. Countrieswith the highest shareof female studentswho identify asfirst generationNote: Only includes countries where atleast 10 institutions submitted dataTHE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 202212

University policies and services on access and women’s progress3003003002.2.4When it comes to the indicators on universities’ policies and services, themajority of institutions initially declare that they do have these measures ofaccess and women’s progress. But the proportion of universities able tosupply relevant documentation is often lower (see Figure 10). The questionswhere the fewest institutions shared relevant evidence are those regardingthe tracking of women’s graduation rate and the existence of women’smentoring schemes for existing students (in which at least 10 per cent of400500600700800female students participate); the latter are only provided by 59 per cent of400and less than500700 While almost800universitiesa third of those600provided evidence.400500600700800two-thirds (64 per cent) of institutions say they are tracking women’s graduation rates compared with men’s, less than half of those (37 per cent)provided evidence and, of those that did provide evidence, it was sufficientlydetailed and relevant in only 42 per cent of cases. The policies and serviceswhere the most institutions provided evidence were around tracking application, acceptance and completion rates for female students and providingappropriate women’s accessschemes,suchas mentoringor scholarships, forResponsesandevidenceprovisionprospective students.W Figure 10. Existencespecificofuniversity policiesprovided genericandservices on accessyes not providedandno women’s progress(student-relatedindicators only)Track women’s graduation rateentoringschemesWomen’s mentoring schemesplicationsubjectEncourage applications by women in underrepresented subjectsaccessschemesWomen’s access schemeslicationspolicyPolicy to address application, acceptance and participation rates for womenaccesstrackingTrack application, acceptance and completion rates for womenIndicatorw. gradtracking100200300400500esponsesand 200evidenceprovision00100300400500ResponsesNumber of universitiesesponses and evidenceprovisionesponses and evidence provision600600noyes not providednopolicy, but noHavenoprovided genericrelevantevidenceyes not providedprovidedyes not providedspecificprovided genericHavepolicy, providedprovided genericspecificgenericevidencespecificDo not have policyHave policy, providedspecific evidence700700800800However, there are significant regional variations for some of theindicators. In some countries, a large percentage of institutions say theyrun the programme or have the policy asked about, while in others veryfew do.The indicator with the highest variance across countries is the tracking(and comparing) of women’s graduation rate; just 29 per cent of Japaneseinstitutions do this, compared with 91 per cent of UK ones.The indicator with the least geographical variance is the tracking of femalestudents’ application, acceptance and completion rates, with countryTHE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 202213

averages ranging from 63 per cent of institutions in Brazil to 100 per cent inChile, Egypt and Uzbekistan.Average % of "yes" by ionubjectoringemesgradckingTrack application, acceptance and completion rates for womenPolicy to address application, acceptance, entry and participation rates for womenWomen’s access schemesW Figure 11. Share ofinstitutions per countrywith policies andservices on access andwomen’s progressNote: Each dot represents a differentcountry. The level of geographicalvariation for each indicator wasmeasured by looking at the averagepercentage of institutions per countrythat answered “yes” to the questionand then calculating the standarddeviation of those per-country scores.Encourage applications by women in underrepresented subjectsWomen’s mentoring schemesTrack women’s graduation rate3030%4040%5050%607070%Percentage of universities60%8080%9090%100100%This discrepancy between two similar indicators – the tracking of femalestudents’ application, acceptance and completion rates and the tracking(and comparing) of women’s graduation rate – highlights a thorny and wellresearched issue in the subject of gender equality, and equality morebroadly: improving access is, of course, necessary but not sufficient in itself,and in the absence of schemes designed to ensure that targeted demographics (such as women) have comparable success rates and outcomes asothers, improving access cannot fully solve the problem. While there is broadworldwide consensus on the necessity of ensuring equal access to femalestudents (83 per cent of all institutions have a policy on this), monitoring thesuccess of those female students is only done by 64 per cent of institutions.Some regional variations in the data also raise questions about thesuitability – and the potential limitations – of a global framework for measuring gender equality and whether some indicators are more or less relevant indifferent local contexts. For example, in Europe, just 48 per cent of institutionssay they run women’s mentoring schemes (compared with a global averageof 59 per cent). Many European countries perform well overall for genderequality, so it could be that in those nations women’s mentoring schemes areseen as less necessary than they are in other regions of the world. However,it is important that countries that have achieved strong progress towardsgender equality do not become complacent; there is still a lot more work tobe done, as highlighted in the next section of the report on research andacademics.THE Report: Gender Equality: How Global Universities are Performing, March 202214

2.3RESEARCH AND ACADEMICSThe SDG 5 impact indicators also include four measures that relate to researchand the academic population: the proportion of authors who are women; thenumber of publications on gender equality; the proportion of papers on genderequality in the top 10 per cent of journals as defined by Citescore; and theproportion of senior female academics. These indicators help us explore whetherfemale academics are given the same opport

Art editor Dan Sinclair, art editor, THE Data source THE Impact Rankings 2021 Published in 2022 by Times Higher Education and the UNESCO International Institute of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC). This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) licence