GENDER DIMENSIONS PROGRAMME COMMITTEE UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM GENDER ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

+255 766 111117 PLEASE CALL ME, AND TELL YOU ABOUT ANY EVENTS./TUMIA MAWASILIANO MOJA KWA MOJA KUPATA MATUKIO MUHIMU.AU KUWEKA TANGAZO LAKO.
GENDER DIMENSIONS PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM
GENDER ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER MAINSTREAMING
AND STRATEGIC PLANNINGProf. Marjorie Mbilinyi
Paper presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop for the UDSM Gender Programme,
MUCHS, 23-26 October, 2000
1
GENDER ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER MAINSTREAMING
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
Prof. Marjorie Mbilinyi1
INTRODUCTION
I am grateful to have been invited to participate in this workshop, which represents
another step in the long road to promote gender equity, women’s advancement and the
transformation of the University of Dar es Salaam, including the ‘main campus’, ULCAS and
MUCHS.
My presentation and facilitation at the workshop will focus on the following aspects:
• Identification of key gender issues for mainstreaming and strategic planning at the
University of Dar es Salaam
• Preparation of a framework for Strategic Planning and Gender Mainstreaming
• Facilitate a discussion of the above in plenary, and facilitate deeper analysis and
prioritisation of key issues and desired changes in group work.
This is not the first workshop on gender issues at the University which has been held for
members of Campus Gender Committees and the GDPC, nor the first time to engage in a
planning process together. However, much more time in this case has been allocated to planning
issues so as to strengthen skills in strategic planning – the main objective of the workshop.
The task of this paper is to provide a context in which the analysis of planning will take
place, and steps taken to prepare an action plan. This is based on the understanding that what
GDPC is aiming for is a process of ‘gender planning’, which is decidedly different from the usual
gender-blind planning process. In the planning exercises to be carried out later, careful attention
will be needed to questions of gender differentials and gender discrimination in all aspects of the
university as an institution and organisation. This includes structures of power; incentive
systems; rules, regulations and practices with respect to recruitment, promotion, hiring,
examination, as well as general conduct in and out of the classroom, the office, the cafeteria.
An institutional culture has developed within the university that in many respects is
negative if not hostile to women. Gender mainstreaming aims to challenge that culture, and
change the individual and group attitudes, beliefs, and practices which sustain it. This calls for the
identification of a vision of a different kind of place, space, time – something which has yet to be
spelled out in concrete, specific terms. Beyond statements, often rhetorical, of gender equity and a
women-friendly place/space, what exactly do we want? What has to be changed to achieve it?
In order to facilitate this process, the last part of this introductory section will briefly
discuss background contextual issues which will have an impact on the change process. Of
particular concern is the continuation of the economic reform process and the growing power of
1 Member GDPC, WRDP, TGNP, Gender Cluster-IDS; Rural Food Security Policy and Development
Group; teaching at IDS.
2
‘free market’ ideology, in direct opposition to goals of social and economic justice and equity for
all.
Gender mainstreaming and the strategic planning used to carry it out depend upon having
adequate and ‘valid’ information about gender relations and structures in and out of higher
education institutions. Analysis of different approaches to gender studies of higher education is
provided in the second section, along with the presentation of a proposed framework for carrying
out action-oriented research and other forms of investigation.
The third section analyses gender issues in higher education in general, and the three
campuses of the University of Dar es Salaam in particular. The information here should be useful
in strengthening the process of identifying priority gender issues/problems to focus on in the
strategic planning process, from which flow ‘objectives’ and ‘strategies’ of action.
Given that this is not the first exercise we have carried out on planning strategies of
action, it seemed crucial to me that we take stock of three different questions:
(1) what strategies/actions have been recommended before, for the University of Dar es
Salaam [hereafter UDSM], and for higher education in general;
(2) what has already been done at the University of Dar es Salaam; and
(3) what has been attempted elsewhere, especially what has been successful?
This is intended to provoke some new thinking on potential strategies of action, and
related activities and expected results, all of which are elements in the strategic planning process
– it is found in section four.
Together, these first four sections provide an analysis of gender issues in gender
mainstreaming and strategic planning at UDSM, and a conceptual framework for analysis and
planning the gender mainstreaming process. A potential matrix for strategic planning is presented
in the fifth section, and concluding remarks in the last section. A bibliography is provided at the
back of the paper with relevant items from the literature, not all of which have been refered to in
the text. The intention is to share information about useful reports, manuals and analyses and to
encourage participants to read and study, so as to strengthen our capacity to challenge male
dominant structures, and to change them.
Before proceeding with analysis of the context in which we work, it will be useful to
clarify the meaning of gender mainstreaming adopted in this paper.
Gender Mainstreaming
A broad understanding of gender mainstreaming is to insert gender sensitivity and gender
accountability into all development activity (Goetz 1997b). Mainstreaming conceptually refers to
changing institutions, institutionalising gender equity. Underlying calls for gender mainstreaming

gender-discriminatory outcomes. With respect to higher education institutions, for example, there
is a relationship between the low number of high-ranking women academics and the small
proportion of post-graduates who are women, or between male bias in teaching and lower
expectations for female performance, and negative self-image of women students.
Goetz asks the question, how can institutions be made accountable to women: “The
objective is to promote accountability to women in development [read education] institutions by
3
identifying the organizational and political conditions under which economic and political gains
for women in developing states must be achieved and sustained” (ibid:2). Although refering to
‘development’ institutions, her analysis of mainstreaming and institution change is relevant to our
understanding of education institutions.
The ultimate goal “is to routinize gender-equitable forms of social interaction and to
challenge the legitimacy of forms of social organizations which discriminate against women”
(ibid:2). This connotes a transformation of existing power relations in the administration, the
classroom, the cafeteria, the hostel, and within the entire institution. Mainstreaming means that
power in social relations is redistributed, so that women have equal access to the same resources
as men. Of more significance is the second aspect, direct challenges to male privileges, so that
women can benefit equally from the same resources.
The first aspect, equal access to resources, is not highly contentious in efforts thus far to
reform the university along gender equity lines. Many actors (administrators and managers,
academics, workers, students) agree, for example, with the need to increase female enrolment at
undergraduate and postgraduate level, and to increase female recruitment among academic and
administration staff. Women staff and students should have equal access to office, laboratory,
computer and library resources, which necessitates enhanced safety from sexual harassment
during night time hours.
Ambivalence has been found, however, towards challenging male privileges, and the
underlying gender relations which sustain them. This entails sensitive analysis and action with
respect to gender dynamics in all aspects of the university, including social and sexual relations.
The topic of sexuality is especially controversial in academic circles, in spite of its saliency
among staff and students, and its impact on many aspects of life and work.
The ultimate aim is increased women’s autonomy and increased recognition and power of
women’s perspectives in decision-making within the institution, so as to achieve transformation
of gender relations. That is, not increased women’s power over men, but increased power of
women to work with men, on an equal basis, and for men to work for women, and vice versa, in
the pursuit of common goals of the institution.
Most efforts to mainstream gender at the institutional level have focused on sensitisation
and training strategies, not only in Tanzania but worldwide (Goetz 1997b). This approach
underestimates the role of discriminatory gender patterns in incentive systems, accountability
structures, bureaucratic procedures – prejudices that are embedded in organisational cognitive
systems and work cultures (ibid, Kabeer 1994). Institutions set limits to, or boundaries around,
social processes, including thought, and therefore shape human experience and personal identity.
Gender difference is therefore a product of institutions, the outcome of institutionalised
patterns of distributing resources and social value and power in the public and private spheres.
Resistance is built in against new agents and orientations, such as a policy of gender equity and
women’s advancement. Institutional rules, structures, practices and identities and the
people/agents which animate them have to be confronted – they are not neutral.
The question has been asked by many critics of male bias in the university, why has so
little changed (see Besha et al 1996), in spite of many positive policies and strategies? A focus on
institutions helps to answer that question. Systems of gender inequality are important for the
identity of individuals and communities. Some people benefit from gender inequality and the
privileges of male bias. Moreover, the gender relations underlying male bias have been
4
incorporated into wider class, race, ethnic and national/imperial relations. Male bias leads, for
example, to systematically lower wages for women, doing equal work, which is of benefit to
employers, including the university, and to the state which pays the wage bill in the case of
UDSM.
Hence, efforts to change institutional structures, rules, beliefs, such as those associated
with gender mainstreaming, will often be met with hostility, denial of conflicting gender interests,
equivocation, and circumspection within the bureaucracy (Goetz 1997). Empowerment-related
objectives will tend to be downplayed by many stakeholders, and instead they will focus on
technical matters. Given the hierarchical and competitive structure of university organisation, for
example, resisters to change will rationalise male dominance by referring to ‘meritocracy’, and
use ‘merit’ as a basis to block affirmative action programmes, as at UDSM (Besha et al 1996).
Individual agents have a significant role in maintaining the status quo, or subverting it;
or, on the other hand, in supporting a new gender equity policy, or subverting it. Incentive
systems which reward compliance with male dominance structures, for example, will tend to
reinforce male bias among subordinate staff, male and female. Secretaries will comply with
demands for sexual services from their usually male bosses (heads of departments, institutes, etc.)
unless there is a powerful support group and strong rules and regulations which are enforced at all
levels. Male assistant lecturers will be afraid to teach gender issues, lest they lose status among
mostly male fellow teachers, in the absence of strong gender-transformative leadership at the top
of a department.
Gender activists at the university need to change the rules of the game, partly through the
support of women’s and gender organisations which provide solidarity and an example of
alternative structures and organisational cultures. Their room for manoeuvre may be constricted
however by the negative impact of economic reforms, as discussed below.
Structural Adjustment And Neo-Liberal Reform
Higher education is part of a rapidly changing context, associated with globalisation, the
growing economic, cultural and political integration of the world’s population, and ever-greater
polarisation between the rich and the poor. The economic dimensions of globalisation have been
particularly marked: the shift in growth sectors of the economy from manufacturing and other
basic production activities to information and services; the shift in world trade from exchange of
different kinds of products to exchanges between branches of huge transnational corporations; the
growing exclusion of whole segments of the world’s population from active participation in the
labour market, in both the North and the South; and the ever increasing marginalisation of Sub-
Saharan Africa (Amin 1999).
The ratio of global trade to GDP has increased over the last decade, but in 44 developing
countries, the majority of which are in SSA, it has declined. The least developed countries, with
10% of the world’s population, has only 0.3% of world trade – 50% of their share 20 years ago
(UNDP 1997). Foreign direct investment in Africa has declined, and real commodity prices in the
1990s were 45% lower than in the 1980s. Indeed, the terms of trade for least developed countries
have declined in cumulative terms 50% over the last 25 years. The promises of integration into
the global system have clearly not been met – quite the reverse. Moreover, trade barriers against
imports from least developing countries have increased and are 30% higher than the global
average. Developing countries lose $60 billion a year from agriculture subsidies and barriers to
textile exports in industrial countries. So much for ‘free trade’.
5
The richest 20% of the world population receives 83% of total world income; the poorest
20% receive about 1.4% (Habte 1999:48), which has declined from the 2.3% figure in 1960
(UNDP 1997). Over one billion people live on less than $1 per day; more than 800 million go
hungry every day; and more than two billion suffer from a combination of hunger and/or
malnutrition. During the last 10 years in Africa, life expectancy rates have gone down, and infant
and child mortality rates have increased, due partly to growing poverty and HIV/AIDS infection.
These trends are likely to persist without immediate radical action to address the situation and
reexamine national and global policies at the macro, sectoral and micro level.
Exclusion patterns are also discernible in education patterns: 125 million children are
deprived of schooling, worldwide; some 150 million will drop out of school without learning to
read or write (Brazier 1999:8). The majority of unschooled children in the world are African.
Within the schooling system, there is growing polarisation between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ schools,
measured by levels of school and student performance, per student expenditures, per student
resources of textbooks, equipment and the like (ibid; Lauder and Hughes 1999). Access to
schooling at all levels, including primary, has declined for the poor. These changes are partly the
result of liberal education and fiscal reforms. They affect the pool of students from which to
recruit first year intake at UDSM.
Globalisation has been fostered by a series of economic reforms associated with
structural adjustment (SAP), liberalisation and privatisation, in developed and developing
countries. International financial institutions (IFIs) have had a central role to play in the design,
administration and monitoring of these reforms, and have been especially powerful in debt-ridden
countries of the South. They include the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Trade Organisation (WTO). Their global functions have been sharply curtailed in the
1980s and 1990s, however, with the rapid expansion and power of giant financial corporations,
and the growth in significance of financial speculation. The World Bank and IMF are
increasingly confined to management of ‘development’ in low income developing countries,
especially in SSA.
Neo-liberal ideology has been used to justify and legitimise the globalisation process,
with a focus on western notions of market principles, individualism, and consumerism. It has
been extremely powerful in determining education policy and practice, and in legitimising
counter-reforms against the progressive education movements of the 1960s and 1970s (Apple
1993, 1996; Freire 1998, Giroux 1992).
Social policy has figured highly in the globalisation process (Aina 1996). Emphasis on
fiscal austerity and reduction of the public deficit have put intolerable pressures on governments
at all levels, North and South (Adams et al 1999). Governments have been forced to reduce public
expenditures in provision of social services, including education and health, and to shift fiscal
responsibility for social service delivery from central to local government, from the public to the
private sector; and from government to parents and students. Policies such as parental choice,
school coupons and the like are part of the marketisation of schooling. Ostensibly these policies
are part of an effort to increase the autonomy of educational institutions and their communities,
but they are contradicted by the growing standardisation of curricula and standard testing of
educational outcomes (Lauglo 1996, Samoff 1996).
Cost-sharing was adopted in 1993 in Tanzania from primary level up, and has been
perpetuated by the government, in spite of the World Bank’s own recognition of the damage
caused, and its own revised policy of free education at the primary and lower secondary level i.e.
from Standard 1 through Form IV (World Bank 1995). Countless studies have confirmed the
6
following consequences (see analysis and references in Rajani 1999b:20-21; see also Hongoke
and Mhina 1998):
• children have been removed from school, or never enrolled, thus decreasing the
demand for school;
• children sent home, thereby missing schooling and lowering performance;
• the poor have had to reduce expenditures in health and nutrition in order to finance
education;
• teachers’ already packed work schedule is further burdened by administration of user
fees;
• the relationship and trust between parents and schools/local education authorities have
been worsened, thus affecting potential for partnership
• equity goals are undermined as the poor are increasingly unable to afford education.
While parental costs have risen, there has not been a corresponding improvement of
school quality, which has increased parental dissatisfaction with the schooling system and costsharing
policy itself (TADREG 1993, 1997 cited in Rajani 1999b and Hongoke and Mhina 1998).
Their views are confirmed by the decline in examination performance at Standard 7 level of both
boys and girls. During the last two years, some 80% of students who sat the Primary School
Leaving Examination failed to reach the minimum pass mark of 41% (Rajani 1999b:14). More
than 60% scored below 21% during the last five years. Girls consistently score about 31% below
the exam performance of boys (Hongoke and Mhina 1998:94). Granted that examinations
measure only certain aspects of school outcomes, these results illustrate the degree to which the
government has failed to measure up to its promises.
According to 1997 UNICEF data cited by Rajani (1999b:13), only 56 out of every 100
children of school-going age enrol in school; only 38 of the 56 complete their primary schooling
– one third drop out; and only 6 of the 38 proceed to lower secondary school. Tanzania has the
lowest enrolment ratio in secondary school in the world; and yet, lower secondary (ie Form 1-4)
is considered to be basic education, according to the World Bank (1995). This also means that
many potentially high-performing students have been denied entry to the university, because of
poverty.
Children’s likelihood of being enrolled in school, and remaining until Primary 7, depend
mainly on urban-rural location and household income. Among 7-9 year olds, nearly half from the
20% richest households are in school, compared to one fourth of those in the poorest households
(Oxfam International 1998:14, citing World Bank 1995). Poor children are more likely to have
left school as well: by 15-19 years, two thirds of the poorest children were out of school. Hence,
poverty reduces a child’s opportunities in primary education.
Quality of education is also measured by what happens in the classroom and school: how
many students per teacher? Qualifications of the teacher? What kind of pedagogy is used?
Corporal punishment or positive reinforcement? How many textbooks per student? Other
equipment? Studies have shown that there has been no major improvement along any of these
dimensions, since cost-sharing and other reforms have been implemented (Hongoke and Mhina
1998, Lugalla 1993, Rajani 1999b). Of special significance to the question of democratisation of
schools and society, corporal punishment remains the main approach in classroom management.
Rote memory learning and copy copy methods of teaching/learning persist, undermining the
capacity of learners to develop creativity, and analytical and problem-solving skills. This
7
becomes a major barrier to the development of more emancipatory, feminist pedagogy at all
levels, including the university. Students have been conditioned not to think, not to be creative.
Tanzania government was severely criticised by the World Bank in the Berg report for
over-expenditures in education and health, which were then defined as “non-productive” sectors,
or consumption. Both the World Bank and IMF set as one of the major conditions for loans
during the mid-1980s, that the government reduce its expenditures in the social services. Now,
the Bank has reversed its position, along with most donors, and criticises the government for its
lack of commitment to the social sector! How many educational researchers repeat the criticism,
while ignoring the history and politics behind it!
In 1996/97, the education sector received 65% of the total social sector recurrent budget;
compared to 33% of the development budget in the social sector (Hongoke and Mhina 1998:89).
The funds were dispersed as follows: 57% to primary education, 25% higher/tertiary, 8%
secondary, 5% teacher education, and 5% personel/administration. In addition, local government
provided some 10% of the revenue for primary and secondary education. The amount of funds
remained severely inadequate. According to the Ministry of Education and Culture, the gap
between budget demand and actual allocation was 25% in 1995/96 (ibid). Much of the shortfall is
actually covered by parents; more than 50% of recurrent expenditures are now provided for by
parents, the schools, the community.
What share does education have of total budget expenditures? In a recent analysis of
selected budget areas as a percentage of total discretionary expenditure – i.e. less debt
repayments, some salaries, and foreign aid which is tied to particular spending – the following
was found (Oxfam International 1998:17):
in 1995/96 actual expenditures:
education defence debt service parastatal subsidies other expenditures
26.5% 14.1% 37.5%, 9.0%, 13.0%
1998/99 budget:
23.5% 13.0% 33.3% 7.8% 22.5%
Between 1993/4-1997/78, education’s share of spending increased by 178.5%, but less than
defence spending which increased more than 300%; and less than the 128.5% increase in debt
servicing. Total education expenditures were 70.5% of debt servicing in the 1998/99 budget
(ibid:19).
Four times as much money is reportedly spent on debt service than on primary education
(Oxfam 1998a). The call made by advocacy organisations to swap debt for education is based on
a critical examination of budgetary expenditures at the national level. By abolishing the debt, it
would be possible to fund the expenditures necessary to achieve Education for All, with
additional inputs from national governments (Watkins 1999). Reductions in other areas can also
be made, while increasing transparency and accountability and reducing corruption, thereby
ensuring that funds really reach the targetted activity.
The University has been starved of adequate funding for years, which partly reflects the
general withdrawal of state support for education. However, it also reflects a long-term
ambivalence within the state, and the ruling party, towards higher education, and UDSM in
particular. Once accused of being the source of trouble-making activists, more recently it is
accused of housing ‘oppositional party’ elements.
8
Education Policy Issues
According to the World Bank’s recent sectoral report on education (1995), basic
education refers to the transmission of a set of skills and knowledge which ensure economic
productivity and, thereby, reduction of poverty. The two key priorities for education in general
are to meet economic demands for “adaptable workers who can readily acquire new skills”
(ibid:1) and the continued expansion of education. Basic education is also defined by the level of
education (primary school and lower secondary), and by specific school subjects (language,
science, mathematics and communications), along with “development of attitudes necessary for
the workplace” (ibid:2).
Similar trends can be found at the higher education level: a focus on self-employability
and entrepreneurship; on flexibility and specialisation.
This is based on the old model of adaptive education, adaptive to capital needs for a
compliant, but nowadays more adaptable and flexible labour force. However, it is misleading in
the present day context, because the global capitalist system as now constituted is unable and
unwilling to absorb the labour of a majority of the world’s population – hence the rising rates of
un- and underemployment, and the increasing resort to the palliative of the informal sector.
Moreover, capital no longer accepts the moral responsibility of providing adequate, livable
incomes for its workers, and nation states no longer have the power – or the will -- to enforce fair
wages and employment practices. Poverty and job insecurity have risen side by side in the North
and the South (Chomsky 1999, Bourdieu 1998).
The views of the World Bank are representative of one segment of global society,
including big business and some policy-makers and practitioners within Tanzania and other
African countries. Given its role as the leading external funder of education today in developing
countries, the Bank has the power to impose its definition on other funders, client governments
and other education actors (Jones 1996, Samoff 1996, 1999).
A growing number of educators distance themselves from what they term a technical,
economistic conception of education (see debates in O’Hanlon 1996, Ruddock and McIntyre
1998, special issue of International Journal of Educational Development 1996 16(3), especially
Lauglo and Samoff). These draw on a long and rich history of alternative views about education,
ranging from Freirian ideas about conscientisation to concepts of ‘the democratic school’ (Mayo
1999, Giroux 1992, Harber and Meighan 1989). For example, Samoff (1996) focuses on the
learning process, where learners acquire, master, generate, develop and create knowledge. The
technicist view ignores the broader, higher order objectives of education, including critical
thinking, problem solving, creativity and analytical skills, and related affective elements such as
self-confidence and self-esteem. Moreover, all of these are absolutely necessary to cope with the
demands of the modern globalising world, including capital’s demands for flexibility,
adaptability, team work and self-management (see Bradshaw 1995).
Although much of this work is focused on the primary school level, it has relevancy for
higher education as well.
Transformative education
The concept of transformative education is associated with concepts and philosophies of
liberating pedagogy and popular education, which are associated with the work and writing of
9
Paulo Freire (1993, 1998). Education and pedagogy are perceived as aspects of struggles to
transform the world. In his last text (1998), Freire contrasted the technical/pragmatic view of the
world, associated with economic reformers and what some call market fundamentalists, with a
progressive view, which is based on a critical stance vis-a-vis the world, and the powers that be.
Being in favour of something, one has to be against something!
The progressive educator thinks about technical issues in education from the perspective
of questioning what it is in favour of; or against what it operates (p.56). “Understanding obstacles
as challenges, the progressive must search for appropriate answers” (p. 57). Transformative
educators work within the school instititutions to make them more democratic “quantitatively and
qualitatively”, with attention to the needs of teachers and other workers as well as pupils. At the
same time, popular education has had its roots in activities which have been organised outside of
schools, in the community and in civil society.
There is a growing emphasis on critical reflection and pedagogy among professional
teacher educators and education researchers (Apple 1996, O’Hanlon 1996a). Ranson (1998:54)
explains: “A learning society, therefore, needs to celebrate the qualities of being open to new
ideas, listening to as well as expressing perspectives, reflecting on and inquiring into solutions to
new dilemmas, cooperating in the practice of change, and critically reviewing it.”
Mayo (1999) has provided a powerful analysis of transformative adult education, drawing
on the work of both Freire and Gramsci. The theory of transformative adult education recognises
the political nature of all educational interventions, and calls for socially transformative adult
education initiative that focus on changes at the roots of systems (p. 24). Analysis links education
systems to systemic and structural forms of domination in wider society, and unveils dominant
discourse (in line with much critical feminist work – see Hollingsworth 1996, Mbilinyi 1992,
Meena 1992). A language of possibility as well as critique, it provides room for agency. The adult
educator and participating disempowered groups are perceived as potential agents of social
transformation.
The limits of popular education are recognised if operating in isolation, unattached from a
social movement or progressive political party. At the same time, it can transform people’s
consciousness, and prepare the way for broader movements. Examples are given of how
transformative education has contributed to social change at different levels (see also Kaufman
and Alfonso 1997).
Transformative education questions content as well as pedagogy/methodology: whose
knowledge is considered legitimate? Why? (see Chambers 1999, Kane 1999). Pedagogy is based
on the dialogic process, where roles are reversed and interchanged, as members of impoverished
communities, for example, critically examine their own reality, and act to change it.
Transformative education provides the framework within which feminist pedagogy has emerged,
as will be discussed below.
Transformative education raises awareness at all levels, at the top as well as the bottom
and the middle. Rajani (1999a:7) has pointed out that too often awareness raising is interpreted to
mean “top-down, let’s-education-the-masses”. There is a need to emphasise the public arena as
well, with advocacy activities which target policy-makers in government and external agencies.
At the same time, critical civil society organisation can expand opportunities for members of the
public “to be engaged as thoughtful citizen, to organize for child rights, to become meaningfully
involved in the change process as co-responsible thinkers, actors and leaders”.
10
Transformative educators, advocacy organisations and concerned citizens also need to
build capacity in social and economic analysis, in order to confront ‘the bankers’ on their own
terms. How many would be in a position to demystify the way in which the World Bank has used,
and misused, rates of return analyses? Bennell (1996) uncovered outrageous examples of
misrepresentation and invalid generalisations by the Bank in its campaign to justify prioritisation
of primary schooling (higher rates of return, lower subsidies) and reduction of public support for
higher schooling levels (World Bank 1995). Going back to the original data, sometimes with
appropriate adjustments, and disaggregated for different countries, he was able to show that in
many cases, primary schooling did not have higher returns, and that the most logical and
economic education level to invest in, using the Bank’s criteria, would be upper secondary.
Current campaigns under way to democratise the policy-making process, eg by focusing
on the budget, illustrate the way in which researchers can join government allies and NGO
activists to impact policy (TGNP 1998). As such action research becomes linked to social action
by advocacy organisations to change policy and practice, it becomes a part of the transformative
education process. To the extent that they reach out to the public, and contribute to building
popular organisations and movements, they can ‘really make a difference’. Examples can be
found of policy-oriented research in the field of gender studies, as will be discussed below.
GENDER STUDIES OF – AND IN –EDUCATION
A variety of approaches have been adopted to carry out gender analyses of education,
with different outcomes in terms of depth of information and understanding, and strength of
policy implications and potential interventions. The main approaches are summarised below,
followed by a brief analysis of what has been done in Tanzania on gender and higher education.
A conceptual and methodological framework within which to carry out policy-oriented action
research on the topic is presented, followed by a discussion of gender and women’s studies.
Different Approaches
The most common approach adopted worldwide, and in Tanzania, to study ‘women’
and/or gender in education is a liberal feminist analysis, which focuses on questions of access,
sex stereotyping in curriculum and male bias overall (Weiler 1988, Mbilinyi et al 1991)). The
studies tend to be descriptive, not explanatory nor historical. This usually leads to rather limited
policy interventions, including the reform of textbooks and teaching strategies, of career and
course counseling for girls, and sensitisation programmes for teachers, administrators and
sometimes, students. The underlying assumption is that the provision of information and
facilitation of attitude change are adequate to change the system. This ignores the depth of sexism
in power relationships within education institutions, and the relationship between gender and
class, race, ethnic and national relationships (Weiler 1988). The role of gender relations in
producing existing power relations in wider society, and reproducing them, suggests that there are
strong interests at stake who will resist efforts to undermine male dominant gender systems, both
within and without a given educational organisation.
Nevertheless, these studies have made a major contribution in raising the visibility of
girls and women within education and policy-making circles, and documenting the extent of
gender inequities throughout the system.
Socialist feminist perspectives have also been used, which focus on reproduction theory.
The school or university is perceived to be a state ideological apparatus, reproducing values,
11
attitudes, behaviours and practices expected in the workplace (ibid). Linkages are made between
the world of work (public and private, paid and unpaid) and the world of education. The modern
capitalist economy demands that the female products of schooling fit the demands for unpaid
domestic work and a reserve army of labour. Others have examined the unequal representation of
women in authority patterns and staffing, the way knowledge is distributed in the classroom and
through sex stereotyping in curriculum, and teacher discrimination against girls and women. The
emphasis in each case is on how the education institution reproduces certain kinds of girls and
women, or constructs ‘feminity’, so as to meet the demands of the dominant economic system.
This approach guides us to ask, ‘who benefits from the existing male dominant education
system?’ and how?
While an improvement on the liberal feminist approach, in recognising the systemic
nature of gender relations and structures of power in education, the socialist feminist approach
has tended to err in, first, assuming that ideology operates in a smooth, mechanical, uncontested
way; second, ignores the question of individual consciousness and agency; third, ignores the
whole question of contestation and resistance by students, teachers and ‘school’/university
administrators against male dominant systems. It does not question how girls/women students and
teachers exist within given structures; how male hegemonic meanings and forms of power are
negotiated and worked out in the actual lived reality of teachers and students in
schools/universities. It assumes that students, in particular, are passive recipients of male
dominant ideology, and therefore, lose sight of the way that girls – and boys – negotiate and
construct their own gendered identities through different definitions of what it means to be a
woman or man from different sources, including families, peers, the media, as well as formal
education.
These approaches also often fail to link sexism to class oppression and exploitation, and
to racism, [and ethnicity and national/imperial relations]. The alternative approach, which is most
rare, focuses on feminist resistance and cultural production, or what I have called critical third
world feminism (ibid; Mbilinyi 1992). This recognises, for example, that however oppressive,
formal education may also be emancipatory for girls/women coming from working class, black or
post-colonial backgrounds. Schools and universities are sites of negotiation, resistance and
struggle over gender relations interacting with the other social relations noted above. They are
both constructed by gender/class/race/imperial relations, and they also construct the same.
Transformative feminist studies listen to girls/women’s stories, as students, teachers and
administrators, and also those of boys/men.
A central defining aspect of critical transformative approaches is the methodology which
is adopted. Three key aspects have been identified by Weiler (1988). Firstly, feminist researchers
begin investigation from a position which is grounded in their own subjective oppression – as
women [African,..] but also in their awareness of their privileged position vis-à-vis eg. students,
poor [or women, if male feminists]. Secondly, there is an emphasis on lived experience and the
significance of everyday life, which calls for qualitative research, phenomenological approaches
and a critique of the positivistic approaches which dominate in academia. Considerable attention
is given to the relationships between researchers and ‘subjects’ of research, with a recognition
that the ‘researched’ are also knowers (Mbilinyi 1992). Thirdly, feminist research is politically
committed to changing the position of girls/women in education, in society, and in changing
society itself.
Transformative feminist research addresses the relationship between structural oppression
and the realities of everyday lives, between the public and the personal. Moreover, it includes
both analysis and action, theory and practice.
12
Gender Analysis of Education, and Higher Education in Particular, in Tanzania
In Tanzania, as elsewhere, the liberal feminist approach has been most common, which
has led to a large number of valuable descriptive studies documenting the extent of gender
inequity in access to schooling, the quality of schooling, and gender stereotyping of the
curriculum. These have tended to be descriptive, nonexplanatory, nonhistorical, which fail to
delve into the root causes of male bias. There have also been a large number of socialist feminist
studies, which link education to the workplace, and trace the impact of the colonial legacy.
Inadequate attention has been given to forms of resistance and transformative actions to change
education, and to the impact of policy actions to promote gender equity in education (Mbilinyi et
al 1991).
There has been an economistic bias to the work, which has ignored other elements of
gender: the emotional, subjective, psychological, cultural elements. The ‘politics’ of gender
construction at the institutional level is also underrepresented, so essential in providing guidelines
as to how to change the institution so as to better serve girls and women, and to transform gender
power relations.
I do not intend to sound over-critical here, because the very process of producing often
descriptive work has, in itself, been highly transformative. Gender research on education took off
in the late 1970s, largely through the initiative, courage and commitment of women students,
teachers and other professionals. The BRALUP Workshop on Women and Development in
September 1979 represents an important marker in this history. Some 60 participants, largely
women from Tanzania, each presented reports based on dissertations, research reports or papers.
Several focused on ‘women in education’. The Mascarenhas and Mbilinyi annotated bibliography
on Women and Development in Tanzania, An Annotated Bibliography (1980) was shared with all
participants in draft form, in the spirit of celebration and information sharing. The mood at the
BRALUP Workshop was one of resistance against male bias in academia, formal education
throughout, and society in general, and solidarity in support of one another’s efforts to promote
an alternative understanding and methodology.
These were the days of open hostility against women’s studies, and minimal if any donor
support. How did feminists respond? Beginning in the late 1970s, they created women’s groups,
such as the original IDS Women’s Study Group, which led to the formation of Women’s
Research and Documentation Project, to be followed later by Women Education Development,
Women Science Technology and many other organisations. Through these groups, women were
able to access resources that had earlier been denied them, be it funding to do research and write
reports, and opportunities to attend workshops. Alternative organisational styles were created,
which emphasised supportive criticism, not the harsh macho competitive seminar styles which
predominate until today at UDSM; collective decision-making; and links between work and
home/family, professional and personal needs. Donors quickly tapped into this resource to seek
consultants as well as researchers, which, on the other hand, provided women with additional
resources to carry out their work.
Studies on gender in education have been documented in two major bibliographies:
Women in Tanzania, An Analytical Bibliography (Mascarenhas and Mbilinyi 1983) and Women
and Gender Studies in Tanzania (1995). Specific emphasis on women’s resistances and struggles,
especially grassroots women, from the days of slavery and chiefdom to the present, is also found
in Part One of Mascarenhas and Mbilinyi (1983). This was partly a challenge to the stereotyped
imagery of passive powerless African women so prevalent in many foreign, and local, researches.
13
It was also a response to those arguing that feminism was a foreign idea, imported by Tanzanian
women who studied overseas!
The first bibliography covered materials written from the colonial days to around 1980-
1982, and the second focused on the period from 1982 to 1994. By the second period, as pointed
out by Mukangara in her introduction, a growing portion of work had been funded by external
donors in order to meet the information needs of planners and decision-makers in both
government and donor agencies.
Both bibliographies intended, as one of the major objectives, to share information about
existing information as widely as possible. The annotations were sources of information in
themselves, and could be cited by students and others in their research endeavours. Some 400
items were cited in the 1983 volume; and 956 items in that of 1995 – more than double.
Looking at the two bibliographies together, there is a notable gap in studies on higher
education. During the earlier period up to 1982, some 5 out of 37 items on education concerned
higher education, only two of which based on some kind of original empirical research. There
were 17 items out of 86 on education which focused on higher education, a slight increase from
14% to 20%. The Academic Staff Assembly report (1980) carried out collectively by women
academicians at the University highlighted the level of sex discrimination faced by students as
well as teachers and administrators, and provided a meaningful set of recommendations for
change within the institution itself, as well as at lower levels of the education system. Ishumi’s
1974 study documented gender inequities at the university in enrolment. Most of the work
focused on the secondary school level, documenting inequalities in enrolment, and male bias in
the classroom and the school. Gender inequalities in the school were linked to those in the
workplace (paid and unpaid work). None of these other studies focused on teachers or
administrators.
During the more recent period, the number of studies on higher education increased, and
they covered issues such as gender in the curriculum, the decline in performance, the low portion
of female students in math and science based subjects. Studies of women’s groups such as WED
and Gender Education Review (the informal group which was created to advocate and
disseminate gender issues associated with the SIDA report (Mbilinyi and Mbughuni 1991) are
also included, that were presented at the second TGNP formation workshop in 1993 on strategies
in gender and development (TGNP 1993). None of these was based on original empirical research
at UDSM; instead, writers depended mainly on desk work, personal participant observation and
reflection, with limited interviews of resource persons (eg Mbilinyi 1991).
In both periods, the social relations of classroom and school/university were underresearched,
as well as gender patterns of differentiation and discrimination among teaching and
administrative staff. The structure of the institution itself was usually not studied, with the
exception of the ASA (1980) study, which was carried out in haste and on a voluntary basis.
Two other texts are of relevance here, in marking the development of women/gender
studies in general, and specifically concerning education. Gender and Development in Tanzania
(Njau and Mruma 1995) is a collection of essays presented during a monthly Gender Seminar
Series organised on Saturdays by WRDP in 1994. The participants included members of many
women’s organisations outside of the university, as well as those on campus and WRDP itself.
Although there is no specific essay on education, many others are relevant.
14
Beyond Inequalities: Women in Tanzania (Mukangara and Koda 1997) represents
another feminist initiative, involving WIDSAA-SARDC, the initiator, publisher and funder based
in Harare, and TGNP, the activist organisation based in Dar es Salaam which guided and
supervised the work. Several meetings were held in the SADC region involving TGNP, SARDC
representatives and the authors, so as to develop a common conceptual framework, and link the
research to policy issues at the regional and national level.
Of particular significance to understanding gender in higher education are the last two
texts: Education in Tanzania with a Gender Perspective (Mbilinyi and Mbughuni eds 1991) and
Report of the Gender Dimensions Task Force (Besha et al 1996). What became known as the
‘SIDA report’ (Mbilinyi and Mbughuni eds 1991) adopted a transformative feminist perspective,
which sought to understand not only how the education system oppresses girls/women and
constructs gender relations, but also how girls/women reacted, resisted, struggled, as students,
teachers and administrators. The study was carried out by a team of four researchers, including
three academics at the UDSM and one Ministry official. It was based mainly on desk work, along
with interviews with key resource persons, including teachers and students. A feedback workshop
was held, called the Resource Persons Workshop, where women gave ‘personal testimonials’
about their own lived experiences in accomodating to, or combatting, sexism, racism, colonialism
and classism in education. Gender Education Review group emerged from that workshop, led by
Fides Chale, and including practitioners from the Ministry of Eduction, to carry on advocacy
work so as to promote the recommendations. A second Strategies Workshop was organised,
targetting representatives from the Ministry of Education and of Higher Education, as well as
NGOs, to develop strategies of action in small groups which focused on all the key sectors,
including higher education. An extremely detailed list of recommendations was produced.
Sensitisation activities were carried out, targetting key officials at VETA, which led to significant
affirmative action programmes in recruitment of girls and women for vocational courses.
The Report of the Gender Dimensions Task Force (1996) is another example of joint
work, involving four academicians at UDSM, working in conjunction with the university
administration, and with reference to the Corporate Strategic Plan and Five Year Strategic Plan
1996-2001 and other key policy documents. In addition to documentation work, the authors
carried out interviews with people in administration and management, along with teachers, and
distributed forms on basic enrolment data and related information. This report provides rich
information on the world of the teacher at the University, and deserves more attention than it has
received thus far.
TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR GENDER STUDIES OF HIGHER EDUCATION, OF
SPECIAL RELEVANCE TO GENDER MAINSTREAMING GOALS
What follows are meant to be tentative ideas about a conceptual framework for the
gender analysis of the University of Dar es Salaam, and other institutions of higher learning –
tentative in that building a conceptual framework will require in depth discussion and
participation from different segments of the university society.
I’d like to begin with the approach adopted by the GER group (Mbilinyi et al 1991: 25-
26): to analyse equity participation in all aspects of the university, in and out of the classroom and
offices; to analyse the root causes of gender differentials and male discrimination against women;
and to examine resistances by students, teachers, workers, and administrators, and the
transformative potential of higher education. The last point needs further elaboration:
15
…we also analyzed the extent to which education contributed to a transformative process
in alleviating basic societal problems which constrain or oppress women. Does education
reinforce these basic problems, or does it equip women with the knowledge, skills and
attitudes needed to challenge them? To what extent are teachers, students and others
contributing to a transformation process? How are they confronting or accomodating
basic problems? What are the qualitative aspects of curriculum, pedagogy and school
environment which affects the status of gender relations, either for change or
entrenchment of the status quo? By asking such questions, we also analyzed and
measured the extent and way in which education facilitated women’s empowerment
(ibid:26).
Causal factors were grouped into three major categories: the gender division of labour in
production and reproduction; women’s unequal allocation of and control over resources,
including education itself, as well as land, finance, time; and the patriarchal [or male dominant]
order which assigns women a subordinate secondary status in relation to men. The ‘gender triad’
is also affected by historical circumstances such as class, ethnicity, race and Tanzania’s place in
the global economic system.
Turning to Weiler (1988), a critical transformative feminist approach also includes a
critique of the mainstream/malestream which takes male experience as the norm, and women ‘the
other’. Women are subjects, able to act and critique their own experience, including students,
workers, poor women. Feminist methodology [carried out by women or men] begins by
examining one’s own consciousness as the researcher/observer. There is a strong component of
self-reflectivity, i.e. attempts to become aware of biases within the researcher’s own perspectives
and consciousness, arising from positionality, the power of male hegemonic ideas, and so on.
Women researchers are both the ‘other’ (marginalised, silenced…) and also a critical conscious
acting being. At the same time, being highly educated middle class, they are also in a privileged
position to other those in subordinate positions such as students, workers, and subordinate
academic staff. Male researchers need to recognise the impact of their own positionality as
privileged by gender as well as middle class (see Mbilinyi 1992).
Feminist methodology recognises the significance of lived experience and of everyday
life, in which women are relegated to the home, private, domestic sphere, which affects their
identity and opportunities. Malestream thought is a partial vision of social reality which excludes
the domestic sphere, unpaid work, the emotions, and so on, including the most abstract economic
theory. It excludes the reproduction of social life and of life itself, which are essential to the
public world of production, without which human society would not exist. Hence, feminist
research reveals the connection between production and reproduction, the public and the private.
Conscious subjectivity characterises a gender-informed approach, that is, recognising that
the women [and men] participating in the research have their own subjectivity. They have
knowledge, they act upon the world, even when their subjectivity is denied by male hegemonic
ideology and language” (ibid:62).
Emotional feeling and experience are recognised as legitimate elements of the research
enterprise, aspects of the study of consciousness. Dialogue is used to explore different
perceptions of a situation or institution.
Feminist methodology is also characterised by political commitment to change the
existing social order. To what extent the research leads to progressive change is one indicator of
just how gender-transformative it is.
16
What tools can be used to explore gender relations within an institution such as the
University? Goetz (1997b) provides important guideposts (see the work of Kabeer as well, and
the authors in Goetz 1997a). She calls it a gendered archaeology of organisations. Researchers
examine and reinterpret histories, question ‘artefacts’ such as favoured concepts, the terms of
inclusion and exclusion, the symbols of success or failure, traces which gendered patterns of
privilege leave in the organisation of space and time, and in the behavioural patterns which are
tolerated or punished.
Institutional and organisational histories are complex, involving conflicting interests, and
offering different prospects for “feminist incursions” (p.17). Of special importance are the
histories of women’s struggles, such as those outlined above at the University, the struggle for
women’s and gender studies. Attention is also focused as well on gendered subtexts of organising
structures, practices and ideologies, which help to explain resistance against women and their
struggles, a la the idea of the hidden curriculum. For example, how much decision-making about
promotions, recruitment, workshops, research, and curriculum takes place in bars? Are women
included or excluded in such decision-making practices?
The research questions the notions of ‘popular consent’ and ‘representation’, be it of staff
or students. What are the contexts of choice which limit consent? For example, how many
examples do women students have of strong powerful women who publicly denounce sexual
harassment from within their own community of students? And receive the support of strong
powerful male students? To what extent is the right to say no a widespread popular notion in
society at large? In and out of marriage?
The gendered cognitive context also contributes to the construction of male dominant
gender relations. Mainstream neo-liberal economics is the common example, unable to
understand women’s inequality because of the choice-based analytical framework used, and the
fetishisation of the market. Subjects of development, agriculture, commerce, have been
masculinised. The farmer is a male, the trader is a male.
Of special significance in education is the gendered organisational culture (see Mbilinyi
1991 on secondary and higher education). Instrumental rationality is highly valued. Top down
command and communication systems are maintained through hierarchical and competitive
relationships. Specialisation creates false boundaries within as well as across different disciplines.
Aggressive goal-oriented styles of management are relied upon to govern incentives and
motivation.
Within the university, as in all institututions, there are privileged participants, groups
which are included and excluded, superiors and subordinates, decision-makers and decisiontakers.
To what degree can women ‘insiders’ at the top promote women’s interests, when they are
a minority, and lack structured external support? How many adopt the markers of the dominant
male in order to succeed: putting work before family and social movement; acting in a
competitive, individualistic and aggressive/assertive way; walking, dressing, acting so as to flaunt
one'’ superiority over others; representing themselves as ‘the authority’ in the classroom, among
peers, and the university as a whole?
Institutions are marked by gendered space and time, defined by the physical and social
capabilities of those who dominate institutions. This is reflected in performance or success
criteria which determine promotion status, and in the physical and social, spatial and temporal,
structure of work. Men have the social capacity to achieve relative liberation from child care and
17
domestic responsibilities, more than women, and hence have more time to devote to work or
institutional interactions. In Tanzania, middle class women have the privilege to hire substitute
domestic labour, but they are required to supervise and manage the domestic sphere, and child
care in particular. Given the prevalence of disease, this is an ever present demand on time and
energy. What impact does it have on their performance and self-image, and the perception that
dominant males have of the same? Men’s social independence marked by cultural rights to
mobility and autonomy outside of the home frees them to meet in bars late at night, to attend
evening meetings, and to travel. Cultural expectations deny women similar freedom of
movement. One might also question the location itself for decision-making? Why bars?
Institutional time management of working hours is especially significant, in
discriminating against women – on a daily, weekly and longer time basis. Women and men have
different life cycle and career trajectories. What impact does child bearing and rearing have on
women’s career, i.e. when forced to absent one’s self from intensive work in research, writing,
studying and/or teaching and administrative duties? Space and time on a daily basis is also
structured by child care and other responsibilities, in different ways for women and men.
The sexuality of organisations is one of the most controversial elements, least studied,
least understood, and yet most powerful. Once ignored, it leaves women victims of sexual
harassment and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours. This questions women’s ability to gain
respect as equal participants, not sex objects, and to have physical security from teasing,
touching, rape.
Gendered authority structures may make it difficult for women to validate their
perspectives, or to compete effectively with men, or to strive to succeed. There is a lack of
cultural association between women and public power. Male authority is entrenched in the
hierarchy and in the command and control system. The gendering of authority symbols are so
prevalent that women must take on socially male attributes (more authoritarian behaviour, power
dressing, minimising demands of home and family) to generate recognition. Everything counts –
your tone of voice, way of walk, how you interact with others.
Incentive and accountability systems are gendered by all of the above gendered
dimensions of organisational practice within institutions. Quantitative measurable performance
targets are adopted, such as number of publications, rather than qualitative matters such as the
promotion of empowerment. Quantifiable indicators have been further privileged by neoliberalism
in management ideology and structures. Emphasis is given to cost-effectiveness, not
change and transformation, and the empowerment of students to think for themselves.
At issue is gaining access to institutions (enrolment of students, recruitment and
promotion of staff), but also women establishing a controlling presence in them, women acting in
a corporate, not numerical sense. That is, women acting in a conscious way as women, advancing
the interests of women against male dominant structures. In the absence of women’s strong
institutionalised representation in the state, and powerful women’s movement in civil society,
women can easily be co-opted into the system as it is. Accountability and representation are
therefore key problems in gender mainstreaming.
This draws from an understanding that the administration of institutions is not a technical
question but a political situation, consisting of conflicting interests and expectations. It is not just
a matter of getting a blueprint right, change is a matter of political struggle (ibid:28).
18
Women Studies/Gender Studies
Women and gender studies have developed worldwide, and in Tanzania, specifically, to
raise awareness about women and gender issues, to make women visible in academic disciplines,
government policies, counter-mainstream movements, and the community at large. They have
emerged as a process of resistance and struggle, while also being an analysis of the process itself
of women’s oppression and resistance. The earliest endeavours to theorise about women and
gender emerged as part of the women’s movement outside of academia, as well as within (Maher
and Tetreault 1994, Mbilinyi 2000, Weiler 1988).
At UDSM, feminists created informal women study circles to study basic writings on
feminism in the late 1970s. This rapidly led to a desire to carry out independent research on
women’s issues in Tanzania, which coalesced with the need to institutionalise the groups into a
more formal organisational form. The result was the creation of the IDS Women Study Group
(IDSWSG) in 1980, and its later transformation into the Women’s Research and Documentation
Project (WRDP) in 1982 – one of the oldest women research-oriented NGOs in Tanzania.
This was preceded, however, by the organisation of a women’s question option in DS 200
during the first year of the second year DS programme. The option was run collectively, and
headed by Dr. Vanantia Malima, and attracted many male and female students.
It is important to emphasise here that neither initiative began with donor funding. Instead,
participants sponsored the activity themselves, using their own resources and those of supporters
in civil society to access texts, write reports, copy them and disseminate to members and/or
students.
By 1996, some 14 women’s organisations existed at UDSM, including Women Education
Development, Women in Science and Technology (?), Women Campus Group (Besha et al
1996). Mainly consisting of teachers, and in some cases, administrators, women students have not
created formal groups of a similar nature. What kind of informal support groups students have
created needs to be studied, involving the students themselves as co-researchers.
Several of these groups also have members working outside of the university, which has
enhanced linkages across occupational and town/university divisions.
The Gender Management Committee was created in the mid-1990s to assist in the
coordination of the groups, and to reduce administrative costs in submission of grant proposals
and distribution of grants by donors. The committee consists of elected representatives from the
groups.
More recently, GMC and GDPC have begun to work together, with GMC committee
members incorporated within GDPC. This is a welcome development in ensuring that the women
NGOs are included in the process of strengthening women/gender studies and activism at the
University. Moreover, it is a recognition of the significant contribution they have made to raising
gender awareness within the institution and elsewhere, in providing documentation, and in
developing women/gender studies. WRDP’s documentation room, for example, provides the
major source of reading references on women/gender studies for both students and staff.
The GDTF report (Besha et al 1996) provides a review of women/gender studies at
departmental, faculty and institute level. Thus far, UDSM lacks a full-fledged department of
women or gender studies, which is remarkable given its pioneering role in raising gender issues
19
through the NGOs. People often ask why not, and give the Women’s Studies Department at
Makerere University as an example, a fairly recent development compared to WRDP, for
example.
Moreover, there are hardly any women or gender courses, none in Education, Commerce,
Law, or Science faculties. Fine Arts, Music and Theatre has a course on women in dance;
Sociology has three courses which focus on gender studies; IDS has a full option course on
gender issues in the MA programme, and a gender module in DS 100 which all UDSM students
take. Three Law courses raise gender issues, such as that on marriage law and inheritance.
However, gender issues are mainstreamed within some existing courses, not only in Law,
but also in Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Political Science and Art, Music and Theatre.
In responding to the question as to whether gender studies was taught, and how, both
Deans and Heads at UCLAS claimed that these had no relevance to their coursework. Similar
replies were given by academic staff and some ‘managerial’ leaders in Engineering and Sciences.
Recommended Action:
Establish a Gender Studies Institute to provide teaching, research, publications and
community service.
In this section, I have examined different approaches to the study of women and gender
issues in education, worldwide and in Tanzania, and examined the context in which
women/gender studies emerged in Tanzania. The types of gender studies on education have been
summarised. A potential conceptual framework with which to analyse and act concerning gender
in higher education institutions has been presented, along with a brief survey of gender studies at
the university. Key gender issues in education are presented in the next section.
GENDER ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, AND UDSM IN PARTICULAR
A summary of main issues is presented below, including those pertaining to student
enrolment, curriculum stereotyping, performance, and causation; recruitment and promotion of
academic staff; the gendered nature of the institution itself; male bias in policy.
Gender Inequities in Enrolment, Coursework, Performance
According to the GDPC proposal to Carnegie (2000), girls represented nearly 49% of
Standard 1 enrolment, which dropped to 30% in Form 6 (1996 figures), and between 16-17% at
UDSM in 1999/2000. That UDSM figure has remained stagnant or declined for decades, whereas
the female enrolment has increased at SUA, and remains much higher at MUCHS, although also
in decline (see Table 1).
Table 1 Total Student Enrolment by Gender: 1991/92-1995/96*
University,
campus
1991/92 1995/96
UDSM 18% 15%
MUCHS 33 26
SUA 18 25
Source: BOS 1997:Table 1. *Then-Ardhi excluded, but has been less than 20%.
20
The University’s Facts and Figures has become a major source of documentation,
providing gender-disaggregated data on student enrolment, staff recruitment, student
performance. This represents a major advance, in response to decades long struggle by feminist
staff. Facts and Figures provides detailed information on gender breakdowns subject by subject.
The data shows a gender imbalance not only in overall admissions, but especially in math
and science related disciplines. This issue will be discussed further below.
The lack of funds is believed to have become a major obstacle to enrolment during the
1990s, as a result of economic reforms and liberalisation policies. Cost-sharing and the rise of
private academies at the pre-school, primary, secondary and high school level have raised the
power of class/gender/ethnic barriers at all levels. Young people with high potential have thereby
been denied entry to education at lower levels, and have thus fallen out of the pool of potential
recruits for the University (Masanja 2000, Mbilinyi and Mbughuni 1991). This has exaggerated
the impact of class, ethnicity and gender, which had already become barriers to education among
students who were female, poor, and from marginalised less developed regions and districts (see
work by George Malekela, Marjorie Mbilinyi, TADREG).
Recommended Action:
Remove cost-sharing fees at primary and secondary school levels. Basic education is
a fundamental human right, that should not depend on wealth, gender, ethnicity,
geographical location, or any other precondition. The costs of basic education
should be met by means of taxes the people pay, along with resources provided by
central and local government, donors, the private sector and communities.
Another explanation for low female enrolment and low proportion of academic staff who
are women is the negative impact of Musoma Resolutions in the past. The policy led to a
dramatic drop in female recruits because of the precondition that they work for two years after
National Service, and receive recommendations from their ‘bosses’ and party leaders. Gender
differentials in life cycle and career patterns mattered here. Young women were more likely to get
married, and/or bear children, which often blocked them from reentering formal education.
Employer recommendations depended too often on provision of sexual services. Moreover, it
extended the duration of studies for too long a period, in a context where many young women
fear they may become too old to marry (Mbilinyi 1991).
The shortage of applicants is also due to low performance at lower levels, with too few
women having acceptable passes at O and A level examinations (ibid, Masanja 2000). This is
especially so within science and arts subjects. Hence, the emphasis on strategies which lead to
improved performance at primary, secondary and high school level in all subjects, but especially
math and sciences.
Focusing on UDSM, women represent only 3% of Engineering students (1995/96 data),
and 14% of Science, compared to 17% Law, 19% Commerce, and 21% Arts and Social Science
(Besha et al). This is partly attributed to a decline in the pool to recruit from, because of
decreased performance levels at O and A level. For example, the failure rate in Advanced Math
rose from 19% in 1990 to 37% in 1994 (ibid:81). The GDTF repeats the warning made by the
GER group in 1990/91, that failure to act will mean that there will be no female students to
recruit from for higher education, especially in math/science subjects (Mbilinyi 1991).
21
However, I am concerned about the over-emphasis on low female ratios in math/ science
related subjects, by most observers, including my own earlier work (Mbilinyi 1991). How can we
explain the relatively higher female ratios at MUCHS and SUA, which are also math/ science
based subjects? Moreover, how significant is the difference between 14% in Science and 17% in
Law? Let’s face it, there is systematic discrimination against women in all of the subjects, as
measured by low enrolment rates. Our attention needs to be given to increasing enrolment in all
subjects, not math/science alone.
This has implications for strategies to adopt. Special pre-university coaching programmes
have been developed which focus on math and science subjects. However, female students are
also low performing in public speaking, including class presentations and debates; many have
major communication and language difficulties; and many lack analytical skills. These are of
special importance for high performance in Arts and Social Science subjects, but have been
overlooked.
However, specific attention is needed to the Engineering Faculty, not only because of the
extremely low female ratio in enrolment and staffing (see below), but also because it has been the
home of ‘punch’, i.e. organised harassment of women, for many years (ibid, see below).
The tremendous increase in alternative tertiary education opportunities, and student
preference for a more vocationally-oriented training course, is another explanation, which is often
overlooked (Mbilinyi 1991). Young women, in particular, often prefer a shorter training
programme, so as to be able to link career and marriage expectations. They have assessed the job
market, and perceive that graduates of IFM, or computer course programmes, are more likely to
access wage employment and get promoted rapidly, compared to university graduates. Many
university courses have high failure rates, especially in the science based subjects, including
MUCHS and UCLAS, which discourages recruits. The high level of sexual harassment,
especially at the main campus, also acts as a deterrent.
Why are there consistently fewer female students in math/science subjects, compared to
‘arts and social science’ related subjects? The common explanation is that girls ‘fear’ these
subjects, and/or they perceive them to be ‘masculine’ subjects, in part a reflection of actual
gender ratios, and also a reflection of gender patterns in occupational employment. Men
outnumber women especially in science-related fields. Girls lack female role models to emulate
in these fields.
I think this partly reflects the point of view of us researchers. What are the explanations
given by students themselves? One of the major causes is the macho pedagogy and terrorist
management style adopted by teachers of math and science related subjects (ibid). Students, both
girls and boys, at secondary school, all agree that these are ‘tough’ subjects, that require you to
work all night in the lab [or did, in the days when public schools had working labs and other
resources]. The same is expected of these courses at the University. Success, whether at
secondary/high school or the university seems to depend as much on persistence, drive, and the
social capacity to ‘work all night’ in the labs, as it does on intellectual capacity. However, it is
simply not safe for girls/women to do this; a compelling reason not to take such courses, and a
barrier to good performance should they try.
What about teaching methods i.e. pedagogy and management styles of the classroom?
Math/Science teachers seem to pride themselves on high failure rates among their students.
Rather than see this as a measure of their own performance as teachers – and thus low
performance; this is a measure of – measure of what? High standards of excellence? A hierarchy
22
of knowledge imposed on students? An inability to ‘teach’ complex subject matter to students?
And especially, the power of the teacher over the student? The greater knowledge that the teacher
has?
Given the higher failure rates in math/science subjects, particularly at A level; and the
higher failure rates among female students, generally, it is surely most logical for O level
graduates to choose Arts and Social Science subjects, or commerce, where they are more likely to
pass. Another explanation is that math/science subjects lead to tertiary education or training
which require longer duration than desired. Again, the marriage/career matrix. They also expect
higher returns from other subjects, in terms of wages and promotion. Student choices are not
necessarily governed by sex stereotyping or fear; they are rational choices, according to a logical
assessment of probable outcomes.
The gender division of labour outside of schooling acts as an obstacle for girls/women’s
education, in terms of space and time to engage with studies. This is a general issue, not confined
to those studying arts related subjects, but does mean less time to do laboratory work. Studies
have documented higher performance of girls in single sex girls boarding schools, as compared to
girls day schools, for example (see citations in Mbilinyi 1991, TADREG). The major explanation
has been the freedom from female chores which await day school students, along with the lack of
social ‘distractions’ associated with sexuality.
GDTF examined student performance at the university itself, with the aim of sampling
three courses in each faculty during all three years of enrolment. One aim was to identify those
courses with lowest performance and higher failure rates, thus causing avoidance behaviour, so as
to develop specific solutions for those particular courses.
Their findings are exceedingly important, in denying the stereotyped notion that female
students perform lower than males. In general, performance on average was about equal at
UDSM. A higher percentage of women pass courses than men; but fewer excel in most courses
[not all]. In the majority of courses, men performed slightly better than women; but in some,
women outperformed men. Women outperformed men in some Engineering classes, for example,
and based on disaggregated data for 15 years, women outperformed men in Math! In Commerce,
women and men were almost equal in the first year courses. Fewer women fail in chemistry,
though more men get A’s, but more get D’s! In Engineering, women have higher failure rates
than in other faculties, but then, so do men. Women performed best in those engineering subjects
where their proportion was higher, such as in Chemical and Processing (8-11% women).
At MUCHS, all students have higher failure rates than main campus, especially in first
and fifth years. Women have higher failure rates than men after the first year, and tend to average
B and C, with fewer getting A and B+.
At IFM, there is greatest gender parity in performance, with generally equal performance.
Why? More studies are needed of success!
In spite of the generally equal performance of women and men, at least at main campus,
many teachers assumed that men had superior performance. The faculty of Education was
notable, in 43% of staff assuming male superiority in performance (ibid), and 50% of Law staff!
The Faculty of Arts and Social Science, where performance was most equal? 29% thought men
outperformed women, compared to 17% of Science. Only in Faculties of Engineering and
Commerce did all teachers (100%) respond that performances were equal, along with MUCHS.
At then-Ardhi, 43% thought that men were of superior performance.
23
Recommended Action:
Sensitise staff to the existence of prejudice with respect to female performance in
coursework and examinations, and the negative impact that this has on teacher
behaviour and classroom interaction.
Much less attention has been given to enrolment rates at post-graduate level, but on the
whole female enrolment is much lower. In 1977, seven out of 83 postgraduates were women; and
in 1984-87, there were 18 out of 240.
In addition to the explanations already provided, postgraduate candidates have explained
that it is more difficult for women to undertake postgraduate studies because of family
responsibilities, discrimination at the workplace, the lack of adequate income, the lack of
financial support (Mbilinyi 1991:53).
Increased enrolment of women is essential at post-graduate level, so as to increase
the number of women who can be recruited for positions as academic and administrative
staff.
Another set of explanations for low female participation in post-graduate studies may
relate to the gendered nature of the institution itself, and the possibilities for women to advance
within it as academics and administrators, the subject of the next subsection.
The Gendered University
The GDTF report made a powerful indictment of the University: “There is not hiding the
fact that the atmosphere of the University of Dar es Salaam is gender unfriendly, discriminating
against women, and in general, oppressive”, thus denying the University its “basic mission of
promoting knowledge in a democratic and freedom inspiring context” (Besha et al 1996:89).
Women are a minority in all departments and institutes, and are generally relegated to the
lowest level of seniority. According to Facts and Figures 1997, female ratios overall were as
follows: 8% Professors, 11% Associate Professors, 29% Senior Lectures, 30% Lecturers, 22%
Assistant Lecturers, and 0% Teaching Assistants (a total of 2, due to university policy). Some
10% of all academics were women, a slight drop from 11% in 1980 (ASA 1980).
The question asked then, needs repeating. Why is the university so backward in terms of
recruitment and promotion of women as academic staff, in comparison to other professional
occupational categories? Rather than being a model of progressive practice, UDSM represents
and reinforces backward gender tendencies. It is holding back progress in the rest of society, and
needs serious transformative action.
Female access to employment and promotion varies from faculty to faculty and
departmental level also. Female ratios range from 2% in Engineering, 6% Sciences and Law, and
10% in Arts and Social Sciences, to 16% in Commerce and 19% in Education. The lowest ratios
are found in both Science and Law fields, in other words; and highest in Commerce and
Education, Commerce being a math-related field. At the institute level, they ranged from 0% in
IPI and 11% in IRA to 13% in IDS and 19% in IKR. The highest portion was in the Library, 38%.
UCLAS had 8% women academics, compared to 20% at MUCHS, higher than any
faculty/institute at the main campus! So much, again, for stereotypes about math and science
related fields.
24
The proportion of professors and associate professors who are women is low in most
departments and institutes, suggestive that there are barriers to upward promotion within and
without the institution. This also means that junior/subordinate/younger women lack role models
at the top level, mentors, and the support of more powerful women within the discipline.
Moreover, given the distribution of power in decision-making, which is vested at the top of the
academic pyramid, women have less influence in decisions on curriculum, recruitment,
promotions and so on.
One of the preconditions established for recruitment and promotion is achievement of the
PHD. Whereas 60% of all academic staff have doctorates, only eight per cent of them are women.
Why is this so? Specific studies are needed, but many of the explanations given above for general
barriers to education especially at the postgraduate level may apply here. In addition, allocation of
opportunities for postgraduate studies is controlled by heads of departments and deans and
directors, usually, though not always, in consultation with ‘managerial’ level and senior academic
staff. A male bias often prevails in the decision-making process, with considerations such as
women’s lower potential to succeed and the possibility of transfer due to husband’s occupation.
The likelihood that women staff have been less active in research and writing, because of their
double burdens at work and at home is another explanation, which is not responded to by means
of affirmative action. Moreover, access to opportunities for research grants and participation in
workshops, all necessary for promotion as well as further studies, depends, once again, on top
decision-makers.
Many women have shared the experience of sexual harassment and abuse as an additional
set of obstacles (ibid, ASA 1980). A scholarship to study overseas? Provide sexual services to the
head or Director or Dean. A good reference for the research grant? Ditto.
Men also outnumber women in all the main decision-making organs of the University,
i.e. the Council, Senate, Committee of Deans, Senate Committees, and Boards. This includes the
Institutional Transformation Programme, whose 9 teams and 12 committees almost entirely
consist of men (1998 report). These committees decide ultimately on the granting of higher
degrees, promotion and recruitment, as well as the content of curriculum and the structure of the
university. Women have been excluded.
Moreover, men control top management, although the ratio is better than at lower levels.
Two out of five of the top posts (VC, CACO, CADO, D-PGS and Secretary to Council) are held
by women, now as in 1996 (Besha et al 1996). Then there was only one female Dean, no
Director, but a few more Associate Deans and Directors [to be documented]. The same situation
at MUCHS and UCLAS (p. 50, 52).
Recommended Action:
Set up specific measures to increase the number of women in all key decisionmaking
organs, up to a given % (?) as a minimum.
The majority of Deans and Directors, and many heads of departments, were found to be
gender-blind in the GDTF study. They did not think that gender inequities was an academic issue,
and many were opposed to affirmative action programmes. The same was found for many male
academic staff members.
25
Recommended Action:
Plan specific actions to meet the anticipated negative, if not, hostile reactions to
affirmative action programmes, and other steps taken to promote gender equity.
Gender dynamics are often subtle, less easy to measure than quantifiable numbers of staff
who are women. For example, there is a tendency to allocate hospitality functions to women staff,
and for them to accept these as ‘normal’. In a meeting of five academic staff, one of whom is a
woman, guess who will pour the tea and distribute the biscuits? Women are over-represented in
committees responsible for organisation of receptions and parties, and for provision of social
welfare functions at times of death, for example. Moreover, many more are non-academic women
in these committees, as compared to ‘academic’ matters.
Observe the next meeting of a committee or a professional seminar or workshop. Who
dominate the discussion from the floor, men or women? How long does it take, if ever, for the
chair to acknowledge the hand of a woman? How often is her input recognised by others? Or will
it be attributed to a man who makes the same point later?
These are common experiences which women academics have had to suffer, as well as
students. It is called silencing, making us invisible. It has an enormous impact: lower self-esteem,
self-censorship, lower expectations for one self.
Part of the problem is that women are a minority. This limits their power in numbers and
voice, and acts as an inhibiting factor. A critical mass of numbers is needed. In the absence of
this, women, be they staff, administrators, or students, need to create support systems and
networks to provide mentoring, solidarity and other support needed.
The physical landscape and architecture of the university also blocks women, both
students and staff, from entering the institutution, or performing well. Masanja (2000) has noted
the following: resistance to equalising access to accomodation [shouldn’t women be given
priority, in any case?]; resistance to expand boarding facilities to include women with specific
gender needs (those with infants and young children, for example), the lack of child care facilities
including kreches for the entire day; inadequate lighting and the lack of special guards to protect
women moving between the library and laboratories, including the computer laboratory, and the
main road and/or dormitories; the long distance, relatively, between accomodation and
laboratories and library space, in a context of insecurity due to harassment and rape.
Gender blind promotion procedures particularly harm women staff. The assumption is
that women and men compete on a level playing field, where all conditions are the same. In fact,
due to gender division of labour, and differential control over resources, women have less access
to finance than men to support their acquisition of computers, books and journals; and less access
to ‘free’ time with which to study, carry out research, write, attend workshops.
The main criteria for promotion is publication, which requires the time and other
resources which women have less access to. The relative unimportance given to skills of teaching
is detrimental to everybody at the university, and may have an especially negative impact on
women students. Quality pedagogy requires preparation, putting students first, centreing the
discourse around the ideas and knowledge of students themselves, taking students and the
teaching enterprise seriously. Recognising differences among students (gender, ethnic, class,
national, individual), and tailoring pedagogy to them, is especially crucial. However, the
incentive system does not reward teachers who teach accordingly, and who show special
26
sensitivity to the needs of eg women students, or those from poor, disadvantaged backgrounds, be
they male or female.
The GDTF also discussed gender relations among students themselves. Women are
excluded from top student leadership positions, and those who seek leadership posts are harassed.
Men students perceive themselves to be superior, and want women to consider them as such.
They are threatened by high performing women, and react with violence and harassment. Top
female achievers are accused of bribing male staff with sex: ‘marks za chupi’.
Student organisations, formal and informal, with Punch taking a leading role, have set up
openly discriminatory rules and regulations, with the seeming compliance of the university
administration. These include the Ten Commandments of Punch: that women must not wear short
dresses, take 4pm tea, enter a teacher’s office, or talk in seminar. Sanctions are used against
women who rebel, including isolation [which depends on the compliance of fellow female
students, as well as male], pornographic attack, rape.
Why is this allowed to persist? And why are female students compliant on the whole?
The student world is governed more by the rules and regulations of backward elements in the
student body, than those of the administration itself. Ignoring the situation allows it to persist and
get stronger. Weak responses cannot make a difference.
The sexual world of the university has been little studied, as noted above. GDTF
documented the extent to which men in top positions extract sexual services from subordinate
women academic and non-academic staff and from students. Moreover, even the wives of
subordinate male staff were vulnerable to their seemingly insatiable demands. Departmental
secretaries are notoriously exploited sexually by heads and other senior staff.
Codes of conduct are there, but not implemented, or poorly implemented, with respect to
both students and staff.
Higher level policy tends to be gender blind. For example, the Higher Education Policy
itself gives minimal attention to gender (ibid). The same is true of the Corporate Strategic Plan,
although the Five year Strategic Plan 1996-2001 did mention gender issues, and incorporated
them into the mission statement. According to mission f(v), the university is to act as a catalyst
for achieving gender equity and balance, with an expansion to 50/50 gender parity in enrolment.
Objective 11 calls for gender equity among staff as well as students.
Finally, as documented by GDTF, there is a strong denial among management level
administrators that there is discrimination against women in recruitment and promotion, whereas
the majority of female staff believe that there are indirect inbuilt mechanisms which discriminate
against women in promotion and staff development. Women do not get priority in housing, there
is no provision for their multiple roles in production and reproduction. Most decision-makers
believed that special measures were needed to increase the representation of women among
academic staff, and in access to managerial positions. The main argument drew on ‘meritocracy’
ideology, disregarding the different circumstances of women and men.
This section has presented some of the major gender issues concerning the university as
an institution. The next section explores strategies recommended, taken and those carried out
elsewhere.
27
STRATEGIES OF ACTION
Recommendations
This list is taken mainly from the GER/SIDA report (Mbilinyi and Mbughuni 1991). The
report provides detailed suggestions on implementation, which cannot be repeated here.
More recent recommendations tend to repeat what was recommended then. This raises a
question, however. Why haven’t more of these actions been implemented? They involved
educationists from all levels of the education system, along with top officials in the relevant
Ministries. Once again, we are confronted with strong resistance against change that need to be
overcome in order to achieve gender equity and transformation.
Another challenge is to prioritise action, and clarify who is most likely to be responsible.
It is not possible to implement 100 actions or more. Moreover, these need to be part of a popular
movement for education reform and transformation, that involves students, teachers and
administrators at all levels in calling for change, and acting on their own account to implement it,
without waiting for directives from above.
1. Enact an Equal Opportunity Policy in Education, which makes it illegal to discriminate
against girls and women in education at all levels.
2. Adopt higher quota systems in enrolment at higher education, at least 35%.
3. Provide remedial education programmes for all disadvantaged students, men as well as
women.
4. Implement special steps to abolish all forms of harassment of girls and women in educational
institutions, including a national campaign; special legislation and regulations, and its
implementation; popular education as well as education of students so as to recognise sexual
harassment and how to protect themselves.
5. Carry out a gender curriculum review at all levels, but with specific attention to the
university, and curriculum reform so as to remove gender typing, and other forms of a hidden
curriculum which is male biased.
6. Promote gender transformative approaches in pedagogy at the university, other higher
education institutions, and at lower levels of education, within all courses and specialisations.
7. Introduce gender issues and analysis into all subjects at all levels of education, beginning at
the university; and encourage the development of separate gender studies at all levels.
8. Strengthen teacher training and in-service training at all levels, including gender
transformative pedagogy at the university where most teachers have had no training in
pedagogy; so as to promote critical thinking, problem-solving ability, creativity, selfconfidence
and gender balanced points of view.
9. Provide specific support for gender reform of curriculum and pedagogy, as part of a
programme of teacher rehabilitation at all levels.
28
10. Develop incentive systems for teachers and administrators that reward gender transformative
practices.
11. Support the production of more books, reports and other teaching aids with a gender balanced
perspective, that cater to the needs of students at the university, as well as at lower levels;
including the work of NGOs in and out of education systems.
12. Increase the real value of recurrent and capital expenditures per student at all levels of the
education system.
13. Strengthen guidance and counseling systems which support gender change and
transformation among women and men, girls and boys, and link them to a broad range of
education and employment opportunities.
14. Strengthen gender-sensitive research on education, and in other fields, and support the
development of gender studies in research and publications.
15. Provide appropriate accomodation for students with children and spouses, including creches
and all-day child care facilities for students and staff; provide female students with access to
all-female halls of residence and separate dining facilities.
16. Support higher education for women with special women’s scholarships at the under- and
post-graduate level, along with research grants, especially for those carrying out genderrelated
research at the postgraduate level.
17. Increase budgetary supports for the UDSM in general, with the condition that affirmative
action programmes be implemented in support of 50/50 enrolment and recruitment in the long
term.
18. Support in-depth research of gender dynamics in the classroom, the office, in all aspects of
the university as an institution.
19. Support studies of resistances and struggles by women students and academic staff, and
administrators, obstacles they faced, and overcame, the support systems they used, and the
outcome.
20. Investigate the attributes of a ‘female friendly’ curriculum and pedagogy, and work out
strategies for creating and implementing it.
21. Study and publicise the significant contributions of women in different sectors of society,
including academia, politics, crafts, creative arts, science, civil society, peasant farming and
livestock keeping, and so on.
Strategies Carried Out
Participants will be expected to provide the information called for in this subsection.
Below is a sketch list.
29
The university adopted a lower ‘pass grade’ for entry into first year enrolment at the
university, which has opened the door for many female undergraduates. Their generally equal
performance indicates that affirmative action of this nature has not led to a lowering of standards.
Gender issues have been incorporated into the Five year plan, indicating the political will
of the university administration to promote gender equity.
The establishment of the GDTF, and later the GDPC, and provision of support in the
form of finance, office space, administrative and secretarial assistance and so on, represent major
positive steps in support of gender change. The challenge now is in the hands of members of
GDPC and the Campus Gender Committees.
GDPC has carried out sensitisation programmes with top management of the entire
university, with the full support of the VC. GDPC provides gender sensitisation module during
the First Year Student Orientation, although very little time is allocated. All first year students
receive gender training by means of weekend workshops. The leadership of the student
organisation has received gender sensitisation in past years, and will continue to do so.
Counseling centres have been established by GDPC on all campuses, although there has
been delay in provision of counseling services.
Special scholarships for women at the postgraduate level have been provided in years
past, first by Ford Foundation in the 1980s (time?), and most recently by SIDA/SAREC
(evidently stopped as of last year?).
Pre-entry training programmes have been conducted in the past by MUCHS, with very
successful results (Mbilinyi 1991). They have since been suspended for unknown reasons (?). The
Faculty of Science has now taken the lead in providing pre-entry training programmes, and staff
members are now calling for more intensive programmes for female students at secondary and
high school level (Masanja 2000). Women who qualified for entry to the university, but with
lower points, participated in a six weeks remedial course. Those who passed the examination
were admitted into First Year. Their performance has been good.
Individual teachers have incorporated gender issues into their courses, and adopted
‘feminist’ or transformative pedagogy which provides more support for women. Departments
have established separate gender courses, or gender topics within existing coursework.
Gender related research has been supported, largely by donor grants, but with the
compliance if not active support of departmental heads. This is an advance on the 1970s and
1980s, when there was open hostility against women and gender related research, including that
carried out by postgraduate students.
NGOs have promoted the establishment of documentation and library services on gender
issues, namely WRDP; and research on gender issues (most). They have advocated for gender
equity in education, and the university specifically, one outcome of which is the more positive
environment we have now at the university.
30
INITIATIVES ELSEWHERE
Because of time limitations, I can only briefly summarise information about steps taken
elsewhere. Participants are encouraged to read the following texts for information and inspiration:
Weiler 1988, Maher and Tetreault 1994, Pescosolido and Aminzade eds 1999. We need to study
initiatives in sister universities in Africa, especially those of Makerere and Botswana.
The major focus is on approaches which have not been given much attention in Tanzania,
and especially not at the university. The intention of this section is to provoke new thoughts about
appropriate action.
Transformative education, and its counterpart, i.e. feminist pedagogy, provides one of the
most significant contributions to the transformation of the institution. Teachers, in the classroom,
centre teaching around the knowledge and ideas of students, with special attention to the specific
concerns of different groups and individuals. A dialogical approach is adopted a la Freire, which
engages students in assessing, analysing and acting on their situations in and out of the learning
situation. Instead of the usual lecture-discussion method, which is controlled by the teacher, a
learning situation is established which is built on the knowledge of the students and teachers
together, and the interaction of their different perspectives vis-à-vis specific subject matter.
Feminist pedagogy seeks to explore the dimensions of women’s oppression, so as to
oppose oppressive systems in and out of the academia, and change them. A process of
consciousness-raising is facilitated, throughout a course programme, so as to facilitate student –
and teacher – recognition of tendencies towards sexism, racism, ethnicism, classism, imperalism
within personal ideologies and belief systems. Together, participants go beyond the recognition of
these tendencies, to forge a new way of thinking, acting, being within the classroom, and to plan
action so as to transform the wider institution and society at large.
Maher and Tetrault (1994: 13) identified the following common elements in feminist
pedagogy: “a commitment to taking women students seriously, a consciousness of the extent to
which gender is embedded in our social structures, and an understanding of the differing
educational needs of different groups of students.”
Feminist teachers engage with feminist theory, so as to deepen their understanding of the
gender power structures and dynamics within the classroom and overall institution. At the same
time, they value the knowledge of students themselves, while facilitating student engagement
with theory.
Four main themes emerged in their in depth study of feminist teachers: mastery, voice,
authority and positionality. Mastery in their classrooms meant the mastery of students and
teachers over a body of knowledge, through the creation of knowledge. Instead of banking
transfers of information from teacher to student, knowledge is constructed in collaborative, not
hierarchical ways. Teachers struggle with the relationship between the identities of their students,
what they need and want to master and know, and who they can become as a result.
In the space created by feminist/transformative pedagogy, both teachers and students
construct or fashion their voices, they don’t just find them. Through a recognition of different

1. identities (along gender, class, race, ethnic, national and other lines), and perceptions of reality,

their voices “intersect in the construction of new and multidimensional forms of knowledge”
(ibid:18).
31
These teachers deliberately dismantled the authority of the teacher, or the extra bright
student, with regard to knowledge transmission. Students are made responsible for their own
learning, something that they do not necessarily enjoy, at least not at first. This does not mean
that teachers lack authority, but it is derived from the pattern of interaction with the students, as
well as what they bring to the classroom eg from their work as community activists.
The positionality of different students and the teacher have the greatest influence on the
construction of knowledge – “positional factors reflect relationships of power both within and
outside the classroom itself” (22). As teachers, these means opening up to the possibility of
oppositional discourse among students, and vis-à-vis the teacher, and learning how to facilitate
dialogue in the context of conflict and tension.
Weiler (1988) situates this work in the context of the development of organised and
conscious collective oppositional action, i.e. opposition to male dominant structures, beliefs,
value systems and practices. Students, and teachers, are encouraged to create a self-conscious
analysis of the situation, and to develop collective practices and organisation that can oppose
hegemony of the existing order, and build a basis for new understanding and transformation of
society. Women and gender studies programmes have a special contribution to make in this
regard, backed up by the presence of a strong women/gender movement.
Transformative teaching introduces the ideas of the women/gender movement to
students, opens up discussion, strengthens democracy. Alternative spaces are created which are
collective, non-competitive, cooperative, non-sexist, non-racist, non-imperalist/globalist, nonclassist.
These provide participants with a lived experience of how the world could be and can be
different.
Women administrators face opportunities and constraints in their exercise of power
within the rules and practices of a hierarchical structure. Their position of authority both
influences and limits solidarity and collectivity which they share with likeminded teachers, since
institutionally they are not equals (ibid:102). The creation of support systems is especially
important to help support women administrators while enhancing their accountability to fellow
transformers.
Feminist teachers and administrators deliberately forge alliances with other progressive
groups and issues, partly to develop allies in the context of resistance to change. Methods are
adopted, through animation for example, to enable students and teachers to address their
prejudices and stereotypes openly, to reflect on their own beliefs, articulate them, and perhaps
change them (103). This means openness, transparency, and the skills to handle conflict and
tension in a positive constructive way, without silencing angry voices or repressing the conflict.
What are the goals of a feminist teacher? First, a commitment to critique and analysis, of
texts and of social relatiionships, and a political commitment to build a more just society.
Awareness of self as a gendered teacher, a man or a woman, and reflection on the implications of
positionality for our work. A woman teacher can act as a transformative role model for students,
and challenge gender stereotypes. The same may be true of a feminist male teacher.
Teachers challenge accepted values of students, often part of the dominant ideology,
which can be painful and is always contested. Hence, these classrooms are sites of conflict and
debate.
32
MATRIX
Problem/
Objective
Output Strategy Activities Indicators of
Success
Inputs Time Schedule Assumptions
Begin with the question, what would you want changed? What is the top priority, in order to change the university as an institution?
33
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Students are knowers and creators of knowledge. How does that influence our practices
as teachers or administrators?
The classroom is potentially a site where consciousness and ideology can be questioned,
where critical thinking is encouraged, where, in the words of Weiler (1988), it is ok to be human.
The difficulties faced by feminist teachers and administrators are a result of structural and
institutional forces. Attitude change is not enough.
There is room to negotiate and create change. Change agents need to balance agency and
structure, and provide mutual support and a critical understanding of pedagogy for those
attempting to transform their univerity/school.
Individual teachers cannot change the system alone. Collective and collaborative work is
essential.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Francis, Satya Dev Gupta and Kidrane Mengisteab eds 1999 Globalization and
the Dilemmas of the State in the South Hampshire, MacMillan
Aina, Tade Akin 1997 Globalization and Social Policy in Africa, Issues and Research
Directions Dakar, CODESRIA Working Paper Series 6/96
Amin, Samir 1999 “For a Progressive and Democratic new World Order” in Adams et al
1999
Apple, Michael W 1996 Cultural Politics and Education Buckingham, Open University
Press
Besha, Ruth, Ibrahim Shao, Mary Mboya and Ruth Meena 1996 Report of the Gender
Dimension Task Force Dar es Salaam, UDSM
Bourdieu, Pierre 1998 Acts of Resistance New York, The New Press
Brazier, Chris 1999 “The Great Education Scandal” New Internationalist 315 (August):
7-11 and other articles, same issue
Burnett, Nicholas 1996 “Priorities and Strategies for Education-A World Bank Review:
The Process and the Key Messages” Int’l J of Educational Development 16(3):215-220
Chachage, C S L 1999 “Higher Education Transformation and Academic Exterminism”
Paper presented at seminar, University of Dar es Salaam
Coclough, Christopher 1999 “Achieving Schooling for All in Sub-Saharan Africa-Is
Gender a Constraint or an Opportunity?” University East Anglia, SCUSA conference
34
Coclough, Christopher with Kurt Lewin 1993 Educating All the Children Oxford,
Clarendon
Cooksey, B, G Malekela and J Lugalla 1993 TADREG Service Delivery Survey (?) Dar
es Salaam, cited by Rajani 1999a
Cooksey, B and M Mmuya 1997 “Health and Education…” Keynote address to the
Annual Gender Studies Conference 1997, Dar es Salaam, TGNP
Deem, Rosemary 1998 “Educational Research Past, Present and Future: A Feminist
Social Science Perspective” in Ruddock and McIntyre 1998
FAWE and UNESCO 1998 Gender Analysis for Educational Policy Making Nairobi,
FAWE
FAWE 1998 Creating an Enabling and Empowering Environment for Women in Tertiary
Education Nairobi
Freire, Paulo 1993 Pedagogy of the Oppressed New York, Continuum Pub co
Freire, Paulo 1998 Pedagogy of the Heart New York, Continuum Pub Co
Giroux, Henry A 1992 Border Crossings New York, Routledge
Goetz, Anne Marie ed 1997a Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development
London, Zed Books
Goetz, Anne Marie 1997b “Introduction” in Goetz 1997a
Jellema, Anna and Patrick Watt 1999 “Confronting the global education crisis: Two
NGO campaigns” Oxford Education Conference
King, Kenneth and Lene Buchert eds 1999 Changing international aid to education Paris,
UNESCO
Kuleana 1999 The State of Education in Tanzania: Crisis and Opportunity Mwanza
(written by Rakesh Rajani)
Lander, Hugh, David Hughes et al 1999 Trading in Futures, Why Markets in Education
Don’t Work Buckingham, Open University Press
Lauglo, Jon 1996 “Banking on Education and the Uses of Research…” Int’l J of
Educational Development 16(3):
Lugalla, Joe L P 1993 “Structural Adjustment Policies and Education in Tanzania” in
Gibbon 1993
Masanja, V 2000 ”Concept Paper on FAWE-UDSM Collaboration to Address
Qualitatively Gender Gaps Amongst Students and Academics” Mathematics Departmetn
35
Mascarenhas, Ophelia and Marjorie Mbilinyi 1983 Women in Tanzania, an Analytical
Bibliography Uppsala, Scandinavian Institute of African Studies
Mayo, Peter 1999 Gramsci, Freire and Adult Education London, Zed Books
Mbilinyi, Marjorie 1991 “Secondary and Higher Education” in Mbilinyi and Mbughuni
eds 1991
Mbilinyi, Marjorie and Patricia Mbughuni eds 1991 Education in Tanzania with a
Gender Perspective Stockholm, SIDA
Mbilinyi, Marjorie, Patricia Mbughuni, Ruth Meena and Priscilla OleKambaine “’Equity
is not enough!’ Gendered Patterns of Education, Employment and Aid” in Mbilinyi and
Mbughuni 1991
Mbilinyi, Marjorie 1992 “Research Methodologies in Gender Issues” in Meena 1992
Mbilinyi, Marjorie 1992a “Women and Pursuit of Local Initiatives in Eastern and
Southern Africa” in Wilbert Gooneratne and Marjorie Mbilinyi eds Reviving Local Self-Reliance
Nagoya, Japan, UNCRD
Mbilinyi, Marjorie 1996 “Towards a Transformative Methodology of Political Economy
in Adult Education” in Frank Youngman and Paul Wangoola eds Towards a Transformative
Political Economy in Adult Education Dekalb, Illinois, LEPS Press
Mbilinyi, Marjorie 2000 “Transformative Education and the Strengthening of Civil
Society” in Haroub Othman ed Reflections on Leadership in Africa Dar es Salaam, IDS, UDSM.
Meena, Ruth ed 1992 Gender in Southern Africa Harare, SAPES Books
Mukangara, Fenella 1995 Women and Gender Studies in Tanzania, An Annotated
Bibliography (1982-94) DUP
Mukangara, Fenella and Bertha Koda 1997 Beyond Inequalities, Women in Tanzania
Harare, Dar es Salaam, WIDSAA-SARDC, TGNP
Njau, A and T Mruma eds Gender and Development in Tanzania Dar es Salaam, WRDP
O’Hanlon, Christine ed 1996 Professional Development through Action Research in
Educational Settings London, Falmer Press
O’Sullivan, Edmund 1999 Transformative Learning London, Zed Books
Oxfam International 1998 “Tanzania Country Study” New York, Oxford
Oxfam International 1998a “Debt Relief for Tanzania…” Preliminary briefing paper
Oxford Education Conference: Oxford Educational Conference on Education and
Development 1999, Poverty, Power and Partnership, 9-13 September, 1999, UK Forum for
International Education and Training
36
Pescosolido, Bernice A and Ronald Aminzade eds 1999 The Social Worlds of Higher
Education London, Pine Forge Press
Roy-Campbell, Caline Makini and Martha A S Quorro 1997 Language Crisis in
Tanzania Dar es Salaam, Mkuki na Nyota Publishers
Ruddock, Jean and Donald McIntyre eds 1998 Challenges for Educational Research
London, Paul Chapham Publishers
Said, Edward W 1994 Representations of the Intellectual London, Vintage
Samoff, Joel 1996 “Which Priorities and Strategies for Education?” Int’l J of Educational
Development 16(3):249-271
Samoff, Joel 1999 “Education sector analysis in Africa…” Int’l J of Educational
Development 19 (4-5):249-272
Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP) 1998 “Gender Budget Initiative” Dar
es Salaam (Hongoke and Mhina on education)
UNDP 1997 Human Development Report 1997 Oxford, Oxford University Press
UNICEF 1995 Girl Child Study Dar es Salaam
United Republic of Tanzania (URT) 1995 Education and Training Policy Min of Ed and
Culture, Dar es Salaam
URT Bureau of Statistics 1997 Newsletter, Gender Statistics and Related Issues Dar es
Salaam
University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM)
GDPC 2000 “Proposal to Build Capacity for Strategic Planning and Development in
Gender Equity and Mainstreaming at UDSM”
2000 Academic Staff Performance Assessment Guidelines
Institutional Transformation Programme 1988 University level Five year Rolling
Strategic Plan
Institutional Transformation Programme 1997 Facts and Figures
Institutional Transformation Programme 1998 Progress Report as at 15th August 1998
Strategic Development Programme 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan
Walford, Geoffrey 1994 Researching the Powerful in Education London, UCL Press
Watkins, Kevin 1999 education now Oxford, Oxfam GB for Oxfam International
World Bank 1988 Education in Sub-Saharan Africa Washington DC
World Bank 1995 Priorities and Strategies for Education Washington DC