Okeke C. C., PhD
Department of Social Science
Federal Polytechnic, Oko
Abstract
One of the provisions of Nigeria’s National policy on Education (1998) (revised) is the need to equalize educational opportunity, and impliedly make education at the various levels accessible to the citizens. The logic is that if the citizens have access to education, the access should not be restricted based on gender, ethnicity, or for any other reason. But studies have shown that gender disparity exists in Nigeria’s educational practice (Okeke, 2001; Ezumah, 2001; Lajeaunesse, 2003; Salaam, 2003; and Achunire, 2004). Many reasons have been advanced to explain the situation. This article, therefore, highlights some of the reasons for the apparent marginalization and under-representation of women particularly in leadership positions in higher education, as well as the efforts that are deemed feasible to ameliorate the situation.
Introduction
The National Policy on Education in Nigeria (1998) (revised) provides for equality of educational opportunity for the citizens based on the national philosophy which aims to build a just and egalitarian society. The provision has led the federal government of Nigeria to evolve different programmes aimed at making the citizens have access to education. The underlying philosophy here is that citizens should discharge their civil obligations as and when due. Correspondingly, government is obligated to equalize opportunities available to the citizens to enable them contribute their quota to the development of the society.
In a democratic society, access to education is implicitly a right and not necessarily a privilege for the citizens. This implies that any form of discrimination based on gender, social or economic status should be jettisoned.But the present practice has suggested that access to education, in some cases, is a fable. For instance, some disparity has been found in the access to education by male and female citizens of Nigeria. It, then follows that if this type of disparity occurs, the vicious circle will be perpetuated in spheres requiring educational qualifications as a standard. This implies that males and females do not have equal access to leadership positions particularly, in higher education. Studies have buttressed the poor trend (Okeke, 2001, Ezumah, 2001; Salaam, 2003; Achunire, 2004). The situation has been attributed to many factors, existing not only in Nigeria, but globally. This article examines the main factors responsible for the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in higher education in Nigeria. It also recommends measures to solve this problem. Higher education in the context here implies university education and leadership positions here apply to Vice Chancellor, and chairmen of Council of the Federal Universities in Nigeria.
Epistemological foundations of Male-Female Inequality
Religious, sociological, psychological, philosophical, historical, political factors have contributed to male – female inequality. Christianity and Islam are the two major religions practiced in Nigeria. Both the Bible and the Quran make provisions for the relationship between husband and wife. For instance, in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 5:22-23, the roles of the husband and wife are spelt out; the overriding provision is the headship of the husband in the family and the wife’s submission to him. In the case of the Holy Quran, 30:21, the husband is the head of the family and wives are usually in seclusion (restricted movement). Such restriction invariably limits the wife’s economic activities and increases her dependence on the husband. The implication of this religious perspective is that the husband is more important.
Sociologically, Rosaldo (1974) argues from the structural model perspective that women are more domestic oriented and tend to be more absorbed mainly in their roles as mothers. Men, on the other hand, have public domain for male activities including participation in political, military and economic spheres. Bilton, Bennett, Philip Sheard, Staworth, and Webster, (1981), in their analysis of the degree and kinds of stratification by gender, suggest that power and status result from men’s control of economic resources in the public sphere. Impliedly, if women are able to perform roles that enable them attain status and power in the public sphere, their economic independence will not only occur but the situation will also lead to improvement in their status and position in the society. Ezumah (2001:6) summed up the argument thus: “In the contemporary Nigerian society, women who have acquired education and also taken up male-dominated careers as doctors, lawyers, engineers, lecturers, etc have achieved considerable status and power.”
Still on the sociological perspective, gender is socially and culturally determined (Worsley, 1978:399). Through the process of socialization, the individual imbibes the societal culture and learns what to do, think and how to behave. In gender role socialization, male and female expectations are delineated and the differences often manifest. In the school setting, curriculum experiences vary and these appear to shape the subject offerings by boys and girls – more girls embrace the arts than the sciences. As Fafunwa (1974) remarked, “even in the establishment of school curricula, girls received more training in domestic science and home management in order to prepare them for their future roles as mothers; boys on the other hand, received training in mathematics and science.” Gender role socialization, conceptually, appears to limit the exploits of women as regards exploring and attaining their potentials. An asymmetrical relationship between men and women has been found to be existing with regard to their access to resources (Schlegel, 1977:7). Coser (1982) observes that power reflects this asymmetry, and since men have better access to material rewards and opportunity structures, they are dominant.
The limitations posed on women based on sociological underpinnings apparently makes them not want to pursue men-like activities since the venture seemed not worthwhile. This situation appears to make women to be complacent in response to the apparent societal values.
Some historical antecedents helped to reinforce the complacency of women. History showed that women in some traditional societies wielded a lot of influence. Instances were given of Queen Amina of Zaria, Madam Tinubu of Lagos, the Aba Women’s riot of 1929 (Okonjo, 1982; Mba, 1982; Mba, ‘1989). Islamization of the Hausa state after the Fulbe conquest of 1802-17, impact of colonialism and post independence development adversely affected women’s traditional positions and their adventurous posture. The introduction of Native Administration by the colonial masters ended the political organizations of women since the new administration was male-dominated. Both the post independence and contemporary situations in Nigeria were and are still male dominated even though a lot of changes have taken place.
Philosophical and psychological considerations are necessary as regards man-woman relationships. The ideology and symbolic meanings attached to masculinity and feminity by the society also affect the status of women. Are the women perceived in terms of their images? What values does the society attach to male and female respectively? The male plays a lot of roles in the society particularly in matters of inheritance, traditional stool; different activities designed for men. Women regard men to be superior and generally detest competing with men (Lajeunesse, 2003).
Based on the above characterizations, a chasm of inequality exists between men and women. Such inequality has adversely affected the take-off by women in embracing western education and attainting enviable heights. Even though the situation is changing as a result of drives by women themselves and some non-governmental organizations, it will take a very long time to redress theinequality in many fronts. However, more efforts are needed not only by women but also governmental action is deemed necessary to reinforce the present efforts.
Having reviewed the epistemological foundations, it becomes necessary to look at the current situation in Nigeria with regard to women access to leadership positions in higher education ill Nigeria. In furtherance of this, the enrolment trend in the universities in terms of gender disparity is explored. This is considered necessary because it is believed that if more females embrace higher education both as students and as academic staff, a scintilla of hope become a bright prospect.
The Current Situation
In order to ascertain (he current situation, a three-pronged approach was adopted. First, efforts were made to identify the current vice chancellors of the federal Universities as well as the chairmen of those universities governing council. The rationale was lo find out the number or/and percentage of women holding such positions. Table 1 explicates the details. Secondly, the percentage of female enrolment as percentage of total enrolment in Nigeria’s federal universities was established. Table 2 provides the details. Thirdly, female enrolment as percentage of total academic staff in Nigeria’s federal universities was explored. The details are embodied on Table 3. Table I
Current Situation on Federal Universities Leadership
UNIVERSITIES | VICE CHANCELLOR | CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL |
Nsukka | Prof. Chinedu O. Nebo | Prof. Bolanle Awe |
Ibadan | Prof. Ayodele O. Falase | Gamaliel Onosode |
Awka Jos Benin | Prof. Ilochi Okafor Prof. Nell fort E. Gommwalk Prof. A. R. Amao | Prof. Greg, Iwuala Prof. Musa Abdul 1 ahi Dr. Alex Kadiri |
lle-lfe Port-Harcourt | Prof. R.Q.A. Makaniuola Prof. Nimi I3riggs | Prof. S. Coo key ChiefL. Jimoh |
Zaria | Prof. Shchu U. Abdullah! | Yakubu Mohammed |
Kano | Prof. Musa Abclullahi | Mohammed Jllnba |
Maiduguri | Prof. Jibrill D. Amin | YakubuAdamll |
Ilorin Abuja | Prof. ShasudeenAmali Prof. NuhuYaqub | Prof. Ayo LJanjo Chief NnannaIclima |
Lagos | Prof. OyeIbidapoode | Chief Afe Babalola |
Bauchi | Prof. A.S. Sambo | Prof. Emma Osamor |
Tola | Prof. Abdlillahi Y. Ribaclu | Senator Abdallah Wali |
Makurdi | Dr. Ayoola | SalikoMadalla |
Calabar | Prof. Kevin Ella | IsiakaAdeleke |
Uyo | Prof i\knanEkpo | Chief IsiakaAdclekc |
Owerri | Prof. JudeNjoku | Umoru F. Abdullahi |
Umudike | N. A. | Sola Akinvedc |
Minna | Prof. Alllina | ChicfNnannaEzebuiro |
Sokoto Abeokuta Akure | Prof. ShehuL’sman Prof IsrealFololWIISO Prof, Peter Adeiyi | Ahmed Song Brig Gen. BaseyASligwo Dr. DejoRaiimi |
Source: Field Work
The above table shows a disappointing trend with regard to women access to leadership positions. For instance, no woman Vice Chancellor was identified while in the case of the governing council, only one woman Professor Bolanle Awe, was appointed (Vide Nsukka).
Enrolment Trend
Gender disparity has manifested in the different aspects of enrolment. ESCO reports differentials between males and females at various levels of university degrees. It reports that the ratios of male to female pursuing Bachelor, Master and Doctoral degrees are 5:3, 7:3, and 25:3 respectively. Jibril (2000) reported a very high gender differential in the universities where 73% were males and 27% females; Harnett (2000:25) studied, among other things, the enrolment trend of males and females in the federal universities in Nigeria as well as the strength of the female academic staff as a percentage of total academic staff in Nigeria federal universities, 1988-1998. Tables 2 and 3 explicate the details.
TABLE2
Female Enrolment as percentage of Total Enrolment in Nigerian Federal Universities
University | I9SS S9 | 1992/93 | 1997/98 | 1988/89 | 1 992/93 | 1997/98 |
Ibadan | 3,311 | 3,929 | 8,453 | 27.6% | 28.2% | 37.7% |
Lagos | 4,744 | 4,681 | 7,409 | 27.1% | 32.3% | 41.4% |
Nsukka | 3.362 | 6,405 | 10,563 | 24.2% | 33.4% | 45.7% |
Zaria | 2.312 | 5,457 | 20.8% | 30.6% | ||
Be-Be | 2,988 | 4,798 | 5,790 | 22.7% | 28.3% | 28.6% |
Benin | 3,093 | 6,093 | 7,369 | 29.0% | 38.5% | 35.4% |
105 | 2,776 | 4,643 | 4,119 | 30.0% | 28.7% | 37.3% |
Calabar | 1,376 | 3,107 | 6,348 | 26.7% | 32. 1 % | 41.1% |
Kan a | 799 | 2,050 | 3,543 | 15.4% | 22.1% | JJ n”. |
Maiduguri | 2,140 | 2,611 | 2,964 | 30.5% | 26.3% | 26.7% |
Sakata | 642 | 1113 | 1,933 | 16.9% | 17.9% | 21.4% |
Borin | 1,383 | 3,316 | 4,964 | 20.8% | 27.9% | 32.2% |
Port-Harcourt | 1,912 | 3,888 | 5,398 | 27.4% | 39.4% | 38.1% |
UyO | 3,290 | 5,510 | 36.6% | 45.2% | ||
Awka | 2,367 | 2,570 | 46.3% | 41.2% | ||
Abuja | – | 426 | 43.9% | |||
Owerri | 200 | 1,665 | 1,351 | 10.4% | 30.7% | 20.1% |
Akure | 180 | 398 | 995 | 13.8% | 14.9% | 15.4% |
Minna | 109 | – | 703 | 14.4% | :r>4″ | |
Bauchi | 485 | 615 | 935 | 24.3% | 21.7% | 16.2% |
Vola | 140 | 818 | 581 | 18.0% | 23.3% | 9.6% |
Makurdi | 334 | 375 | – | 15.4% | .15.3%. | |
Abeokuta | 779 | 1,001 | 27.8% | 32.6% | ||
Umudike | 278 | – | 35.1% | |||
TOTAL | 31,952 | 27,296 | 88,549 | 24.7% | 30.5% | 33.6% |
SOURCE: Harnett (2000: 25).
remarks that “powerful individual lobbyists as well as social, political, and religious groups come into play in this exercise.” She cited Snead (1997) who seriously lamented on the situation thus:
Women’s under-representation or non-representation in leadership position ensures that women carryout policies but do not formulate them. Women are, therefore, not privileged to bring into the management of higher institutions their unique endowments and management/skills that can help to curb the excesses of volatile youths and facilitate judicious use of resources. On account of this, younger women have few role models, and are, therefore prevented from envisioning themselves in positions of leadership.
Grant (1985), cited by Achunine (2004), provided such qualitative attributes of women that could bring positive changes to organizations as more flexibility, more responsive to human needs, and being more effective relative to their male counterparts. Other attribute^ of women include: sense of connectedness, community purpose and affiliation. She regretted the non-utilization of these attributes of women in placing them in leadership positions. Possible reasons for the women’s apparent neglect have been advanced by Stefanon-Haag (1987), Davis (1997), Ndu (2001) Salaam (2003), Lajeunesse(2003), Narwick (2004), and Achunine (2004). These reasons, according to them, constitute the barriers to women, thereby placing them1 at a disadvantage for consideration and access to leadership position particularly in higher education. They include:
i.Women’s lack of accessibility to sponsor/mentors;
ii. Poor educational potentials and qualifications;
iii. Conflict between family and official responsibilities;
iv. Lack of self-confidence and self-esteem,
v. Lack of awareness of organizational politics
Vi. Lack of visible role models;
Vii. Lack of opportunity to work on challenging projects;
Viii. Senior women and their Chief Executive Officers are not communicating;
ix. Lack of professional development opportunities
x.Lack of opportunity for visibility;
xi. Lack of competitive spirit by women; and
xii. Exclusion from network
Stefanon-Haag (1987) defined mentoring as power control. Mentors are people who sponsor, promote, suppOli, project and see to the nomination of aspirants to public offices. If an aspirant has a mentor who is well connected, the possibility of the aspirant hitting his target is almost assured. Both married and single women reportedly shy away from contesting for top positions because of the price they may be required to pay to the mentor. Achunine (2004:20) listed
TABLE3: Females Enrolment as percentage of Total Academic Staff In NigerianFederal Universities 1988-1998; Female Academic Staff (head count)female academics astotal%of
University | 1988/89 | 1992/93 | 1997/98 | 1988/89 | 1992/93 | 1997/98 |
Ibadan | 157 | 243 | 195 | 13.8% | 18.2% | 16.2% |
Lagos | 146 | 146 | 118 | 19.3% | 21.3% | 16.2% |
Nsukka | J46 | 159 | 203 | 16.2% | 18.1% | 19.1% |
Zaria | 149 | . | _ | 12.6% | _ | _ |
He-lie | 120 | . | 116 | 11.4% | 11.9% | |
Benin | 89 | 106 | 147 | 14.4% | 15.6% | 1 8.8% |
Jos | 66 | 73 | 148 | 13.7% | 12.6% | 21.6% |
Calabar | 79 | 80 | 103 | 18.1% | 14.8% | 17.1% |
Kano | 16 | 58 | 36 | 4.4% | 12.2% | 8.4% |
Maiduguri | 53 | 56 | 143 | 8.3% | 8.8% | 15.4% |
Sokoto | 15 | 15 | 14 | 2.4% | 4.8% | 4.0% |
Horin | 34 | 33 | 64 | 7.6% | 7.3% | 10.2% |
Port-Harcourt | 50 | 28 | 75 | ]2.5% | 6.3% | 15.0% |
Uyo | 59 | 92 | . | 15.8% | 18.1% | |
Awka | 79 | 84 | _ | 24.1% | 21.7% | |
Abuja | | _ | 14 | _ | 15.9% | . | |
Owerri | 12 | 24 | 16 | 8.3% | 11.1% | 8.4% |
Akure | 11 | 18 | 35 | ]0.2% | 9.1% | 12.9% |
Minna< | 18 | 17 | 22 | 17.8% | 9.6% | J 1.8% |
Bauchi | 11 | 23 | . | 6.4% | 10.0% | |
Yoia | 6 | 20 | 36 | 3.6% | 6.7% | 6.9% |
Makurdi | _ | 19 | 30 | – | 10.7% | 12.9% |
Abeokuta | _ | 27 | _ | 27.8% | . | |
Umudike | _ | , | 19 | _ | _ | 13.7% |
TOTAL | ],178 | 1,297 | 1,696 | 12.1% | 14.1% | 15.0% |
Source: Harnett (2000:27)
Observations: From Tables 1, 2 and 3 above, the percentages for female leaders, students and female academic staff respectively showed marked disparity. Logically, if the disparity in the enrolment trend is related to the percentage of female academics, the future still remains bleak for possible balancing. After all, leadership by women in higher education is also expected to come from the female academics. But the Current situation is still too poor. Even though one could argue that the small percentage of the female academics relative to that of their male counterparts does not preclude the females from contesting, or competing for leadership since such leadership is basically appointive. The argument sounds quite plausible but access to leadership positions, whether male or female, does not just happen; it has to be worked for. Achunine (2004: 19).some of such prices as ready availability of the aspirant, easy accessibility to the sponsor, predictability, and high level of loyalty at any cost. The absence of women mentors further compounds the problem of women aspirants to leadership positions. However, few women occasionally get to the top. How that happens is not certain but some of mentoring is necessary.
Literature is replete with information on the educational backwardness of Nigerian Women occasioned by colonialism and gender-role socialization, among other factors. Over the years, access of females to formal education was low. According to Sanni (2001), while 37.7% of pupils in primary schools were girls, only 9% of females were undergraduates in the universities. Furthermore, the Federal Office of Statistics (1994) showed that only 50, 652 females against 138,334 males were undergraduates in 1992. Harnett (2000:27) reported that in 1998 only 15% of the academics in the federal universities were women. From this low percentage of female academics, it appears preposterous that women would have the opportunity of scaling to the top even if the appointment is free from any entanglements. Therefore, for women academics to brighten their chances, more women should acquire the qualifications that will dispose them to compete on equal pedestal with men.
Conflictual demands on women posed by office and family responsibilities have been reported (Stefanon-Haag, 1987; Lajeunesse, 2003). Women managers were known to be indisposed to tackle their responsibilities squarely because of the distractions arising from domestic chores. According to them, family responsibilities have been shown to be of significantly greater importance to women than to men.
Women in management positions have been characterized as wicked, callous, strict, difficult, bossy aggressive, assertive, autocratic, insensitive, non cooperative, and even flirtatious (Marshall, 1985; Anagbogu, 1996; Ndu, 2001). Such stigmatization on women may deter their appointment to leadership positions for fear of failure. No doubt, not every woman will fail, but taking chances may not happen since there is enough pool of potential male leaders. Molm and Hedlay (1991) cited by Warwick (2003) report that men are assumed to be more aggressive, competitive, skilled in bargaining and resistant to influence, while women are more conformists and less influential than men. According to them, higher education is highly competitive, and when a lot of very intelligent people who are very interested in their subjects come together, they want to optimize the opportunity they have been given. But the structure of higher education is not, always conducive to that sort of atmosphere for women. Furthermore, the prejudices on women tend to keep them out of the race for high leadership positions.
Characteristically, women find it difficult to compete or strive with men-particularly if extra efforts are demanded. They seem to lack the confidence or self-esteem to grapple with the rigours and stresses associated with the1 competition (Davis 1997). The consequence is that they easily give up.
Lajeunesse (2003) observed that because of the stigmatization on women, they seem to lack the opportunity to work on challenging projects. Further, it has been found out that senior women and their chief executive officers are not communicating, and given the adverse environments that surround them, the result is that few women can, or want, to do what it takes to get to the top (Wheatley, 1979; Holt, 1981; Akande, 2001).
Lack of visible role models adversely affects women. The number aspiring for top positions and the actual number on top positions are minimal and the situation seemingly deprives the on-coming women of visible role nodels to emulate. Psychologically, the motivation to aspire for greater heights is approached with apparent temerity (Wheatley, 1992).
Poor communication between senior women and their Chief Executive officers has earlier been highlighted. Furthermore, competitive nature of moving to the top appears not to favour women who detest competition. As a result, they seem not to be aware of the organizational politics. This lack of awareness stifles them of knowledge to understand what it takes to get to the top (Warwick, 2003). This apparent apathy on the part of women is compounded by their exclusion from networking which should involve all the agencies striving for gender equality. Specifically, near absence of women networks makes it more difficult for women to galvanize and mobilize themselves to attain greater heights.
From the vast array of barriers constraining women’s access to leadership in higher education in Nigeria, it is one of our tasks to proffer solution, that are strongly hoped that would bring some improvement in the gender disparity.
Ameliorative Considerations
Access requires some legal and institutional policies. There should be legal framework which makes it illegal, and against the university policy, to discriminate against members of the community on the basis of gender. Punishment for violation of the provision should also be spelt-out, it is quite acknowledged that the 1999 constitution under the fundamental rights, provides for “freedom from discrimination.” But the access issue should be specifically provided for in law.
Women should be encouraged, as a matter of deliberate policy by government, to apply for position, assuring them of good access provided they are qualified. The women should be provided adequate mentoring to help them succeed. On securing the appointment, the women should undergo appropriate training to get very well acquainted with the new job.
Women already appointed to senior or some forms of leadership positions should collaborate and become role models to others and at the same time, show by example that women can succeed and contribute to the success of their institutions. According to Lajeunesse (2003) women so appointed to leadrship positions in higher education, should “enhance opportunity by celebrating success”.
Combining family and official engagements has been found to be a barrier with regard to a woman’s aspiration to leadership. Hensel (1991) noted that women are as productive and scholarly as men, although women suffer from higher attrition rates and mobility in higher education. She observes that even though most institutions continue to be male-dominated, women are, however, quietly breaking into the male-controlled society in a subtle manner but are required to use male rules and mores for successful integration. Holt (1991) discusses the issue of juggling the demands of family and position in the advancement process and observes that only female university administrators who had secured quality child care arrangement and had supportive husbands felt any relief from the career pressures they must endure.
Hampton (1992:22) maintains that women “sometimes do not actively work toward promotion,” and advise that the psychological perspective of women must reflect higher aspiration and thinning patterns which support the achievement of non-traditional female fields of employment. Women must begin to change their mentality about professional opportunities and advancement (Hampton, 1982; Parker, 1991). On experience enhancement, Parker (1991) maintains that for women to enhance career opportunities and remain current, they must take advantage of internships, volunteer for opportunities which lead to additional experiences and seek advice of experts in the field when available.
Still on family and official engagements conflicts confronting women, amelioration of such problems have been suggested by Hensel, (1991), Graham (1983) and Ezrati (1983). Family leave policies including maternity leave, load reduction, tenure clock adjustment, class schedule options and leave of absence have been suggested. In all these cases, the woman should not be disadvantaged in any way because of child birth.
Holt (1981) has advocated networking with colleagues and mentorship as necessary recipes that could improve the status of women particularly those aspiring for leadership positions in higher education. On networking, women should align themselves with productive employees of the university and be participating members of network of female institutions. Mentor relationships and new programmes for new women professionals have been found to offer a lot of assistance, contacts and critique of activities (Holt, 1981).
The above suggested ameliorative measures, if given serious attention will, hopefully, improve the status of women who aspire for leadership positions in higher education
Conclusion
Leadership position in higher education appears more political than academic. This contention is predicated on the fact that a position such as Vice Chancellor requires the aspirant to be a professor. Therefore, being a professor is only a qualification to vie for the position. But the aspirant, if serious, should engage in intensive lobbying, both within and out side the university. Even aprofessor aspirant from one university could be appointed the Vice Chancellor of any other University. The most important consideration appears to be who the aspirant’s mentor is and how connected is he/she with the power that be (visitor). Impliedly, the position requires spending a lot of financial resources and making necessary contacts. The important question here is: How prepared and equipped is a woman academic leadership aspirant to tread the thorny path?
From the rigours associated with the quest for such an office a woman professor may find it difficult to do all it takes to grab the position. However, it is on record that a woman (Professor Grace Alele – Williams) had once been appointed Vice Chancellor of the University of Benin, Benin-city. Therefore, a woman occupying a leadership position in higher education in Nigeria is not unprecedented in Nigeria’s educational history, but the going appears tougher these days.
Women academics should be united, collaborative, cooperative and involve many purposeful and vocal women organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, which should encourage net worthing among themselves. Since no meaningful study has shown that men are more intelligent than women, women should not shy away from competing with men. Developing high level self-concept or self-esteem, determination to succeed and be on top, developing organizational skills, enlisting the support of well-meaning men in the society, and mobilizing funds through well-thought-out sources, are but some of the strategies that could be evolved to ensure women’s appointment to leadership positions in higher education in Nigeria.
References
Achunine, RN (2004) Barriers to Access to leadership positions in Higher Institutions with special Reference to Nigerian Women. The Nigerian Social Scientist, 7(1), 19-22.
Akande, J. (2001) Gender and Higher Education in West Africa. Pipeline Issue in Higher Education in West Africa, Workshop proceedings, Lagos: Ford Foundation.
Anagbogu, M.A. (1996) Leadership Roles of Women in Nigeria: The Counseling Perspective. Nigerian Journal of Educational Management, 1.
Bill, T. et al (1981) Introductory Sociology; In Anthony Gliddens (ed.), London: Macmillan Pres Ltd.
Coser, L. (1982) The Notion of Power, In L. Coser and B. Rosenberg (eds.),
Sociological Theory, New York and London: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Davis, L. (1997) Women in Higher Education In K. Lomotry (ed), Sailing against the Wind, New York: State University of New York press, Albany,
Ezumah, N.N. (2001) Perspectives on Gender Equality and Socio-Economic and Political Implications of Gender Inequality in Nigeria. In C.V. Nnaka and M.C. Anaekwe (eds), Towards Gender Equality in Nigeria in the Conference Proceedings, Umunze: Federal College of
Ezrati, 1. (1983) Personnel policies in higher education: A covert means of sex discrimination? Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(4), 105-119.
Fafunwa, B.A, (1974)History of Nigerian Education, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Graham P. (1973) Status transition of Women students, faculty and administrators. In A. Rossi and A. Calder-wood (eds), Academic Women on the Move, , New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hamett, T. (2000) Nigeria University system Innovation project. Word Bank Study Report, New York Oxford University Press.
Hensel, N. (1991) Realizing Gender equality in higher education: The need to Integrate Work/Family Issue, ED 340373.
Holt, M (1981) Strategies for the ascent of women in higher education administration in the 80’s Journal for National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counsellors, 44 (3).
Lajeunesse, C. (2003) Women and Leadership in Higher Education: Remaining Obstacles and Actions Needed. Presidential Address, International Association of Universities, Mexico: Ryerson University.
Jibril, M. (2000) An Overview of the Nigerian University System. Seminar Paper for Senior University Managers, Nsukka: University of Nigeria, June 6-8.
Marshall, C. (1985) The Stigmatized Women, the Professional Women in a Male Sex-type Career. Journal of Educational Administration, Xlll (3), 131152.
Mba, N.E. (1982) Nigerian Women Mobilized: Women’s Political Activity in Southern Nigeria, 1900-1965, California: Institute of International Affairs, University of California, Berkley.
Mba, N.E. (1989) Kabba and Khaki: Women and Militarized State. In Parpart and K. Staudt (eds), Women and State in Africa, Boulder: Lynne Rielmier Publishers.
Ndu, A. N, (2001) Women in Leadership Position, their Problems, fears and Styles, Journal of Educational Management, I.
Okeke, E.A.C (2001) Towards Gender Equality in Nigeria in the 21st century. In C.V. Nnaka and M.C. Anaekwe (eds), Toward Gender Equality in Nigeria in the 21s century, Conference Proceedings Umunze: Federal College of Education (T).
Okonjo K. (1982) The Role of Igbo Women in Rural Economy in Bendel State of Nigeria. -In Fred Omu (ed), Integrated Rural Development, Conference Proceedings, Benin: University of Benin.
Parker, G. (1991) Work place actively seeing women. Amarillo Globe Times Extra:
Rosaldo, M.Z. (1974) Women, Culture and Society: A Theoretical overview. In M.Z Rosaldo and L. Maphere (eds), Women, Culture and Society, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Salaam, T. (2003) A Brief Analysis on the situation of Women in Nigeria Today Democratic Socialist Movement for Struggle, Solidarity and Socialism in Nigeria, DSM Manifesto.
Salmi, H. (2001) Women and National Development: The way Forward Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Schlegel, A. (1977) Toward a Theory of Sexual Stratification. In A. Schlegel (ed), Sexual Stratification: A Cross-Cultural View, New York: Columbia University Press.
Snear!, G.E. (1997) African Women, Higher Education and Power. In K.
Lomotry (ed.) Sailing against the Wind, New York: State university of New York Press, Albany.
Stefanon, Haag, S. (1987) Mentoring and Sponsoring. In C. Judith (ed), Equals Magazine from the Education o.f Girls, Adelaide.
UNESCO (1980) Sex Bias in Training and the Labour force, Paris: UNESCO.
Warwick, D. (2004) Women and Leadership: a Higher Education perspective. The Barbara Dimond Memorial Lecture, University of Westminster.
Wheatley, MJ (1979) The impact of opportunity and power structure in School:
Why Women don’t become administrators. Cambridge, M.A. Good measure.
Wheatly, M. 1. (1992) Leadership and the new science, San Francisco, C.A: Bernett-Koehler publishers.
Worsley, P. (1978) Introducing Sociology, (2nd edition), Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.