Original Research

The gender landscape in higher-education leadership: Has there been a shift between 2014 and 2024?

Adele L. Moodly, Elron S. Fouten

Received: 05 Sept. 2025; Accepted: 14 Jan. 2026; Published: 06 Mar. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

This study examines gender representation in leadership across South African Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), building on a 2015 investigation that revealed limited progress two decades after the advent of democracy. Framed within the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and South Africa’s national commitment to gender equality, this quantitative study compares the representation of women in leadership positions, including vice-chancellors (VCs); deputy vice-chancellors (DVCs) for academic, research, and institutional culture (IC); registrars; and deans across 23 HEIs in 2014 and 26 HEIs in 2024. Guided by a transformative paradigm, the research compares the 2014 data to the 2024 data and estimates future trajectories in gender representation. Findings indicate a notable increase of women in positions of leadership, from 23.7% in 2014 to 39.6% in 2024, a 15.9% point increase. The most substantial gains were observed in DVC (academic) positions, which rose from 28.6% to 62.5%, followed by DVC (research) positions, increasing from 38.5% to 54.2%. Deans and registrars also showed positive change, reaching 38.4% and 34.6%, respectively. In contrast, VC positions saw only a modest increase from 17.4% to 26.9%, while DVC (IC) positions declined from 36.4% to 18.2%. Statistical analysis confirms meaningful shifts in gender representation; however, women remain 36% less likely to occupy leadership positions overall. Despite progress at many institutions, persistent disparities suggest that entrenched gender barriers and patriarchal norms continue to obstruct full parity. Gains made can also easily decline if not consciously addressed and continually monitored.

Contribution: The study concludes that sustained, targeted interventions are essential to dismantle these systemic obstacles and advance genuine gender equity in HEI leadership.

Keywords: quantitative study; women in higher education leadership; gender shifts in leadership; transformative paradigm.

Introduction

South Africa has attained just over 30 years of democracy and its seventh administration in the country’s governance. Since the start of democratic governance, the South African government has supported and vocalised gender equality and equity in all areas of society, including leadership (Kanyumba & Lourens 2022). Gender equality and the education of girl children have been valorised as the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) since 2015 (UN 2015) as critical to the sustainable development of our planet, its people and shared prosperity, particularly in an effort to end poverty and hunger. Giving effect to the SDGs 2015 is the UNs 2023 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2024). In his foreword in the UN report on the progress of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, states (UN 2024:2):

underpinning all our efforts must be a more concerted effort to dismantle gender barriers and empower all women and girls – because we cannot expect to achieve the (SDG) Goals without gender equality. (p. 2)

Sadly, and disappointingly, the progress report (UN 2024) reflects that:

[T]he world continues to lag in its pursuit of gender equality by 2030 … Parity in women’s participation in public life remains elusive, and in management positions, at current rates, parity will require another 176 years. Women carry an unfair burden of unpaid domestic and care work, spending 2.5 times more hours a day on it than men. (p. 18)

The report (UN 2024:18) emphasises the need to prioritise and enhance the positions of women in leadership and decision-making ‘and that much more needs to be done to increase support and investments in gender equality at national, regional, and global scales’.

Before democracy, in the South African context, women were not visible in many areas of South African (SA) leadership, including in public universities (higher education institutions – HEIs). In a publication, Moodly (2015) presented the gender landscape in SA HEIs’ leadership 20 years after democracy. The landscape in 2014 reflected that only four vice-chancellors (VCs) out of 23 were women (17%), 15 deputy vice-chancellors (DVCs), in¹ selected categories, out of 45 were women (33.3%), and four registrars out of 21 were women (19%). Of the 146 deans, only 33 (22.6%) were women. This study presents a second data point in 2024, within the HEI-leadership position landscape, focusing on gender and considering the representation of women to predict the trajectory of gender in higher-education leadership, going forward. The article draws on existing literature and analyses findings within a transformative paradigm.

Literature review

Gender equality, policy, frameworks, and legislation

The critical link of gender equality, women in leadership, policy, frameworks, and legislation towards eradicating ‘gender injustices’ experienced by women (Rustin 2021:48), is contextualised more broadly in terms of the international context, as well as within the South African milieu outlined in the introduction.

The international context

Multilaterals such as the UN, the African Union, and the World Bank, among others, have worked tirelessly towards attaining gender equality (Rustin 2021:49). These multilaterals have developed numerous policies and frameworks towards achieving gender equality. Conventions, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, for example, focus on civil rights and the legal status of women, increasingly calling for the adoption of ‘legal reform to address gender equality’ (Rustin 2021:50).

As previously outlined, the UN has foregrounded gender equality as ‘underpinning’ the achievement of the SDGs directly through the empowerment of women and girls. The 2024 report (UN 2024:18) on the progress on Agenda 2030, reflected that there ‘continued to be a huge lag in gender equality’. Child-marriages (under 18 years of age), ‘genital mutilation’, ‘violence against women’, ‘parity’ in public participation, and management positions remain ‘elusive’ for women (UN 2024:18). Although progress was made in certain countries in terms of legal transformation towards gender equality, this legislation in certain countries remained inadequate, with women still being extremely vulnerable in relation to land rights. Women’s leadership gains were described as ‘insufficient’ (UN 2024:19). There has been no shift in women in management (27.5% for 2016 and 2022), although ‘women hold 40% of global employment’ (UN 2024:19). Women continue to face limitations in their ability to make ‘sexual and reproductive health decisions’ (UN 2024:19). Access to education plays a significant role in this regard. Considering progress by the target on gender equality, in the area of women in leadership, the 2024 report shows ‘stagnation’ (UN 2024:44).

The South African context

In 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections after 46 years of apartheid between 1948 and 1994. The apartheid years had denied black people equal access to the opportunities available to white people, including access to the majority of South African HEIs. After 1994, the focus on transformation in HEIs, including broadening access to black people and women, was embedded in government publications such as White Paper 3 (Republic of South Africa [RSA] 1997) and the National Plan for Higher Education (RSA 2001).

In addressing gender equality, the South African Presidency set up an Office of the Status of Women in 1997. This office prepared a policy framework for women’s empowerment and gender equality, which set out the country’s vision for gender equality and the realisation thereof (RSA 2000). In 2012, the African National Congress (ANC), the governing party at the time, produced a gender policy discussion document, to ‘re-examine progress made … towards its commitment to a non-sexist society’ (ANC 2012:2). The document made recommendations towards ensuring that ‘issues of gender equality are embedded’ within ANC policies and ‘articulated’ in government ‘programmes’ (ANC 2012:2). It upheld the ‘50/50 representation of women in all structures’ (ANC 2012:32) as originally aspired to by the new democratic government of 1994. Despite these and other similar commitments, as reflected in the 2024 UN report, these targets have not been met.

The South African higher-education context

In tracking South African HE’s commitment to gender equality through the transformation of its leadership, Moodly (2015) presented what became a data point on the number of women in South African HEI leadership positions of VC, DVC, registrar, and dean, 20 years after democracy. At the time, Moodly concluded that despite the aspirations of the national government, achieving gender equality in the realm of the HE leadership had been dismal. This study is a follow-up to the previous study and quantitatively presents a comparison in HE-leadership positions within two data points over a 10-year period (2014 and 2024).

Gendered roles in relation to social constructs and the theoretical framework

Literature reflects that barriers for women occupying positions of leadership in all socio-economic spheres of societies have long been in existence. There is a direct relationship between the patriarchal nature of societies and the subjugation of women and girl children. This relationship is also prevalent in South Africa’s HEIs as microcosms of the broader society (Hlatshwayo et al. 2022; Mdleleni, Mandyoli & Frantz 2021; Toni & Moodly 2019). Internationally, extensive literature has consistently reflected on social constructs such as the ‘glass ceiling’, the ‘old boys club’, and the ‘glass cliff’, to identify a few, manifesting the patriarchal character of societies, with associated gendered roles. These roles stereotype women as carers, responsible for the home and families, and men as the providers who occupy positions of leadership, authority, and decision-making in all spheres of society (Keohane 2020; Tapari & Lenka 2022; Toni & Moodly 2019; Williams 2013). Williams (2013) and Mertens (2024) assert that the feminist framework within the transformative paradigm is an appropriate theoretical lens that facilitates challenging systemic discrimination and bias. This framework gives ‘credence to women’s life experiences’ with a focus centrally on ‘social justice’ in relation to ‘gender equities’ (Mertens 2024:15) within HEIs, among other institutions. This study explores the intersectionality of gender and leadership positions within the HEI environment, within the context of a transformative paradigm and a feminist framework.

Women’s representation in decision-making

The critical role of women in building and contributing to healthy and sustainable societies internationally, as well as in the African and South African contexts, is reinforced by the UN (2024). Women in positions of leadership (including in HE) are role models and challenge the notions of patriarchy and related practices that are still strongly prevalent in societies (Hlatshwayo et al. 2022, Moodly 2021, 2022).

Although an increase in the number of women in leadership positions in and of itself does not imply that this would be sufficient for achieving gender equity, this would be a simplistic view which would dilute and undermine the contribution of women to healthy and sustainable socio-economic development. Scholars have also argued that an increase in the number of women in positions of leadership adds a diversity of voices which has the potential to impact transformative policy changes and outcomes, through building a ‘critical mass’ around matters of social and economic importance (Beckwith 2007:27). Childs and Krook (2008:732), on the other hand, draw on research by Kanter (1977) and Dahlerup (1988) to make the argument that there is no direct relationship between an ‘increased presence of women in legislatures’ and increased ‘women-friendly policy outcomes’. Such substantive arguments have not been explored in this study. The primary aim of this study was to provide an updated, empirically robust, quantitative benchmark of women’s representation in senior leadership positions across South African public universities by comparing 2014 and 2024 data. In line with this aim, the analysis is deliberately restricted to documenting and comparing the numerical proportions of women and men occupying these roles at the two time points. The study does not advance causal explanations, explore underlying barriers or facilitators, or offer theoretical interpretations of the observed changes (or lack thereof). This descriptive–comparative focus was chosen to ensure precision, replicability, and objectivity in establishing a clear, factual record that can serve as a reliable foundation for subsequent explanatory, qualitative, or theory-building research. Consequently, the discussion and conclusions remain strictly aligned with the study’s aim: reporting what the data reveal about gender distribution in these leadership positions, rather than why the patterns appear as they do.

Research paradigm

Mertens (2024) draws on Lather (1992) and Guba and Lincoln (1989) to argue that a researcher’s choice of a research approach is primarily guided by their underlying paradigm, rather than by methodological preference. In this study, the researchers adopted the transformative paradigm, which foregrounds issues of social justice and equity. As Mertens (2024:4) notes, this paradigm is commonly embraced by ‘critical theorists, … feminists, racial, and ethnic minorities’. This paradigm is explicitly concerned with addressing or confronting ‘social oppression at whatever levels it occurs’ (Mertens & Wilson 2019, as cited in Mertens 2024:14). Transformative researchers address ‘social transformation’ (Mertens 2024:14), inclusive of, but not limited to, marginalised groups, including women (the focus of this study). This paradigm critically analyses the way in which ‘inequities’ are ‘reflected through asymmetric power relationships’ (Mertens 2024:14).

Research approach

This study is a follow-up quantitative, comparative exploration of gender representation in senior leadership positions across South African HEIs over a 10-year interval (2014–2024). The analysis builds on data originally collected and published by the first author in 2015, which documented the gender composition of VCs, DVCs, registrars, and deans across 23 public universities in South Africa (Moodly 2015).

The current analysis retains the previously published 2015 figures as the baseline dataset and compares them against a newly compiled 2024 dataset for the identical leadership positions within the same institutions. The 2024 data were systematically extracted from the official public websites of the respective universities as well as from the authors’ knowledge of the higher-education sector, news articles on senior and executive appointments, and general Google searches. Gender was determined through individuals’ names, institutional profile photographs, and the use of gendered pronouns in accompanying biographical descriptions or official announcements. This methodology ensures direct comparability between the two time points while relying solely on publicly available and verifiable sources.

Data handling

The scope of the present study was deliberately aligned with that of the Moodly’s earlier work published in 2015. The original dataset, collected in 2014, was restricted to senior leadership positions within the 23 South African public universities. The current investigation adopted the identical institutional and positional boundaries to ensure full comparability over the 10-year interval. Accordingly, the 2024 data collection focused exclusively on the same leadership roles across the same set of public HEIs, including three newly opened universities.

Data for the different executive positions and deans of faculty were captured in Excel and imported into IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29) for analyses. The data for the different HEIs, executive positions, and deans of faculty for the different institutions were bi-nominal (male or female) and categorical (the number of males or females). The profiles of DVCs are not consistent across HEIs with various nomenclatures in the same category. For example, DVC (Academic) may also be known as DVC (Teaching and Learning), DVC (Academic Affairs), or at times, DVC (Academic and Student Affairs). For the sake of interpretation of the data, the most common forms of categories were clustered wherever there was similarity and overlap and re-named for consistency with the nomenclature of 2014, namely DVC (Academic), DVC (Research), and DVC (Institutional Culture [IC]). Vice-chancellors were a straightforward category, as were registrars and faculty deans. At the time the data were collected for the 2015 publication, there were 23 public universities; by 2024, this number had increased to 26.

Data quality and replicability

Given that the study is a descriptive, census-style, quantitative comparative exploration (rather than an instrument-based, psychometric investigation or an inferential statistical modelling study), classical concerns of measurement reliability (e.g. inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability) and construct validity do not apply in the same way as they would to surveys, scales, or latent-variable studies. Instead, the data consists of manifest, nominally coded institutional facts (officially listed position, title, and publicly reported gender cues) drawn from authoritative primary sources (the universities’ own official websites, the authors’ knowledge of the higher-education sector, news articles on senior and executive appointments, and general Google searches). The coding of gender was performed deterministically using three convergent indicators (given name, institutional photograph, and gendered pronouns in official biographical text), with no cases requiring judgment calls or subjective interpretation. This procedure yielded 100% agreement when a second coder independently verified a 20% random subsample (κ = 1.00).

The study does not require traditional psychometric reliability or construct validity. The descriptive–comparative design, nevertheless, demands rigorous design-level reliability and validity (Cantrell 2011). Design-level reliability was achieved by maximising procedural consistency between the baseline and follow-up data collections. As stated above, the 2014 baseline data were drawn directly from Moodly’s 2015 publication, which had applied a systematic protocol across the same 23 South African public universities and the same four senior leadership categories (VCs, DVCs, registrars, and deans). For the 2024 data collection, the identical institutional scope, positional categories, and deterministic gender-assignment protocol were replicated, using three convergent indicators (incumbent’s name, official institutional photograph, and gendered pronouns in accompanying biographical text or announcements). This was also performed for the three newly established universities.

To provide formal evidence of procedural reliability in the new data collection, a second coder, blinded to the original coding, re-examined a randomly selected 20% subsample of the 2024 dataset; inter-coder agreement was 100% (Cohen’s κ = 1.00). Design-level validity, the assurance that the recorded data accurately reflect actual occupancy and gender at each time point, was secured by sourcing the 2024 data from each university’s official public website (the authoritative institutional record). This approach ensured maximal accuracy, transparency, and temporal comparability between the previously published 2014 figures and the newly collected 2024 data.

Ethical considerations

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

Results

This study examined gender representation in university leadership positions across the 26 public South African universities, comparing data from 2014 (23 HEIs) and 2024 (26 HEIs) (see Table 1). The three additional institutions in 2024 were Sol Plaatje University (SPU), University of Mpumalanga (UMP) and Sefako Makgatho Health Science University (SMU). The analysis included six leadership positions: VC, Deputy Vice-Chancellors Academic (DVC/Academic), Deputy Vice-Chancellors Research (DVC/Res), Deputy Vice-Chancellors Institutional Culture (DVC/IC), Registrars (REGISTR), and Deans (DEANS).

In 2014, the total sample included 234 leadership positions, with 56 (23.7%) held by women and 178 (76.3%) by men. By 2024, the total number of positions increased to 270, with 107 (39.6%) held by women and 163 (60.4%) by men, representing a substantial increase in female representation of 15.9% points.

The most notable changes occurred in specific leadership positions. Female representation among deans increased from 22.6% in 2014 to 38.4% in 2024, an increase of 15.77% points. The most dramatic increases were observed in DVC positions: DVC/Res increased from 38.5% to 54.2% (15.7% points), and DVC/Academic increased from 28.6% to 62.5% (33.9% points). Registrar positions showed an increase from 20.0% to 34.6% (14.6% points), while Vice-Chancellor positions increased from 17.4% to 26.9% (9.5% points). However, women in DVC/IC positions showed a decrease from 36.4% to 18.2% (−18.2% points).

Statistical analysis

A chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine whether the association between gender, position, and year was statistically significant. The test revealed a statistically significant association, χ²(11) = 30.32, p = 0.001, with a medium effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.245). This result indicates that the distribution of gender across positions and years was not independent, suggesting meaningful changes in gender representation patterns for the two data collection periods.

Loglinear model analysis

A loglinear analysis was conducted to examine the association between year (2014 vs 2024) and gender representation in university leadership positions for the 26 universities. The analysis revealed a statistically significant association between year and gender distribution, χ²(1) = 13.236, p = 0.000275. The effect size was medium (Cramér’s V = 0.163), indicating a meaningful practical difference in gender representation between the two time periods. A Poisson regression model was fitted to examine the relationships between gender, year, university, and position in predicting leadership position counts. Table 2 shows that the model demonstrated adequate fit with an Akaike Information Criterion of 764.38 and a deviance of 81.05.

The odds of a leadership position being held by a woman versus a man were significantly higher in 2024, compared to 2014, when considering the position effect of gender on year (OR = 2.081, 95% CI [1.412, 3.067]). The incidence rate ratio demonstrated that the rate of female representation in 2024 was 1.652 times higher than in 2014 (IRR = 1.652, 95% CI [1.258, 2.168]), indicating a statistically significant increase in female leadership representation over the two data collection periods within the decade.

However, when considering the position effect of gender on year and university, even with the 39.6% percentage point increase of women, the model revealed that being female was significantly associated with lower representation in leadership positions (IRR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.53, 0.77], p < 0.001), indicating that women were 36% less likely than men to hold leadership positions, controlling for other factors. The year effect (2024 vs 2014) was not statistically significant (IRR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.87, 1.24], p = 0.686), suggesting that while descriptive changes were observed, the overall pattern of representation did not change significantly when controlling for position and university. A university also did not significantly predict leadership representation (IRR = 1.14, 95% CI [0.74, 1.75], p = 0.542).

Analysis of female leadership representation

The analysis of female leadership representation across all South African universities, shown in Table 3, reveals a predominantly positive trajectory towards gender equality between the two data collection points of 2014 and 2024. The aggregate data demonstrate that the vast majority of institutions made measurable progress in advancing women into leadership positions, with only two universities experiencing decreases in female representation, namely the University of the Free State (UFS) and the University of Venda (UNIVEN).

As seen in Table 3, across the entire higher-education sector, 21 universities (80.8%) increased their female leadership representation, while only two universities (7.7%) experienced decreases, and three universities (11.5%) maintained stable representation levels. The sector achieved a mean increase of 2.0% points and a median increase of 2.0% points, indicating consistent progress across institutions. The range of changes extended from −2.0 to +5.0 percentage points, demonstrating relatively modest but meaningful improvements in gender representation.

The University of Zululand (UNIZUL) emerged as the sector leader in advancing female representation, achieving a 5.0% point increase from 2.0% in 2014 to 7.0% in 2024. This improvement occurred alongside institutional growth, with total leadership positions expanding from eight to nine. Walter Sisulu University (WSU) demonstrated the second-largest improvement with a 4.0% point increase, progressing from 0% female representation in 2014 to 4.0% in 2024, while simultaneously expanding its leadership structure from seven to 10 positions.

Four universities, including WSU, achieved identical 4.0% point improvements: Durban University of Technology (DUT), University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) and Rhodes University (RU). Durban University of Technology progressed from 3.0% to 7.0% female representation while expanding from 12 to 15 leadership positions. University of the Witwatersrand maintained its leadership structure size while improving from 4.0% to 8.0% female representation. Rhodes University demonstrated substantial relative improvement, increasing from 1.0% to 5.0% while maintaining 10 leadership positions.

Seven universities achieved 3.0% point improvements, representing substantial progress in gender equality. Nelson Mandela University (NMU) improved from 4.0% to 7.0%, while slightly reducing total positions from 12 to 11. The University of the Western Cape (UWC) progressed from 2.0% to 5.0%, while expanding leadership positions from eight to 11. Stellenbosch University (SU) achieved a similar improvement from 2.0% to 5.0% while increasing the leadership structure from 13 to 14 positions. The University of Cape Town (UCT) and Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) also achieved 3.0% point improvements. University of Cape Town both maintained its leadership structure size and achieved steady progress from 2.0% to 5.0% representation. Tshwane University of Technology improved from 3.0% to 6.0% while maintaining 12 leadership positions.

Eight universities achieved 1.0% to 2.0% point improvements, representing steady but modest progress. The University of Johannesburg (UJ) improved from 6.0% to 8.0% while slightly reducing leadership positions from 13 to 12. The University of Limpopo (UL) doubled its female representation from 1.0% to 3.0%, while expanding from seven to eight positions.

The Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), Central University of Technology (CUT), and University of Fort Hare (UFH) each achieved 2.0% point improvements. Cape Peninsula University of Technology progressed from 1.0% to 3.0% while expanding leadership positions, CUT improved from 2.0% to 4.0%, and UFH advanced from 1.0% to 3.0%.

The University of South Africa (UNISA), North-West University (NWU), and Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT) each achieved 1.0% point improvements. University of South Africa progressed from 4.0% to 5.0%, NWU from 4.0% to 5.0%, and MUT from 1.0% to 2.0%.

Three universities maintained stable female representation levels between 2014 and 2024. The University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) maintained 2.0% female representation while expanding from seven to nine positions. The University of Pretoria (UP) sustained 4.0% representation across both time periods with a stable leadership structure. The Vaal University of Technology (VUT) maintained 2.0% representation while expanding from seven to nine positions.

Only two universities experienced decreases in female leadership representation. The UFS declined from 2.0% to 1.0%, representing a 1.0% point decrease while maintaining 12 leadership positions. The UNIVEN showed the largest decline, decreasing from 3.0% to 1.0% (a 2.0% point decrease), while reducing total leadership positions from 12 to 9.

Although an analysis by university type was not an intended focus point of the study, it was observed that universities of technology showed mixed performance, with some achieving substantial improvements (DUT, TUT, and CUT) while others showed modest gains (CPUT, VUT, and MUT). Traditional universities demonstrated generally positive trajectories, with WITS, UCT, and RU showing notable improvements, while three others maintained stable representation (UP, UKZN, and UWC). Comprehensive universities displayed varied patterns, with one achieving substantial progress (NMU).

The analysis reveals that progress in female leadership representation was not confined to specific university types or geographic regions, suggesting that improvements reflected sector-wide commitment to gender equality rather than isolated institutional initiatives.

The predominantly positive trajectory across South African universities indicates systematic progress towards gender equality in academic leadership. The fact that 80.8% of institutions achieved improvements suggests that sector-wide initiatives, policy changes, or cultural shifts have contributed to advancing women in leadership positions. The modest but consistent nature of improvements (mean and median of 2.0% points) indicates steady, sustainable progress rather than dramatic and potentially unsustainable changes.

The small number of institutions experiencing declines (7.7%) and the limited magnitude of these decreases suggest that regression in gender equality is neither widespread nor severe. However, the presence of any declines highlights the importance of sustained institutional commitment to gender equality and the need for ongoing monitoring and intervention.

The findings demonstrate meaningful progress in female representation in South African university leadership between 2014 and 2024, with overall female representation increasing from 23.7% to 39.6%. However, significant gender disparities persist, particularly in the most senior positions such as vice-chancellorships and deans. The substantial improvements in DVC positions, particularly in academic (teaching and learning) positions, suggest that targeted efforts to advance women into senior academic leadership may be having positive effects. The statistical analyses confirm that these changes represent meaningful shifts in the gender composition of university leadership, although continued efforts are needed to achieve gender parity across all leadership levels.

Discussion of results

In 2015, Moodly concluded that institutions varied in addressing transformation in the HE leadership and the appointment of women in the identified positions. At the time, WITS and UJ reflected greater representation in gender transformation in leadership, with UFH and WSU reflecting mostly males in leadership positions. The findings at the time also reflected that there was ‘no significant difference’ (p. 236) between faculty and executive management positions overall and that no single university had a ‘50/50 split’ of men and women. The observation was made that the two most gender representative universities were based in Gauteng, ‘a metropolitan-based’ province, with the two least gender representative based in the ‘poorest areas’ of the Eastern Cape province of the former Ciskei and Transkei homelands.

The most recent study reflects that there has not been a marked shift in the representation of women as VCs (from 17.4% to 29.0%). However, in the category of DVC/Academic, the change is visible, with a shift from 28.6% to 62.5%. There is also a discernible shift in the category DVC/Res from 36.4% to 58.3%. Within the category DVC/IC, there is a pronounced decline from 36.4% to 18.2%. There is also a substantial shift in the number of registrars from 19.0% to 36.0%. The shift is disappointing in the positions of deans from 22.6% to 34.2%. Unfortunately, these shifts do not necessarily translate into an increase in the number of women as VCs, the apex of the HE leadership. Gendered role expectations thus remain embedded in organisational structures, as reflected in the intersectionality of gender and leadership positions. The 2015 study concluded that universities varied in their approach to gender transformation in HE-leadership positions, with no single university having achieved a 50/50 gender split between men and women in leadership. When compared to the 2014 data, the 2024 data highlighted four pertinent themes.

Progress towards gender parity and persistent disparities in leadership positions

Over the decade, there has been meaningful and incremental progress in the increase in female representation in positions of leadership, highlighting partial success in addressing historical imbalances. Progress, however, has not been substantial, as women still hold less than half of these positions in almost all categories identified. This is far from true parity. The gains have not translated into the aspirations of the former, post-apartheid ANC government and reflect concerns as raised in the 2024 UN report, of women’s gains as insufficient. It will take 176 years at the current rate for gender parity to be realised in the HE sector. The persistent underrepresentation continues to point to enduring structural barriers, including patriarchal norms, and challenges in women balancing professional and personal responsibilities. Women dominate in student and junior academic populations but are progressively filtered out at senior levels.

The findings also reflect that, although the changes may appear to be deliberate, once positional and institutional factors are taken into account, the time period does not drive substantial shifts. This finding suggests that progress and change should derive from, among other strategies, more proactive recruitment strategies towards proportional equity.

Position-specific patterns and implications

The substantial advances in DVC/Academic and DVC/Res leadership positions can be considered indicators of effective interventions, impacting positively on enhancing women’s leadership in the areas of curriculum development and research. The notable decline of women in the position of DVC/IC (a critical portfolio within the transformation agenda) is cause for concern. This observation suggests institutional reprioritisation of such equity-focused positions during restructuring, or the persistence of gendered roles and stereotyping.

The slower advancements in positions of VC and deans are symptomatic of vertical segregation, in which entrenched professional networks and selection biases hinder progress at the highest levels of power and prestige. This revelation echoes international studies on the social constructs of the old boys’ club and the glass ceiling, in which women face amplified scrutiny or expectations in positions predominantly occupied by men.

The need for transparent policy, succession planning, and diversity in appointment committees, among other strategies, is key to dismantling these barriers and accelerating transformation.

Institutional variations and sector-wide trends

The widespread nature of improvements across most universities reflects an emerging sector-wide review of gender equity, moving beyond the isolated variations of the 2014 study. From a national South African HEI perspective, this improvement can be interpreted as a more focused initiative to foster more consistent, if modest, advancements in leadership positional equity. Institutions leading in these advancements could serve as models for peer-learning, a strategy that could be adopted alongside policy, recruitment, and committee review strategies, among others. Instances of regression and stagnation, as reflected in the findings, should serve as warning signs, in need of interventions and support from higher authorities such as the Department of Higher Education and Training, to prevent backsliding in vulnerable contexts.

Broader implications for policy and practice

Women continue to face a substantial structural disadvantage in accessing positions of leadership, even after accounting for key variables. This disadvantage demands ongoing interventions, including regular gender audits, specialised leadership development programmes, and robust accountability frameworks. Key to reinforcing such interventions are the UN SDGs and multilaterals working tirelessly towards attaining gender equity. As stated by the UN Secretary General, gender equality is critical to the sustainable development of our planet, its people and prosperity, and to ending poverty and hunger. The positive momentum observed between the two data points may be optimistically viewed; however, the scale of changes is limited and risks complacency. Without acceleration, full parity remains elusive, possibly urging for a pivot from voluntary efforts to mandatory measures entrenched in policy and practice.

Limitations

It is acknowledged that gender is non-binary and that the study is limited to a binary approach. There may be fluctuations in the number of women who held leadership positions within the 10-year period, which are not captured and/or reflected in this study. The study takes a broader perspective with the aim of presenting an overview of whether there has been an impact of policy and sentiment on the aspirations of women in HE-leadership positions. The study aspires to predict the trajectory going forward and argues for more active, conscious policy development, considering gender equality and leadership. While this study has focused on the aspect of leadership positions, further studies could explore critical mass theory and the impact on policy, as previously mentioned, as well as the possibility of gender bias in decision-making in relation to HEIs. Variations in positions of leadership across university type and location, and evolving patterns, could also be further explored. It is further acknowledged that the study’s gender focus likely masks women’s compounded disadvantages of race, disability and socio-economic status, and that further research should also consider the intersectionality of these on leadership positions.

Conclusion

Based on the comparison of the two data points (2014 and 2024), it can be concluded that the proportion of women increased in most leadership positions, except for the DVC Academic position, at which the increase was substantially larger, and for deans, at which the net gain remained minimal. Situated within a transformative research paradigm that explicitly seeks to challenge power imbalances and advance social justice, this study is not merely descriptive but also intended to expose persistent structural gender inequities and to serve as an evidence-based call for institutional and policy transformation. However, any progress recorded between 2014 and 2024 is not guaranteed to be sustained without deliberate, ongoing effort. Although policy exists to advance gender equality, implementation has been insufficient. There remains nothing compelling HEIs to comply with legislation such as the Employment Equity Act (EEA) (RSA 1998). The resulting transformation falls far short of the goals set in policy, frameworks and legislation. Men continue to occupy the majority of these positions, except in the overall DVC category. The 50–50+ split in leadership is disappointingly lacking, despite women forming the majority of the population and HE enrolments. From a transformative standpoint, these findings underscore the continued marginalisation of women in higher-education governance and highlight the urgent need for deliberate, power-conscious interventions. Thirty years into democracy, these findings highlight the continued relevance of the UN Secretary General’s call for more concerted efforts to dismantle gender barriers and empower all women and girls. Gender equality in HE-leadership positions remains a critical component towards such efforts. Enforceable gender targets with timelines, reform of opaque appointment processes, allocation of dedicated funding towards women’s advancement, and imposing consequences (such as funding penalties) for failure to meet equity targets, are becoming increasingly compelling in the international context of social justice and gender transformation, towards promoting and valorising the global rights of women and girl children as equal members of our collective societies.

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Adele L. Moodly: Conceptualisation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Elron S. Fouten: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing.

General funding was received from Rhodes University towards general research work and expenses. Example, a writing retreat.

Data availability was accessed on all South African public university websites (26) in 2024. A list of the public universities is included in the manuscript.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References

Footnote

1. Deputy Vice-Chancellors were categorised as explained in the sampling section of this article.