School Leadership & Management

Formerly School Organisation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cslm20

Invisible leaders? Reviewing contemporary evidence

about women leaders in education

Alma Harris, Nashwa Ismail, Michelle Jones, Cecilia Azorín & Julia Longville

To cite this article: Alma Harris, Nashwa Ismail, Michelle Jones, Cecilia Azorín & Julia Longville
(2024) Invisible leaders? Reviewing contemporary evidence about women leaders in education,
School Leadership & Management, 44:5, 523-546, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2024.2408220

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2408220

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 17 Oct 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2245

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT
2024, VOL. 44, NO. 5, 523–546
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2408220

REVIEW ARTICLE

Invisible leaders? Reviewing contemporary evidence

about women leaders in education
Alma Harris a, Nashwa Ismail b
, Michelle Jones a
, Cecilia Azorín c
and
Julia Longville a
a
Cardiff School of Education and Social Policy, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK; bFaculty of
Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK; cFaculty of Education, University of Murcia,
Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article reports the findings from a review of the scholarly Received 10 August 2024
literature concerning women leaders in education. The Accepted 12 September
PRISMA1 approach was used to review the contemporary 2024
evidence (2014-2024) and 30 articles were identified that fully
KEYWORDS
met the inclusion and exclusion criteria set for the review. A Women leaders; Women in
thematic analysis of the selected articles was undertaken, and education; Educational
five main themes emerged. Results suggest that the under- leadership
representation of women in leadership roles and the barriers
that women face in securing leadership positions remain
dominant within the contemporary evidential base. The review
findings suggest that women are still likely to encounter
complex, inter-related discriminatory challenges when seeking
a leadership post. The review findings also highlight that such
challenges are well documented in evidence spanning over 30
years. Finally, the article suggests that the use of more
sophisticated methodological approaches, including more
longitudinal research studies of women leaders (both aspiring
and in post), would add significant value to the knowledge base.

Introduction
While women continue to find their way into various leadership positions in
schools and universities, in general, there remains a persistent under-represen-
tation of women in the most senior positions in education (Gaus et al. 2023).
Given that women are far more prevalent across the education sector generally,
it remains perplexing that men continue to dominate the top leadership jobs
while women leaders, in contrast, appear to be relatively invisible. It is even
more puzzling that the ‘glass ceiling’ preventing women from reaching the

CONTACT Alma Harris a.harris@cardiffmet.ac.uk

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the
article.
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduc-
tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The
terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or
with their consent.
524 A. HARRIS ET AL.

dizzy heights of senior leadership currently remains robustly intact. As Moreno

et al (2024, 19) note ‘whilst women are well represented in middle leadership
roles, they are disproportionately underrepresented in senior roles in edu-
cational organisations globally, despite women making up the majority of the
education workforce’.
There is ample evidence that the reason for the under-representation of
women in leadership roles partly resides in the fact that the provision of family
care is unequally divided between women and men (Morgan et al. 2021). A
recent review of the literature on this subject (Torres et al. 2024) underscores
the way in which caring duties disproportionately fall on women in ways that
can potentially derail career progression and promotion opportunities. They
note ‘in the workplace, mothers face a motherhood penalty, where they are per-
ceived as being unfit for leadership roles, are evaluated as less competent and less
committed to their careers, receive lower salaries, and are denied advancement
opportunities. As a consequence, mothers tend to occupy fewer leadership pos-
itions than men (including fathers) and childfree women’ (Torres et al. 2024, 1).
Overall, the evidence relating to the under-representation of women in lea-
dership roles is extensive. Researchers have systematically highlighted how
women become less and less visible as they move higher up the leadership
ladder, whether in schools or universities (Blackmore 2013; Coleman 2001,
2010; Fuller 2014 and Porritt 2021). With a few exceptions, women still tend
to be absent from the most senior leadership positions in educational organisa-
tions despite being similarly qualified or as experienced as men. Even though
gender roles and expectations have often been cited as the main drivers of
workplace inequalities (Bush 2021) in contemporary times when societal
norms and views are so dramatically different from those several decades
ago, why is that women seem to be so invisible when it comes to filling the
most senior leadership positions?
The literature on the barriers and enablers to women’s progress to senior lea-
dership positions is consistent in what it outlines. Overwhelmingly, the evidence
signals cultural, organisational, structural, and personal barriers to the pro-
motion and progression of women into senior leadership roles (Maheshwari,
Nayak, and Nguyen 2021). In short, there are significant barriers to entry that
operate, sometimes below the waterline, making it more difficult for women
to progress to the top leadership jobs.
The evidence concludes that a powerful amalgam of personal, organisational,
and professional factors stealthily and often silently, hold women back. These
factors can combine in ways that result in double or even treble discrimination
against women seeking senior leadership roles. From interviews with over 200
women leaders in education, Weiner and Higgins (2023) outline the many forms
of sexism and racism that women face in the workplace, including microaggres-
sions, stereotypes about women’s work, and the expectation of uncompensated
emotional labour.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 525

In universities, the research-intensive systems and structures that support the

natural progression of men often work against women who, for a range of
reasons, find themselves on a different career pathway, It is common in univer-
sities for women to be allocated leadership roles which require some caring or
nurturing aptitude hence many women in universities hold senior positions
related to student care, welfare or progression rather than research (Denney
2023). In schools, Thompson and Stokes (2023) highlight the barriers facing
women seeking middle leadership roles in school. They note that the main bar-
riers include family and caring responsibilities plus informal networking that can
sometimes exclude and often marginalise women.
Of course, not all women nor the barriers they face are identical. Issues of
race, diversity, culture, and socio-economic status overlap and when combined
can exacerbate inequities. Hence certain groups of women, particularly minority
groups, are more vulnerable to discrimination and inequitable treatment in the
workplace (Harris 2020). The evidence is clear, race, ethnicity, age, income,
health, and sexual orientation all affect women’s chances of securing leadership
opportunities, and any mix of these factors can offer a potent basis for
discrimination.
Research from various disciplines has illuminated the ways in which mul-
tiple social categories intersect to shape outcomes for women in the work-
place. Hence in any consideration of women in leadership it is important to
remember that while gender is a powerful factor, it is not an isolated phenom-
enon. The intersectionality of various characteristics (e.g. gender and race,
gender and sexuality, gender, and age) combine in subtle but powerful
ways to influence the judgement and decision making of others. Intersection-
ality has been defined ‘as overlapping social categories, such as race and gender,
that are relevant to a specified individual or group’s identity and create a unique
experience that is separate and apart from its originating categories (Rosette
et al. 2018, 3).
With the idea of intersectionality clearly in mind, this article takes a contem-
porary look at women in leadership within education. The article reviews
selected contemporary evidence with the prime aim of drawing upon estab-
lished and recognised scholarly work to offer insights into the current position
of women leaders in thisd broad sector. The intention of this article is to assess
how far contemporary evidence suggests that the prospects for women seeking
senior leadership roles in education have improved, changed or stayed the
same over the last decade. The article offers thematic insights into the selected
knowledge base and reflects upon how future research studies on this topic
might benefit from different methodologies and research approaches.
The initial scope of this review included both schools and higher education. A
preliminary scan of the available scholarly evidence, however, quickly showed a
disparity between the available evidence on women leaders in schools and
women leaders in higher education. It is acknowledged that a great deal of
526 A. HARRIS ET AL.

writing and scholarly work has been focused on female school leaders but much
of it resides outside the inclusion criteria set for this review.
Consequently, while this article draws primarily on selected contemporary
evidence about women leaders in higher education, the implications and con-
clusions readily apply to women leaders within schools. It is fully acknowledged
that one of the limitations of this review resides in the parameters set and the
fact that the review only includes articles written in English. It is accepted there-
fore that key scholarly work may have been omitted and that work contained in
books, chapters, multi-media, etc. is missing. The chief purpose of this review is
to look at the current scholarly evidence pertaining to women in leadership
within education and to summarise what it outlines.

Method
It is important to note at the outset that this is a scoping review with the prime
intention of illuminating selected literature specifically highlighting current
issues regarding women in leadership within education. The PRISMA (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method was used
as it is well established method of reviewing scholarly evidence (Moher et al.
2009). The aim of the review was to gain an insight into the contemporary evi-
dence on women leaders in education by scrutinising selected scholarly work.
The review was guided by the following questions:

(1) What are the main themes in the contemporary literature concerning
women in leadership in education?
(2) How far are the issues raised in the contemporary literature different from
those highlighted more than a decade ago?
(3) What research designs could be employed in future scholarly work on
women leaders in education?

The methodological approach used in this review process follows specific

guidelines outlined by Kitchenhand (2004) and is in line with the PRISMA
three-stage approach outlined in Appendix 1. The PRISMA approach allows
those undertaking reviews of scholarly evidence to clearly report what they
did and what they found. It also offers a clear rationale for the included and
excluded texts and the selection process (Page, et al. 2009).
When reviewing any evidence, there is a need to follow clear steps that show
how the evidence was assembled and analysed. The PRISMA approach is con-
sidered reliable to meet this need due to its highly structured framework and
its transparent approach (identification, screening, and inclusion). Through
the rigorous adherence to the PRISMA steps it has been posited that researchers
can minimise bias or errors occurring in the review process thus ensuring the
outcome of their analysis is robust and trustworthy (Moher et al. 2009).
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 527

Following the PRISMA guidelines, the initial stage of the review commenced
with setting keywords and clear search criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria).
This stage was followed by extensive database searches and the subsequent
scrutiny and screening of articles for final selection. An analytical framework
was then developed based on emergent themes from the selected articles.
In terms of setting keywords, combinations of the following were used in the
review using the syntax below.2
Syntax: TI (woman or women or female or females) AND TI (lead or leaders or
leadership or leading or manage or management or admin or administrator
or principal or president) AND TI (higher education or university or universities
or college or academia).
In terms of the search syntax,
TI: This indicates that the search terms are restricted to the title (TI) of the
articles. This ensures that the resulting articles have a primary focus on the
specified topics.
OR: This operator is used to include any of the listed terms. It broadens the
search to cover various synonyms and related terms.
AND: This operator is used to combine different concepts, ensuring that all
specified terms are included in the search results.
The selected keywords (see appendix 3) used in the review were as follows:

. Group 1: Women-related terms

. Keywords: woman, women, female, females
. Group 2: Leadership-related terms
. Keywords: lead, leaders, leadership, leading, manage, management, admin,
administrator, principal, president
. Group 3: Higher Education-related
. Keywords: higher education, university, universities, college, academia

As noted earlier, the review initially included schools and higher education but
the returns of suitable scholarly work that fully met the inclusion criteria and
adhered to the exclusion criteria was small. Hence it was decided to only
focus on higher education to work with a larger body of evidence that could
be analysed thematically.
Potentially, with any review process a large, unwieldy body of evidence could
emerge hence it was important to define the inclusion criteria used in the
review process to identify and select relevant studies. The inclusion criteria
were as follows:

. Countries: all
. Language: English only
. Keywords for search: Title (only keywords identified were used to search the
titles – Appendix 3)
528 A. HARRIS ET AL.

. Peer Reviewed Journals (SCOPUS and ISI only)

. Databases: Only articles in (1) Ebscohost (Academic Research Complete),
(Education Research Complete, ERIC, Teacher Reference Teacher), (2) Web
of Science, were included.
. Date of search April 2014 – April, 2024 (10 years)

In order, to make the review process manageable and tightly controlled, exclu-
sion criteria were also applied at the screening stage. The aim of the exclusion
criteria was to ensure that the key focus of the selected study (women in leader-
ship in education) remained central and that other lenses on this issue, while
important, did not take the review in different directions and away from its
core purpose.
From the initial scanning of the available literature, it was clear that a wide
range of positions, ideas and debates were often superimposed upon or
conflated with the notion of women in leadership. Hence, it was decided to
exclude any articles where women in leadership became a secondary or
minor consideration to other issues, debates or topics. Consequently, articles
were excluded if they:

. Reflected any notion of management that was not related to educational lea-
dership (e.g. pain management, managing expectations)
. Had titles where the focus of the article was clearly not about women in lea-
dership but about another topic where women were a category (e.g. ‘How do
male and female headteachers evaluate their authenticity as school leaders?’)
. Were overly concerned or preoccupied with the type of education or setting
where this was central focus of discussion (e.g. Catholic Universities, X
College, Y school) or where the subject area or field of expertise was the
key focus of the article rather than women in leadership roles (e.g. Physical
Education and Leadership, Leading in Humanities)
. Focused solely and primarily on a specific country context first and foremost
with women in leadership being a sub-set in the discussion (e.g. political or
religious context)
. Had not been published in either a SCOPUS or ISI indexed journal.
. Were promotional in orientation i.e. advocating a leadership programme or
marketing a university or product.

In terms of the PRISMA approach, the three steps of the review process were as
follows: –

Identification
During the initial search process, 700 studies were identified. Among them, 470
articles were immediately excluded as 251 were duplicate articles (excluded by
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 529

automation tools), and 219 were excluded by the researchers because they
lacked direct relevance to the central focus of the review. For example, in one
title that was rejected the focus was on the management of diet system for
women in universities. Although all search keywords were found in the title,
the study was clearly unrelated to the core purpose of the review and was sub-
sequently excluded.

Screening

After removing duplicates and irrelevant articles, the selection was narrowed
down to 230 studies. During the screening stage, the titles, and abstracts of
these 230 articles were thoroughly examined, resulting in 63 articles remaining
based on their direct relevance, methodological rigour, and quality. Each article
was also individually reviewed to determine whether it fully met all the inclusion
criteria. The articles were then marked as either ‘included for final review’ or
‘excluded.’ The exclusion criteria were also re-applied to double check that all
the articles finally selected specifically and centrally focused on women in lea-
dership in education.

Included

In the last stage of the PRISMA process, articles were checked again against the
SCOPUS/ISI databases and any non-SCOPUS/ISI articles were removed. SCOPUS
is an abstract and citation database known for its quality coverage, peer review
guarantee, impact factors and indexing criteria. 30 articles were finally included,
and full references appear in a list at the end of the article.
In the next stage of the review process the 30 selected articles were analysed
thematically to identify key patterns and trends in the selected body of scholarly
work. Braun and Clarke (2006) advocate thematic analysis for its flexibility and
usefulness in presenting data that is rich and complex. Furthermore, Braun
and Clarke (2006) outline that clarity around the process and practice of the
method is vital when undertaking thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006).
The review team worked independently and inter-dependently following the
same protocols for eliciting key themes and tested these themes in term of
representativeness and content validity. Appendix 2 outlines the main themes
identified and highlights each of the articles that centrally reflects each of the
five themes.
Inevitably, the nature of the subject matter meant that many of the articles
selected in this review also covered other themes that did not feature in the
final thematic analysis. To offer a coherent narrative around all the selected
articles, the researchers took the main themes as signposts for the writing in
the section that follows. As a review team we fully acknowledge that the
selected articles covered a far broader set of themes, theoretical perspectives
530 A. HARRIS ET AL.

and issues that could be represented or included in the thematic analysis. A

deliberate decision was made to highlight the main themes emerging from
the articles selected and to return to the three questions stipulated at the
start of the review process. The commentary on the results of the review
returns to these three questions.
Clearly, the themes that emerged are fairly broad and not mutually exclusive.
Rather they coalesce to form a complex set of factors relating to women leaders
in education. So, while the commentary appears to be linear and treats each
theme independently, it does so in the full recognition that the reality for
women leaders in education is far more connected, complicated, messy and
convoluted that this section implies. To make sense of the whole, however,
we propose that it is necessary to look at each part. Consequently, each of
these five themes and the articles supporting that theme (most strongly) will
be outlined and discussed separately.

Results
The main aim of this review was to look at the contemporary scholarly evidence,
about women in leadership in education, published between 2014 and 2024. As
noted earlier, all 30 articles were subject to an analytical process that high-
lighted key themes or issues. In total, 5 themes emerged from the selected
studies. Brief summaries of the articles that comprise each theme follows.3

1. Under-representation of women
Over 30 years, the study of the position, status and experience of women aca-
demics has attracted a significant amount of scholarly attention. A key theme
in the reviewed literature focused upon what has been termed the ‘absent
women’ discourse, namely the underrepresentation of women in the
highest positions in the education sector. Aiston and Yang (2017) consider
whether this discourse is primarily a perspective from the West by looking
at the position and experience of women academics in other contexts. They
note an absence of adequate accessible data within the higher education
sector in the East Asian context and use Hong Kong as an example. The
article presents large-scale empirical data to show how women academics
are ‘woefully underrepresented in all levels of leadership’ in academia in
Hong Kong (Aiston and Yang 2017, 1).
Denney (2023) focuses on the ongoing under-representation of women at
the most senior levels in universities. The emergence of teaching only routes
to promotion and ‘Third Space’ roles that navigate a pathway between purely
professional and academic roles are, it is argued, aimed at women who do
not fit the traditional route to senior leadership roles. Denney (2023) highlights
how the masculine nature of universities dominates in ways that pose barriers
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 531

for women to progress to the most senior roles. She notes that Athena Swan has
shone a light on existing inequities within universities regarding the ‘gender
denial’ but argues that it remains a challenge for women to navigate the
spaces occupied by men. Denney (2023) also notes that more women than
men take on more work that is largely viewed as ‘academic housekeeping’.
Denney (2023) concludes that women remain the exception rather than the
norm in university leadership and even if promoted can be locked into a
‘glass classroom’ where further progression options may be very limited.
Schiffecker and McNaughtan (2022) focus on the notion of crisis leadership
in higher education that has been a focus of global leadership research since
2020. They highlight the need for more research on how women increase
their access to high-level leadership positions within higher education and
gain greater representation as senior leaders across higher education gener-
ally. They point out the need to investigate the specific leadership dynamics
that render women leaders successful in their roles. Schiffecker and
McNaughtan (2020) emphasise the importance of getting a better under-
standing of the leadership dynamics that operate within and between
different institutional levels that could exacerbate the under-representation
of women in leadership positions in higher education. They underline the
requirement of more studies that specifically explore how women lead in
times of struggle and crisis.
Shepherd (2017) highlights the significant gender imbalance that remains
at the executive management level within higher education despite a range
of initiatives and developments aimed at increasing the number of women
in the leadership pipeline. The article challenges the notion of ‘women’s
missing agency’ that has been characterised, by some in the field, as a lack
of confidence or ambition displayed by women that causes them to opt
out of applying for the top jobs. This idea of ‘women’s missing agency’ has
been offered as an explanation for the continued underrepresentation of
women in leadership in education. Shepherd (2017) challenges this idea by
highlighting the importance of three structural factors associated with the lea-
dership selection process: (a) mobility and external career capital, (b) conser-
vatism, and (c) homo-sociability. She proposes that the idea of ‘fixing’ the
women is not only misconstrued but also is unlikely to be insufficient in
redressing the current underrepresentation of women on university executive
management teams. Furthermore, it is suggested that women-only develop-
ment programmes are unlikely to lead to gender equality and propose that
change interventions that seek to ‘fix’ the organisation not the individual
may be needed.
Townsend’s (2021) study of Black women administrators in higher education
found that they are not being retained in their positions because of issues stem-
ming from the identity politics they are exposed to while at work. The conse-
quent underrepresentation of women at senior leadership levels, is purported
532 A. HARRIS ET AL.

to be linked to women’s negative experiences at work compounded because of

incidents of microaggression towards them. In addition, the article points to
racial differences in speech and socialisation as reasons why some women of
colour find themselves ‘not placed in leadership positions (Townsend 2021,
1). Women in this study point to alienation, being excluded, unreasonably ques-
tioned, and discounted as examples of the micro-aggression they experienced
which made their workplace difficult to navigate and prompted their decision
not to remain within academia.

2. Barriers to progression
In terms of barriers to the progression of women, many of the articles in this
review highlighted the complex mix of factors that actively prevent women
from progressing into the most senior leadership roles in education. Chance
(2021) outlines the adverse experiences that are barriers to progression for
Black women in higher education. The article highlights the compounded
adversities resulting from the intersectional identities that face Black women
within higher education that include ‘physical, sexual, and verbal assault and
abuse, adverse childhood experiences such as growing up in poverty, being
raised by single parents, being subject to bullying, losing loved ones, discrimi-
nation, and health issues’ (Chance 2021, 1). The findings reveal an association
between their ability to develop the necessary leadership skills to advance
their career and their lived adverse experiences which present significant per-
sonal barriers to progression. The article concludes that while Black women
are underrepresented at the top ranks of leadership in the academy, educating
and motivating Black women with leadership potential to progress to leader-
ship positions must remain a high priority.
Coetzee and Moosa (2020) note that the barriers to the progression of
women into senior leadership roles include the glass ceiling, gender discrimi-
nation, the old boys’ network, stereotyping, poor support and personal circum-
stances. They also highlight the concept of the ‘glass cliff’ where women who
are promoted to leadership roles often feel vulnerable and in a precarious pos-
ition, so they feel the need to work much harder than their male counterparts.
Coetzee and Moosa (2020) note how retention is a barrier to promotion empha-
sising that women within academia often choose not to stay because of the
challenges they face. Failure to retain women within higher education the
authors propose is one way of ensuring that men are promoted and progress
within academia. Coetzee and Moosa (2020) conclude that the retention of
women is possible and the barriers they face can be overcome through insti-
tutional support, quality relationships, better work-life balance, recognition
and opportunities for growth.
Gallant (2014) proposes that the under-representation of women in higher
education (HE) leadership is a persistent global phenomenon. In this research
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 533

she considers the possibilities of a programme aimed at ensuring more women

are represented in leadership roles. The findings reveal ambiguities and contra-
dictions that surround the notion of leadership, particularly the way the partici-
pants positioned themselves as potential leaders. Conclusions suggest that how
women see themselves as a leader and the skills they feel they bring to this role
may be at odds with what universities model and require of their leaders.
Gandhi and Sen (2021) propose that even though women far outnumber
men in the teaching fraternity in universities, in terms of leadership they
remain restricted to middle-ranking roles. In a sector which has traditionally
attracted many women as their preferred career choice they argue that the
lack of an adequate talent pool cannot explain the lack of progression to the
top leadership jobs. They note that barriers to progression include an
absence of policies and practices to encourage female leadership, a gendered
workplace where men dominate, lack of role models and a traditional socio-cul-
tural workplace which is de-motivating for women and prevents them from
seeking leadership opportunities.
In their work, Gaus et al. (2023) reveal two social cognitive practices that
affect women’s endeavour to emerge as leaders (1) the incongruities of cultural
and cognitive expected status belief and status characteristics about females
with the expected performance of leadership. (2) the incongruities of cultural
and cognitive expected ways of emotional expression on women with the
expected performance of leadership. In essence they point to deep cultural bar-
riers that prevent women from considering leadership roles.
Howe-Walsh and Turnbull (2016) focus on the lack of women in senior pos-
itions in science and technology (ST) in universities in the UK. They highlight the
challenges facing women in academia particularly those aspiring to leadership
positions. The research examines women’s experiences regarding the perceived
barriers to leadership in ST faculties in UK universities. The findings show the
highly gendered nature of ST faculties and reinforce how women struggle to
navigate their careers in the face of considerable barriers including organis-
ational influences such as temporary work arrangements, male-dominated net-
works, intimidation and harassment, as well as a lack of a confidence in relation
to progression and promotion within academia.
Leišytė, Pekşen, and Tönnes (2022) found vertical gender segregation in the
management structures of the university they studied, where women aca-
demics were far more likely to experience career progression barriers than
men. They found evidence of the persistence of gender segregation at the uni-
versity, despite the transformation of university HRM practices and uncovered
gender tokenism among university management. In terms of institutional bar-
riers, Lipton (2015) points to the quality assurance policies and practices instilled
within universities, which it is argued, has significant gendered consequences
for academic women in higher education. The article concludes that under-
standing the relationship between gender and assessments of research
534 A. HARRIS ET AL.

excellence is central to tacking the differences in male and female academic

career trajectories and the lack of women in academic leadership positions.
Looking across different contexts and cultures, Maheshwari (2023) considers
if any differences are evident in the barriers facing women in university leader-
ship in developed and less developed countries. The study concluded that most
of the research in women’s leadership in higher education had been done in the
US and Canada, with a dearth of literature on women’s leadership in higher edu-
cation in Asia. The evidence that focuses on less developed countries, however,
suggests that women face similar barriers to securing a leadership post in higher
education as in more developed settings. In another study, Maheshwari, Gonza-
lez-Tamayo, and Olarewaju (2023) looked at the barriers facing women securing
leadership positions in higher education within a developing country. The bar-
riers included perceived leadership style differences between men and women,
the burden due to family responsibilities, the male-dominant culture, poor insti-
tutional support and personal factors.
Peterson (2014) notes that while Sweden has the highest percentage of female
university Vice Chancellors in Europe this does not necessarily mean that women
have successfully broken the ‘glass ceiling’ by overcoming the barriers that exist
to progression in leadership. The article suggests that some of increasing work-
load, role conflict and decreasing status and prestige remain significant barriers
to women’s progress into leadership positions. Peterson (2014) also revisits the
concept of the ‘glass cliff’ where it is proposed that women are appointed to pre-
carious leadership roles in situations of turbulence and problematic organis-
ational circumstances thus setting them a task that is hugely time consuming
and harder to combine with a home life and a successful scholarly career.
Finally, Redmond et al. (2017) considers some of the challenges facing
women in the most senior positions in university and considers the ways in
which, despite the barriers, women can move on to successful leadership pos-
itions. The article offers several recommendations for early and mid-career
women in academia aspiring to formal leadership positions. The first rec-
ommendation concerns the importance of personal ownership of one’s career
progression. The second recommendation relates to planning for the future.
The third recommendation pertains to resilience and the fourth recommen-
dation relates to a focus on recognisable outcomes. The fifth recommendation
highlights that women should actively seek and establish personal support
mechanisms such as mentoring, coaching or joining networks but a final
message is that institutions should actively offer women the support they
need to reach senior leadership roles.

3. Women’s leadership roles and development

Several articles in the review focused on the roles women play in leadership pos-
itions and the leadership preparation offered to women. Brabazon and Schulz
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 535

(2020) focus on a mentoring programme initially designed to redress the underre-

presentation of women in senior academic positions. The article reflects on the
structural barriers facing women seeking leadership positions in higher education
and questions ‘firstly, why women would bother aspiring for promotion, and sec-
ondly, the very real impediments to women in institutionally undervalued disci-
plines who nevertheless do’ Brabazon and Schulz (2020, 876). The article reflects
on the work required to ensure that mentoring, coaching and other formal/infor-
mal leadership development initiatives stimulated real structural change. The
authors in this study found that Black women administrators in higher education,
for a wide range of reasons, despite mentoring opportunities, chose not to stay in
academia long term, Gedro et al. (2020) consider the leadership development
opportunities needed in time of crisis and argue that dividing men and women
into different leadership styles or approaches may prove to be unhelpful and
unproductive. The authors conclude that leadership development programmes
should focus primarily on organisational climate, culture and offer prospective
leaders support to operate at all levels in the organisation that actively encourage
and promote the selection and development of women in leadership positions.
In their work, Pifer, Tevis, and Baker (2023) focus on how women leaders
develop and enact their leadership practices in support of higher education
institutions and their members. The findings from the study point towards an
emergent ‘Institutional-Individual Leadership Model’, which it is argued needs
to be tested and refined through further research. It is proposed that this
new model could provide a basis for more finely attuned leadership support
and development for women in leadership positions.

4. Women as leaders – reality, approaches and challenges

Another theme that emerged from the selected body of work concerned the
lived experience of women as leaders, the approaches they used to lead, the
nature of their influence and the challenges they faced. Burkinshaw and
White (2017) argue that the gendered power relations at play in universities
stubbornly maintain entrenched inequalities for women. The precariousness
for women of leadership careers is explored in the article illuminating critical
gender power-relations at work. The article argues that it is universities them-
selves that need fixing, not the women. It concludes that women’s growing
resistance to toxic power relationships, reflects their dissatisfaction with
higher education leadership and its culture of masculinity.
Glass, Cook, and Pierce (2020) consider whether the representation of women
in leadership roles reduces sexual harassment claims on college campuses. The
article looks at the impact of women’s workplace authority on sexual harassment
claims. It considers women as agents of change within a gender power struggle.
The authors suggest that their findings ‘provide a nuanced understanding of the
conditions under which sexual harassment can be prevented. Rather than
536 A. HARRIS ET AL.

focusing on appointing solo or token women to leadership roles, harassment pre-

vention should focus on integrating and increasing the numbers of women into
leadership ranks’ (Glass, Cook, and Pierce 2020, 205).
In their article, Harvey and Jones (2022) suggest that a recognised challenge
for women in higher education learning and teaching is one of rightfully claim-
ing leadership. They note that university processes for recruitment, promotion,
awards, grants and fellowship are based on an ability to document and convin-
cingly present one’s leadership contribution. Yet, the authors suggest that the
contribution of women to learning and teaching often accords with a more dis-
tributed leadership approach which may render women unable to quantify and
claim their leadership contribution. The challenge for women, they suggest, is
finding ways of capturing and measuring their leadership impact, so they are
not disadvantaged when it comes to formal assessment and promotion.
Kersh (2018) highlights how workplace factors like managing multiple roles
means that for women, work can ebb into personal life. The study examined
the relationship between stress and the health risks to women in administrative
roles in higher education with a particular focus on the coping strategies they
employed. The results suggest that women administrators were employing
effective strategies when dealing with daily work stressors and developed a
degree of learned resourcefulness. The study concludes that there is a long-
term potential for physical and mental health issues arising from high levels
of stress experienced by women leaders. A recent systematic review of the evi-
dence (Urbina-Garcia 2020) found that female academics generally reported
higher levels of stress and mental health concerns compared with men. The evi-
dence also shows that the impact of stress on women’s mental health was
exacerbated during the pandemic (Giorgi et al. 2020).
Qadhi et al. (2023) similarly highlight how women leaders balance multiple
demands, especially in male-dominated cultures. The article comments on the
intricate way the female participants formed their leadership identities, empha-
sising values like motherly care, trust, and respect. The authors note that while
formal leadership training was lacking for women leaders, within the context of
this study, women drew on past experiences and family support to handle their
leadership tasks and life responsibilities.
In their study, Selzer and Robles (2019) looked at the key professional devel-
opment advice related to career paths, challenges faced, and lessons learned
from senior women leaders. Their findings suggest that aspiring women
leaders needed to be ready to navigate institutional challenges, often outside
of their control, such as bureaucracy and politics, budgetary constraints,
forces impacting student affairs, and institutional change. They conclude that
‘the needle can move for women in higher education leadership positions if
women identify themselves as aspiring leaders, create time for career assess-
ment reflection, and take action to implement strategies for advancement
endorsed by successful senior women.’ (Selzer and Robles 2019, 1).
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 537

Wilkinson and Male (2023) explored how senior women leaders in the UK
Higher Education exhibited leadership during the pandemic. The study investi-
gated whether women’s leadership approaches changed during this time and
the impact that leading an organisation through COVID had on them personally.
Their findings show while their fundamental leadership approaches did not
change, the female leaders in the study exhibited situational approaches with
higher levels of distributed leadership than pre-pandemic. The study noted
acute pressures on women leaders during the pandemic in terms of their
work-life balance. The overall conclusion emerging from this research
suggested that women leaders ‘weathered the pandemic with professional
and personal strength and an eye on the future’ (Wilkinson and Male 2023, 16).

5. Male leadership: impact and perspectives

The final theme in this review includes articles written about the impact that
male leaders can have on women and the way in which male leaders view
female leaders. In her article, Marshall (2023) outlines the way in which some
male leadership behaviour can be toxic. She proposes that male toxic leaders
convey a myriad of characteristics, behaviours, and actions that can contribute
to destructive environments leading to harmful consequences for the followers
but particularly for women leaders. The article concludes that such behaviour
can be intimidating to women and can actively prevent them progressing
into leadership roles for fear of victimisation and retribution from men in pos-
itions of power who choose to abuse that power.
In her study, Moodly (2022) captures the voices of men to offer their percep-
tions of women as leaders. Findings revealed that although men in leadership
positions appeared to understand the challenges experienced by women, the
deeper embedded (real) levels of patriarchy and institutional culture along
with the impact on women’s lived experiences were not fully appreciated.
The male respondents’ experiences of women’s leadership reflected a broad
spectrum from women as docile to women as influential, leading through per-
suasion and negotiation. The findings suggest that women coming from
outside institutions into leadership positions, have more of an opportunity to
challenge the status quo than those who rise through the institutional ranks.
The article concludes that while men in the study appreciated how gender
diversity impacts on leadership ‘this has not culminated in transformation in lea-
dership to the extent of gender equity, nor has it uprooted systemic institutio-
nalised gendered cultures.’ (Moodly 2022, 7).

Commentary
In terms of the first question asked at the start of this review, the contemporary
evidence reveals the significant under-representation of women in leadership
538 A. HARRIS ET AL.

roles and identifies powerful barriers that women face when trying to climb the
leadership ladder. In their analysis, Aiston and Fo (2020, 1) propose the concept
of ‘silencing of academic women’, They argue that excessive workload is often
used in universities in ways that confine women to an ‘ivory basement’ and that
‘small events’ or ‘micro-inequities’ which are hard to prove or call out can silence
academic women and by association, make them invisible.
Recent work further underlines the under-representation of women in leader-
ship positions. Articles focus on the ‘leaky pipeline’ (Ayyildiz and Banoglu 2024)
the unique and intersectional experiences of Black women leaders (Johnson
2023) and the barriers facing women accessing middle leadership (Thompson
and Stokes 2023). Overall, the bulk of contemporary evidence remains preoccu-
pied with the challenges facing women leaders in education but offers very few
solutions about a positive way forward. While leadership development opportu-
nities such as mentoring and coaching may be lifelines for some women
leaders (Watterston and Ehrich 2023), the evidence in this review points to power-
ful structural fault lines within institutions that can sometimes derail ambition and
block the way for women leaders. A toxic masculine culture, inherent in some
workplaces, is also a potent factor that can demotivate women from pursuing a
leadership role or from enacting their leadership role successfully (Basķ an 2020).
To address the second question, the evidence in this contemporary review
reinforces how many of the themes found in the broader literature on women
in leadership spanning the past 30 years. Successive decades of scholarly work
have carefully documented and illuminated the disparities between male and
female leaders in aspiration, promotion, reward and perceived success at an
institutional level and at an individual level. This considerable body of empirical
evidence has highlighted the complexity and tenacity of the inequities that
women in education face (e.g. Blackmore 2013, 2022; Coleman 2001, 2010;
Fuller 2014; Hall 1997; Lumby and Moorosi 2022; Outhwaite and Simon 2023;
Porritt 2021; Power 2006; Showunmi et al. 2022; Thomson, Hall, and Jones 2013).
Of course, there are many successful women leaders around the world within
education and other sectors, so the findings from this review are not intended
to devalue or diminish their competence, ability or success in any way. Rather it
is to reflect on the fact that the most recent body of evidence, on women
leaders in education, continues to paint a rather dispiriting picture. In short, it
suggests that patterns of gender disparity and inequity remain deeply culturally
and structurally embedded at an organisational level.
Turning to the final question about future research approaches used in
studies of women leaders in education, meant considering the research
designs used in the scholarly work in this review. It was noticeable that most
of the articles were small-scale studies, using qualitative methods or autobiogra-
phical/grounded theory approaches. While some survey methods were
deployed, most studies had small samples and used interviews, in some form,
to gather data. Given the subject matter, there is no question that the research
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 539

approaches adopted in the selected articles were both legitimate and appropri-
ate, given the sensitivity of the topic and the nature of the disclosures.
It is worth considering, however, whether more sophisticated research
methods might be useful in the future to delve more deeply into the issues
highlighted and possibly, to unearth other types of findings. For example,
more mixed method studies with larger samples and longitudinal studies of
women leaders in education using more innovative research methods could
add value in an empirical sense.
To conclude, the limitations of this review have been acknowledged earlier. In
research there are always choices to be made. It is accepted, however, that using
broader or alternative search parameters might have delivered a different selection
of articles. Researchers might wish to pursue the possibility of revisiting the con-
temporary evidence by using different search terms and looking at a broader evi-
dential base. For now, however, the findings from this current review signal a
worrying trend and the need for some serious pause for thought.
In so many ways, the findings from this review are disappointing and deeply con-
cerning. They suggest that, despite a plethora of initiatives, actions, programmes
and policies, little has changed for women leaders. They are still under-represented
at the most senior levels and continue to face barriers to promotion and progression
that men do not encounter. Surely, this must be a call to action and a signal that
changing the narrative about women in leadership is imperative.
A different discourse on women in leadership is perfectly possible but it will
require women across the globe to fully engage with the fact that the barriers
they face are not unique, not of their making and can be overcome. Networks
and networking can undoubtedly play their part in shifting the dial. Networks
are a form of connected autonomy that can drive innovation, empowerment
and social change. WomenEd4 is one such example of a movement that is suc-
cessfully connecting women leaders around the world. The core values of this
grassroots movement focus on ‘elevating women to take the next leadership
step’. Given the findings of this contemporary review, this statement could not
be more apposite or more urgent.
A cultural shift is perfectly possible but as Sum (2023, 1) notes it will require
adopting a ‘lens of hope’ accompanied by collective, determined positive action.
The apparatus of discrimination and the barriers to progress can be removed
but it will require women leaders to be more active and more visible. Ironically,
the solution lies in having more women in leadership roles at all levels. Only
then, will the discourse of under-representation change and only then, will the
invisibility of women leaders be viewed as some strange relic of the past.

Notes
1. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for
reporting systematic reviews | The BMJ
540 A. HARRIS ET AL.

2. Syntax: is a structured format and logical arrangement of search terms, keywords, and
Boolean operators (e.g. AND, OR) used to query databases for relevant literature were
employed.
3. It is not possible to offer detailed accounts of each article, so summaries are provided in
relation to each theme. As acknowledged earlier, all the articles in this review cover a
wide range of complex issues. Full references appear at the end of this article.
4. Home (womened.com)

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Alma Harris (PhD) is Professor of Educational Leadership at Cardiff School of Education and
Social Policy (CSESP) at Cardiff Metropolitan University. She is a co-director of the Centre for
International Research into Leadership in Education (CIRLE1).
Nashwa Ismail (PhD) is a lecturer in digital education and innovation at the University of
Liverpool, her area of expertise is Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) with special focus
on AI and Games-Based Learning (GBL). She is a national affiliate of the Centre for Inter-
national Research into Leadership in Education (CIRLE2).
Michelle Jones (PhD) is Professor of Education at the Cardiff School of Education and Social
Policy (CSESP) at Cardiff Metropolitan University. Professor Jones is the National Academic
Lead for the MA Education (Wales) and the National EdD (Wales.) She is a co-director of
the Centre for International Research into Leadership in Education (CIRLE).
Cecilia Azorín (PhD) is Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Murcia,
Spain. She Azorín is an active researcher in the field of school effectiveness and school
improvement. She is an international affiliate of the Centre for International Research into
Leadership in Education (CIRLE).
Julia Longville is Professor and Dean of the Cardiff School of Education and Social Policy
(CSESP3). Professor Longville is a co-director of the Centre for International Research into Lea-
dership in Education (CIRLE) at Cardiff Metropolitan University.

ORCID
Alma Harris http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-3470
Nashwa Ismail http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3209-3662
Michelle Jones http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7098-8814
Cecilia Azorín http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8454-8927
Julia Longville http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0398-6572

References
General
Aiston, S. J., and C. K. Fo. 2020. “The Silence/ing of Academic Women.” Gender and Education
33 (2): 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1716955.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 541

Ayyildiz, P., and K. Banoglu. 2024. “The Leaky Pipeline: Where ‘Exactly’ are These Leakages for
Women Leaders in Higher Education?” School Leadership & Management 44 (2): 120–139.

Author
Basķ an, B. 2020. “Toxic Leadership in Education. International Journal of Educational
Administration.” Management, and Leadership, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.51629/ijeamal.
v1i2.11.
Blackmore, J. 2013. “A Feminist Critical Perspective on Educational Leadership.” International
Journal of Leadership in Education 16 (2): 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.
754057.
Blackmore, J. 2022. “Reflections on the Social Relations of Gender and Educational Leadership
and Practice.” In The Bloomsbury Handbook of Gender and Educational Leadership and
Management. London: Bloomsbury Press.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Bush, T. 2021. “Gender and School Leadership: Are Women Still Underrepresented as School
Principals?” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49 (6): 861–862.
Coleman, M. 2001. “Achievement Against the Odds: The Female Secondary Headteachers in
England and Wales.” School Leadership & Management 21:75–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632430120033054.
Coleman, M. 2010. “Women-Only (Homophilous) Networks Supporting Women Leaders in
Education.” Journal of Educational Administration 48 (6): 769–781. https://doi.org/10.
1108/09578231011079610.
Denney, F. 2023. “A Glass Classroom? The Experiences and Identities of Third Space Women
Leading Educational Change in Research-Intensive Universities in the UK.” Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 51 (6): 1440–1460.
Fuller, K. 2014. “Gendered Educational Leadership: Beneath the Monoglossic Façade.” Gender
and Education 26 (4): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.907393.
Gaus, N., N. Larada, S. Jamaluddin, M. A. Paramma, and A. Karim. 2023a. “Understanding the
Emergence of Females as Leaders in Academia: The Intersections of Gender Stereotypes,
Status and Emotion.” Higher Education Quarterly 77 (4): 693–708.
Giorgi, G., L. I. Lecca, F. Alessio, G. L. Finstad, G. Bondanini, L. G. Lulli, and N. Mucci. 2020.
“COVID-19-related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review.”
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (21): 7857.
Hall, V. 1997. “Dusting off the Phoenix: Gender and Educational Leadership Revisited.”
Educational Management & Administration 25 (3): 309–324.
Harris, A. P. 2020. Presumed Incompetent II: Race, Class, Power, and Resistance of Women in
Academia. Denver: University Press of Colorado.
Johnson, N. N. 2023. “Rooted in Justice: One Black Woman’s Unique, Intersectional
Educational Leadership Journey.” School Leadership & Management 44 (2): 140–158.
Kitchenhand, B. 2004. "Procedures for performing systematic reviews." Keele, UK, Keele
University, 33, 1-26.
Lumby, J., and P. Moorosi. 2022. “Leadership for Equality in Education: 50 Years Marching
Forward or Marching on the Spot?” Educational Management Administration &
Leadership 50 (2): 233–251.
Maheshwari, G., R. Nayak, and T. Nguyen. 2021. “Review of Research for two Decades for
Women Leadership in Higher Education Around the World and in Vietnam: A
Comparative Analysis.” Gender in Management: An International Journal 36 (5): 640–658.
542 A. HARRIS ET AL.

Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group. 2009. “Preferred
Reporting Items for and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” Annals of Internal
Medicine 151 (4): 264–269.
Moreno, B., L. Oberholzer, D. Outhwaite, and V. Porritt. 2024. “Editorial.” School Leadership
Management 44 (2): 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2335030.
Morgan, A. C., S. F. Way, M. J. Hoefer, D. B. Larremore, M. Galesic, and A. Clauset. 2021. “The
Unequal Impact of Parenthood in Academia.” Science Advances 7:9. https://doi.org/10.
1126/sciadv.abd19.
Outhwaite, D., and C. A. Simon. 2023. Leadership and Management for Education Studies:
Introducing Key Concepts of Theory and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Page, M. J., J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer.
2009. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
bmj. 2021 Mar 29;372.
Porritt, V. 2021. “Women as Leaders in Education: What Works and What Must We Improve?”
In Future Alternatives for Educational Leadership, edited by D. M. Netolicky, 126–134. Oxford:
Routledge.
Power, S. 2006. “Markets and Misogyny: Educational Research on Educational Choice.” British
Journal of Educational Studies 54 (2): 175–188.
Rosette, A. S., R. P. de Leon, C. Z. Koval, and D. A. Harrison. 2018. “Intersectionality: Connecting
Experiences of Gender with Race at Work.” Research in Organizational Behavior 38:1–22.
Showunmi, V., I. Oplatka, C. Shakeshaft, and P. Moorosi. 2022. The Bloomsbury Handbook of
Gender and Educational Leadership and Management. London: Bloomsbury Press.
Sum, N. 2023. “Quiet in the Mind: Women Leading During Crisis Explored Through a Lens of
Hope.” School Leadership & Management 44: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.
2268658.
Thomson, P., C. Hall, and K. Jones. 2013. “Towards Educational Change Leadership as a
Discursive Practice – or Should all School Leaders Read Foucault?” International Journal
of Leadership in Education 16 (2): 155–172.
Thompson, P., and H. Stokes. 2023. “Experiences of Women in Middle Leadership – Barriers
and Enablers.” School Leadership & Management 44 (2): 180–199.
Torres, A. J. C., L. Barbosa-Silva, L. C. Oliveira-Silva, O. P. P. Miziara, U. C. R. Guahy, A. N. Fisher,
and M. K. Ryan. 2024. “The Impact of Motherhood on Women’s Career Progression: A
Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Interventions.” Behavioral Sciences 14 (4): 275.
Urbina-Garcia, A. 2020. “What do we Know About University Academics’ Mental Health? A
Systematic Literature Review.” Stress and Health 36 (5): 563–585.
Watterston, B., and L. C. Ehrich. 2023. “Women’s Leadership Development is Everybody’s
Business: If not now, When?” School Leadership & Management 44 (2): 159–179.
Weiner, J., and M. C. Higgins. 2023. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Review (30)
Aiston, S. J., and Z. Yang. 2017. ““Absent Data, Absent Women”: Gender and Higher Education
Leadership.” Policy Futures in Education 15 (3): 262–274.
Brabazon, T., and S. Schulz. 2020. “Braving the Bull: Women, Mentoring and Leadership in
Higher Education.” Gender and Education 32 (7): 873–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1478210317716111.
Brabazon, T., and S. Schulz. 2020. “Braving the Bull: Women, Mentoring and Leadership in
Higher Education.” Gender and Education 32 (7): 873–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540253.2018.1544362.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 543

Burkinshaw, P., and K. White. 2017. “Fixing the Women or Fixing Universities: Women
in HE Leadership.” Administrative Sciences 7 (3): 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/adms
ci7030030.
Chance, N. L. 2021. “A Phenomenological Inquiry Into the Influence of Crucible Experiences
on the Leadership Development of Black Women in Higher Education Senior
Leadership.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49 (4): 601–623.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211019417.
Coetzee, M., and M. Moosa. 2020. “Leadership Contingencies in the Retention of Women in
Higher Education.” SA Journal of Human Resource Management 18:11. https://doi.org/10.
4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1326.
Gallant, A. 2014. “Symbolic Interactions and the Development of Women Leaders in
Higher Education. Gender.” Work & Organization 21 (3): 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/
gwao.12030.
Gandhi, M., and K. Sen. 2021. “Missing Women in Indian University Leadership: Barriers and
Facilitators.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49 (2): 352–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896.
Gaus, N., N. Larada, S. Jamaluddin, M. A. Paramma, and A. Karim. 2023b. “Understanding the
Emergence of Females as Leaders in Academia: The Intersections of Gender Stereotypes,
Status and Emotion.” Higher Education Quarterly 77 (4): 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/
hequ.12426.
Gedro, J., N. M. Allain, D. De-Souza, L. Dodson, and M. V. Mawn. 2020. “Flattening the Learning
Curve of Leadership Development: Reflections of Five Women Higher Education Leaders
During the Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020.” Human Resource Development International
23 (4): 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1779911.
Glass, C., A. Cook, and B. Pierce. 2020. “Do Women in Leadership Reduce Sexual Harassment
Claims on College Campuses?” Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education 13 (2):
193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/26379112.2020.1782227.
Harvey, M., and S. Jones. 2022. “Challenge Accepted: Women Claiming Leadership in Higher
Education Learning and Teaching.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 19
(1): 68–89. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.1.05.
Howe-Walsh, L., and S. Turnbull. 2016. “Barriers to Women Leaders in Academia: Tales from
Science and Technology.” Studies in Higher Education 41 (3): 415–428. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075079.2014.929102.
Kersh, R. 2018. “Women in Higher Education: Exploring Stressful Workplace Factors and
Coping Strategies.” NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 11 (1): 56–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19407882.2017.1372295.
Leišytė, L., S. Pekşen, and L. Tönnes. 2022. “The Influence of a University’s HRM Practices on
Women Academics’ Progression to Management Positions.” JEEMS Journal of East European
Management Studies 27 (4): 662–685. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2022-4-662.
Lipton, B. 2015. “A new “ERA” of Women and Leadership: The Gendered Impact of Quality
Assurance in Australian Higher Education.” The Australian Universities Review 57 (2): 60–
70. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316informit.434655450955762.
Maheshwari, G. 2023. “A Review of Literature on Women’s Leadership in Higher Education in
Developed Countries and in Vietnam: Barriers and Enablers.” Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 51 (5): 1067–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211021418.
Maheshwari, G., L. A. Gonzalez-Tamayo, and A. D. Olarewaju. 2023. “An Exploratory Study on
Barriers and Enablers for Women Leaders in Higher Education Institutions in Mexico.”
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 17411432231153295. https://doi.
org/10.1177/17411432231153295.
544 A. HARRIS ET AL.

Marshall, H. 2023. “Silent Voices: Lasting Effects of Toxic Masculinity and Destructive
Leadership on Women in Higher Education.” Journal of Leadership Studies 16 (4): 41–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21832.
Moodly, A. L. 2022. “Exercising Positional Power to Advance and Support Women in
Leadership – Conversations with men in Higher Education.” Management in Education,
08920206221097479. https://doi.org/10.1177/089202062210974.
Peterson, H. 2014. “An Academic’ Glass Cliff’?” Exploring the Increase of Women in Swedish
Higher Education Management. Athens Journal of Education 1 (1): 33–44. https://doi.org/
10.30958/aje.1-1-3.
Pifer, M. J., T. L. Tevis, and V. L. Baker. 2023. “Advancing the Institution and the Individual:
Women’s Enactment of Equity-Minded Leadership in Colleges and Universities.” The
Journal of Higher Education 95 (5): 557–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.
2250695.
Qadhi, S., X. Du, Y. Chaaban, H. Al-Thani, and A. Floyd. 2023. “The Role Identities of Women
Middle Management Academic Leaders in STEM Higher Education.” European Journal of
Engineering Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2263377.
Redmond, P., H. Gutke, L. Galligan, A. Howard, and T. Newman. 2017. “Becoming a Female
Leader in Higher Education: Investigations from a Regional University.” Gender and
Education 29 (3): 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1156063.
Schiffecker, S., and McNaughtan, J. (2022). "Leading the way – Understanding Women’s
University Leadership During Crisis Through a Feminist Educational Leadership Lens." In
Frontiers in Education, 982952. Frontiers.
Selzer, R. A., and R. Robles. 2019. “Every Woman has a Story to Tell: Experiential Reflections on
Leadership in Higher Education.” Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education 12 (1):
106–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407882.2018.1534246.
Shepherd, S. 2017. “Why are There so few Female Leaders in Higher Education: A Case of
Structure or Agency?” Management in Education 31 (2): 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/
08920206176966.
Townsend, C. V. 2021. “Identity Politics: Why African American Women are Missing in
Administrative Leadership in Public Higher Education.” Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 49 (4): 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220935455.
Wilkinson, J., and T. Male. 2023. “Perceptions of Women Senior Leaders in the UK Higher
Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 17411432221150079. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143222115007.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 545

Appendices
Appendix 1: Summary of PRISMA framework
546 A. HARRIS ET AL.

Appendix 2: Thematic Overview

Themes References (30)

1. Under-representation of Women (5) . Aiston and Yang, 2017
. Denny, 2023
. Schiffecker and Mcaughtan, 2020
. Shepherd, 2017
. Townsend 2021
2. Barriers to Progression (12) . Chance, 2021
. Coetzee and Moosa, 2020
. Gallant, 2014
. Gandhi and Sen, 2021
. Gaus et al, 2023
. Howe-Walsh and Turnbull, 2016
. Leisyte et al, 2022
. Lipton, 2015
. Maheshwari, 2023
. Maheshwari, et al (2023)
. Peterson 2014
. Redmond et al, 2017
3. Women’s Leadership Development (3) . Brabazon and Schutz
. Gedro et al, 2020
. Pifer et al, 2023
4. Women as Leaders - realities, approaches, and challenges (8) . Burkinshaw and White, 2017
. Glass et al, 2020
. Grangerio et al, 2023;
. Harvey and Jones, 2022
. Kersh, 2018
. Qadhi et al, 2023
. Selzer and Robles, 2019
. Wilkinson and Male, 2023
5. Male Leadership (2) . Marshall, 2023
. Moodly, 2022

Appendix 3. Use of the keywords

Term Synonym
Woman “women” OR “Woman” OR “female” OR “females”
Leadership "lead”" OR "admin”" OR "manage” OR “Principal” or “president”
Higher Education “higher education" OR "university" OR "college" OR "Universities” OR “Academia” OR Schools