JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE
MEDIA IN EDUCATION
Koseoglu, S, et al. 2020. 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education,
2020(1): 5, pp. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.553
ARTICLE
30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on
Curriculum Design in Open and Distance Learning
Suzan Koseoglu*, Tugba Ozturk†, Hasan Ucar‡, Engin Karahan§ and Aras Bozkurt‡
Gender inequality is a pressing issue on a global scale, yet studies on this important issue have stayed
on the margins of open and distance learning (ODL) literature. In this study, we critically analyse a batch
of ODL literature that is focused on gender inequality in post-secondary and higher education contexts.
We use Therborn’s social justice framework to inform and guide the study. This is a comprehensive social
justice lens that sees inequality as “a life and death issue,” approaching empowerment as a central area
of concern. Qualitative content analysis of 30 years of peer-reviewed literature reveals patriarchy and
androcentrism as significant mechanisms that continue to produce gender inequality, in p
articular in
women’s access to educational resources and formal learning opportunities. We highlight three themes
that emerged in the content analysis: (1) ODL and equal opportunity; (2) Feminism and gender-sensitive
curriculum design; and (3) Culturally relevant curriculum design. We critique views of access to
technology-enabled education as an instrument for social justice, and provide a pedagogical model for an
ODL curriculum centred on empowerment and agency, two concepts closely linked to existential inequality.
We argue that such a curriculum is public service and requires a model of education that is based on
participation and co-construction, and lies at the intersection of critical, feminist, and culturally relevant
pedagogical practices.
Keywords: distance education; gender inequality; gender studies; open and distance learning; social justice;
women empowerment
Introduction
According to the United Nations Gender Inequality Index
report (UNDP 2018):
Gender inequality remains a major barrier to human
development. Girls and women have made major
strides since 1990, but they have not yet gained
gender equity. The disadvantages facing women and
girls are a major source of inequality. All too often,
women and girls are discriminated against in health,
education, political representation, labour market,
etc.—with negative consequences for development
of their capabilities and their freedom of choice.
Given that gender inequality remains a pressing issue in
both the Global South and Global North, we might expect
the educational literature to thrive with studies on gender inequality, offering much needed critical debates and
practical solutions for equity and empowerment. Yet, the
* Goldsmiths, University of London, GB
†
Ankara University, TR
‡
Anadolu University, TR
§
Eskişehir Osmangazi University, TR
Corresponding author: Suzan Koseoglu (s.koseoglu@gold.ac.uk)
scholarly literature on the issue falls short compared to
non-academic spheres of influence, such as the work of
international development agencies (Stromquist 2015).
For example, in a remarkable research exercise, Stromquist
(2015) searched article titles “in three prestigious comparative education journals (Comparative Education Review,
Compare, and the European Journal of Education)” and
identified only “three articles using ‘empowerment’ in their
title” within a span of 10 years (2015: 307). In the context of
open and online education, Czerniewicz (2018a: 130) draws
attention to the lack of inequality-framed studies in online
education and calls for “critical research” in higher education contexts. Similarly, Lambert (2018) criticizes the lack
of “Open Education literature focus[ing] on social justice”
despite the field’s historical and philosophical commitment
to reach disadvantaged and marginalized learners.
The aim of this study is to address this gap by providing an overview and critical analysis of Open and Distance
Learning (ODL) literature focusing on gender inequality. We
conceptualize gender inequality as a complex and intersectional issue, which is related to at least three dimensions
of inequality: vital inequality, resource inequality, and existential inequality (Therborn 2013). These dimensions are
explained in the Background section of this paper.
Considering the scope of this research, it is important to
define ODL to situate the study in the broader context of
Art. 5, page 2 of 11
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
open education. The differences between ODL, Distance
Education (DE) and Online Learning can be subtle, as
they might refer to similar types of educational modes
or regulatory practices in different countries and regions.
Conrad (2008: 76), for example, notes that, “by definition
and through practice, distance education has become
synonymous with innovative models of program delivery that offer more generous open and flexible learning
opportunities to wider and more diverse audiences than
traditional classrooms.” In this study, we use ODL as an
umbrella term that refers to approaches that “focus on
opening access to education and training provision, freeing learners from the constraints of time and place, and
offering flexible learning opportunities to individuals and
groups of learners” (UNESCO 2002: 7).
In this context, we explore the following research
questions:
1. To what extent and in what ways is gender inequality
addressed in studies focusing on women in ODL?1
Of the studies that address gender inequality:
2. What trends and patterns can be observed?
3. What are some implications that can be drawn to address gender inequality in and through ODL?
Background
We use Therborn’s social justice framework to guide the
approach to the study, the search strategy and parts of the
data analysis. This is a comprehensive social justice lens
that sees inequality as “a life and death issue,” approaching
empowerment as a central area of concern (Therborn 2013).
Therborn (2009, 2012, 2013) analyses inequality through
three lenses: vital inequality, resource inequality, and existential inequality. These dimensions “are interrelated and
interacting, but irreducible to each other” (2012: 579).
Vital inequality “refers to socially constructed unequal
life-chances of human organisms” (Therborn 2013: 48).
It adversely affects one’s “health and longevity” and is
measured through “life expectancy and survival rates”
(2009: 1). There is strong evidence suggesting an association between educational attainment and life expectancy
(Erdogan, Yildirim & Tosuner 2018). Gender inequality in
particular has an adverse effect on mothers’ life expectancy and quality of life, but also tragically “has a potential strong effect on infant and under-five mortality rates”
(Erdogan, Yildirim & Tosuner 2012: 1860).
Resource inequality is concerned with a range of capitals; for example, economic, cultural, and institutional
(Czerniewicz 2018a). Therborn (2009) distinguishes two
types of resource inequality: (i) inequality of access; that
is, discrepancies “in access to education, career tracks and
social contacts,” and (ii) inequality of rewards, which can
be described as discrepancies in outcomes from access to
resources (e.g., income, recognition, certification, awards,
gains, etc.). Inequality of access is the type of inequality
mainstream ODL discourse is most concerned with, as
access to educational materials and resources are often
equated with democratizing the field of education. Indeed,
von Prümmer (2015: 33) argues that “[t]he two concepts
of distance education and equal opportunities are almost
universally linked in the minds of educators, politicians,
and students. The link has become even stronger with
the bracketing of ‘open and distance learning’ in a single
phrase and often referred to as ODL.” However, as Knox
(2013) notes, this reflects an instrumentalist view of Open
Education, which ignores the “broad pedagogical, philosophical and political presuppositions already encoded in
the systems used” (2013: 24).
There is a tendency to view resource inequality as a ‘third
world’ problem, which is often reinforced by the popular imagery of notable organizations such as the United
Nations and UNESCO. The problems developing nations
have in terms of access to education, healthcare and
social services are indeed well-documented in studies and
reports, such as the annual United Nations Millennium
Development Goals reports (see United Nations 2015).
However, resource inequality is by no means limited to
underdeveloped nations or traditional communities. von
Prümmer (2015: 32) notes “geography and isolation,”
“lack of mobility due to physical disability or private circumstances,” and “social barriers, such as exclusion from
education on the grounds of class or ethnicity, gender
or age” as some common barriers to women’s access to
formal education worldwide. Heiler and Richards (1988:
192), for example, explain how in Australia rural women
in particular are disadvantaged by the country’s vast and
isolated areas:
Local conditions such as bad roads, inadequate
public transport, and the generally higher costs of
fuel in country areas restrict [women’s] mobility
and access to the limited health, welfare and educational services available to [women]. Thus, for rural
Australian women, distance and isolation usually
go hand in hand, greatly affecting their chances to
gain education, training and employment.
von Prümmer (2015: 40) further documents the problem
of class and gender in European education in depth, and,
in the context of Germany, notes how “women from a
working-class background have even fewer opportunities
than their male peers to enter secondary schools and later
universities.” In the United Kingdom, gender inequality and
limited social mobility go hand in hand: “Deep structures,
including poverty and class and gender inequalities, shape
the lives of families and individuals in ways that are not easily changed by educational intervention” (Barker & Hoskins
2016: 73). In Finland, Iceland and Sweden, factors like class
and gender have an adverse effect on students’ academic
progression and career paths (Nylund et al. 2018).
Existential inequality “restricts the freedom of action
of certain categories of persons” (Therborn 2009: 2) and
can be examined through five lenses: self-development,
autonomy, freedom, dignity, and respect. Inequalities in
these dimensions mean the “denial of (equal) recognition
and respect” (Therborn 2009: 1). Surprisingly, existential
inequality is the least recognized and explored form of
inequality in social sciences (Czerniewicz 2018a, Therborn
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
2013). This is significant, as existential inequality is strongly
connected to the overlapping concepts of empowerment
and agency—which are two underexplored issues in the
educational literature on gender equality (Stromquist
2015).2 One exception is the work of feminist scholars, who
have produced significant work as early as the 1980s, critically exploring the intersection of distance education and
women empowerment, as our study shall demonstrate.
Methodology
Research Design and Research Corpus
We used a rapid evidence assessment/review design
(Gough, Thomas & Oliver 2012; Noble & Smith 2018) to
identify and evaluate sources, and synthesize findings.
This method is useful to draw boundaries to research;
however, it does not yield results as comprehensive as
in systematic reviews—the method is limited in terms of
resources and time frames.
In order to identify articles that are relevant to the
research, we first used the Scopus database, searching
for the following keywords in article titles: [“women”
OR “female” OR “gender” OR “feminism” OR “feminist”]
AND [“open and distance learning” OR “online learning”
OR “distance learning” OR “open and distance education”
OR “online education” OR “distance education”]. We also
extended the search to the International Women Online
Journal of Distance Education (intWOJDE) first issue, as
although the journal is not indexed in Scopus its scope
is directly relevant to the research. The initial screening
resulted in 58 studies published between 1988 and 2018.
We then examined the articles according to the following
inclusion criteria: (1) the study is a peer-reviewed article
(this was done to achieve coherence within the research
corpus and to limit the scope), and (2) the study clearly
identifies at least one issue related to gender inequality and provides educational implications to address the
issue. The final research corpus constituted 34 studies
(see Appendix A), representing studies from 19 countries,
published in 18 journals. As we used Therborn’s inequality
framework to constitute the research corpus, all the studies in the final batch reflect at least one aspect of gender
inequality (vital, resource or existential inequality) either
in their discussions or conceptual frameworks. The references for the papers included in the research corpus can
be found in Appendix A.
It is important to note that although we used Therborn
to identify relevant articles for content analysis and as a
conceptual lens to discuss their contents, an additional
framework by Czerniewicz (2018b) helped us with the
data analysis. Czerniewicz, based on Staton’s (2012) work,
argues there are four central dimensions in college education: disciplinary knowledge, opportunities, experiences,
and graduateness. As Therborn’s work is grounded in the
field of Sociology, these dimensions were used as a starting point to firmly focus the data analysis on educational
contexts, and accordingly educational implications, and
draw boundaries to the data analysis. For example, if an
article discussed how to best provide support to teach
disciplinary knowledge, we noted this and looked at how
this discussion related to gender inequality as discussed in
Art. 5, page 3 of 11
Therborn. As such, the analysis was iterative and comparative, as we further explain below.
Data Analysis and Credibility
We used content analysis (White & Marsh 2006) to analyse
the data and report findings both qualitatively and quantitatively. In order to achieve interpretive rigor (Teddlie &
Tashakkori 2009), we sought interpretive consistency and
theoretical consistency. The following strategies helped
us achieve calibration in the qualitative content analysis:
(i) regular online meetings and chats in which we, the
authors, discussed the different dimensions of inequality
and how they might relate to the studies in the research
corpus; (ii) a coding scheme with exemplar quotes; (iii)
a transparent and collaborative approach to coding and
analysis (all spreadsheets and documents were shared
online with the research team).
Four of the researchers first analysed a section of the
identified papers individually and noted their findings
according to predetermined categories and criteria. We
examined overall research trends, the types of inequality
addressed in the studies, reasons for inequality (if noted),
and educational implications. Finally, we identified some
themes that strongly emerged in the coding process
through group discussions. Rather than applying and calculating inter-coder approaches, we reached consensus
on issues through an iterative and transparent process of
data analysis and interpretation.
Limitations
A limitation of this research is that we used article titles
only in our initial sampling. This was done to draw boundaries to our research and to be able to engage in a close reading of relevant articles. However, in doing so we acknowledge the fact that we omitted other literature on gender
inequality in ODL. In addition, we also acknowledge that
extending the scope of the research (e.g., searching articles
through additional databases) or examining publications
in grey literature may lead to different research results.
Trends and Patterns
The final collection of papers covers 30 years of research
published between 1988 and 2018 (Figure 1). The earliest contributions to the literature in the late 1980s and
early 1990s correspond with the “feminist concerns [that]
have surfaced distance education worldwide” during that
time (Faith 1988: 75). Many notable scholars in this period
brought issues regarding gender to the fore in distance
education with their research and practice (see, for example the works of Burge, Faith, Kirkup, and von Prümmer
in Appendix A). The peak in 2012 (Figure 1) corresponds
with the first issue of WOJDE, as three of the four studies
in 2012 were published in the journal.
Out of the studies in the research corpus 19 papers
explore issues in the context of Global South countries (i.e.,
China, Ghana, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania,
and Zimbabwe) (Figure 2) while 15 studies discuss issues
related to Global North countries (i.e., Australia, Canada,
Germany, South Korea, Turkey, UK, and USA).
Art. 5, page 4 of 11
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
The research orientations in the studies are almost equally
distributed amongst quantitative studies (constituting 26%
of the research corpus), mixed methods studies (24%),
qualitative research (24%), and opinion papers and review
studies (26%). In terms of theoretical and/or conceptual
frameworks used, 23 studies (67.6%) did not use or explicitly mention any theoretical or conceptual frameworks in
their full-texts. Only eleven of the 34 studies used a clearly
defined framework — it is interesting to note that of these
eleven, ten (29.4% of the total research corpus) used feminist pedagogy. Andragogy, constructivism, transactional distance theory, and critical pedagogy were used as additional
theoretical/conceptual frameworks in the studies.
Inequality Type and Mechanisms that Produce
Inequality
All the studies examined clearly demonstrate that the
way societies are structured traditionally, culturally, and
politically, and the system of education itself, can become
significant barriers to women’s education. Understanding
how and why societies are structured in the way they are
is beyond the scope of this paper. However, informed by
Therborn’s (2013) inequality framework, we can report on
the types of inequalities that are discussed in the studies (Figure 3) and the mechanisms that produce them.
Resource inequality is the most pressing issue in most
of the studies (58%), followed by existential inequality
(34%) and vital inequality (8%). However, it is difficult to
draw clear boundaries between the three types of inequalities, as they are often discussed in relation to one another
and without the use of an explicit framework. As such, this
visualization should be understood as an interpretive representation of study contexts.
Patriarchy is noted as a major cause and perpetuator
of women’s lack of education, especially in studies that
explore gender inequality in the Global South (e.g., for
Saudi Arabia, see Adham et al. 2018; Pakistan, see Bukhsh
2013; Zimbabwe, see Mapolisa & Chirimuuta 2012; Papua
Figure 1: Time series graph (1988–2018).
Figure 2: Geographical distribution of study contexts, where applicable (also see Appendix A).
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
Art. 5, page 5 of 11
Figure 3: An overview of the types of inequality addressed
in the studies: Vital Inequality (8%), Existential Inequality (34%), Resource Inequality (58%).
Figure 4: The distribution of educational implications:
Mode of study (14%), Curriculum (28%), Support (2%8),
Other (30%).
New Guinea, see Phillip 1993). However, patriarchy is also
a common thread in the studies from the Global North,
as women are disadvantaged by societal expectations and
roles, especially in terms of childcare and domestic work,
which results in significant inequalities in their access to
higher and further education opportunities and career
progression (e.g., Cragg, Andrusyszyn & Fraser 2005;
Kirton & Greene 2002; von Prümmer 1994). Furthermore,
studies report that even if women do have access to education, they may be disadvantaged by the androcentric
worldview that shapes the society and its institutions,
including higher education (e.g., Burge & Lenksyj 1990;
Patterson 2009; Pym 1992). The exploitation of land and
people (Azaiza 2012; Gudhlanga, Magadza & Mafa 2012),
poor economy (Malik 2010; Sloper 1990), perceived competencies in technology-use (Atan et al. 2002; Bhushan 2008),
and transition into market economy—the privatisation of
state enterprises with cuts in social services and benefits—
(Robinson 1999) are also reported as mechanisms that
produce and/or perpetuate gender inequality.
affords certain ways of learning to occur. Curriculum refers
to “learning standards or learning objectives [educators]
are expected to meet; the units and lessons that teachers
teach; the assignments and projects given to students; the
books, materials, videos, presentations, and readings used
in a course; and the tests, assessments, and other methods used to evaluate student learning” (The Glossary of
Education Reform 2015).
Many studies in our research corpus advocate for technology-mediated education (i.e., ODL, DE) as a means for
women empowerment and social justice (see for example, Bukhsh 2013; Burge & Lenksyj 1990; Chung 2016;
Msoffe 2016; Olakulein & Ojo 2006). However, there are
differences in the way technology-mediated education is
viewed, as discussed in the theme ‘ODL and equal opportunity.’ We further discuss two related themes: ‘Feminism
and gender sensitive curriculum design’ and ‘culturally relevant curriculum design.’ These themes are presented next
(please see Supplementary File 1 for sample quotes supporting each theme).
Thematic Analysis of Educational Implications
Educational implications in terms of disciplinary knowledge, opportunities, experiences, and graduateness
(Czerniewicz 2018b) vary in the studies, and cover a range
of areas including mode of study, instructional technology,
curriculum design, support systems, professional development, funding, policy, regulations, law, quality, and finance.
Three areas that had the most weight in the studies were
mode of study, curricular design and resources, and support
(Figure 4). We focus on curriculum and mode of study in
relation to one another in this study and refer to other
areas to give depth to the discussions.
Mode of study refers to the type of delivery (e.g., faceto-face, online, blended, etc.). In the context of this study,
it should be understood as a system of education that
ODL and Equal Opportunity
In the ODL literature, the affordances of ODL—such as
learning anytime, anywhere, at low cost, and with flexible
entry—are often posited as strategic responses to the barriers in women’s education. A common argument is that
“education opens the opportunity and choice for women”
(Olakulein & Ojo 2006: 50) and that “access is the most
fundamental piece of equity in education, specifically for
countries with limited resources for quality education”
(Galeshi 2017: 43). Thus, access to online and distance
education is viewed as an opportunity for equity, an innovation which has the potential to transcend the limits of
traditional, face-to-face education. One strong example
would be Bukhsh (2013: 22), who, in the context of ODL
in Pakistan, wrote:
Art. 5, page 6 of 11
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
There is need of another system of education with
equal opportunities of education to male and
female. We need a system to remove injustice in gender. Such system of education is ‘Distance System of
Education.’
ODL is also viewed as a “cost-effective, convenient, conducive, efficient and comprehensive” system to educate
masses and prepare them for a global economy (Olakulein
& Ojo 2006: 51). A related view is that ODL can help women
“meet their educational aspirations as they meet the obligations of society and career” (Kwapong 2007: 77) and as
they “fulfil family responsibilities” (Atan et al. 2005: 118).
Olakulein and Ojo (2006: 152) note:
The concept of open and distance education is a
scheme that affords a nation the opportunity to
effectively transmit educational benefits to all its citizens cheaply and more effectively, especially those
hitherto unreached or denied access on the basis
of one social consideration or the other. Nigerian
women undoubtedly fall within this category and
this system of education affords them the opportunity to pursue the gift of knowledge without contradicting any societal dictates. The uniqueness of
distance education as a women empowerment strategy can be gleaned from the fact that it straddles so
many facets of the social system.
The assumption in general within this theme seems to
be that access to ODL—viewed as a cost-effective resource
for building human capital—is an excellent starting point
for elevating women’s socio-economic status in the society. However, studies in our research corpus also demonstrate that a determinist view of ODL may not align with
the lived experiences of women and furthermore may
overlook or even perpetuate the mechanisms that produce gender inequality in the first place. For example,
Demiray (2014: 334), citing Hipp (1997: 41), notes, “the
problem is not only women’s equal education opportunity, but also their equality in the system. A patriarchal
social system that ignores women’s needs will naturally
not provide [their equality in the system of education].”
Patterson (2009) calls for a need to “pay attention to the
contexts of women’s learning” and how “their daily routines, family responsibilities, and socio-economic status
position them as distance learners.” Otherwise, Patterson
argues, “distance education becomes part of the problem, one that contributes to women’s social inequalities
by perpetuating women’s roles as primarily wives and
mothers relegated to the domestic sphere” (Patterson
2009). Similarly, Sen and Samdup (2009: 165) note that
“gender both structures and influences the world of the
learner and learner experience; therefore, learning needs
to be contextualized to women’s personal, social, mental
and emotional milieux,” and thus the cultural context in
which they live.
Furthermore, ODL as a mode of education does not always
emerge out of egalitarian concerns. Aneja (2017) warns that
the commodification of higher education in neo-liberal
economies positions ODL as a niche market responding to
the ‘needs’ of women learners, which are often created by
the global market itself. We observed that feminist studies
in our research corpus provide a more critical view of open
and distance education, as while they celebrate the opportunities provided by online education, they are cautious
to view it as a means for social justice. We discuss feminist
and gender sensitive views (as these are not necessarily the
same) next.
Feminism and Gender Sensitive Curriculum Design
A prominent theme that emerged in the content analysis
was gender sensitive design. The main argument for gender sensitive design could be summarized as: “[women]
may be different [than men], both in the experiences they
bring to their studies and the ways in which they learn”
(Taplin & Jegede 2001: 133), and therefore, it is imperative to align education with women’s particular needs and
learning styles. One example for gender sensitive curriculum design would be making learning a social experience
for women students through opportunities for networking and support (for example, see Kirkup & Von Prümmer
1990). Some issues that are commonly noted in relation to
gender sensitive curriculum include:
• the curriculum is based on “established bodies of
knowledge that reflect a male point of view” and ways
of delivery (Kwapong 2007: 54; Kwapong 2008);
• the curriculum does not represent women’s interests,
needs;
• the curriculum is designed for the imaginary self-directed and independent learner, which is often a male
(von Prümmer 1994);
• the curriculum does not provide social connectedness
and opportunities for networking (Kirkup and Von
Prümmer 1990; von Prümmer & Rossie 1988; Taplin
& Jegede 2001);
• the curriculum does not promote gender consciousness (Kwapong 2007); there is use of sexist language
and content (von Prümmer 1994).
Another theme which emerged in the data analysis in relation to gender sensitive design was feminism. Feminism
and gender sensitive design often overlap, but they are
not necessarily the same as gender sensitive design may
be limited to discussions on gender differences and may
not have a social justice agenda. For example, one study
we did not include in the research (due to our conceptual
framework) was Marley (2007) who conducted a metaanalysis on gender differences and DE to draw implications
for practice for Library Education. This study provides an
extensive analysis of literature on gender differences in
learning but fails to provide any discussion on the social
construction of gender and gender inequality and how
those might impact students’ learning preferences and
choices. Because gender difference is viewed from a cognitive point of view, narrowly constructed “female/feminine” and “male/masculine” pedagogical implications are
offered in the study, with no explicit links to social justice
or women empowerment.
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
Feminist pedagogy, on the other hand, weaves issues
with inequality—in particular existential inequality (i.e.,
self-development, autonomy, freedom, dignity, and
respect)—and ODL into one another. The way to go about
feminist pedagogy may vary, but in its core, feminist
pedagogy has a clear political orientation: to “generate
awareness about social inequalities, including gender
discrimination, and foster an egalitarian attitude towards
women and traditionally oppressed groups” (Chung 2016:
374). Perhaps because of this close connection to social
justice, feminist scholars in our research corpus tend to
avoid a deficit view of women students or narrowly constructed views of gender differences (e.g., gender-based
learning styles). Rather, they acknowledge the social
mechanisms that cause gender inequality in the first place
and focus on women’s agency in their learning. They also
highlight collaborative, community-based and learnercentred approaches to teaching and learning (see for
example, Care & Udod 2013).
Feminist literature further provides important strategies to address gender inequality in and through open and
distance learning. Faith (1988), for example, in one of the
first studies in our research corpus, “Gender as an issue in
Distance Education,” notes,
In the transformation of education toward more
egalitarian models, it is essential to make authentically visible any group which has been heretofore
ignored, distorted, and/or vilified. For example, students must find themselves accurately represented
in course materials. It is relatedly essential that gender inclusive language be the norm (1988: 75).
Faith (1988: 10) also draws attention to issues with classroom pedagogy, support, and counselling for female students, and under-representation of women “in traditionally
male-dominated subjects like maths, science and technology.” Similar arguments also appear in von Prümmer and
Rossie (1988) and in consequent studies by Burge and
Lenksyj (1990) and Kirkup and von Prümmer (1990).
It was interesting to see in the research corpus a new
wave of contemporary feminist scholars who call for a
need to “reconcile feminist pedagogy with DE” (Aneja
2017; also see Care & Udod 2013; Chung 2016; Patterson
2009). These scholars call for a need to better utilize the
affordances of online technologies to enhance feminist
pedagogy, which reportedly has been sceptical of the role
of technology in women empowerment (Aneja 2017: 852;
Kirkup & von Prümmer 1997). Both Chung and Aneja
draw attention to the spread of feminist activism online
and suggest learning from those experiences in formal
education. Furthermore, they note that social learning
tools provide new opportunities for building connections
and learning. Chung (2016) notes how feminist pedagogy
and online learning might intersect to create a participatory, networked and communal experience—which is
largely absent in pedagogical models that put the teacher
and content at the centre of learning—while at the same
time cautioning against automatization of content delivery and assessment.
Art. 5, page 7 of 11
Culturally Relevant Curriculum Design
We noted a few studies in our research corpus that provide
strong examples for culturally relevant pedagogy, that is,
the design of educational materials and curricula that are
relevant to learners’ local learning contexts (i.e., Adham
et al. 2018; Burge & Lenksyj 1990; Chung 2016; Demiray
2014; Jung 2012; Robinson 1999). For example, Robinson
(1999) reports on how nomadic Gobi women in Mongolia
benefited from a distance learning curriculum that was
designed in a bottom-up manner, taking their local experiences and needs into consideration. In a different social
and cultural context, Adham et al. (2018) report on the
use of a female avatar in a MOOC to address gender segregated education prevalent in Saudi Arabia.
It is important to note that culturally relevant pedagogy
does not necessarily have a social justice agenda—it may
work in harmony with cultural viewpoints rather than carrying with it a commitment to challenge the way societies
are constructed. However, in some cases, it is an essential
part of feminist pedagogy. Burge and Lenksyj (1990: 6) for
example say:
The content of the resource materials … needs to
reflect the experiences of women who live in smaller
towns or in rural areas. This is not to suggest that
readings on urban women or on global feminism
should not be included; rather, the readings would
reflect the great diversity in women’s living conditions, needs, and experiences.
Implications for Practice
Access to education does not guarantee the removal of
gender inequality that is deeply rooted in a society historically, culturally, and politically. As some of the studies in our research corpus show, the way educational
programmes, resources, and activities are designed, and
the way women are (not) supported in their educational
journey can, in fact, perpetuate existing inequalities in
society. To what extent are women able to make informed
choices as to what to study? Does the curriculum recognize the complex lives of women and reflect a sensitivity to their struggles through policy and practice? How
could women be supported organizationally and pedagogically to gain the most from their studies? The overlapping issues of patriarchy and androcentric worldviews
are often noted as a major barrier to women’s education, whether on a macro level such as social systems,
or on a more micro level, such as in course materials or
resources. Based on our review, we identify several issues
in the existing literature that must be addressed.
First, the barriers to women’s education and educational
implications in response to the barriers we noted here are
messy, sometimes contested, and most importantly, repeat
themselves in the research corpus. We see the same kinds of
problems noted over a span of more than 30 years, with
practical implications that are still valid and important
to consider in today’s education. Theory and practice on
the intersection of gender inequality and ODL seem to be
developing very slowly and are somehow disconnected
from the mainstream discourse on open education. Our
Art. 5, page 8 of 11
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
research suggests that many important studies on social
justice (i.e., in our context, on removing gender inequality) do exist, which challenges the view that there is a lack
of literature focusing on social justice in open education
(for example, see Lambert 2018). Rather, such studies have
stayed on the margins of the ODL literature. It is imperative
that we revisit some seminal past research and debates on
gender inequality in ODL, learn from and build on these
important contributions and center them in the discourse
on social justice in the ODL literature. Otherwise, there
is a risk that “existing knowledge will be … rediscovered”
or will be completely forgotten (Weller et al. 2018: 122),
together with the community of scholars who have produced that knowledge.
What seems to be novel in the recent literature is the
lessons learned from online networking, collaboration,
and activism in feminist pedagogy; in other words, the
“reconciliation” (Aneja 2017) of feminist pedagogy with
ODL. Yet, there is very limited discussion on how ODL
curricula with a social justice agenda might benefit from
activism and online networking opportunities and tools
in our research corpus, which calls for future research. We
would also like to note that OER is an area of research that
is almost absent in the entire research corpus, except for
some limited discussions on MOOCs.
Second, and also related to the point above, there is limited discussion in the literature on how digital literacies
and skills and perceived competencies in technology may
affect women’s learning experiences and educational outcomes. This is particularly at odds with views that advocate for ODL as a vehicle for equal opportunity without
considering the socio-cultural context of technology use.
To what extent can women fully embrace digital technology and its affordances in a socially unjust society, where
resources are rare, time is precious and social support is
limited?
Third, in some studies, we observed a misalignment
between the types of inequalities discussed in the studies and the solutions provided in response to those issues.
ODL, as a visionary idea, promises equity, social justice and
lifelong learning opportunities. Technology integrated
open and flexible solutions are viewed as an opportunity
to achieve these noble visions; yet, on the other hand,
such promises remain unfulfilled and flawed because
they ignore cultural and contextual realities that lead to
inequality and the values embedded in educational systems and tools. If patriarchy, for example, is a system that
leads to inequality, it is unrealistic to assume that access
to technology alone can fix the problem; there is a need
for social, economic, and pedagogical interventions that
directly address patriarchy instead.
Finally, we would like to caution against narrowly constructed views of designing for ‘gender differences’ in
ODL pedagogy. Gender inequality cannot be addressed
with separate designs for men and women, or by equating
independent learning or behaviourism to male learning
styles. We observed that while feminist studies draw attention to the fact that women may prefer learning in connected and collaborative ways, they also acknowledge the
gendered construction of women’s roles and identities,
which may impact the ways in which they learn. Our view
is that all students would benefit from an ODL model that
focuses on the learner experience, as opposed to a cognitive model that privileges mastery of educational content
in isolation from socio-cultural realities. As Faith (1988:
79) argued, “egalitarian philosophy and practice would
benefit all of humanity.”
Conclusions and Future Directions
Important implications for ODL, particularly in terms of curriculum design, can be drawn from the study. As a first step,
it is important to recognize the fact that women have unique
struggles and issues which affect their educational journeys,
the choices they make and the rewards they gain. With this
recognition comes the need to acknowledge and address different dimensions of inequality (e.g., vital, resource, existential). As we noted in the background section of this paper,
the overlapping concepts of empowerment and agency are
closely linked to existential inequality, which deals with
self-development, autonomy, freedom, dignity, and respect
(Therborn 2013). A curriculum centred on empowerment
and agency is public service and requires a model of education that is based on participation and co-construction, and
that is committed to social justice (Table 1). In an era where
neo-liberalist agendas view higher education as an emerging
market for profit, such a model of education should be supported by government and funding agencies (Jones 2019),
and ODL institutions/organizations themselves, with an
explicit goal to remove gender equality.
To this end, the literature shows that the intersection
of three pedagogical approaches is promising to address
gender inequality in and through ODL: culturally relevant pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, and critical pedagogy
(Figure 5). Culturally relevant pedagogy recognizes students’ lived experience, their local environment and socioeconomic and socio-cultural conditions of living. From a
culturally relevant or responsive perspective, technology
should be adopted to local conditions and appropriate
levels of support should be an integral part of educational
provision.
A curriculum centred on empowerment and agency
should also challenge some cultural and traditional
assumptions and political systems to dismantle hierarchy,
oppression, and exploitation. As Therborn (2013) notes,
such structures are socially constructed, they “can be dismantled or flattened” (p. 63). Critical pedagogy in general
and feminist pedagogy in particular are useful to challenge oppressive mechanisms of power, such as patriarchy, as well as to “humanize the curriculum” and “surface
the student voice” (Czerniewicz 2018b), both in content
and form. As a starting point, as Burge and Lenksyj (1990)
note, “[w]hether or not the content of the course is
explicitly feminist, gender analysis of that content, along
with the recognition and validation of female learners’
specific life situations and experiences, need to be integrated into the teaching and learning process” (p. 35). In
the spirit of Freire (1976), we also call for a need to design
for the kinds of experiences that lead to critical consciousness—in our context, a heightened and critical awareness
of inequality in society based on the intersection of gender, class, ethnicity, etc.,—and the design of curricula that
allows for praxis: iterative cycles of reflection that lead to
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
Art. 5, page 9 of 11
Table 1: Designing for Empowerment and Agency: Some Implications on Curriculum Design.
• recognizes psychological and social barriers to education;
• lies at the intersection of culturally relevant pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, and critical pedagogy;
• is based on co-construction and active student participation consistent with the core pedagogical frameworks;
• provides opportunities for connectedness (with other students, mentors, tutors etc.);
• women’s unique life situations and experiences are recognized and reflected in curricular content, activities and assessment;
• sees the structuring of content, activities and support as an opportunity for empowerment (as opposed to the framing of
digital technology as opportunity);
• embraces curriculum as praxis;
• allows flexible entry and exit points;
• support is embedded in content, activities and assessment;
• recognizes and addresses varying levels of digital literacies and skills;
• does not make assumptions about available resources (human and non-human); is informed by local realities.
very valuable in understanding women’s experiences in
ODL and help educators design programmes and curricula
in partnership with women students.
Notes
1
In our discussions we use “women” to refer to a gender
identity, recognizing gender fluidity and subtlety.
2
See for example the definition of women empowerment by The United Nations Population division (as
cited in Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific
2013): “Women’s empowerment has five components:
women’s sense of self-worth; their right to have and to
determine choices; their right to have access to opportunities and resources; their right to have the power
to control their own lives, both within and outside
the home; and their ability to influence the direction
of social change to create a more just social and economic order, nationally and internationally” (p. 154).
Additional Files
The additional files for this article can be found as follows:
Figure 5: Proposed model for addressing gender inequality
in ODL.
meaningful action. Co-construction, active student participation and shared learning are major aspects of such
transformative pedagogies. These approaches should
not be limited to subjects such as Women’s Studies or
Education, nor should they be targeted for women only;
transformation requires interdisciplinary and collective
efforts. As Kirkup and von Prümmer (1997: 59) suggest,
“Educators involved in women’s education and in women’s studies need to be involved in bringing what has
been learned in these initiatives into mainstream educational programmes.”
Finally, participatory approaches to curriculum call for
participatory approaches to research and scholarship,
which seems to be lacking in the ODL literature. Methods
like participatory action research, community engaged
research, or phenomenology were absent in our research
corpus, yet these are the types of methods that would be
• Appendix A. List of Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
5334/jime.553.s1
• Appendix B. Alignment with Thematic Analysis. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.553.s2
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Henry Trotter, researcher and
research mentor with the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching (CILT) at the University of Cape Town
(UCT), for his excellent review of an earlier draft of this
paper.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
References
Barker, B and Hoskins, K. 2016. Five Propositions That
Explain Why Schools Struggle to Improve Social
Mobility. FORUM, 58(1): 73–86. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.15730/forum.2016.58.1.73
Art. 5, page 10 of 11
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
Conrad, D. 2008. Situating prior learning assessment and
recognition (PLAR) in an online learning environment.
In: Anderson, T (ed.), The theory and practice of online
learning, 75–90. 2nd ed. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca
University Press.
Czerniewicz, L. 2018a. Inequality as higher education goes
online. In: Dohn, NB, et al. (eds.), Networked Learning
Reflections and Challenges, 95–106. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_6
Czerniewicz, L. 2018b. Unbundling and rebundling
higher education in an age of inequality. EDUCAUSE
Review, 10–24. Available at https://er.educause.
edu/-/media/files/articles/2018/10/er186100.pdf
[Last accessed 14 April 2019].
Erdogan, S, Yildirim, DC and Tosuner, O. 2012. The
Effect of Gender Inequality in Education on Health:
Evidence from Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, 12(3): 1860–1866. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/13545700902893106
Freire, P. 1976. Education, the practice of freedom. London:
Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.
Gough, D, Thomas, J and Oliver, S. 2012. Clarifying
differences between review designs and methods.
Systematic reviews, 1(1): 28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1186/2046-4053-1-28
Heiler, P and Richards, W. 1988. By print and post:
Vocational training for isolated women. In: Faith, K
(ed.), Toward New Horizons for Women in Distance Education, 190–204. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315174822-14
Hipp, H. 1997. Women studying at a distance: what do
they need to succeed? Open Learning: The Journal of
Open, Distance and e-Learning, 12(2): 41–49. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051970120205
Jones, C. 2019. Capital, neoliberalism and educational technology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2): 288–292.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00042-1
Knox, J. 2013. The limitations of access alone: Moving
towards open processes in education technology. Open
Praxis, 5(1): 21–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/
openpraxis.5.1.36
Lambert, SR. 2018. Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education.
Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3): 225–244.
Marley, J. 2007. Gender differences and distance education: Major research findings and implications for
LIS Education. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 48(1): 13–20.
Noble, H and Smith, J. 2018. Reviewing the literature:
choosing a review design. Evidence-Based Nursing,
21(2): 39–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018102895
Nylund, M, Rosvall, PÅ, Eiríksdóttir, E, Holm,
AS, Isopahkala-Bouret, U, Niemi, AM and
Ragnarsdóttir, G. 2018. The academic–vocational
divide in three Nordic countries: Implications for social
class and gender. Education Inquiry, 9(1): 97–121. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1424490
Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific. 2013.
Women Empowerment. Available at https://www.
unescap.org/sites/default/files/E.1-Women-empowerment.pdf [Last accessed 11 March 2020].
Staton, M. 2012. Disaggregating the components of a
college degree. In: American Enterprise Institute Conference “Stretching the Higher Education Dollar”, on 2
August 2012, 1–34.
Stromquist, NP. 2015. Women’s empowerment and
education: Linking knowledge to transformative
action. European Journal of Education, 50(3): 307–324.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12137
Teddlie, C and Tashakkori, A. (eds.) 2009. Foundations
of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative
and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
The Glossary of Education Reform. 2015. Curriculum, 8
December 2015. Available at https://www.edglossary.
org/curriculum/ [Last accessed 9 February 2020].
Therborn, G. 2009. The killing fields of inequality. Eurozine.
Available at https://www.eurozine.com/the-killingfields-of-inequality/ [Last accessed 10 June 2019]. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3898/136266209789024960
Therborn, G. 2012. Disparities or inequalities: The killing
fields of inequality. International Journal of Health
Services, 42(4): 579–589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
2190/HS.42.4.a
Therborn, G. 2013. The killing fields of inequality.
Cambridge: Policy Press.
United Nations. 2015. The Millennium Development
Goals Report 2015. New York, US: UN, 6 July 2015
https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_
Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).
pdf [Last accessed 8 February 2020].
United Nations Development Programme. 2018.
Gender Inequality Index (GII). UNDP. Available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequalityindex-gii [Last accessed 5 May 2019].
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. 2002. Open and Distance Learning:
Trends, Policy and Strategy Considerations. Paris:
UNESCO.
von Prümmer, C. 2015. Women and distance education:
Challenges and opportunities. Routledge: London/New
York.
Weller, M, Jordan, K, DeVries, I and Rolfe, V. 2018.
Mapping the open education landscape: Citation
network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10(2): 109–126. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.822
White, MD and Marsh, EE. 2006. Content analysis: A
flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1): 22–45.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053
Koseoglu et al: 30 Years of Gender Inequality and Implications on Curriculum
Design in Open and Distance Learning
Art. 5, page 11 of 11
How to cite this article: Koseoglu, S, Ozturk, T, Ucar, H, Karahan, E and Bozkurt, A. 2020. 30 Years of Gender Inequality and
Implications on Curriculum Design in Open and Distance Learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1): 5, pp. 1–11.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.553
Submitted: 24 October 2019
Accepted: 22 February 2020
Published: 11 May 2020
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education is a peer-reviewed open access journal published
by Ubiquity Press.
OPEN ACCESS