Gender and Leadership in Research Universities in Malaysia: The Case of University of Malaya

  • Surinderpal KaurEmail author
Part of the International and Development Education book series (INTDE)


Higher education institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia are often governed as communities of practice. Often times, the modes of governance and the structures of management in higher education cultures in Malaysia represent masculine communities of practice. While women are far from being underrepresented in higher education in Malaysia, achieving a critical mass of women in senior leadership positions in higher education cultures is still a distant dream. Furthermore, the question of how senior academic leaders and management teams enact academic leadership and negotiate gendered leadership cultures is also of great significance. This chapter revisits the notion of gender and leadership in higher education cultures in Malaysia, examining the ways in which leadership cultures in Malaysian research universities can be seen as shaping gender identities, forcing both men and women leaders to negotiate leadership within a community of practices which is both gendered and gendering in turn.


  1. Bagilhole, B., and K. White. 2011. Gender, Power and Management: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, J. 2010. The Language of Female Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  3. Carvalho, and de Lourdes Machado. 2011. “Senior Management in Higher Education.” In Gender, Power and Management: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Higher Education, edited by B. Bagilhole and K. White. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Chouliaraki, L., and N. Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Christie, Christine. 2000. Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, R.W., and J.W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society 19 (6): 829–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  10. Francis, B. 2000. The Gendered Subject: Students’ Subject Preferences and Discussions of Gender and Subject Ability. Oxford Review of Education 26 (1): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holmes, J. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmes, Janet, and Miriam Meyerhoff. 2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Husu, L. 2000. “Gender Discrimination in the Promised Land of Gender Equality.” Higher Education in Europe 25 (2): 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Husu, L. 2014. “Research Funding Gap: Her Excellence Dwarfed by His Excellence.”
  15. Kets de Fries, M.F.R., P. Vrignaud, A. Agrawal, and E. Florent-Treacy. 2010. “Development and Application Leadership Archetype Questionnaire.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21: 2848–2863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knights, D., and D. Kerfoot. 2004. “Between Representations and Subjectivity: Gender Binaries and the Politics of Organizational Transformation.” Gender, Work & Organization 11 (4): 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Litosseliti, Lia, and Jane Sunderland. 2002. Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lupton, D. 1998. The Emotional Self: A Sociocultural Exploration. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Morley, Louise. 2016. Troubling Intra-Actions: Gender, Neo-Liberalism and Research in the Global Academy. Journal of Education Policy 31 (1): 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morley, L., et al. 2016. “Managing Modern Malaysia: Women in Higher Education Leadership.” In The Changing Role of Women in Higher Education: Academic and Leadership Challenges, edited by H. Eggins. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Mullany, L. 2007. Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Runte, M., and A.J. Mills. 2004. “Paying the Toll: A Feminist Post-structural Critique of the Discourse Bridging Work and Family.” Culture and Organization 10 (3): 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sunderland, J. 2004. Gendered Discourses. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vinnicombe, S., and V. Singh. 2002. Sex Role Stereotyping and Requisites of Successful Top Managers. Women in Management Review 17 (3/4): 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weatherall, Ann. 2002. Gender, Language and Discourse. Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Weedon, Chris. 1997. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Wharton, Amy S. 2012. The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research, 2nd. ed. Malden, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Wodak, Ruth. 2001. “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by R. Wodak and M. Meyer. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations