The Reasons of Women S Representation in Iranian Universities

The reasons of women’s representation in Iranian universities (Dr. Ebrahim Salehi,

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran. Babolsar, Iran Tell. No. 0098-9111119993, Fax 009811252-42500 edpes60@ hotmail.com)

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003

Abstract: This paper seeks to explain the reasons, which mostly affected male and female student’s opinions for attendance in university. It is assumed that there are two kinds of economic and social/cultural reasons, which might be influential in this area. Also two kinds of economic and social/cultural barriers that may affect on their participation in university have been under the inquiry. The sample for this survey covered registered male and female students in the university of Mazandaran which can be taken as representative of universities in Iran today. The results of the research shows that while both the economic and social/cultural considerations were important reasons for participating in university, in the opinion of both sexes. But female students placed more emphasis on the social/cultural reasons. The economic barriers, which were related to the future employment of students, were important barriers in the views of both female and male students. Also, they were not faced with significant social/cultural barriers whilst studying at universities.

Key words: higher education; women’s participation; economic and social reasons.

Introduction

In the past two decades, most countries have experienced some form of expansion in their systems of higher education (HE). This expansion has also been accompanied by increases in the participation of women in HE (Salehi 2002). Research findings show that since 1960, the number of women being educated in the third world nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East has increased markedly (Elliott, et

1 al. 1980; INST 1985; Kelly, 1991; Bradley 2000). Although, research also reveals pervasive gender inequalities among students, academic staff and senior management (UNESCO, 1997; Ashraf, 1985; Fatemi 1997; Poya 1999).

With this world wide trends, Iran has experienced a considerable increase in the total number of students in all public higher education institutions. For example, in the academic year 1978-79, the total number of students was 175,685, while in 1999-00 the number of students increased to 678,652. This represents almost a ten-fold increase. Moreover, in recent years the position of women in HE appears to have improved dramatically. In the academic year 1999-00, 44.1(299333 students) percent of HE students were female, compared with 30.5 (54248 students) percent in academic year 1978-79 (Salehi 2002). Clearly this constitutes a major breakthrough not only in participation rates for women but possibly also in terms of their changing role in society. A review of the literature shows this phenomenon has rarely been investigated systematically in Iran (Higgins and Shoar-chaffari, 1994; Mehran, 1997) and in particular little attention has been paid to explanations for this change (Noroozi, 1986; Sayyari, 1994).

Here the key questions are: what factors affect women’s educational decision-making (as consumers of higher education provision); on entry to university? what are women’s expectations from participation in higher education? Is the purpose of women’s participation in higher educational attainment instrumental, and therefore related to occupational attainment and/or income, or is their purpose in participation wider? Are they looking for educational and /or social benefits? What are the present barriers that students are facing at university? What extent economic and social- cultural factors created problems and barriers for them in studying at universities?

However, this article seeks to explain the possible reasons behind the Iranian women’s participation in HE. The reasons for focusing on higher education relate not only to the specific issue of women’s participation but also to the increased importance of HE to all societies as a result of globalisation. The key point here is that without a sizeable HE sector which can train graduates to make links with the new globalised economy by generating networks with groups overseas and where possible creating indigenous hi-tech capabilities, developing nations will be isolated from international economic activity (World Bank, 2000).

2 Theoretical Background

In order to establish which theories provide the best explanatory account of HE expansion and women’s increased participation several theories can be considered. These are: varieties of Human Capital Theory, Cost Benefit Theory, Public Choice Theory, Conflict Theory, elements of Feminist theory, and State Formation theory.

It should be stressed that these theories have usually been applied to western models of HE, however it is a further issue to be discussed in this article as to whether and in what ways they can be applied to a developing, ‘post-colonial’ society like that of Iran. While there are common world-wide trends, such as the increasingly important role of technology, there are also important differences among countries and in different parts of the world. The Third World presents a specific set of circumstances (Altbach, 1991) to which these theories may or may not apply.

However, there are different theories in relation to expansion of HE (for example see, Meyer, et al. 1971; Ramirez and Rubinson, 1979; Boli et al. 1985; Ramirez and Boli 1987; Ramirez and Riddle, 1991; Archer, 1982; Altbach, 1991, 1998; Windolf, 1992, 1997; Ashton and Sung 1994; Green, 1990, 1997, 1999), which could be discussed at length in this paper, but to summarise:

Human Capital Theory cites education’s contribution to economic growth through enhancing the quality of human resources. Also, according to this theory, individuals invest in themselves in order to prosper in the labour market.

Cost-Benefit Theory: the nature of HE expansion, and an individual’s participation in it, is associated with its perceived cost and benefits, and in consideration of the balance between costs and benefits.

Public Choice Theory is the application and extension of economic theory and economic tools to polities or governmental choice. HE is concerned with the decisions of special interest groups or politicians, who seek their own well-being or political power.

According to Conflict Theory, educational expansion is an outcome of a process of status competition among groups.

3 The credentialism approach can be cited as an individualistic orientation to HE, in that people usually assume that educational credentials (positional goods) are required to improve their labour-market chances.

The idea of Equal Opportunities policy is that every one, regardless of age, social class, urban or rural origin, or gender, has the right to education. This could be argued to have particular relevance to women’s increasing participation.

Whilst idea of equal opportunity policies seeks equal chances and access for every one, Feminism Theory is looking to the particular empowerment of women, through their access to HE.

In the view of State Formation Theory, HE expansion and women’s increased participation can be related to many different social, economic and historical factors in relationship with the broader process of nation-state building in a society. In fact this theory also can encompass some of these theories (for more detail about these theories see Salehi, 2001).

It should be note that women's participation in higher education are affected with the rise of the women's Movement such as Affirmative Action; home economic movement, and Feminist theory markedly (Marshall, 1997; Coats, 1994; Antler, 1982). And also the policy of higher education expansion such as "education for all", "free education", "compulsory education", "distance education", "wider access", "open admission" and "mass higher education" on women's participation in higher education (El-Sanabary, 1989; Morrison, 1997; Reid, 1991; Sadovnik, 1994).

However, according to the review of literature and relative research findings, the theories of expansion and women's attendance in university can be categorised into two main groups: Social/cultural theories (conflict theory, theory of individual 'status competition' political theory, equal opportunities policy); and economic theories (human capital theory, cost-benefit theory, theory of labour-market, manpower forecasting approach, public choice theory).

The social/cultural theory is based on the educational social/cultural/individual effects, as the philosophy of higher education attainment. Therefore, from the point of view of planners and consumers, no attempt is made to link the educational sector

4 with the rest of the economy, as in other planning models. In this theory, education is assumed to be a social/ cultural investment (See, Dbbelam, 1990b; Dbbelam, 1994; Faure, 1972; Sadovnik, 1994). As a result, the reasons of women's participation and attainment can be studied according to this theory.

The economic theories are concentrated on the economic effects, as the reasons of higher education attainment. Hence, the main purpose of higher education attainment and participation can be cited as a way for attainment of employment prospects, income distributing, more economic benefit and the privileges that go with it. In fact, it can be called a type of economic and monetary investment (See for more detail, Becker 1981; Schultz, 1993;Benavot, 1989; Woodhall 1973; Psacharopoulos 1986, 1992). Therefore, this theory can be used to analyse the reasons of women's attainment and participation in higher education.

As a result, the relationship between the two theories and women's participation in higher education may be summarised by this diagram:

Social/cultural theory Economic theory

As social/cultural/individual As economic investment investment

Women's participation in higher education

Methodology

In order to examine the possible reasons and barriers (economic, social, and cultural) for studying students’ motivation at university (demand side), quantitative data were

5 collected from two main groups of students (male and female) in terms of different faculties, on daily and nightly sessions basis from the University of Mazandaran

(UM) which can be taken as representative of universities in Iran to-day. The university attracts students from all over Iran and they are representative of students entering other universities in Iran. This is so because they all do a similar university entrance examination and they would follow similar programmes at all university, based on the syllabuses handed down by the Supreme Planning Council of the

Ministry of Culture and Higher Education. In addition, places to the universities are awarded on the basis of marks received in the examination. Hence students from all levels of society and ethnic groups are accepted. It is also necessary to explain that the researcher has chosen two main samples of day and night session students in order to take into account the characteristic of each sample in the research. For example, night students are studying as full-time student by paying tuition fees. Their lectures are run after 3pm (evening time) while studying at university for the daytime students is free.

A 21-item Likert-type survey scale was constructed to measure student’s view and the reason in applying for higher education. Positively and negatively worded items relating to reasons in pursuing higher education were presented. Participants were asked to mark one of five alternatives for each question: strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, or strongly disagree. Statements were worded in such a way as to draw out expressions of opinions based on knowledge or on stereotypes of one particular group of exceptional individuals.

To collect data, six hundred and one questionnaires were sent out to male and female university students of the University. Four hundred and four questionnaires were returned (219 female and 404 male). The actual sample size of students is covered

6 19.4 per cent women and 6.8 per cent men students of the research population. So the return rate was 67 % which is reasonably satisfactory and as May (1994) has pointed out interest in the survey will affect the response rate and this will depend on the target population.

In order to obtain a sample representative of the whole population in terms of faculties, gender and daily/nightly sessions in this study, proportional stratified sampling was used. Then random sampling was employed to select student in each faculty by gender and type of study (day and night sessions).

In deciding which is the most appropriate statistical test to use to analyse the data, as

Bryman and Cramer (1997), Cramer (1998), and de Vaus (1993) explain different tests are generally used to compare two or three or more comparison groups. For example if the number of the comparison groups was 1-2, t-test and for the number 2

+ one way analysis of variance are used to analyse data which it is summarised by the following table:

Table 1 Test of differences

Type of test Type of data Number of groups Name of test

Parametric: means Unrelated 1-2 t-test

2+One-way analysis of variance

So, with consideration to the above analysis process the data have been coded and entered into the computer and then analysed by SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Sciences).

7 Findings

Economic reasons to participation (attendance) in university

Economic considerations are important in participating in higher education (Savoca, 1990; Menon, 1998). As Table 2 shows, both men and women of students believed that economic reasons were an important factor in studying at a higher educational level [male mean scores 3.84; female mean scores 3.68]. The students possibly had in mind that the economic factors (like finding a job in the future, access to financial independence, playing an economic role in society, an coming employment in the state organization) could all be reasons for their participation in universities. However, T-test results show that there is a significant difference between female and male students’ views, in terms of their particular economic motivation for attending university [t= -2.88; df=383; p= 0.004]. In fact the mean response for the males (3.84) is bigger than that for the females (3.68). In a society like Iran, although it is being accepted that women have a role in the economy and labour market, men still have the main responsibility for sustaining the family economy. In other words this may be related to the responsibility of men as a main source of income, and in society as breadwinners for the family.

However, with consideration to the above explanations, there is a further question:

Are economic reasons the only reasons for students’ participation in university? Or are there other reasons?

Social/cultural reasons for participation (attendance) in university

There may be socio-cultural motivations influencing students’ participation in university (Fevre et al. 1999). The results from this study indicated that both women and men attended HE for social/cultural reasons [male mean scores 3.63; female mean scores 3.77]. In other words, they believed that participation in university would result in becoming an educated person in society, gain more academic knowledge, considering the nature value of education, the impact of HE on the individual autonomy in decision making, the development of societal communication, participate actively in society’s key role, awareness to the social rights, and playing better role inside the family (questionnaire items to measure student’s view). Again though, T-

8 test results have shown that there is a significant difference between female and male students’ motivations particular social/cultural, for attending university [t=2.97; df=378; p=0.003]. It seems for female students [female 3.77; male 3.63] social/cultural reasons were more important for attending university. This may be related to women’s social status in society, which has traditionally been an inferior one to men. So, they are looking to higher education as a way of improving their social status at this period of time. Furthermore, after the Revolution, Iranian women have had greater opportunities to enter higher education. Government policy is now geared towards providing more equal opportunities, and changing the attitudes of people (particularly traditional families) toward the importance of higher education in their personal and national life. The continual emphasis by religious and political leaders of the role and value of higher education in the development of the country, has resulted in the number of women students increasing from 54,248 in 1978/79 to 238,687 in 1997/98 (MSRT 1999). Therefore, they believe higher education to be a first step to improving their social status in society as Abercrombie and Warde (2000, p. 214) have stated:

“Education has been seen a transformation of the position of girls and young women.”

To support these findings, however, there is a research finding by Sabohi and Firouz- Kohi (1996) show that both economic and social incentives were important for students who were studying at some universities in Iran. Tehranian (quoted in Sabohi and Firouz-Kohi, 1996) argues that the rapid expansion of demand for HE in Iran, has resulted from change in the social system of the country and its related-educational systems. He explains that social mobility in Iran in the last two decades was related to family backgrounds and access to HE. He then concludes that, it is ‘natural’ that individuals seeking to better the social status demand HE. Therefore, it seems in the views of female students the economic reasons in not the only reason for studying at universities.

Barriers toward participation (attendance) in university

The second area of enquiry concerned the problems and barriers, which related to studying in universities. This part of the research helps us to recognise the present barriers that students are facing at university and therefore raises a key element in the

9 evaluation of current policies in HE. These results can therefore help in educational policy making for the future expansion and development of HE in Iran. In fact this will be the other side of the coin to understanding the expansion of HE and women’s participation in this process.

When students were asked to what extent economic and social-cultural factors created problems and barriers for them in studying at university, they had different ideas. In terms of economic barriers, both groups asserted that they have had to face them [male mean scores 3.77; female mean scores 3.67]. But, t-test results show that there is no significant difference between gender in terms of the type of economic barriers to attending university [t=-1.18; df=385; p=0.238]. Both male and female students emphasised that they were worried about the lack of correlation between acquiring HE qualification and career advancement in the labour market, and both were worried about finding a future job.

In general, it seems that the social-cultural barriers were not as important as the economic factors [female 2.41; male 2.46]. Results have revealed that social/cultural barriers were not significant for either group of students [t=-.83; df=376; p= 0.405] and both female and male students believed that they were not facing any insuperable social/cultural barriers (such as lack of a relationship between HE and upward social mobility and social status; the quality of HE qualification does not help to be an educated person; The perception of students’ gender (being male or female); Society does not encourage students to engage in higher education study; parental insistence upon marriage instead of pursuing HE) to studying at university.

In relation to this issue, Ahmadi (1997) argues that in pre-revolution in Iran one of the main barriers and discrimination toward daughters’ education was related to the families’ atitude. The families (especially religious families) felt that universities were not safe places for their daughters while this negative attitude has changed in the post- revolutionary period. Ahmadi also mentions that the religious leaders have played an important part in changing of attitudes toward women’s education in the society. Iraji- Zad (1997) also explains that the general attention of the society towards women’s education has affected women’s increased participation in universities.

10 Table 2 Male and female students’ views regarding economic and social/cultural reasons/barriers to attending university

Questions Male Female t-test result No. mean No. mean Economic reasons are important for t =-2.88 attending university 183 3.84 219 3.68 P= 0.004

.Sig Social/Cultural reasons are important for t =2.97 attending university 183 3.63 219 3.77 P =0.003

.Sig Economic barriers are important in t =-1.18 preventing attendance at university 177 3.77 215 3.67 P =0.238

.Not sig Social/cultural barriers are important in t =-.83 preventing attendance at university 178 2.47 216 2.41 P =0.405

.Not sig

Students’ responses in different groups

In the following part the analysis focuses on the relation between the responses of

female students in terms of day or night attendance, rural or urban origin, father’s

occupation, year of study, student’s marks (scores), and the effects of being in

different faculties.

Day and night sessions

According to the mean scores from Table 3, both groups of students mentioned that

economic reasons were key to them for studying at university [day 3.72; night 3.63].

T-test results shows that there is no significant relation between day and night

11 students regarding economic reasons [t=1.28; df=169; p=0.201]. Table 3 also shows that both groups of students mentioned that social/cultural incentives can be important for applying to university [day 3.75; night 3.79], and there is no significant difference between day and night students in the social/ cultural incentives to entering university

[t=-0.66; df=184; p=0.51].

Moreover and according to the mean scores, both groups mentioned the lack of correlation between acquiring a HE and career advancement in the labour market, and both were worried about finding future jobs [night 3.8; day 3.45]. Also, the results showed a significant relationship between day and night female students’ views about economic barriers to attending university [t=2.62; df=164; p=0.01]. This difference is related to the day students’ views [day 3.8], in that they believed that economic barriers were more important for attending university. This might be related to the relatively more stable financial situation of night students. Generally night students already have a full or part time job, although this is not true in all cases. Day students are not employed, and are therefore much more apprehensive about their future career.

In spite of their emphasis on economic barriers to attending university, both groups claimed that they were not confronted with social/cultural barriers to studying at university. This can be seen by the mean scores [day 2.45; night 2.36]. Also t-test results also show that there is no significant difference between day and night female students’ views in relation to social/cultural barriers [t=0.85; df=157; p= 0.40].

12 Table 3 Day and night female student's view regarding economic and social/cultural reasons/barriers to attending university

Questions Day Night t-test result No. mean No. mean Are there differences between female t =1.28 students in day and night sessions in 128 3.72 91 3.63 P = 0.201 relation to economic reasons in attending .Not sig university Are there differences between female t =-.66 students in day and night sessions in 128 3.75 91 3.79 P =0.51 relation to social/cultural reasons in .Not sig attending university Are there differences between female t =2.62 students in day and night sessions in 127 3.8 86 3.45 P = 0.01 relation to economic barriers in attending .Sig university Are there differences between female t =.85 students in day and night sessions in 127 2.45 88 2.36 P = 0.40 relation to social/culture barriers in .Not sig attending university

Rural and urban female students

As Table 4 shows, the economic and social/cultural reasons respectively have been

addressed in terms of student’s place of residence (rural and urban) [rural mean scores

3.67; urban mean scores 3.69] and [rural mean scores 3.87; urban mean scores 3.75].

t-test results in fact showed that there is no significant relationship between rural and

urban female students views concerning economic and social/cultural reasons for

attending university [t=-0.13; df=37; p=0.901], [t=1.17; df=35; p=0.248].

Table 4 also shows that, both groups have emphasised that they are facing economic

barriers to studying at university [rural 3. 46; urban 3.69], and there is no significant

13 difference between rural and urban female students’ views, regarding economic

barriers to attending university [t=-1.29; df=38; p=0.205].

But there is a significant difference between these two groups concerning social/

cultural barriers to attending university [t=-2.08; df=36; p=0.045]. This difference is

related to the rural female students [rural mean scores 2.17; urban mean scores 2.44]

who believed that they are facing lower social/ cultural barriers. However, according

to the mean scores, both groups believed that social/cultural barriers were not

particularly serious barriers to attending university.

Table 4 Rural and urban female students’ views regarding economic and social/cultural incentives/barriers to attending university

Questions rural urban t-test result No. mean No. mean

Are there different points of view t =-1.13 between female students from rural and 29 3.67 187 3.69 P = 0.901 urban origins in relation to economic .Not sig reasons for attending university? Are there different points of view t =1.17 between female students from rural and 29 3.87 187 3.75 P =0.248 urban origins in relation to social/cultural .Not sig reasons for attending university? Are there different points of view t =-1.29 between female students from rural and 28 3.46 184 3.69 P =0.205 urban origins in relation to economic .Not sig barriers for attending university? Are there different points of view t =-2.08 between female students from rural and 28 2.17 185 2.45 P =0.045 urban origins in relation to social/cultural .Sig barriers for attending university?

14 Father’s occupation

Prior to explaining the results in terms of social class of students, it is important to note that the father’s occupation has been chosen as an indicator of social class for the present research which has been suggested by Khazemi-Pour (1995) and Maleki’s

(1996) works on the stratification of occupation prestige in Iran (see Appendix 1).

The results of the relationship between social class and economic incentives for participating in higher education, has shown that on the basis of a one-way analysis of variance (results in Table 5), there is no significant difference between the female students from different social classes (as defined by father’s occupation), about economic reasons to attending university [F-ratio=0.93; df=195; p=0.45].

However, the One way analysis of variance results illustrate that there is a significant difference between these students concerning social and cultural reasons for attending university [F-ratio=3.26; df=195; p=0.01]. According to the Tukey-B test this difference is related to the mean score [3.35] of high social class (group 2) with the mean score [3.78] of lower social class (group 4). In fact, social/cultural reasons were more important to the lower social class students for studying at university. This may be arguable in terms of the conflict theory. In other words, the lower social class students are possibly seeking HE for the sake of upward social mobility and gaining more social rewards that is traditionally associated with it in the society.

One way analysis of variance results also indicate that there is no significant difference between these students concerning economic and social barriers to attending university [F-ratio=0.29; df=192; p=0.88], [F-ratio=0.205; df=193; p=

0.94].

15 Table 5 Female students’ opinions from different social classes regarding economic and social/cultural reasons/barriers to attending university Questions f-ratio df .p Are there different points of view between female 93. 195 0.45 students from different social classes in relation to .Not sig economic reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 3.26 195 0.01 students from different social classes in relation to .Sig social/cultural reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 29. 192 0.88 students from different social classes in relation to .Not sig economic barriers for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 205. 193 0.94 students from different social classes in relation to .Not sig social/cultural barriers for attending university.

Year of study

As can be seen in Table 6, there is no significant difference between the students’

opinions in different years of study about the economic and social incentives for

attending university [F-ratio=0.55; df=219; p=0.65], [F-ratio=0.66; df=219; p= 0.58].

Also, One way analysis of variance results show that there is no significant difference

between these students’ opinions concerning economic and social barriers to attending

university [F-ratio=1.59; df=214; p=0.19], [F-ratio=0.16; df=215; p=0.92].

Table 6 Female students’ views regarding economic and social/cultural reasons/barriers to attending university by different years of study Questions f-ratio df .p Are there different points of view between female 55. 219 0.65

16 students in terms of different years of study in .Not sig

.relation to economic reasons for attending university Are there different points of view between female 66. 219 0.58 students in terms of different years of study in .Not sig relation to social/cultural reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 1.59 214 0.19 students in terms of different years of study in .Not sig .relation to economic barriers for attending university Are there different points of view between female 16. 210 0.92 students in terms of different years of study in .Not sig relation to social/cultural barriers for attending university.

Student’s scores (marks)

The One way analysis of variance results show that there is no significant difference

between students’ average scores and economic/social reasons for attending

university [F-ratio=0.78; df=210; p=0.50], [F-ratio=1.31; df=210; p= 0.27].

In addition, One way analysis of variance results indicate that there are no significant

differences between students’ average scores and economic/social barriers to

attending university [F-ratio=1.54; df=207; p=0.20], [F-ratio=1.42; df=215; p=0.24]

(see table 7).

In fact, a student’s grades do not appear to affect their opinions about economic/social

incentives and economic/social barriers.

Table 7 Female students’ views regarding economic and social/cultural reasons/barriers to attending university by different scores Questions f-ratio df .p Are there different points of view between female 78. 210 0.50 students in terms of their average scores in relation to .Not sig

17 economic reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 1.31 210 0.27 students in terms of their average scores in relation to .Not sig social/cultural reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 1.54 207 0.20 students in terms of their average scores in relation to .Not sig economic barriers for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 1.42 215 0.24 students in terms of their average scores in relation to .Not sig social/cultural barriers for attending university.

Different faculties

According to the one way analysis of variance results, there is no significant variation

of opinion, between different faculties, with respect to economic incentives for

attending university [F-ratio=0.51; df=216; p= 0.67]. As is shown in Table 8,

however, there is a significant difference in opinion regarding social reasons. [F-

ratio=4.06; df=216; p=0.007]. According to the Tukey-B test this difference is related

to between the mean score of the Faculty of Engineering [3.59] and the mean scores

in other faculties such as Humanities, Basic Science and Agriculture [humanities

3.82; basic science 3.87; agriculture 3.78]. Also, it can be seen from Table 8 that there

is a significant variation of opinion on the subject of economic barriers [F-ratio=2.65;

df=211; p=0.05]. According to the Duncan test this difference is related to between

the mean score of the Faculty of Agriculture [3.93] and to the Faculties of

Engineering, and Basic Science mean scores [Engineering 3.47; Basic Science 3.51].

More specifically, female students in the Faculty of Agriculture believed economic

barriers were more important considerations to attending university. They were more

worried about finding a job in the future, and the apparent lack of correlation between

18 acquiring HE and career advancement in the labour market. These different points of

view between Agriculture and other female students are probably related to the

unemployment of female Agriculture graduates in Iran (Fahim-Yahyahi, 1996), due to

society’s current perception that Agriculture is a “male” subject.

Finally, One-way analysis of variance results indicate that there is no significant

difference between the different faculties students attend regarding social barriers [F-

ratio=1.04; df=212; p=0.37]. In other words, female students in different faculties did

not faced with social/cultural barriers to studying at universities.

Table 8 Female students’ views regarding economic and social/cultural reasons/barriers to attending university at different faculties Questions f-ratio df .p Are there different points of view between female 51. 216 0.67 students from different faculties in relation to .Not sig economic reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 4.06 216 007. students from different faculties in relation to .Sig social/cultural reasons for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 2.65 211 0.05 students from different faculties in relation to .Sig economic barriers for attending university. Are there different points of view between female 1.04 212 0.37 students from different faculties in relation to .Not sig social/cultural barriers for attending university.

Summary and conclusions:

These findings highlight the following points about what the respondents think:

1. While both the economic and social/cultural considerations were important

19 reasons for participating in HE, in the opinion of both sexes, female students

placed more emphasis on the social/cultural reasons.

2. There was no significant difference regarding the economic reasons between

female student in terms of rural and urban origin, different social class, year of

study, students’ mark, and different faculties. In other words, the economic

reasons were important to them to attending university. The only significant

difference was between day and night attendance, where day time students placed

more emphasis on economic reasons.

3. There were no significant differences concerning the social/cultural reasons

among female students in terms of day and night sessions, rural and urban origin,

different, year of study, students’ mark, and among students in different faculties.

The only significant difference between students was in terms of social class,

where the social/cultural reasons were more important, in the view of lower social

class students, for studying at university. However, social and cultural reasons

were also important reasons in the standpoints of all different groups.

4. The economic barriers, which were related to the future employment of students,

were important barriers in the views of both female and male students. Also, there

were no significant differences among students in terms of day and night sessions,

rural and urban origin, different social class, year of study, and students’ mark,

except among female students at the faculty of agriculture who believed these

barriers were more important.

5. Finally, all the students including male and female, day and night sessions, rural

and urban origin, different social class, year of study, students’ mark, and different

faculties believed that they are not faced with significant social/cultural barriers

20 whilst studying at universities. In other words, the social/cultural barriers, which

were designed in the questionnaire, on the basis of different questions about the

problems and barriers that students might face during their studies at university

were not significant. One possible reason for this is related to providing more

educational opportunity for rural people by state policy regarding the quota

system for student admission to entry to university. The other possible reason is

related to the promotion of literacy level and general social awareness of people in

post-revolution in Iran which is believed access to general education and HE may

affect on the social development. This shows that their social and cultural

demands for participating in universities have been partly addressed by the state’s

policy regarding HE expansion in Iran. Although it should be stressed that this

conclusion only applies to those currently at university. This conclusion applies to

all year groups is encouraging because it suggests that once at university these

potential barriers have less influence than previously. This says nothing about

those who may wanted to go to university but have found it difficult or impossible

to do so.

Bell (1993) points out that, the aim of a survey was to obtain information which can be analysed and form patterns which can be extracted and comparisons made. He explains further that surveys can provide answers to the questions what? where? when? and how? But it is not so easy to find out why? In order to seek for explanations we need therefore, to do qualitative research.

It also should be noted that, every individual’s explanation can be analysed in a wider spectrum and that sometimes it depends on a number of factors outside the control of

21 the individual: the role of policy makers to supply higher education (supply side); economic, social, cultural and political conditions of society.

So, in order to understand this process, it would be helpful if the process was illustrated as a spectrum, where the students’ viewpoints are located on the one side

(demand side). On the other side of the spectrum will be placed the viewpoints of senior educational policy makers that play key roles in the process of HE expansion in

Iran (supply side). In other words, by students’ viewpoints we are only able to explain some of the reasons for students’ participation in universities, but we are not able to explain the expansion of HE in the society as a whole. Therefore, in order to draw better conclusions regarding the views of the women students, that have been shown, we need to look at the view form policy makers, so that we can compare their responses. This will be the subject of the future researches that needs to be done.

References:

Abercrombie, N. and Warde, A. (2000) Contemporary British society. Great Britain: Polity Press.

Ahmadi, B. (1997) Women in HE management, in Forghani, M. M. (ed) Higher education seminar. Vol. 1: 301-319, Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University Publication.

Altbach, P. G. (1991) Patterns in higher education development: toward the year 2000, The Review of higher Education, Vol. 14 (3): 239-316.

Altbach, P. G. (1998) Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. London: Ablex Publishing Coporation.

Amanno, M. (1997) Women in higher education. Higher Education. Vol. 34, No. 2.

Antler, J. (1982). Culture, service, and work: changing ideals of higher education for women. In Pamela, J. Perun. (ed) The undergraduate women: issues in educational equity.Lexington Books.

Archer, M. S. (1982) The sociology of educational expansion: take off, growth and inflation in educational systems. London: SAGE Publications.

22 Arnot, M. and et al. (1998) Recent research on gender and educational performance. London. The stationary office.

Ashraf, A. (1985) Sociology of social class in America. Tehran: Institution of Study and Social Research.

Ashton, D. N. and Sung, J. (1994) The state, economic development and skill formation: a New Asian model? Leicester: Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester.

Bell, J. (1993) Doing your research project: A guide for first time researchers in education and social science, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Benavot, A. (1989) Education, gender, and economic development: A cross-national study, Sociology of education, Vol. 62: 14-32.

Boli, J. et al. (1985) Explaining the origins and Expansion of mass education, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 29: 145-170.

Bradley, K. (2000) The incorporation of women into higher education: paradoxical outcomes? Sociology of education, Vol. 73 (part 1): 1-18.

Brannen, J. (1992) Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Avebury: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Coats, M. (1994) Women’s Education. The society for research into Higher education & Open University Press.

Coombs, P.H. (1985) .The world crisis in education. Oxford University Press.

Cramer, D. (1998) Fundamental statistics for social research. London and New York: Routledge Press. de Vaus D. A. (1993) Surveys in social research. London: UCL Press.

Dubbeldam, l. F. B. (1990b) Culture, education and productive life in developing countries. In Boern, A. J. J. M; Epskam, P. Kees, P. (eds) Education, culture and productive life. The Hague, CESO.

Dubbeldam, l. F. B. (1994) Development, culture and education. In Dubbeldam, l. F. B. (eds.) International yearbook of education. Paris. UNESCO.

Dundar, H. & Haworth, J. (1993) Improving women’s access to higher education: A review of World Bank project experience. World Bank.

Elliott, C. M & et al. (1980) Introduction: Perspectives on the education of women in third world nations. Comparative Education Review. Vol. 29, No. 2, parts 2.

El-Sanabary N. (1993) Middle East and North Africa. In King Elizabeth M. and Hill M. Anne, (eds.) Women’s education in developing countries. Baltimore and London. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

23 El-Sanabary, N. (1989) Determinants of women's education in the Middle East and North Africa: illustrations from seven countries. World Bank. Washington Dc.

Fahim-Yahyahi, F. (1996) A study of the situation of unemployment with higher education degrees in Iran. Tehran: The Organization of Planning and Budget.

Farzin-nia, Z. (1995) The role of women’s education in the cultural development of Iran. The Journal of Foreign Policy, The institute for Political International Studies, Vol. 2, Year 9: 667-695.

Fatemi, P. (1997) Removing discrimination in education, Monthly Journal of Development Culture (In Persian), Feb. 1997: 64-67.

Faure, F. and et al. (1972) Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow. Paris. UNESCO.

Green, A. (1990) Education and state formation: the rise of systems in England, France, and USA, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.

Green, A. (1997) Education and state formation in Europe and Asia, in Kennedy, K. (ed) Citizenship educational and the modern state. London and Washington DC: The Falmer Press.

Green, A. (1999) East Asian skill formation systems and the challenge of globalisation, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 12(3): 253-279.

Higgins, P. and Shoar-Ghattari, P. (1994) Women’s education in the Islamic Republic of Iran, In Afkhami, M. and Friedl, E. (eds) In the eye of the storm: women in post- revolutionary Iran,19-43, London & New York: Syracuse University Press.

Hurn, C. (1993) The limits and possibilities of schooling 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Third edition.

INST (1985) Higher education expansion in Asia. Report from the 1985 international seminar on Asian higher education Hiroshima Japan, INST for Higher education BB112 61. 28-31 Jan. 1985 Research Institute for HE Hiroshima University.

Iraji-Zad, (1995) Women, science, industry, and development. Tehran: Bureau of Women’s Affairs Office of the President of the Republic.

Iraji-Zad, A. et al. ( 1997) Study of women’s participation in higher education in Iran, in Forghani, M. M. (ed) Higher education seminar. Vol. 1, Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University Publication: 349-371.

24 Kelly, G. P. (1991) Women and higher education, in Altbach, P. G. (ed) international higher education: an encyclopaedia. Vol. 1, 297-323, Chicago and London: St James Press.

Khazemi- Pour, S. (1995) Social mobility and immigration in Tehran. Unpublished PhD thesis in sociology. Iran, Tehran: University of Tehran.

Maleki, A. (1996) A study of relation between socio-economic status of family and value attitudes of adolescents. A unpublished thesis presented for the Master of Art degree. Tehran: University of Tarbiat Modarres.

Marshall, C. (1997) Feminist critical policy analysis II: A perspective from post- secondary education. London. The Falmer Press.

Meyer, L. et al. (1971) The world educational revolution, 1950-1970, Sociology of Education, 50 (4): 242-258.

Morrison, (1997) The role of open universities and distance education in increasing access and equity in higher education using the experience of the open university of Tanzania. A paper for an UNESCO consultation meeting, Nairobi, Feb. 12-14.

MSRT (1999) Statistics of higher education in Iran 1998-99. Tehran: Institution of Research and Higher Educational Planning.

Noroozi, D. and et al. (1986) A study about students cultural, economic, and social status in university of Mazandaran. Mazandaran University.

Poya, M. (1999) Women, work, and Islamism. London & New York: Zed Book Ltd.

Press.

Psacharopoulos, G. (1992) Returns to education: A further international update and implications. In Blaug, M. The economic value of education. England. Edward Elgar.

Psacharropoulos, G. and Arriagada, A (1986) The Educational composition of labour force. International Labour Review 125.

Ramirez, F. O. & Boli, J. (1987) The political construction of mass schooling: European origins and worldwide institutionalisation, Sociology of education, Vol. 60: 2-17. Ramirez, F. O. and Rubinson, R. (1979) Creating members: the political incorporation and expansion of public education, in Meyer, J. and Hannan, M. (eds) National development and the world system, 72-84, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ramirez, F. O. and Riddle, P. (1991) The expansion of higher education, in Altbach, P. G. (ed) international higher education: an encyclopaedia. Vol. 1, Chicago and London: St James Press.

Reid, E. (1991) Access and institutional change. In Schuller, T. The future of higher education. Bristol, SRHE and Open University Press.

25 Sabohi, F. and Firouz-Kohi, T. (1996) An analysis on the students view in relation to their future occupation. Tehran: Plan and Budget Organisation Publication.

Sadovnik, A. (1994) Equity and Excellence in higher education. New York. Peter Lang.

Salehi, E. (2001) A Study of the Expansion of Higher Education in Iran with Particular Reference to Women’s Participation. A Ph D thesis. Bath: University of Bath.

Salehi, E. (2002) A Study of the Expansion of Higher Education in Iran with Particular Reference to Women’s Participation. The Journal of Humanities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Vol. 9. No. 4

Sayari, A. A. (1994). Analysis on the problems in higher education in Iran. Research and Planning in Higher Education. Number 1. Year 2.

Schultz T. Paul, (1993) Returns to women’s education. In King Elizabeth M. And Hill M. Anne, (eds) Women’s education in developing countries. Baltimore and London. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

UNESCO (1997) Consolidated declarations and plans of action of the regional conferences on higher education held in Havana, Dakar, Tokyo and Palermo. Division of Higher Education. UNESCO.

UNESCO (1997). Consolidated declarations and plans of action of the regional conferences on higher education held in Havana, Dakar, Tokyo and Palermo. Division of Higher Education. UNESCO.

Windolf, P. (1992) Cycles of expansion in higher education 1870-1985: an international comparison, Higher Education, No. 23: 3-19.

Windolf, P. (1997) Expansion and structural change: higher education in Germany, the United States, and Japan, 1870-1990. Oxford: Westview Press.

Woodhall, M. (1973) Investment in women: A reappraisal of the concept of human capital, international Review of Education, Spring, 9-29.

World Bank (2000) Higher education in developing countries: peril and promise. Washington, DC: World Bank. Http://tfhe.net/

Appendix 1

Stratification of occupation prestige in Iran Social class Rank Job title Upper Upper Class Doctor, University Professor, Cabinet Minister, Dentist, Ambassador, Civil Engineer, Provincial Governor, Pilot,

26 Judge, Director general, Factory Owner, Member of ,Parliament, Governor, Mayer, lawyer, Brigadier Upper Class Colonel, Businessmen, Bank manger, Jeweller, Agricultural Engineer, Editor of Newspaper, artist and Painter, High School Teacher, A member of a board of company, Radio and TV presenter, Hotel proprietor, Carpet/rug seller, Journalist, ,Owner of printing shop Middle Class Clergy, Laboratory technician, Head of Islamic revolutionary guard, primary school teacher, Book seller, Contractor, airplane steward, factory foreman, restaurant owner, auxiliary nurse, turner, mechanic, A guard of Islamic revolutionary, lathe operator, grocer, literacy campaign, government ,employee, Marty foundation employee Lower Class Farmer, carpenter, fast food seller, watchman, locomotive driver, gardener, carpet-weaver, bakery, welder, typist, postman, mason, shoe maker, barber, telephone operator, bath keeper, plumber, taxi diver, truck driver, factory worker, ,miner, samovar, restaurant’s chef Lower lower Class Broke oil seller, gas station attendant, shepherd, café owner, office janitor, street sweeper, construction labourer, street .vendor, shoe shiner

(Sources: Khazemi-Pour (1995) and Maleki (1996

The frequencies table and Bar Chart of women and men students according to their fathers’ job at Uuniversity of Mazandaran

boj rehtaF

dilaVevitalumuC ycneuqerF tnecreP tnecreP tnecreP dilaV repU reppU 11 7.2 1.3 1.3 repU 41 5.3 9.3 0.7 elddiM 632 4.85 3.66 3.37 rewoL 08 8.91 5.22 8.59 rewol rewoL 51 7.3 2.4 0.001 latoT 653 1.88 0.001 gnissiM metsyS 84 9.11 latoT 404 0.001

27 boj rehtaF 003

r repU reppU repU elddiM rew oLrew ol rew oL e q u

boj rehtaFe n c y

The frequencies table and Bar chart of women students according to their fathers’ job at Uuniversity of Mazandaran

boj rehtaF

dilaVevitalumuC ycneuqerF tnecreP tnecreP tnecreP dilaV repU reppU 9 1.4 6.4 6.4 repU 11 0.5 6.5 2.01 elddiM 351 2.96 1.87 3.88 rewoL 12 5.9 7.01 0.99 rewol rewoL 2 9. 0.1 0.001 latoT 691 7.88 0.001 gnissiM metsyS 52 3.11 latoT 122 0.001

28 boj rehtaF 002

r repU reppU repU elddiM rew oLrew ol rew oL e q u

boj rehtaFe n c y