The 'Gender Dimension' of both the 'Narrow' and 'Broad' Curriculum in UK Higher Education: Do women lose out in both?

Abstract

This article draws on data from a qualitative research study undertaken in an old UK university. The main aim of the study was to measure the impact of gender issues on the university campus, an important part of which was the issue of the curriculum. Individuals were found to operate either a 'narrow' or 'broad' definition of the term 'curriculum'. In either case, there was found to be a 'gender dimension' involved. In male-dominated disciplines a 'narrow' definition of the term 'curriculum' was predominantly in use-appropriate discipline content and an unproblematic body of knowledge, which is to be transferred to students largely by lecturing. The difficulties to be overcome in order to undertake a gender-sensitive evaluation of the curriculum in these departments stemmed from the evaluations of the staff of what the problem was and where it was located. In disciplines that accepted a broader definition, which included the 'informal' curriculum, the gendered division of labour in the domestic sphere was repeated in the university, with the result that the division 'rational/emotional' became an aspect of the masculine/feminine divide. Men as well as women felt that men were less inclined to undertake the emotion work involved in supporting student learning. In this male-dominated society, 'emotion work' such as the pastoral support of students remained virtually invisible, and went largely unrewarded.