University of Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez

ISSN: 2309-8333

RNPS: 2411

|14|2026|

This is an Open Access article under the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU

Scientific and technological

research article

How to cite:

Niebla Moreno, S. Y. (2026).

Formal parity and hierarchical gaps:

feminization index in autonomous

universities in northwestern Mexico.

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria

, 14,

e9199.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22306432

Received: 21/07/2026

Accepted: 04/09/2026

Published: 17/09/2026

Corresponding author:

samanthaniebla@uas.edu.mx

Conflict of interest:

the authors declare

that they have no conflict of interest,

which may have influenced the results

obtained or the proposed interpretations

Formal parity and hierarchical gaps:

feminization index in autonomous

universities in northwestern Mexico

Paridad formal y brechas jerárquicas:

índice de feminización en universidades

autónomas del noroeste de México

Paridade formal e lacunas hierárquicas:

índice de feminização em universidades

autônomas do noroeste do México

Abstract

Introduction: in higher education institutions, formal parity

does not guarantee an equivalent distribution of power within

governance structures. Objective: to analyze the gaps

between institutional commitments to gender equality and

the representation of women in university governance

positions at four universities in northwest Mexico. Method: a

descriptive documentary study was conducted in which

institutional normative frameworks, organizational charts,

and official directories available as of July 2025 were

reviewed; 258 positions were counted, the percentage of

female distribution and the feminization index were

calculated, and a structural parity map was constructed by

university and hierarchical level. Results: women held 109

positions, representing 42.25%, while men held 149 positions,

representing 57.75%; the overall feminization index was 73.15

women per 100 men. Conclusion: no institution achieved

parity, and gaps widened at higher authority levels; therefore,

university parity should be analyzed as a distribution of power

rather than merely the presence of women.

Keywords: higher education, university governance, gender

equality, gender parity, vertical segregation

Resumen

Introducción: en las instituciones de educación superior, la

paridad formal no garantiza una distribución equivalente del

poder en sus estructuras de gobierno.

Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6791-2088

samanthaniebla@uas.edu.mx

México

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria

ISSN

: 2309-8333

RNPS:

2411

| Vol. 14|2026|

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

Objetivo:

analizar las brechas entre los compromisos institucionales de igualdad

de género y la representación de las mujeres en cargos de gobierno universitario

en cuatro universidades del noroeste de México.

Método:

se realizó un estudio

documental de alcance descriptivo, donde se revisaron los marcos normativos

institucionales, organigramas y directorios oficiales disponibles a julio de 2025;

se contabilizaron 258 cargos, se calculó el porcentaje de distribución femenina y

el índice de feminización, y se construyó un mapa de paridad estructural por

universidad y nivel jerárquico. Resultados: las mujeres ocuparon 109 puestos que

representa el 42.25 %, mientras que para los hombres fueron 149 representando

el 57.75 %; el índice general de feminización fue de 73.15 mujeres por cada 100

hombres.

Resultados:

la productividad investigativa no constituye un resultado

exclusivamente individual ni puede explicarse únicamente por la motivación, la

formación o la trayectoria profesional del docente.

Conclusión:

ninguna

institución alcanzó la paridad y las brechas se intensificaron en los niveles de

mayor autoridad, por lo que la paridad universitaria debe analizarse como

distribución del poder y no solo como presencia de mujeres.

Palabras clave:

educación superior, gobierno universitario, igualdad de género,

paridad de género, segregación vertical

Resumo

Introdução: nas instituições de ensino superior, a paridade formal não garante

uma distribuição equivalente do poder em suas estruturas de governança.

Objetivo: analisar as lacunas entre os compromissos institucionais de igualdade

de gênero e a representação das mulheres em cargos de governo universitário em

quatro universidades do noroeste do México. Método: realizou‑se um estudo

documental de alcance descritivo, no qual foram revisados os marcos normativos

institucionais, organogramas e diretórios oficiais disponíveis em julho de 2025;

contabilizaram‑se 258 cargos, calculou‑se o percentual de distribuição feminina e

o índice de feminização, e construiu‑se um mapa de paridade estrutural por

universidade e nível hierárquico. Resultados: as mulheres ocuparam 109 cargos,

representando 42,25%, enquanto os homens ocuparam 149 cargos, representando

57,75%; o índice geral de feminização foi de 73,15 mulheres por cada 100 homens.

Conclusão: nenhuma instituição alcançou a paridade e as lacunas se

intensificaram nos níveis de maior autoridade; por isso, a paridade universitária

deve ser analisada como distribuição do poder e não apenas como presença de

mulheres.

Palavras-chave:

educação superior; governo universitário; igualdade de gênero;

paridade de gênero; segregação vertical

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

Introduction

The presence of women in higher education institutions (HEIs) has grown in

recent years, and in some settings, it now exceeds that of men. Yet this progress is

not mirrored in the spaces where university leadership is exercised. Bringing more

women into the roles of student, instructor, and researcher does not, by itself,

translate into institutional integration on equal terms (Guizardi et al., 2024; Meza-

Mejía et al., 2023).

Understanding how women enter the power structures of HEIs requires

examining their position within the institutional hierarchy, the recognition they

receive, and their capacity to make decisions (Buquet et al., 2013). Meza-Mejía et

al. (2023) caution that studying gender equity in higher education demands attention

to women's participation in leadership and decision-making spaces, spaces that also

determine how resources are allocated and how career trajectories unfold within

universities.

Evidence shows that the exact position women occupy within the university

hierarchy shapes both their decision-making capacity and their access to spaces of

academic prestige (Meza-Mejía et al., 2023; Kaymakcioglu & Thomas, 2024). Rondon

Pereira et al. (2025) note that the constraints limiting women's access to academic

leadership persist, and that institutional reforms and policies are needed to open

opportunities and support women's advancement.

The United Nations (UN) embedded the commitment to gender equality in

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5, which aims to eliminate structural

inequalities between women and men, ensure equitable access to education, and

promote women's participation in leadership positions (ONU, 2015). The problem is

global, and it emerges clearly in studies documenting various forms of segregation

elsewhere, where women academics describe structural and cultural barriers that

restrict their access to senior posts (Gaus et al., 2023).

In Mexico, reforms such as the 2019 measure known as ‘parity in everything’

established the principle of parity in public office (Diario Oficial de la Federación

[DOF], 2019). In 2021, the General Law of Higher Education mandated that HEIs

promote substantive equality and guarantee environments free of gender-based

violence (DOF, 2021).

Lagarde (1997) argues that autonomy is not achieved through formal

recognition alone; it also requires social conditions, operational mechanisms, and

political recognition to be exercised in practice. In other words, the mere existence

of regulations does not eliminate inequality; parity cannot be reduced to a normative

declaration, it demands scrutiny of how power is distributed and which conditions

enable or constrain women's participation.

Vertical segregation captures the differences in how women and men are

concentrated across levels of authority within an organizational structure. This

inequality is linked to the so-called glass ceiling: the visible and invisible barriers

that limit women's access to higher-level positions even when they possess sufficient

experience, training, and career trajectory (Hernández Herrera, 2024; Meza-Mejía

et al., 2023).

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara et al. (2023) show that women's access to power

in Mexican universities remains mediated by organizational, familial, and gender-

based obstacles, and argue that hierarchical gaps stem not merely from individual

decisions but from institutional conditions that regulate how women and men reach

positions of authority.

UNESCO IESALC (2021) points to a disconnect between the feminization of

enrollment, women's access to the university, and the masculinization of decision-

making spaces. Blanco (2025) warns that, despite normative progress,

discrimination, segregation, and inequality persist and continue to affect women's

academic and professional development. Likewise, the growing presence of women

in academia is not reflected in their representation in university leadership and

management positions (Yahya et al., 2024).

These inequalities have been documented across Latin America and the

Caribbean by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE,

2025), which finds that gender differences persist in access to fields of study, labor

market participation, earnings, and occupational distribution.

In Sinaloa's public HEIs in Mexico, women's participation in senior positions

continues to fall short of parity, even in institutions where women have a substantial

presence overall (Niebla Moreno et al., 2024). This finding aligns with Hernández

Ortiz (2025), who argues that gender inequality persists despite the existence of

legal and institutional frameworks oriented toward equality.

In northwestern Mexico, this configuration is no accident; it reflects a

specific history of how university power has been constructed. Examining women's

access to rectorates, secretariats, general directorates, coordination offices, and

academic directorates makes it possible to observe how they are represented in the

positions that shape institutional policy, resources, and projects. From this

standpoint, analyzing women's autonomy becomes central, as it highlights the need

for women to have the capacity and conditions to make decisions and to take part

in the spaces where matters affecting the collective are defined (Aranda, 2021). This

background confirms the need to examine parity not merely as a normative mandate,

but in terms of how power is organized within university structures.

This study examines the gaps between institutional commitments to gender

equality and women's representation in senior positions at four autonomous

universities in northwestern Mexico: the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa (UAS), the

Universidad Autónoma de Occidente (UAdeO), the Universidad de Sonora (UNISON),

and the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (UABC). These institutions were

selected for their regional relevance and for the availability of up-to-date official

documentation, including equality programs, protocols, and organizational charts.

This study aims to highlight the need for disaggregated data on women's

participation in higher education, particularly across dimensions such as leadership,

enrollment, teaching, working conditions, and STEM fields, as suggested by UNESCO

IESALC (2025). The analysis by hierarchical level seeks to generate evidence on the

distribution of power within HEIs in northwestern Mexico.

Beyond mere presence and parity, this study seeks to locate women within

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

the university structure and to identify the spaces where female representation

approaches balance and those where gaps persist in access to strategic decision-

making positions. To this end, the study calculates the female distribution index and

the feminization index, and constructs a structural parity map by institution and

level of authority.

Methods and materials

This study is based on a descriptive documentary design intended to compare

institutional discourses on equality with the actual distribution of power within

universities. The institutions included were UAS, UAdeO, UABC, and UNISON.

Inclusion criteria required that institutions be public and autonomous, and that

verifiable official information be available through institutional or transparency

portals as of a July 2025 cutoff date.

The study was carried out in two phases. The first involved reviewing

normative and institutional documents related to gender equality, violence

prevention, the creation of specialized units, service protocols, institutional

programs, and monitoring mechanisms. For each of the four universities, the

available official documents that allowed comparison across these dimensions were

selected. Agreements, regulations, programs, protocols, and monitoring documents

were reviewed because they provide information on the existence of formal

structures, responsible parties, goals, indicators, and implementation mechanisms.

Informational materials, news items, and documents lacking normative value were

excluded, as they did not allow for a consistent comparison across universities.

To identify the individuals holding each position, the study first drew on the

directories of public servants available through the Plataforma Nacional de

Transparencia for the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (2025a), the

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa (2025b), and the Universidad de Sonora (2025d).

In the case of the Universidad Autónoma de Occidente, the corresponding request

yielded a report of vacant and filled positions rather than a nominal directory

(Plataforma Nacional de Transparencia, 2025c); accordingly, the identification of

position holders was supplemented with the institutional organizational chart

available on that university's official website (Universidad Autónoma de Occidente,

2025).

In parallel, the institutional organizational charts in effect as of the July

2025 cutoff were analyzed for all four universities (Universidad Autónoma de Baja

California, 2023a; Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, 2025; Universidad Autónoma de

Occidente, 2025; Universidad de Sonora, 2025), in order to establish each position's

hierarchical standing relative to the Rectorate and its level of subordination within

the governance structure. This analysis made it possible to reconcile differing

institutional labels that correspond to equivalent functions, and on this basis the six

hierarchical levels used in the study were constructed: rectorate, general

secretariats and vice-rectorates, general directorates, institutional coordination

offices, deputy directorates, and academic unit directorates.

During the second phase, the analysis focused on counting the positions

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

associated with power and decision-making identified through publicly available

organizational charts and official directories. For each position, the database

recorded the institution, the administrative area, the hierarchical level, the position

holder, and the sex identified on the basis of publicly available information. The

database was built from institutional organizational charts and directories in effect

or available through July 2025. A total of 258 positions were included, distributed

across six levels: rectorate; general secretariats and vice-rectorates; general

directorates; institutional coordination offices; deputy directorates; and academic

unit directorates.

Two indicators were used to analyze the participation of women and men

within the hierarchical structure: the Distribution Index (DI) and the Feminization

Index (FI).

Distribution Index (DI): defined as the proportion of positions held by women

relative to the total number of positions identified within each hierarchical category

and institution. Following Pérez and Garda (2009), this index is calculated from the

ratio between the number of women in a given sector or group and the total

population of that sector or group, multiplied by 100. In this study, it was calculated

using the following formula:

(Equation 1)

This indicator made it possible to determine women's internal share of

participation and to assess their integration at each institutional hierarchical level.

Feminization Index (FI): expresses women's representation relative to men

within each hierarchical level. This indicator is calculated from the ratio between

the number of women and the number of men in a given category or variable,

multiplied by 100 (Pérez & Garda, 2009). In this study, the following mathematical

expression was used:

(Equation 2)

A value of 100 indicates an equivalent relationship between women and men;

values below 100 indicate lower representation of women relative to men, while

values above 100 indicate greater relative representation of women. For the

purposes of this study, a value of 100 was taken as the parity threshold.

The presentation of results followed a dual criterion, organized by institution

and by hierarchical level. A structural parity map was also constructed to show the

proportion of women at each level, in order to identify where female representation

approaches balance and where gaps persist in the distribution of university power.

Combining these approaches made it possible to describe how institutional equality

commitments relate to the actual composition of senior positions within universities.

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

The data available depend on the currency, transparency, and accessibility

of the organizational charts, directories, and other institutional documents

published by each university. Because of this constraint, the systematized database

of the 258 identified positions, classified by institution, sex, and hierarchical level,

is made available to the editorial committee for verification purposes, together with

the public information requests that support each record. Information retrieved from

these publicly accessible sources was compiled into a single database for

systematization and analysis; because institutional directories are updated over

time, some of the information originally consulted may since have been modified or

replaced. Classification by sex was carried out using publicly available information

about the individuals holding each position, and should therefore be understood as

a descriptive approximation rather than a substitute for gender self-identification

processes. The disaggregated counts by institution, sex, and hierarchical level are

presented in Table 4 and allow the calculated indicators to be verified.

Results and discussion

Institutionalization of gender equality at the universities analyzed

The existence of protocols or specialized units within universities does not,

on its own, indicate that gender equality has been institutionalized.

Institutionalization requires linking norms, programs, responsible parties, indicators,

monitoring mechanisms, and organizational conditions in ways that translate into

formal commitments and verifiable changes within the organization (Atães &

Carneiro, 2026). The review conducted here reveals differing levels of progress

among the universities analyzed.

In line with this, Echeverría Echeverría (2024), in analyzing the

achievements, obstacles, and challenges involved in promoting gender equality at

HEIs in south-southeastern Mexico, shows that institutional units, programs, and

actions represent genuine progress, while also revealing the limits they face when

they are not integrated transversally into university life, monitoring mechanisms,

and institutional inclusion processes.

The national legal framework establishes specific obligations for HEIs. Article

43, section VIII, of the General Law of Higher Education states that institutions must

promote measures to prevent, address, sanction, and eradicate all forms and

modalities of violence, particularly gender-based violence. It further requires the

development of diagnostic assessments, programs, and protocols, and mandates that

institutions have trained personnel and bodies empowered to act in such cases (DOF,

2021).

Among the institutions analyzed, the Universidad de Sonora (UNISON) shows

the highest level of formalization. It has maintained an Institutional Program for

Inclusion and Equity since 2013. This program incorporates institutional goals,

indicators, and designated officials, along with a protocol for responding to gender-

based violence and activities in training, outreach, and research on equality

(UNISON, 2021). Given these characteristics, its level of institutionalization can be

considered high.

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

The Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (UABC) formally established its

Gender, Diversity, and Educational Inclusion Unit in 2023. This unit coordinates

institutional actions related to equality and works in conjunction with the

Committees for the Prevention and Response to Gender-Based Violence across its

various campuses. UABC also maintains a mandatory institutional protocol that

defines a response pathway comprising initial contact, referral, accompaniment, and

follow-up (UABC, 2023b, 2024). However, no public evaluation reports or

consolidated monitoring indicators were identified, which places its level of

institutionalization in the medium range.

The Universidad Autónoma de Occidente (UAdeO) has maintained a protocol

for the prevention, response to, and sanctioning of gender-based violence since its

approval in 2023. Its normative framework establishes an institutional structure

comprising an Advisory Council and a Gender Equality Committee, together with an

Annual Gender Equity Program that sets specific actions and goals, evaluation and

monitoring mechanisms, and annual reports (UAdeO, 2022, 2023). The public sources

consulted did not yield sufficient evidence of systematic publication of these

programs, indicators, or monitoring reports, which places its level of

institutionalization in the medium range as well.

At the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa (UAS), the Center for Gender Policy

for Equality between Women and Men coordinates actions across the university's four

regional units. UAS has maintained overall institutional planning under its Gender

Equity Model since 2013, and in 2022 it approved a regulation to prevent, address,

sanction, and eradicate sexual violence; published in 2023, this regulation replaced

the previous protocol and elevated institutional responses to these cases to a

normative level (UAS, 2023). No quantitative goals, verifiable indicators, or

systematic public reports were identified at this university, which places its level of

institutionalization in the medium range.

To systematize and compare institutional progress, three dimensions were

considered across cases: the existence of formal normative documents, institutional

operability through goals, indicators, and designated officials, and the public

availability of information. Table 1 summarizes the variations by institution.

Table 1

Level of institutionalization, strengths, and main challenges at HEIs in northwestern

Mexico

University

Level of

institutionalization

Strengths Main challenges

UAS Medium Specialized center,

committees,

protocol in force.

No public goals or

indicators; no

systematic

evaluation.

UAdeO Medium Institutional

regulation and

Limited public

evidence of

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

protocol; equality

structure and

monitoring

mechanisms.

systematic

implementation and

monitoring.

UNISON High Formal program,

defined indicators,

public information.

Mainstreaming across

all levels.

UABC Medium

Formalized unit,

protocol, and

committees.

No public evaluation.

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Implementation gaps and challenges for equality

There has been progress in formalizing gender equality instruments, albeit

at differing levels of development. This progress does not, on its own, guarantee a

transformation in the spheres of university power. The principal gap lies between

the existence of normative commitments and the capacity to influence the processes

that govern the distribution of positions, authority, and institutional recognition.

Kaymakcioglu and Thomas (2024) note that changes in the distribution of

power occur when equality programs and policies are accompanied by adjustments

to the processes of appointing, promoting, and evaluating academic authorities.

Accordingly, one of the challenges identified in the region is the failure to integrate

equality instruments (protocols, centers, or units) into Institutional Development

Plans (IDPs), together with their disconnection from the processes of appointing,

promoting, or designating senior officials. Likewise, the absence of measurable goals

and of institutional officials empowered to impose sanctions limits the extent to

which formal commitments can be translated into actions capable of transforming

organizational culture or altering existing hierarchies.

There is also limited systematization of information and restricted

availability of up-to-date data on women's participation in senior university

hierarchies. UNISON represents the most consolidated case; for the remaining HEIs

in the region, no periodic diagnostic assessments, annual reports, or impact

evaluations were systematically located that would allow progress or setbacks in

gender equality to be tracked over time.

Although the creation of protocols or gender units represents progress, it

does not automatically alter patterns of access to positions of authority or reduce

vertical segregation. Analyzing gender inequality in universities requires looking

beyond parity and the number of women holding positions; it requires identifying

the levels at which they are concentrated and the decision-making capacity they

hold within those spaces.

In Mexico, the legal framework formed by the General Law of Higher

Education (DOF, 2021), the General Law for Equality between Women and Men, and

the General Law on Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence, both amended as of

December 16, 2024 (DOF, 2024), together with the international commitments

assumed by the Mexican State (UN, 2015), provides a legal basis that obliges HEIs to

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

foster democratic environments, promote parity in participation, and adopt

affirmative measures to eliminate structural discrimination.

Achieving substantive equality requires periodic diagnostic assessments

disaggregated by sex and hierarchical level, institutional parity targets, monitoring

indicators, transparent appointment and evaluation criteria, and training and

mentoring initiatives capable of strengthening women's academic trajectories

toward positions of greater responsibility. Such measures would help narrow the

distance between formal equality commitments and the actual configuration of

university power.

This lack of follow-up is also evident in other university contexts, where the

systematic production of data on women's leadership has been identified as a

condition that makes inequalities visible and helps guide strategies for institutional

change (Meza-Mejía et al., 2023).

Distribution of women in university leadership positions

The quantitative analysis made it possible to identify the distribution of

women and men across university governance positions at the four institutions

examined. To this end, the positions listed in organizational charts and official

directories available as of July 2025 were counted. In total, 258 positions were

analyzed (N = 258), distributed across the four universities included in the study and

classified by sex and hierarchical level.

As established methodologically, positions were categorized into six

comparable hierarchical levels: rectorate (level 1), general secretariats and vice-

rectorates (level 2), general directorates (level 3), institutional coordination offices

(level 4), deputy directorates (level 5), and academic unit directorates (level 6).

Table 2 presents the absolute count of positions by institution, disaggregated by sex,

along with the overall percentage of participation and female distribution:

Table 2

Positions by sex and institution at HEIs in northwestern Mexico

Institution

Female

Male

Total

% Female

% Male

UABC

41.46

58.54

UADEO

UAS

108

42.59

57.41

UNISON

46.43

53.57

Total

109

149

258

Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the count of positions recorded in the

official organizational charts and directories of UAS, UAdeO, UNISON, and UABC,

available as of the July 2025 cutoff.

The statistical results show that none of the four universities achieves a

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

balanced distribution of women and men across the set of governance positions

analyzed. In aggregate terms, women hold 109 of the 258 positions identified in the

region (42.25%), while men account for the majority, with 149 positions (57.75%).

By institution, UNISON shows the highest share of female participation, at

46.43%, followed by UAS at 42.59%, UABC at 41.46%, and UAdeO, which shows the

greatest lag, at 40%. The percentage differences among institutions are not

especially pronounced; nonetheless, all four fall below the 50% mark.

These figures offer an initial approximation of the object of study; as Buquet

et al. (2013) caution, women's presence in higher education must be examined in

relation to their position within spaces recognized for prestige and vested with

power. Kohtamäki et al. (2024) report similar findings in international studies,

showing that women's presence in leadership positions remains below numerical

parity even in institutions with equality policies in place.

Feminization index and structural parity

To analyze gender gaps within university hierarchical structures and their

distance from numerical balance, the sex-based distribution index and the

feminization index were calculated.

The Distribution Index represents women's internal share of participation

relative to the total universe of positions within a given stratum or institution

(Equation 1). This indicator makes it possible to observe the relative weight of

women at each level.

The Feminization Index (FI), in turn, captures the direct ratio between the

absolute number of women and the absolute number of men within a specific

organizational category, multiplied by a factor of 100 (Equation 2).

The distribution index allows us to observe the relative weight of women

within the overall structure, while the feminization index directly compares the

relationship between women and men within each category analyzed. An FI value of

100 represents exact parity; values below 100 indicate underrepresentation of

women and a gender gap, while values above 100 indicate a female predominance

or feminization. Table 3 presents the values obtained for both indicators by

university.

Table 3

General gender indicators in university governance positions

Institution Women Men Positions

Distribution

Index

Feminization

Index

UABC

41.46

70.83

UAdeO

66.67

UAS

108

42.59

74.19

UNISON

46.43

86.67

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

Total

109

149

258

42.25

73.15

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The index results show that none of the universities achieves parity within

its formal governance structures. In terms of the feminization index, UNISON shows

the highest value and comes closest to balance, with 86.67 women for every 100

men, followed by UAS at 74.19, UABC at 70.83, and UAdeO at 66.67 women per 100

men. Across the four institutions combined, the overall index stands at 73.15.

These figures indicate that female underrepresentation is not an isolated

occurrence within a single organization, but rather a structural trend shared across

the region. UNISON comes closest to balance, yet all four institutions remain below

the parity threshold (FI = 100).

When women's position within the institutional hierarchy is examined more

closely, the inequality becomes more apparent, since overall presence alone does

not reveal whether the positions held correspond to strategic, decision-making roles

or to more operational levels.

In this regard, Guizardi et al. (2024) and Meza-Mejía et al. (2023) note that

a greater presence of women in higher education does not translate into an equitable

distribution of positions of authority. The analysis of women's presence at the

university must therefore go beyond quantitative terms and take into account their

location within the spaces where prestige, institutional recognition, and decision-

making converge (Buquet et al., 2013).

Hierarchical gaps in the distribution of power at universities

The disaggregated analysis by hierarchical level shows that women's

participation is not distributed evenly across university governance structures.

Although the aggregate percentages point to a substantial presence of women,

disaggregation by level of authority reveals differences in their placement within

positions of authority and exposes the pattern of vertical segregation. Table 4 sets

out the distribution of the 258 positions classified by level, sex, and institution:

Table 4

Distribution of positions by hierarchical level, sex, and institution

Institution

Positions

UABC

UAdeO

UAS

108

UNISON

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

The data show that level 1 (the rectorate), the space that concentrates the

university's highest legal, political, and symbolic authority, constitutes the most

critical point of hierarchical gender gap in the region; only UNISON currently has a

woman holding this position.

Level 2 comprises general secretariats and vice-rectorates, positions that

drive the operation and direction of institutional policy. Its composition offers a view

of how power is distributed within a strategic zone of the university structure. Among

the differences observed, UABC and UAdeO reach 66.67%, UNISON stands at 40.00%,

and UAS shows the widest gap, at 22.22%.

At level 3, which includes general directorates and concentrates positions

with a heavy operational and technical load, women's presence is more consistent,

though still uneven. At UABC the figure reaches 66.67%, at UNISON 57.14%; UAS

approaches formal balance at 48.72%, while UAdeO reports 45.45%.

At levels 4 and 5, female participation reaches or exceeds numerical balance

in some institutions, while remaining below parity in others. Women's presence at

the intermediate levels of the institutional structure thus does not follow a uniform

pattern.

At level 6, where academic unit directorates are located, female

participation remains below parity across all four institutions: 40% at UABC, 33.33%

at UAdeO, 40.74% at UAS, and 25% at UNISON. At this level, academic units

concentrate decisions related to school management, the organization of teaching

staff, collegiate life, and the day-to-day conduct of academic affairs.

The differences described across all levels are presented graphically in a

structural parity map corresponding to the percentage share of women by level and

institution, shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Percentage of women by hierarchical level and institution

Institution

UABC

0.00 %

66.67 %

25.00 %

26.32 %

40.00 %

UAdeO

0.00 %

66.67 %

45.45 %

25.00 %

33.33 %

UAS

0.00 %

22.22 %

48.72 %

66.67 %

50.00 %

40.74 %

UNISON

100.00 %

40.00 %

57.14 %

33.33 %

75.00 %

25.00 %

Regional average

of women

25.00% 40.00% 51.81 % 35.71 % 34.48 % 38.89 %

Source: Author’s own elaboration. Note. The percentages correspond to the

proportion of women relative to the total number of positions at each level. The

regional percentage was calculated in aggregate form from the total number of

women and positions across the four institutions.

Figure 1 presents the structural parity map as a heat matrix. The visual

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

gradient makes it possible to distinguish organizational levels that approach balance

from those where female underrepresentation is more pronounced.

Figure 1

Structural parity map by university and hierarchical level

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Note. Unified representation based on the percentage of women by hierarchical

level. Values close to 50% indicate greater numerical balance; lower values reflect

female underrepresentation, and higher values indicate female predominance at the

level analyzed.

The results suggest that formal parity does not automatically translate into

structural parity within university governing bodies. Although all four universities

have instruments related to gender equality in place, the distribution of positions

shows that the highest levels of authority remain spaces where women have a

comparatively smaller presence.

This indicates that democratization and equality cannot be assessed solely

on the basis of the existence of protocols, regulations, gender units, or statements

of principle. They must be examined in terms of the actual capacity of these

instruments to reshape the organization of power within the university. A range of

studies warn that the institutionalization of equality can coexist with persistent

inequalities in university leadership, recognition, and representation (O'Connor,

2023; Blanco, 2025; Buquet et al., 2013; Imhoff et al., 2024).

The results of this study should not be read solely as a percentage difference

between women and men, but rather as an expression of an institutional structure

in which female presence has yet to achieve an equivalent distribution across all

levels of authority. Vertical segregation reflects this asymmetric ordering: the

uneven distribution of women and men along an institutional hierarchical axis along

which formal authority, symbolic capital, and economic rewards are arranged in

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

pyramidal fashion (Buquet et al., 2013).

Escobar-Jiménez (2022) identifies this segregation, showing that the

incorporation of women into mid-level positions does not necessarily carry over into

higher-ranking posts such as rectorates. Rectorates, secretariats, general

directorates, and academic unit directorates are not equivalent or interchangeable

positions; each concentrates a different level of formal authority, symbolic capital,

and capacity to influence university life.

Evaluating university equity solely through aggregate global percentages

oversimplifies the problem and obscures the core spaces in which traditional male

power is exercised and preserved. The structural parity map in Figure 1 makes this

positional inequality visible. Although universities such as UNISON, UAS, and UABC

report overall rates of female participation in leadership above 41%, women are

concentrated in intermediate administrative management spaces (such as level 3) or

in operational coordination roles subordinate to the directives of senior governing

bodies. Rectorates, by contrast, remain 75% held by men across the region.

Imhoff et al. (2024) show that vertical segregation in the university setting

becomes apparent when women's presence is concentrated in particular segments of

the structure, while positions of greater hierarchy, dedication, or political

representation retain an uneven distribution. This reading is relevant for interpreting

the regional results presented here.

Studies such as that of Niebla Moreno et al. (2024), on women's leadership

at HEIs, find that only 36.5% of senior-level positions were held by women academics,

despite the fact that these institutions operate within a higher education system

marked by exponential growth in both enrollment and the female teaching staff.

Díaz (2022) and Hernández Herrera (2024) link these gaps to cultural

expectations, organizational biases, glass ceilings, and the legitimacy criteria

attached to the exercise of leadership. From this perspective, the problem must be

understood in terms of the conditions that enable or constrain the recognition of

women as legitimate holders of authority. Khan et al. (2025) examine glass ceilings

within HEIs and observe that the barriers to women's advancement in academic

careers operate simultaneously at the normative, organizational, and cultural levels.

From a political reading of women's autonomy, Lagarde (1997) argues that

autonomy is neither achieved nor produced through formal declaration alone; it

requires social conditions, operational mechanisms, recognition, and agreements

that make its exercise possible. Aranda (2021), for her part, notes that women's

autonomy entails having the capacity and conditions to participate in the spaces

where matters affecting collective life are defined. Within HEIs, these spaces

correspond to the positions from which academic policy decisions are made and

resources, institutional priorities, and forms of governance are allocated.

Conclusions

The analysis of the gaps between institutional commitments to gender

equality and women's representation in university governance positions at four

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

autonomous universities in northwestern Mexico shows that these institutions have

made normative progress (through protocols, specialized units, centers,

committees, or programs) while nonetheless differing in their levels of

formalization, monitoring, and evaluation. The existence of institutional equality

frameworks is indispensable, yet it does not automatically translate into a parity-

based distribution of university power.

With respect to women's presence, the findings show that women hold 109

of the 258 positions analyzed, equivalent to 42.25%, while men hold 149 positions,

or 57.75%. The overall feminization index stood at 73.15 women for every 100 men,

confirming female underrepresentation in senior university leadership.

The disaggregation by hierarchical level shows that this inequality is

expressed not only in the overall number of women, but also in where they are

positioned within the structure. Vertical segregation is especially visible in

rectorates and in academic unit directorates.

Institutional mechanisms are needed that can shape the processes of

appointment, monitoring, evaluation, and transparency for leadership positions—

particularly at the levels where decision-making power is concentrated—so that

formal equality can genuinely support balanced access for women to the highest

spaces of authority.

This diagnosis points to the need to strengthen transparency at HEIs by

regularly publishing directories, organizational charts, and diagnostic assessments

disaggregated by sex, hierarchical level, and area of assignment. It is likewise

necessary to strengthen equality programs by incorporating quantitative parity

targets, monitoring indicators, and evaluation reports into strategic plans.

Finally, the limitations inherent to a documentary design point to the need

to deepen this line of research through qualitative studies and analyses of academic

career trajectories that would help clarify the institutional, symbolic, and

organizational conditions shaping women's access to, permanence in, and exercise

of authority within university governance positions. Such continuity would help

explain not only the magnitude of the gaps identified, but also the mechanisms that

produce and sustain them within university structures.

References

Aranda Friz, V. (2021). Las autonomías de las mujeres: Documento de la capacitación

“El reconocimiento del sujeto de derecho de las mujeres para el ejercicio

de sus autonomías”. FLACSO.

https://flacsolab.cl/wp-

content/uploads/2021/11/Las-Autonomias-de-las-Mujeres-1.pdf

Atães, D., y Carneiro, A. M. (2026). Estructuras y estrategias institucionales para la

equidad de género en universidades brasileñas. Revista Educación Superior

Y Sociedad (ESS), 37(2), 604-627. https://doi.org/10.54674/ess.v37i2.1030

Blanco, M.- del-P. (2025). Universidades hispanas y género: una aproximación desde

el estado del arte. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación Superior, 16(45),

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

159–178. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2025.45.1979

Buquet Corleto, A. G., Cooper, J. A., Mingo, A., & Moreno, H. (2013). Intrusas en la

universidad. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Programa

Universitario de Estudios de Género; Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la

Universidad y la Educación.

https://www.iisue.unam.mx/publicaciones/libros/intrusas-en-la-

universidad

Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2019, 6 de junio). Decreto por el que se reforman

los artículos 2o., 4o., 35, 41, 52, 53, 56, 94 y 115 de la Constitución Política

de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en materia de paridad entre géneros.

https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5562178&fecha=06/06/

2019

Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2021, 20 de abril). Ley General de Educación

Superior. Secretar

ía de Gobernación.

https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5616253&fecha=20/04/

2021#gsc.tab=0

Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2024, 16 de diciembre). Decreto por el que se

reforman y adicionan diversas disposiciones de la Ley General para la

Igualdad entre Mujeres y Hombres, de la Ley General de Acceso de las

Mujeres a una Vida Libre de Violencia y del Código Nacional de

Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares. Secretaría de Gobernación.

https://sidof.segob.gob.mx/notas/5745427

Díaz, R. E. (2022). Valores de liderazgo femenino en estudiantes mexicanas de

posgrado, School Leadership Review. 16(1), Artículo 10.

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol16/iss1/10

Echeverría Echeverría, R. (2024). Igualdad de género e inclusión social en

universidades públicas del sur-sureste mexicano. La Ventana. Revista de

Estudios de Género, 7(59), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.32870/lv.v7i59.7726

Escobar-Jiménez, C. (2022). Paridad de género entre las autoridades del sistema de

educación superior ecuatoriano. Íconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 26(74),

139–158. https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.74.2022.5246

Gaus, N., Larada, N., Jamaluddin, S., Paramma, M. A., & Karim, A. (2023).

Understanding the emergence of females as leaders in academia: The

intersections of gender stereotypes, status and emotion. Higher Education

Quarterly. 77, 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12426

Guizardi, M., Gonzálvez, H., & Stefoni, C. (2024). Mulheres na academia latino-

americana: desigualdades de gênero nas ciências sociais do Chile, México,

Brasil e Argentina. Estudos Ibero-Americanos, 50(1), e44895.

https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-864X.2024.1.44895

Hernández Herrera, C. A. (2024). Las mujeres y el acceso al liderazgo. RIDE Revista

Iberoamericana Para La Investigación Y El Desarrollo Educativo, 15(29).

https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v15i29.2120

Hernández Ortiz, L. A. (2025). Paridad de género en la ANUIES. La persistente

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

desigualdad que enfrentan las mujeres en el sistema de educación superior.

Debate Feminista, 71, 147–186.

https://doi.org/10.22201/cieg.2594066xe.2025.71.2503

Imhoff, D., Saletti-Cuesta, L., Sosa, V., & Arcanio, M. Z. (2024). Desigualdades de

género y trabajo universitario: Indagación de la segregación vertical en una

universidad argentina. Diálogos sobre Educación. Temas Actuales en

Investigación Educativa, 15(29). https://doi.org/10.32870/dse.v0i29.1408

Kaymakcioglu, S. & Thomas, M., (2024). Gender inequalities and academic

leadership in Nigeria, South Africa and the United Kingdom: A systematic

literature review (2013–2023). Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101066

Khan, S., Malik, R., & Hussain, A. (2025). The unseen in the glass ceilings: Examining

women’s career advancement in higher education institutions through a

multi-level institutional lens. Human Resource Development International,

28(4), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2024.2342762

Kohtamäki, V., Zheng, G., & Jinia, N. (2024). Gender inequality in academic

leadership: Bangladesh, China and Finland. Higher Education Quarterly, 78,

78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12447

Lagarde y de los Ríos, M. (1997). Claves feministas para el poderío y la autonomía

de las mujeres. Puntos de Encuentro.

https://www.legisver.gob.mx/equidadNotas/publicacionLXIII/Marcela%20L

agarde%20-

%20Claves%20feministas%20para%20el%20poderio%20y%20la%20autonomia%2

0de%20las%20mujeres.pdf

Meza-Mejia, M. d. C., Villarreal-García, M. A., & Ortega-Barba, C. F. (2023). Women

and Leadership in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences,

12(10), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100555

Niebla Moreno, S. Y., Carrillo Montoya, T. del N. J., Urrea Zazueta, M. L., Tereso

Ramírez, L., & Castro Quiñónez, J. A. (2024). Presencia del liderazgo

femenino en las universidades públicas sinaloenses. Educación Superior y

Sociedad, 36(2), 272–294.

https://ess.iesalc.unesco.org/index.php/ess3/article/view/v36i2-sg-

5/6893

O’Connor, P. (2023). Is gendered power irrelevant in higher educational institutions?

Understanding the persistence of gender inequality. Interdisciplinary

Science Reviews, 48(4), 669–686.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2023.2253667

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura.

(2021). Informe de la UNESCO sobre la ciencia: La carrera contra el reloj

para un desarrollo más inteligente. UNESCO.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377250_spa

Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (2015). Transformar nuestro mundo: La Agenda

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible (Resolución A/RES/70/1). Asamblea

General de las Naciones Unidas. https://sdgs.un.org/es/2030agenda

Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico. (2025). Diferencias de

género en educación, habilidades y carreras STEM en América Latina y el

Caribe: Perspectivas de PISA y PIAAC. https://doi.org/10.1787/4ea07281-en

Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara, L. C., Navarro Hernández, M. D. R., & Cayeros López,

L. I. (2023). El difícil acceso de las mujeres al poder en universidades

mexicanas. Revista Colombiana De Ciencias Sociales, 14(1), 25–49.

https://doi.org/10.21501/22161201.3900

Pérez, M., y Garda, R. (2009). Guía metodológica para la elaboración de Indicadores

de Género. INMUJERES.

https://hombresporlaequidad.org/wp-

content/uploads/indicadores.pdf

Plataforma Nacional de Transparencia. (2025a). Directorio de servidores públicos de

la Universidad Autónoma de Baja California [Consulta de solicitud No.

45822].

https://consultapublicamx.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/?v=d&e=2&y

=2025&s=682&f=solicitudes&m=45822

Plataforma Nacional de Transparencia. (2025b). Directorio de servidores públicos de

la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa [Consulta de solicitud No. 52635].

https://consultapublicamx.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/?v=d&e=25&

y=2025&s=4865&f=solicitudes&m=52635

Plataforma Nacional de Transparencia. (2025c). Plazas vacantes y ocupadas de la

Universidad Autónoma de Occidente [Consulta de solicitud No. 52639].

https://consultapublicamx.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/?v=d&e=25&

y=2025&s=4839&f=solicitudes&m=52639

Plataforma Nacional de Transparencia. (2025d). Directorio de servidores públicos de

la Universidad de Sonora [Consulta de solicitud No. 47389].

https://consultapublicamx.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/?v=d&e=26&

y=2025&s=5027&f=solicitudes&m=47389

Rondon Pereira, L. R., Maciel, C., & Guzman, I. R. (2025). Women’s academic

leadership in STEM: A systematic literature review on challenges,

opportunities and strategies. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2511825

UNESCO IESALC. (2021). Mujeres en la educación superior: ¿la ventaja femenina ha

puesto fin a las desigualdades de género?

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377183

UNESCO IESALC. (2025). New data collection underway on women’s participation in

higher education and STEM in Latin America. International Institute for

Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.

https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/en/articles/new-data-collection-

underway-womens-participation-higher-education-and-stem-latin-america-

Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. (2023a). Organigrama institucional

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

e9199

(ESTGRAL-02-23). https://www.uabc.mx/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-

manager/2023/06/organigrama_uabc-2023.pdf

Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. (2023b). Acuerdo por el que se crea la

Unidad de Género, Diversidad e Inclusión Educativa. Universidad Autónoma

de Baja California. https://ugdie.uabc.mx/ugdie/documentos.html

Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. (2024). Protocolo para la atención integral

de casos de violencia en razón de género en la Universidad Autónoma de

Baja California. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.

https://gaceta.uabc.mx/edicionesanteriores/gaceta-583-edicion-especial

Universidad Autónoma de Occidente. (2022). Reglamento para la igualdad de género

de la Universidad Autónoma de Occidente.

https://uadeo.mx/wp-

content/uploads/2023/01/Reglamento-Igualdad-de-Genero-UAdeO_V2.pdf

Universidad Autónoma de Occidente. (2023). Protocolo para la prevención, atención

y sanción de la violencia de género de la Universidad Autónoma de

Occidente.

https://uadeo.mx/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/PROTOCOLO-

PREVENCION-VIOLENCIA-DE-GENERO-UADEO.pdf

Universidad Autónoma de Occidente. (2025). Estructura orgánica.

https://uadeo.mx/nuestra-universidad/quienes-somos/organigrama/

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa. (2023). Reglamento para prevenir, atender,

sancionar y erradicar la violencia sexual en la Universidad Autónoma de

Sinaloa. Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa.

https://www.uas.edu.mx/pdf/marco_juridico/2023/Reglamento_para_la_

Prevencion_Atencion_Sancion_y_Erradicacion_de_la_Violencia_Sexual_en_l

a_Universidad_Autonoma_de_Sinaloa_UAS_2023.pdf

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa. (2025). Organigrama general.

https://www.uas.edu.mx/nuestra-universidad/estructura-organica

Universidad de Sonora. (2021). Programa Institucional de Inclusión y Equidad de

Género

. Universidad de Sonora.

https://programasestrategicos.unison.mx/programa-institucional-de-

inclusion-y-equidad-de-genero/

Universidad de Sonora. (2025). Organigrama institucional.

https://www.unison.mx/institucional/organigrama/organigrama.pdf

Yahya, U., Anwar, R. H., & Zaki, S. (2024). Women leaders in higher education: A

systematic review offering insights for nations with wider gender gaps. Issues

in Educational Research, 34(1), 378–399.

https://www.iier.org.au/iier34/yahya.pdf

| Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno |

Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU

About the main author

Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno: Electronics Engineer; holds a Master’s degree and

a Doctorate in Education from the Autonomous University of Sinaloa, as well as a

Doctorate in Competency

Based Education. She is a faculty researcher at the

Autonomous University of Sinaloa and a member of both the Sinaloa System of

Researchers and Technolog

ists and the National System of Researchers (Level I).

Declaration of author responsibility

Samantha Yadira Niebla Moreno:

Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal

Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,

Validat

ion/Verification, Visualization, Writing/Original Draft, and Writing/

Review &

Editing.

Financing:

Own resources

Special Acknowledgments: