With the shortlist for the post of vice-chancellors (VC) at each of the eight universities released, one statistic is more revealing than anything else: Only four women among 188 shortlists. For someone working in higher education for 14 years, such an outcome didn’t come as a surprise.

In my 2021 piece, I discussed the increase in female literacy in Nepal and how that alone does not lead to greater equality for women in higher education. Female enrollment in higher education as consumers had grown, but the lack of representation of females in higher education as producers of knowledge in academic institutions was glaring. Even five years later, the question of why women in academia are underrepresented remains relevant.

One may wonder if it is the recruitment process. It is right for the recruitment process for the position of a VC to be open and competitive, with procedures openly advertised, and qualifications, research outputs, experience, vision papers and interviews assessed. All of this is supposed to happen. But when analysed from the Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) perspective, this process is not inclusive at all.

The issue is not the process itself; it runs deeper than that. Where women have historically been excluded from networking, mentoring processes and institutional exposure, a seemingly impartial procedure cannot guarantee proportionate results. The lack of representation on the shortlist reflects years of neglect. What I am not emphasising here is that there should be mandatory appointments or quotas for women in the appointment of the VCs; this is a different discussion altogether. However, I want to point out that four women out of 188 shortlisted at these eight universities is not a statistical anomaly but a serious issue that demands serious reckoning.

Barriers and constraints

Asian women are still underrepresented in top leadership roles due to a combination of factors, such as cultural barriers, family duties, organisational practices and lack of mentorship. For instance, India has 11 percent women vice-chancellors. Recent research in South Asian and Southeast Asian countries also reveals the factors that prevent women from rising to VC positions. Those factors work together on cultural, institutional, systemic and psychological levels.

On the cultural level, Nepali women, as in other South Asian countries, are excessively burdened by domestic duties. Women have to look after both young and elderly family members. As most women lack help from their husbands, they don’t have enough time and automatically rule themselves out of any chance of leading in top executive positions. As far as the institutional aspect goes, women in Nepal often face male-dominated environments, where they are neither seen as potential leaders nor invited to join influential institutions and committees.

From my observations, I understand that some competent women simply do not see themselves as suitable candidates for those positions, not because they are unqualified but because no one made such suggestions. Politically, the aspect of VC appointment within Nepal, that is, lobbying, visibility and institutional ties, has always been a field in which women have traditionally been sidelined.

Academically, publications and research work, which play an essential role in the process of nomination as a VC candidate, too, have been influenced by such gender discrimination. Women do not publish as much as men do, not necessarily because women do not think much, but because they lack institutional backing and uninterrupted time to conduct research. Then there is also the issue of self-perception. In essence, women lack self-confidence and readiness and avoid competition that would put them in situations of negative visibility, as women in leadership positions receive greater criticism for everything than men do.

What can be done?

The good news is that countries and institutions in the region are not resting on their laurels. For instance, in Pakistan, the Higher Education Commission introduced a mentoring programme (WEMP) targeting women’s leadership positions in 2025; it mentors women aspiring to such roles by pairing them with vice-chancellors at any of the 12 universities involved. This mentorship involves residential training on matters related to identity as a leader and literacy in policy and governance.

In India, Maharashtra introduced its NariDrishti programme in 2026. It is an institution designed to provide women academics with the confidence and skills to help them pursue leadership positions. Australian, New Zealand and North American institutions are all on record for having initiated programmes that seek more than parity in women’s leadership in academia—they seek to mentor women who wish to become leaders. The Asia-Pacific region boasts an APRU programme that addresses the issue of women in leadership in higher education.

But Nepal has nothing like that yet. What the VC selection shortlists have accomplished is quite valuable; they have given a numeric value to a truth that was well-known but had remained undocumented. In Nepal’s universities, the overwhelming trend and structure have always been male-dominated. This is not due to any incompetence of the female members but simply because an environment where such women would become strong contenders for these positions, through mentorship, institutional support, conducive research environments and permission to lead, has never been established.

The observation does not mean a lowering of standards in any manner. Rather, it calls for an examination of why, after so many years of women’s empowerment in educational institutions, this situation persists. If there is no attempt to analyse the reasons behind it, the result will continue to be repeated.