Introduction

In September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly approved the 2030 Agenda as a global commitment for 193 countries to achieve a sustainable future (UN General Assembly, 2015). It includes the framework for applying 17 SDGs, 169 targets and 244 indicators whose aim is to put an end to the most urgent problems affecting the world today. SDG 5 stands out among these goals as its purpose is to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls (United Nations, 2020a). It includes 9 targets and 14 indicators aimed at – among other things – obtaining equality for women and girls in all aspects of their lives, eliminating violence, eradicating harmful practices such as forced child marriage, guaranteeing equality of participation, ensuring leadership opportunities for women, and providing universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights. SDG 5 puts forward policies for introducing reforms designed to give women equal rights to economic resources and access to property ownership and control over land, inheritance and natural resources. A key aspect is the recognition of unpaid care and domestic work through the provision public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and family. SDG 5 also advocates the use of enabling technology to promote the empowerment of women. There are no economic, environmental, social or political aspects that are not included under this goal. In addition to this, some of the other SDGs have specific indicators for economic empowerment and access to services that are connected to women’s quality of life, these being SDG 1: No poverty, SDG 2: Zero hunger, SDG 3: Good health and well-being, SDG 4: Quality education and SDG 10: Reduced inequalities. Therefore we can conclude that advances in gender equality are a way of guaranteeing that the SDGs will be achieved, a belief shared by Moreno and Cole (2019), Drumea et al. (2020) and international organizations such as UN Women (2018a).

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right but also a necessary foundation for a more peaceful and sustainable world (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Although much progress has been made over the last few decades, gender inequality continues to exist at alarming levels and affects women and girls in every country (Kim, 2017). The situation in the world today is best reflected by the fact that 750 million women and girls are married before they reach 18 and at least 200 million women and girls in 30 countries have undergone female genital mutilation (UNICEF, 2016). In 18 countries husbands have the right to prevent their wives from working legally, in 49 countries there are no laws to protect women, and in 39 countries sons and daughters do not enjoy the same rights. One in five women and girls have suffered physical and/or sexual violence at the hands of their partners during the last year and only 52% of women who are married or living with their partners have a say when it comes to their sexual relations (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). As far as leadership is concerned, although women have achieved a great deal as regards occupying political office in the world, their presence accounts for only 23.7% of these positions (United Nations Women, 2018b). Women’s lack of power in both public and private spheres excludes them from political and economic leadership and thus from society (World Economic Forum, 2022). In short, systematic violence and inequality still prevail, both as regards women’s deliberate exclusion from accessing property and wealth and the persistent belief that they are inferior to men.

In addition to this, the inequalities faced by women and girls all over the world have been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic insofar as it affects the areas of health, the economy, security and social protection (Burki, 2020). This would explain the interest generated by gender research as a part of sustainable development, which is also fuelled by the fact that sustainability is a target for all states (Koehler, 2016). In this context, universities occupy a privileged position in society and their vital role in creating and spreading knowledge is beyond dispute. There is no doubt that these institutions are a driving force behind local, national and international innovation, economic development and social welfare (Crow, 2014; Deloitte Access Economics, 2015). They are therefore able to provide innovative ideas to help achieve the SDGs, train those who will be in charge of implementing them in the future, serve as models for supporting, adopting and implementing SDGs as part of governance and in management policies, and also develop those aspects of intersectoral leadership needed to achieve them (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017). Bearing in mind its role as an agent of social change (Hirsu et al., 2021; Segado et al., 2020), the university should as a matter of urgency implement specific policies and actions aimed at integrating SDG 5 into the areas of research, management, knowledge transfer and, in particular, teaching. In this regard, curricular activities provide an ideal way in which to influence awareness and citizen participation (Agency for Quality Assurance of the University System of Catalonia [AQU], 2019; Vega et al., 2018). As Prendes-Espinosa et al. (2020) point out, this commitment on the part of the university can only advance with the help of the teachers, who today include gender equality in a piecemeal fashion rather than consistently throughout the planning of their subjects. However, increasing integration is no easy task, since it depends not only on the willingness of the teachers but also on the institutional culture.

Indeed, achieving structural and cultural change for gender equality in the academic world is a complex process (Ní-Laoire et al., 2021). On this subject, van den Brink and Benschop (2012) note that this may be due to the fact that the structural and cultural nature of inequality is deeply rooted in the academic world, thus undermining equality policies and interventions in practice. In another paper, De Vries and van den Brink (2016) argue that one explanation for the slowness of change can be found in the persistent difficulties faced when putting principles or policies of equality into practice. For decades Spanish universities have been committed to incorporating a gender perspective, especially in teaching, research, management and social responsibility, but the results are still not very encouraging (Ferrández et al., 2020).

Given the cultural differences between the various contexts, a certain degree of specificity is needed when it comes to designing political interventions for gender equality. Authors such as Powell et al. (2018) and Kalpazidou et al. (2020) have acknowledged the need to take the specific university context into account when developing tools and resources for implementing, training in or evaluating gender equality actions. Specifically, they stress the importance of contextual factors like rules, procedures, formal and informal standards of behaviour, departmental cultures, specific needs and so on. In short, in order to achieve transformative change in the university we first need to understand the roots of the established culture rather than impose a set of best practices (Ozbilgin & Tatli, 2011).

The University of Alicante (UA) is a dynamic and relational space committed to sustainable progress in its sphere of influence through the spread and transfer of knowledge generated by research, comprehensive training and the promotion of a particular culture in a space of free and open thought that contributes to the wellbeing of all its collectives (UA, 2022). It was one of the first universities in Spain to integrate gender equality into its organizational structure, but despite the efforts made, the hoped-for results have not been achieved (Miralles-Cardona et al., 2020). To find out why, this investigation has three basic aims: (1) to find out whether teachers integrate SDG 5 into their teaching and, if so, what strategies they use, (2) to analyse the factors they see as helping or hindering that process, and (3) to check for possible differences according to sex and faculty of origin. To this end, the research questions guiding the study are:

  • Do university teachers integrate SDG 5 into their teaching?

  • If so, what strategies do they use?

  • According to the teachers, what effect does the integration of SDG 5 have on teaching and student learning?

  • From the teachers’ standpoint, what factors help or hinder the integration of SDG 5 into university education?

  • Are there any differences in the perceptions described in the previous two research questions according to gender and faculty (department or discipline)?

Literature Review

Integrating SDG 5 into University Teaching: Principles and Strategies

Generally speaking, integrating SDG 5 into university teaching improves the quality of higher education and provides a deeper understanding of the needs, behaviours and attitudes of the population as a whole (Bartual-Figueras et al., 2018). It has a direct impact on students because it stimulates their critical thinking and provides them with the tools to identify the stereotypes, norms and gender roles that determine power relations (Dugarova, 2015; United Nations, 2017). Students learn to see dominant socialization patterns as problems and develop competencies to help them avoid gender blindness in their future professional practice and personal lives (Thun, 2020).

For the integration of SDG 5 into university teaching it may be possible to adapt the model proposed by Leal-Filho (2015): (1) integration of gender equality at an institutional level that involves the commitment of the entire university, 2) inclusion of the gender perspective in certain faculties on the understanding that its depth and scope may vary depending on the area of knowledge and degree, and (3) use of an individual approach, as done by teachers in their academic work. Bearing this in mind and given that gender is influenced by contextual variables such as race and social class (Carbin & Edenheim, 2013), we cannot talk of just one ideal form of integration. It is a question of choosing whichever approaches best fit the context and needs of each particular university (Resa, 2021). The choices will be (1) through specific equality-related degrees, (2) through specific courses specializing in SDG 5, (3) by including it when covering specific subjects connected to relevant competencies, objectives and contents, and/or (4) following a mainstream approach across all courses and including it as a core competency in all curricula (Palmén et al., 2020).

Here we present two typical examples of the different ways in which SDG 5 can be integrated in universities. The first, Ahfad University for Women (Sudan), was chosen by the United Nations (2018) as an example of best practices and prepares women to assume leadership roles in their communities. To this end, it combines academic courses, personal research and community extension activities. Its mission is to become one of the leading institutions in Africa and the Arab world dedicated to achieving gender equality and respect for human rights. The university houses the Regional Institute of Gender, Diversity, Peace and Rights, which focuses on awareness, research and training on gender issues. It runs four master’s programmes on gender and development, gender and peace studies, gender and governance, and gender, migration and multicultural studies. Activities are also scheduled within different parts of the university. The Faculty of Psychology, for example, organizes conferences, seminars and workshops aimed at ending discrimination and eliminating violence against women and girls. It also encourages the development of vocational skills and qualifications for women, including self-sufficiency and income-generating activities to increase their chances of finding work. The second, the Women’s University in Africa (WUA), provides a training programme for women with the focus on training for leadership, the empowerment of working women and the provision of courses in connection with gender equality. It also offers flexible learning that consists of regular classes during the day but also in the evening, at weekends and on holidays, plus open learning and distance learning for those students who cannot attend regularly. In addition to this there are undergraduate and master’s courses that underline the inclusion of gender studies and social problems as a sign of institutional quality (Nondo & Mbereko, 2020).

When designing a curriculum at any level (degree, master’s, PhD), Puy et al. (2016) advise that complementary approaches should be followed, i.e. not only by including specific gender subjects (e.g. “gender and space” and “methods for research into sex and gender”) and mainstreaming gender equality in certain subjects through incorporating the gender dimension into the content, but also by specifically including theories, methods, reading, questions, activities and so on that take into account the gender perspective in other subjects, and by creating specific gender-related degrees and master’s courses (e.g. “gender and development” or “gender studies”, especially in the main universities). The University of Alcalá (2020), in its Basic guide for incorporating the gender perspective into teaching at the University of Alcalá, stresses the importance of including the gender perspective in the development of a subject from beginning to end. Thus it is argued that mainstreaming does not mean including the gender perspective artificially or superficially but having it permeate the entire subject. This is an idea shared by Gavilán-Martín (2021), who argues that it is indeed possible to mainstream integration of the gender perspective. Considering this variety of approaches, we believe that whichever is used, the context and institutional culture still need to be taken into account (Kalpazidou et al., 2020; Powell et al., 2018). Also, a key factor for integrating the gender perspective into teaching and research is institutional commitment, because it is essential for resources to be allocated in order to strengthen the teachers’ gender competencies. Regardless of which form of integration, the considerations in Table 1 should be borne in mind:

Table 1 Strategies for the integration of SDG 5
Full size table

Factors that Help or Hinder the Integration of SDG 5 into Higher Education

The integration of SDG 5 into university teaching is affected by factors that either help or hinder its effectiveness, and these involve both the institution itself and the teachers (AQU, 2019; Harford, 2018; López-Francés et al., 2016; Peterson and Jordansson, 2017). Factors that help integration typically include institutional gender policies aimed at incorporating gender as an indicator of quality teaching (Serrano et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2017), a cross-cutting gender competence in all disciplines and courses (AQU, 2019) and/or the creation of institutional incentives (Verge, 2021). As for the teachers, the emphasis is on their training and commitment to gender equality (Hernández et al., 2017).

Various obstacles have also been identified regarding the integration of SDG 5 in Spanish universities. These include the lack of commitment to include a subject in the curriculum due to the vagueness and weakness of the university’s gender policies (Miralles-Cardona et al., 2020), the relegation of gender education to a secondary plane due to the continuing prevalence of male control of power relations, and, on an individual level, there is little awareness among teachers and students alike (Silva et al., 2017). In addition, many studies focusing on universities have criticized that the integration of gender equality has not been a priority in curricular reform. This is a problem common to all areas of knowledge and faculties (Ballarín, 2015, 2017; Etura et al., 2019; Ruiz-Rico, 2020; Verge et al., 2018). These investigations have shown that there is often resistance from teachers when it comes to including gender equality in their teaching programmes. Some even argue that such discriminatory relationships are not negative but form part of interpersonal relationships. All this indicates that gender equality, despite being mandatory, has so far not been systematically or productively implemented in teaching. According to the AQU (2019), faculties should assess how far the gender perspective has been integrated into their degrees and include it in the institution’s internal quality assurance systems.

Materials and Methods

We follow a mixed method approach (Sammons & Davis, 2017) on the understanding that it will help us more accurately understand the subject under study. The quantitative perspective will enable us to analyse the integration of SDG 5 into university teaching and provide information on those elements that either help or hinder the process. The qualitative aspect will allow us to interpret what the participants say, taking into account the setting in which they operate. Their words will supply us with specific information about which strategies they use and how they integrate them into their teaching.

Study Context

Article 25 of Spanish Organic Law 3/2007, of 22 March, on effective equality between men and women (Spanish Govt., 2007), states that universities must promote teaching and research in accordance with the meaning and scope of equality between women and men. They must include content on equality in the curriculum where appropriate, create specific postgraduate courses on equality and carry out specialized research into gender issues. Thus the UA is committed to promoting gender equality. Its Equality Unit is responsible for advancing the social achievements contained in SDG 5. Action in this area is governed by the Third Plan for Equal Opportunities between Men and Women (UA, 2018), which is designed around seven main areas, the second of which is teaching. It sets out two objectives: to promote and disseminate knowledge of gender equality and to integrate the gender perspective into teaching. Under the UA’s Second Plan for Equality (UA, 2014), specific subjects had already been integrated into the different degree courses, especially in the area of Social Sciences and Humanities. As regards actions affecting training, the introduction of the Plan for Improvements in Teaching DOCENTIA-UA (Institute of Education Sciences, 2020) led to the development of various courses, such as one on the inclusion of the gender perspective in university teaching. Finally, the following support documents have been produced and made available to teachers: (1) a proposal for gender indicators relating to content and bibliography and the use of inclusive non-sexist language in content and skills as part of undergraduate and postgraduate curricula (Provencio et al., 2016); (2) a theoretical manual to explain the items in the teaching guide from a gender perspective (Rodríguez & Provencio, 2017a); and (3) a set of practical recommendations for including the gender perspective in university teaching, taking into account both the formal curriculum (competencies, objectives, content, evaluation and organizational pathways) and the hidden curriculum (teaching resources) (Rodríguez & Provencio, 2017b).

One of the University of Alicante’s strategic aims is to advance in and raise awareness of the importance of adopting gender equality measures and to ensure equal opportunities and the integration of all the students (UA, 2022). Even so, and despite the fact that the UA is one of the pioneering universities in Spain as regards promoting gender equality, there are no systematized practices to serve as a benchmark for the successful integration of the gender perspective in degree and postgraduate courses. The academic community’s interest has basically focused on pointing out the importance of incorporating SDG 5 into university teaching, carrying out diagnoses of integration and suggesting how it can be included in learning environments. In other words there is a kind of “gender blindness” (Verge & Cabruja, 2017) that mainly manifests itself as resistance among some of the teaching staff and students, who argue that actions to promote gender equality are unnecessary because there is no inequality. On this subject Miralles-Cardona et al. (2020) note the persistence of various forms of resistance to the incorporation of the gender perspective in university teaching and, in particular, the little interest that exists in implementing and evaluating it, all of which clearly calls into question the university system’s ability to train teachers capable of educating future generations while taking into account the principles of equality. Meanwhile Díez et al. (2017) have corroborated the existence of gender bias in the curricular materials used in the Bachelor’s Degree in Primary Education, specifically in the Teaching Social Sciences module. Given this situation, our research was carried out with the express aim of analysing the integration of SDG 5 in teaching, along with the causes, consequences and factors that help or hinder the process.

Participants

The researchers invited the teaching staff from all seven centres belonging to the University of Alicante (2,246 teachers) to participate, of which 310 (13.8%) accepted. A database was created containing the email addresses of all the UA teaching staff by retrieving them from each faculty’s website, then an email was sent to each of them with the invitation to participate. No selection criteria were used beyond the fact that they worked as teachers at the UA. The database was organized by centres, and these were shared out among the researchers in order for the emails to be sent.

47% of the participants were women, despite the fact that the teaching staff is approximately 60% male (UA, 2021). Most were between 47 and 57 years old (41.2%), followed by those aged between 36 and 46 (34.7%). Practically 50% had been teaching at the UA for between 5 and 15 years. Associate lecturers were the most represented (31%), followed by senior lecturers (29%), professors (11%) and associate professors (10%). Least represented were assistant lecturers (4%) and college professors (2%). The vast set of instruments and strategies available to the UA for making the university community aware of the issue of sustainability, and in particular SDG 5, means that generally speaking the participating teachers already knew the significance and scope of SDG 5. Apart from the regulatory framework governing this area, there is also a whole series of organizations and structures – such as the University Institute of Research in Gender Studies and the Vice-Rectorate for Social Responsibility, Inclusion and Equality – which, from their different areas of responsibility, promote the integration of a gender approach in the teaching processes. To this can be added the training offered by the Institute of Education Sciences, which also forms part of this area. This centre, which is dedicated specifically to teacher training, from time to time holds courses on the inclusion of the gender perspective in university teaching and the integration of SDGs in the classroom.

The faculties with the highest participation were Humanities (21%), Business and Economics (17%), the Higher Polytechnic School (17%) and the Faculty of Education (15%), followed by the Faculties of Science (12%), Law (9%) and Health Sciences (9%). The first of these (Humanities, Business and Economics, Higher Polytechnic School and Faculty of Education) are also those with the highest numbers of teachers attached – apart from the Faculty of Science, which has more teachers than anywhere else on the campus – while the last are those with the fewest (UA, 2021).

Data Collection Instrument and Process

Although instruments for evaluating the integration of SDGs in institutions of higher education do exist (see Blasco et al., 2019; Grano and Prieto, 2021; Jorge et al., 2016; Larrán et al., 2016; Urbanski and Filho, 2015), designing and constructing our own instrument was justified due to the lack of any other suitable instrument to achieve the aims of the study. To this end we started by studying and analysing the literature on the subject (AQU, 2019; Ballarín, 2015, 2017; Gryvkova, 2017; Koehler, 2016; United Nations, 2017, 2020b; Verge et al., 2018) and reviewing university policies on gender equality (UA, 2018; Spanish Govt., 2007). Specifically, we took into account those aspects which, according to the specialized literature, might help or hinder the integration of the gender perspective into teaching (Montes-de-Oca, 2019; Morley, 2007; Verge et al., 2018) and the effects deriving from its inclusion on the teaching and learning processes (AQU, 2019; Larrondo and Rivero, 2019; Reverter, 2022). As regards guidelines for university policy, due to its relevance on a national level in this area we took into account Organic Law 3/2007, of 22 March, on effective equality between women and men (Spanish Govt., 2007) and the UA’s Third Plan for Equal Opportunities between Men and Women (UA, 2018), given its close relationship to the context of our study subject.

On the basis of our review of the specialized literature we designed an initial outline of the instrument, which was then validated by three experts in educational research methodology and gender studies unconnected to the research group. This was done by sending them the questionnaire and asking them to evaluate the level of suitability and relevance of each item. We also asked them to evaluate aspects related to clarity, syntax and appropriateness. Based on their evaluation, the first version was re-designed and a pilot test applied to 135 subjects with characteristics similar to those who would later make up the sample. After a second review, four items were deleted given their lack of direct connection with the object of study, and some grammatical changes were also made. The final version was then created in digital format using Google Forms. This was chosen because of its growing use in higher education institutions and its great potential: (1) it provides fast, widespread dissemination, (2) it is easy to administer, (3) it is low cost, and (4) it provides substantial data storage capacity (Sandhya et al., 2020).

The instrument consisted of four closed questions and one open question. The closed questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = “Strongly disagree” and 5 “Strongly agree”. The aim was to find out (1) whether teachers were implementing strategies to integrate SDG 5, (2) the effects this had on both teachers and students in cases where a gender approach was integrated, and (3) any factors that helped or (4) hindered this. The first question acted as a filter whereby participants who responded in the affirmative were directed to answer the following two questions. The first of these, an open question, requested information about the strategies used to integrate SDG 5 and how the process was carried out. The second, a closed question, was aimed at identifying – according to what participants said – the impact of integrating a gender approach on their teaching and on student learning. As regards the items on the scale, an analysis of internal consistency gave a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.845.

The questionnaire was administered via email to facilitate dissemination. Emails were sent to all potential participants explaining the aims of the research, the voluntary nature of participation and the anonymous, confidential nature of the information. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Regulations of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Alicante. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The questionnaire was accessible for five months. The response rate for the open question was 49.35%.

Data Analysis

A descriptive and comparative study formed part of the data analysis process. Once the frequencies and descriptive statistics had been analysed, non-parametric tests were applied (Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test) to assess any possible differences by sex or faculty, respectively, regarding the implementation of strategies in connection with SDG 5.

The qualitative data analysis was conducted using AQUAD 7 (Huber & Gürtler, 2013). This software was chosen because it facilitates the interpretation process and the categorization of data into units of meaning. An initial framework of codes and categories was designed after a recursive reading of the participants’ responses. This was tested on several occasions by the three researchers involved and helped in the coding process. The technique selected was content analysis, used to classify written or oral information into categories and codes of similar meaning. Specifically, a directed and a summative content analysis were performed (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). All the narratives were identified using an alphanumeric system to ensure anonymity (TSM_000).

Results

Quantitative Results

The first results reported relate to the various aspects of SDG 5 integration into university teaching. These are followed by our findings resulting from a comparison based on each participant’s sex and faculty.

As regards the use of strategies related to SDG 5 in the teaching and learning processes, only 50.3% of participants acknowledged that they integrated the gender perspective into their teaching. Nevertheless, and despite the dispersion of the responses, those who did integrate it stated that doing so had had some positive effects (Table 2), especially as regards the improvement in student awareness of this type of issue (78.4%). They also had very positive opinions, although with lower levels of agreement, of the effect that integrating SDG 5 has when it comes to innovating the way subjects are designed (56.4%), improving their professional development as teachers (53.2%) and strengthening student learning (51.4%). Indeed, such are the advantages that these types of action seem to present that the participants did not notably single out any particular negative repercussions. Specifically, they did not believe that integrating SDG 5 into university teaching meant an increase in teacher workload (70%), less time to deal with other content (74.1%), attitudes of resistance on the part of the students (79%) or most especially the appearance of disagreements with others teaching the same subject (86.6%).

Table 2 Effects of integrating SDG 5 into university teaching
Full size table

The participants showed a certain amount of agreement regarding which general aspects could boost the inclusion of SDG 5 in university classrooms (Table 3). According to the opinions given on the questionnaires, teacher training (71.7%), specific university policies (69.9%), institutional awareness activities (65.4%), the role of the students (57.4%) and collaboration between the teachers responsible for each subject (53%) were the elements they believed were potentially the most effective in helping to integrate SDG 5 into university teaching.

Table 3 Elements favouring integration of SDG 5 into university teaching
Full size table

As far as evaluating those elements that might be hindering the integration of SDG 5 into teaching is concerned (Table 4), the average for all items taken together was less than three, and we can therefore infer that, a priori, none of the elements proposed prevented the participants from dealing with gender issues. Nevertheless, there was a slight tendency to describe the lack of student interest (21.5%), lack of time (31.5%) and in particular low teacher awareness of these types of issue (36.2%) as the main barriers to the inclusion of SDG 5 in university classrooms. Participants attached less importance to the complexity of the subject (21.6%) and lack of institutional support (21%).

Table 4 Elements hindering integration of SDG 5 into university teaching
Full size table

When identifying possible differences based on the participants’ sex and faculty, the responses were not distributed normally as evaluated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < .05). This led us to use non-parametric statistical tests, namely the Mann-Whitney U test (for sex) and the Kruskal-Wallis test (for faculty). As regards sex, no statistically significant differences were found concerning the impact of integrating SDG 5 into university teaching (Table 5).

Table 5 Effects of integrating SDG 5 into university teaching broken down by sex
Full size table

The Mann-Whitney U test, on the other hand, revealed statistically significant differences in the elements favouring integration of SDG 5 into university classrooms when broken down by sex (Table 6). In particular, women were more likely than men to believe in the effectiveness of teacher training, specific university policies aimed at integrating SDG 5, collaborative work between teachers on any given course and awareness-raising activities implemented by the institution.

Table 6 Elements favouring integration of SDG 5 into university teaching broken down by sex
Full size table

As for the factors that hinder the integration of SDG 5 into university teaching, no statistically significant differences according to the participants’ sex were found (Table 7).

Table 7 Elements hindering integration of SDG 5 into university teaching broken down by sex
Full size table

Regarding the differences broken down according to the participants’ faculties of origin, it should be pointed out that these depend on the impact of integrating SDG 5 into the teaching. In this case the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed statistically significant differences (Table 8). The highest rate was among participants from the Faculty of Humanities and the lowest among those at the Faculty of Science. These differences were found in the acquisition of competencies and achievement of objectives for any given course and reflection and innovation in course design and approach, which were considered the main effects of integrating SDG 5 into the teaching and learning processes.

Table 8 Effects of integrating SDG 5 into university teaching broken down by faculty
Full size table

Unlike in the previous case, the analysis of the elements that help the integration of SDG 5 in the classroom broken down by faculty showed no statistically significant differences (Table 9).

Table 9 Elements favouring integration of SDG 5 into university teaching broken down by faculty
Full size table

Statistically significant differences were observed in connection with the little or no training of teachers in gender issues, which was one of the main hindering elements in this process (Table 10). In this case the Faculty of Science obtained a higher mean rank than the other groups. The difference was particularly notable with respect to the Faculty of Humanities.

Table 10 Elements hindering integration of SDG 5 into university teaching broken down by faculty
Full size table

To sum up, therefore, the quantitative data analysis enabled us to see that over half of the teachers incorporated SGD 5 into their work. Among other things, this helped to increase student awareness of the issue of gender equality. According to the participants, the main elements that made the integration of SGD 5 easier were teacher training, university policies aimed specifically at this area, and institutional awareness activities. However, they were less definite on the subject of those aspects that might hinder the incorporation of SDG 5 into the teaching-learning processes. The comparative analysis according to sex brought to light some statistically significant differences in the elements that favour integration, and these same differences could be seen when broken down by faculty, specifically as regards the effects deriving from the incorporation of SDG 5 into teaching and the factors that might hinder its integration.

Qualitative Results

The qualitative analysis contextually identified which approach was followed to integrate SDG 5 and which specific strategies were used to promote gender equality. To this end, the participants’ views were interpreted and classified into two categories. The first, for which two code names were proposed following Puy et al. (2016) – specific integration and mainstream integration – involved the approach taken by teachers to their work on gender equality in the classroom. The approach in this case refers to how the gender perspective was integrated into the design and curricular development of the different subjects taught by the participants. To be more specific, the way the two codes differ is that, whereas the specific integration approach refers to isolated cases in which the gender perspective is considered in one or more topics or units, the mainstream approach means it is included throughout the subject as a whole, from the point of view of both design and curricular development. The second category encompasses the strategies that enabled participants to integrate the gender perspective into their teaching. Given that each of these strategies can be linked to either of the codes in the first category – for example, the use of inclusive language can be implemented following either a specific or a mainstream approach – it was decided to include them in a separate category.

Table 11 shows all the codes used in the research. Absolute frequency (AF) is understood to be the number of times participants referred to a particular unit of meaning (code), while the percentage shows how that concept relates to the total absolute frequency (AFx100/Total AF). Taking these data into account enables us to see those aspects on which participants most agree in their responses, thereby complementing inferred information.

Table 11 Frequency of study codes
Full size table

As can be seen in Table 11, one the one hand there is a predominance of specific over mainstream integration, while on the other – as far as the integration of specific strategies is concerned – the use of inclusive language is the most frequently mentioned, taking into account among other things the type of communication (spoken or written), the purpose and the context.

Below we set out the most relevant ideas from each category, illustrating their meaning through the selection of those narratives most representative of the codes inferred.

Category 1. Approach to SDG 5 Integration

The first category describes information about the approach used by teachers to address gender equality in their classes. As mentioned above, we can differentiate between these according to whether the approach described is specific or mainstream. The first of these refers to when integration is restricted to particular subjects, areas of practical work or specific, one-off strategies. In the following narratives, for example, the participants point out that they include gender equality in one or more of the subjects included in their area – in most cases through affinity with the content being dealt with – and this enables us to deduce that the gender perspective is not the main focus but is dealt with tangentially. To give an illustration, one of the participants stressed that one of the subjects they teach is related to the issue of gender in the field of education: “One specific subject on the syllabus has to do with gender, coeducation and diversity” (TSM_130). We find similar narratives repeatedly referring to the specific and isolated incorporation of the gender perspective: “I include subject areas that relate to the syllabus (specifically on the tourism degree, e.g. the issue of gender in tourism, tourism products for women, the role of female entrepreneurs in rural tourism)” (TSM_057) and “I set aside one syllabus subject in my area to study equality. The students also have to investigate a fictional case of female discrimination, setting out the facts in class and explaining what measures the government would have to adopt to overcome such cases” (TSM_025).

A good many participants say that they work on gender equality both theoretically and practically through the content of their subjects: “During some of the practical sessions and in the course of the theoretical sessions” (TSM_021) and “I always include content and practice, highlighting the violence against women, the different forms of discrimination and so on, and I also argue that measures should be taken to achieve real equality between men and women and the elimination of violence” (TSM_307). In some cases they say that it is easy for them to work on the integration of SDG 5 because of the social nature of subject content they teach: “raising awareness through subject content dealing with the analysis of public discourse (politicians, press, etc.) on issues involving women (women and sport, women and male violence, etc.)” (TSM_048). Such connections lead them to suggest examples and carry out practical activities with which to deal with gender equality: “In sessions on tourism management and the geography of world regions it is easy to give examples and set practical exercises that involve the subject” (TSM_078) and “Making use of examples of women whose role in scientific and social advances has had a big effect in education” (TSM_003).

In addition, it can be seen that the gender equality content is not only to be found in the theoretical discourse and practice exercise, but also has a place among the planned teaching materials insofar as these include female role models that are virtually unknown in the subject units of their field of study. The following excerpt recognizes the crucial role played by women in the evolution of the feminist movement: “Among the materials for the unit on the History of Women I include practice exercises on little-known women humanists and the general criteria of feminism, using them to illustrate the importance of female participation in the movement’s history” (TSM_119).

It should be noted, however, that beyond the incorporation of these issues into some of the topics, no mention is made of other methodological or organizational aspects, from which it might be inferred that there is mainstreaming of the gender perspective in these teachers’ subjects. This approach, which is less common in the participants’ discourses (AF% = 11.1), involves continuously working on gender issues throughout the course, not only via the contents but using all the curricular and organizational elements available. It can be seen that the absolute frequency percentage for the mainstream approach is lower than that for the specific approach (AF% = 29.3), possibly because it involves a certain amount of training and commitment. The following narratives are examples of the mainstream approach: “I apply the mainstream approach to gender in the syllabus and in the classroom, giving a central role to the analysis and transformation of the hegemonic system of patriarchal domination and of symbolic and material gender discrimination” (TSM_210) and “I include the gender perspective throughout the subject, i.e. in the aims, content and methodology” (TSM_116).

Category 2. Specific Strategies

Apart from the approach that guides teaching practice towards a specific or mainstream treatment of the subject of study, participants also mentioned the use of particular strategies that are sometimes used in isolation and sometimes alongside others. Both the descriptive and the inferential information showed the importance that participants gave to egalitarian discourse (Code 2.1 Inclusive language). Indeed, it was the strategy they emphasized most (AF% = 23.3). Many narratives showed how committed teachers were to using non-sexist language, which involves reviewing their communicative practices in line with their commitment to making women more visible. The following excerpt is evidence of this: “Being careful with language and correcting expressions and internalized language” (TSM_091).

They repeatedly state that they use inclusive language in both spoken and written communication processes [“Neutral writing in academic texts and use of ‘student body’ instead of ‘male/female students’, i.e. the general term “el alumnado” in Spanish instead of the male catch-all plural “los alumnos” (TSM_009), “Communications whether written or spoken are always the same regardless of sex” (TSM_238) and “These are very simple strategies that I try to implement in the practice cases, avoiding outworn expressions (housewife, woman doctor…) and introducing situations in which women carry out tasks traditionally reserved for men” (TSM_151)]. Even the related linguistic area the teachers try to increase awareness of how important it is to promote gender equality through language: “If the subject is language, whenever I can I try to introduce some reflection on gender equality and how the use of language can help. Also, when talking about linguistic minoritization, I begin by speaking about the concept of minoritization itself and the fact that some collectives are still subjected to this in various situations, as in the case of women” (TSM_297).

In some cases we can appreciate the efforts made to use language to help achieve equality and overcome gender prejudice: “The truth is that the only thing I try to do is use the term “estudiantes” (students) instead of “alumnos” (catch-all male plural, pupils) and there are no differences between men and women in the classroom, but I couldn’t say anything more specific” (TSM_114) and “Using non-sexist language and catch-all female plurals” (TSM_101). Sometimes the participants warn that there are certain problems with the use of this strategy, which makes us think that they may not have full command of it: “I use neutral or inclusive language whenever I can, although it’s sometimes complicated because it lengthens the sentences” (TSM_161). Finally and less frequently, they mention the use of inclusive language not only in teaching but also in research: “I use inclusive language in all my teaching and research documents” (TSM_172).

Code 2.2 (Reflection on and analysis/discussion of equality) shows that reflection also forms part of the portfolio of strategies that participants use to increase awareness and promote real and effective equality (AF = 10%). Faced with the persistence of certain roles and stereotypes that perpetuate inequality, they believe it is essential to sensitize through reflection. However, it can be seen that these reflection processes sometimes break down as a result of inappropriate attitudes or behaviour on the part of the students in the classroom: “There is some obvious reluctance on the part of students that is expressed unpleasantly. Not often, but it sometimes happens. This always provides an opportunity to explain aspects involving the management of differences, but these are tricky subjects. There is a degree of denial in society, a kind of invisibility, and this is seen reflected in students” (TSM_026). In other cases reflection is used with regard to information obtained from the media [“In the classroom I don’t hesitate to condemn any situations involving inequality or gender violence that I have come across in the mass media” (TSM_112).] or with examples from the syllabus content itself [“In my teaching, when I find examples that help illustrate and give substance to the problem I want to discuss, I try to be a bit provocative and formulate the example in such a way that, even if only subtly, it reveals the greater degree of maturity and cooperation that women have compared to men” (TSM_120)].

On the subject of these reflection processes, participants say that they sometimes create situations that require students to make a critical assessment of the obstacles that perpetuate the gender gap: “Debates are held on issues relating to gender inequality to bring about critical analysis of the situation” (TSM_046). They argue that these situations help instil a reflective attitude that encourages people to act to ensure equality between women and men. The aim is to eliminate stereotypes and prevent culturally rooted occurrences of sexist discrimination that are sometimes deeply rooted in the culture: “…in the classroom, focusing on the analysis and transformation of the hegemonic system of patriarchal domination and of symbolic and material gender discrimination” (TSM_056) and “Analysis, reflection and debate on other topics related to the gender perspective (especially gender violence)” (TSM_90). In some situations it is through reflection that students are invited to develop specific skills in their studies. This is shown by the following excerpt: “I also encourage reflection on the prejudices that both female and male students have when translating. A word with no specific gender in one language is often translated into another using a specific gender, based on unconscious chauvinistic traditions” (TSM_140). Statements such as these certainly confirm that the use of reflection can increase participation and channel students’ voices, thereby becoming one of the strategies most used by the participants.

Also mentioned by the teachers was the creation of situations in the classroom to promote women’s participation, empowerment and leadership. This is covered by Code 2.3 denoting equal participation, which has an absolute frequency of 8.1%. The aim of this strategy is to strengthen the experience of an egalitarian environment at every level, including the layout of the classroom and the relational dynamics that take place in it: “…through curriculum experiences that empower, stimulate or encourage the role of women in solving the tasks or activities planned for class” (TSM_001) and “We place women as leaders/spokespersons in work groups” (TSM_086). Participants also said that they usually motivate female students to actively participate in class and avoid any kind of discrimination or unequal treatment: “I urge the female students to participate in the classroom and promote assessment strategies that do not penalize them” (TSM_204).

Along similar lines and in response to their interest in developing this type of experience, participants mention the setting-up of mixed groups, acknowledging that the way students are grouped could help to create a more truly coeducational higher education: “Encouraging the formation of sexually heterogeneous cooperative workteams among students (TSM_020)” and “I try to ensure that in all teaching activities there is proportional representation of female students, who account for more than 90% of the students for my subjects, making sure that their participation is active and that students of both sexes should be aware of the value of women in the world” (TSM_110).

Code 2.4 (Use of women as points of reference) reveals that participants also try to make their students aware of women as points of reference [“I look out for anniversaries in connection with SDG 5 and the feminist struggle, etc.” (TSM_303)], which is especially important when it comes to deconstructing a culture based on stereotypes and creating egalitarian contexts. Some of their voices convey the same message: “Making female scientists in the discipline visible so that students can have women as points of reference and thereby enhance their critical thinking about the gender gap in science” (TSM_041) and “Highlighting the work of women relevant to the discipline being taught, condemning oversights and omissions and drawing attention to those research teams led by women” (TSM_127). The teachers also say that having visible references helps to improve the students’ critical thinking and reduce the gender gap, pointing out that these role models may motivate students and point them in the direction of their future careers: “Analysing the good practices of women leaders in local and community development projects may inspire their future actions” (TSM_225).

With the same absolute frequency as the previous code (AF% = 7.4), the equal treatment given to both female and male students is evident (Code 2.5 Equal treatment of students), as can be seen in this excerpt: “In my class both the female and the male students receive equal treatment. In no case is any discrimination whatsoever allowed on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or other personal circumstances between teachers and students or among the students themselves” (TSM_167). Participants act firmly at all times to tackle any discrimination that might occur in the classroom: “Giving warnings about and correcting problems of structural discrimination and helping to change this type of behaviour” (TSM_042) and “Conscious acknowledgement of the micro-aggressions that come about in the classroom and among students” (TSM_122). As well as this, participants also take into account the problems caused by the tensions between the students’ personal, academic and family life, helping to create a balance between the three areas: “I take into account personal circumstances related to the student’s work-life balance, etc.” (TSM_150).

Finally, and with the lowest absolute frequency of all the codes (AF% = 3.3), participants turn to the work they carry out in the field of research into gender equality (Code 2.6 Gender research). They stress, for example, that gender is usually included as part of the lines of research for the final degree projects they supervise: “I also set aside one particular session close to the relevant dates and I have a specific line of research for the final projects” (TSM_261). They even emphasize the fact that some of their own research focuses on analysing gender issues: “I’m following a line of research into gender” (TSM_277). They also highlight gender research on the courses they teach [“I try to give visibility to the research carried out by women (TSM_184)] and share references on gender issues [“I incorporate documents on gender bias into health research and include my own results on the effect of co-responsibility in the transition to parenting in my classes” (TSM_070)]. The aim of this is to gain recognition for the research carried out by women [“I try to shine a spotlight on research carried out by women, etc.” (TSM_236)] and winning for them the position they deserve [“Normalizing the role of women in research and knowledge, recognizing their work and demanding they occupy a more prominent position” (TSM_129)].

In short, the inferential and descriptive data show that the predominant approach to integrating SDG 5 is the specific. They also inform us about which strategies the participants use in this integration process. We see that the use of inclusive language, which has a basic character, is more frequent than other more complex strategies such as, for example, gender research or reflection on and analysis/discussion of equality.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was threefold: firstly, to investigate whether university teachers are integrating SDG 5 into their teaching and, if so, to identify the strategies they use; secondly, to analyse their perceptions of the effects and factors that help or hinder this process; and thirdly, to check for possible differences according to sex and faculty in the perceptions described in the previous aim. It is on the basis of these aims that we discuss the study’s findings.

Integrating SDG 5 into University Teaching

Despite the measures implemented to bring about the integration of SDG 5 into university teaching (Spanish Govt., 2007; UA, 2018), the results are not very encouraging. In the particular case of the UA, half of the participating teachers said that they had introduced some kind of strategy to integrate gender equality. While this might a priori be considered an achievement, that is not really the case given that those who completed the questionnaire said that their efforts were carried out in a piecemeal fashion. This low priority given to gender mainstreaming, which is in line with Aznar et al. (2020), may be due to insufficient teacher training (Ballarín, 2015). However, the effectiveness of training may be impacted not only by a lack of awareness among teachers and the vagueness of gender policies (Silva et al., 2017), but also by a series of factors that are easier to control and correct. These include the way in which the training is delivered, the type of content, its practical character, the relevance of the materials and the subsequent presence of a specialist in the subject to accompany teachers in the classroom.

The generalized use of inclusive language in the participants’ narratives shows their commitment to it. The reason for this might be because such a strategy calls for basic training alone, unlike others such as gender research that require more specialized knowledge. The UA has also acted to promote the use of inclusive language among teachers (Provencio et al., 2016), so it is no surprise that this is the most frequently used strategy. However, other strategies including reflecting on equality, encouraging equal participation and, in particular, the visibilization of women in different areas of knowledge, equal treatment for students and gender research, although present in the participants’ narratives, were mentioned infrequently. These findings are especially worrying given the importance of such practices in deconstructing the culture of gender stereotypes and building a true awareness of equality. As regards the importance of reflection, we need only mention the classic study by Facione (2000), which advocates a pedagogical approach to encourage open critical thinking on gender equality, and the research carried out by Zugaza et al. (2019), who stress the need to design actions aimed at sensitization in order to bring about a change in attitude and a commitment to equality.

Less-used strategies include the creation of situations in which to experience egalitarian participation in the classroom, the use of female role models and the equal treatment of all students. That these strategies are less frequent could be partly responsible for the way in which women continue to be silenced, given that no attention is drawn to their contributions and achievements in scientific and social progress (Vega et al., 2018). The fact that equal treatment and participation are mentioned so infrequently jeopardizes equal opportunities in the teaching and learning processes. Finally, the participants referred to research on very few occasions, which would indicate a lack of interest in that area and could lead to the invisibilization of women and gender issues on the research agenda (AQU, 2019).

The Impact of Integrating SDG 5 on University Teachers and Students

Those teachers who worked to integrate SDG 5 reported that it had the effect of sensitizing students and making them more aware of gender equality. It also had a positive effect on the teaching-learning processes. These findings are in line with those described by Kavuran (2018). In addition, teachers said their actions provided students with the skills needed to identify the gender stereotypes, norms and roles that determine power relations and generate inequality between women and men (Dugarova, 2015; United Nations, 2017, 2020a). They acknowledged that integrating SDG 5 improved their professional development insofar as it enabled them to optimize their pedagogical and didactic performance and adapt their teaching to real life. Indeed, teaching from a gender perspective involves a change from traditional methodologies and the way in which the discipline and/or subject is normally seen, plus a questioning of values and a call for professional action (Gryvkova, 2017). Gender equality thus has a strong beneficial effect on professional development and on the university teaching and learning processes. Evaluating the positive impact of incorporating SDG 5 on teachers and students is congruent with the absence of negative repercussions that this involves.

Factors that help or Hinder Integration of SDG 5

Participants indicated that the main factors that helped with the integration of SDG 5 into teaching included teacher training, specific university policies and sensitization and awareness activities. These activities refer to actions taken by the university to increase awareness, at both individual and collective levels, of the existence of gender imbalances and inequalities (for example, campaigns linked to the “International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women” and “International Women’s Day”, posters, videos, games, etc.). As Harford (2018) and Peterson and Jordansson (2017) point out, there are various elements that facilitate the process. In particular, the gender perspective should be taken into account in strategic planning, internal quality guarantee systems, training programmes, teaching, research and management. The data obtained in our study support this, given that participants acknowledged the value of university policies. Although the training provided by Spanish universities in this area could be better (Miralles-Cardona et al., 2020; Prendes-Espinosa et al., 2020), the teachers also highlighted its potential in helping to integrate the gender perspective into teaching. Other, less-mentioned factors included student motivation and interest in the subject and collaboration between the teachers responsible for each subject.

As for those elements seen as hindering integration, there was a slight tendency to identify low levels of awareness among teachers and lack of time. The notion that teachers may think that they have insufficient time to work on integrating SDG 5, which has also been identified by authors such as Chaleta et al. (2021), López-Francés et al. (2016) and Ruiz-Rico (2020), is worrying because teacher commitment is fundamental for guaranteeing the inclusion of gender equality in student learning.

Differences in the Integration of SDG 5 According to sex and Faculty

As far as differences according to sex are concerned, women were more likely to see teacher training, specific university policies, collaborative work and sensitization and awareness activities as factors favouring the integration of SDG 5. Bearing in mind that the literature recognizes these strategies as incentivizing teachers’ commitment to the integration of gender equality into their teaching (Etura et al., 2019; Ruiz-Rico, 2020; Verge et al., 2018), it might be an idea to show off their good points to those who valued them least – in this case the men. It is quite likely that knowing the advantages involved in their application – in terms of both teaching and social advance – would lead them to value them more positively and therefore participate more in their use.

As regards differences according to faculty of origin, teachers in the Faculty of Humanities were the most likely to agree that the integration of gender equality favours the acquisition of skills and objectives and encourages reflection and innovation in the design of subject matter. Teachers in the Faculty of Sciences, on the other hand, unlike all the other participants, thought that insufficient training in this area was one of the main factors hindering integration. One possible explanation for this could be the nature of their respective objects of knowledge. Humanities and its area of study is more akin to problems of a social nature like gender inequality, whereas this is not the case in sciences (Tazo et al., 2020).

Seen in their entirety, these results show that there are two determining factors affecting the integration of gender equality into teaching: the teachers and the university as an institution. What stands out as far as teachers are concerned is the lack of sensitization and the insufficient training in this area, which is in line with Ballarín (2015) and López-Francés et al. (2016), who show that some teachers, especially male ones, have a passive, reserved profile. As for the university, institutional support and specific policies aimed at the integration of SDG 5 become a catalyst for boosting effective training tailored to the real needs of those it is destined for (Hirsu et al., 2021; Segado et al., 2020).

Conclusion

It is clear that inequalities persist and may even intensify. Universities play a fundamental part in changing traditional roles and encouraging a fairer, more egalitarian view of gender relations. Despite this, institutions of higher education have so far prioritized the provision of professional and technical skills and paid insufficient attention to social problems in the context in which future professionals will be working. The practical integration of SDGs continues to be a task that causes problems for university teachers. On top of this, the strategies for integrating SDG 5 into universities have yet to be examined in detail because it is still an emerging field. Indeed, today’s knowledge of effective methods for integrating the 2030 Agenda using a holistic approach is still limited. Given this situation, the present study is relevant insofar as it outlines a reality that needs to be acted upon. Specifically, our investigation shows that more effort needs to be made to improve the integration of SDG 5 into the university teaching-learning processes. The fact that general policies on gender equality in institutions of higher education actually exist is not enough to bring about the integration of SDG 5. If policies do not focus on the main actors (teachers and students) and do not touch the reality of the classroom, then the results will continue to be discouraging. University leaders and managers should therefore focus their efforts on providing quality training for university teachers. In fact it would be a good idea to offer incentives for teachers to go on training courses and afterwards be monitored and accompanied by experts in the classroom.

Almost a decade has passed since approval of the 2030 Agenda, which highlighted the importance of empowering women and girls and eliminating gender violence. Nevertheless, in the area of the university the results are not encouraging because the integration of SDG 5 has generally been tackled following the specific approach and mainly by the most sensitized teachers. Indeed, in this study it has been shown that, instead of using more complex and powerful actions such as initiating the students into the study of gender equality through research seedbeds, it has been decided to use other, more basic methods. The reason for this may be the teachers’ lack of knowledge in this area, which shows there is a need to move on from intentions to actions. We therefore have to reflect on the most suitable channels for mainstreaming SDG 5, given its importance in boosting the teachers’ professional development and improving student awareness of gender equality, as shown in the present study.

Despite the numerous contributions that we have highlighted, this study was constrained insofar as it was carried out in a single university. Thus a future line of research is to expand the study to other institutions of higher education at home and abroad. It would also be a good idea to carry out a study using a proportional stratified sample to reflect the reality of the subject matter, considering the selection criteria for each stratum of population by faculty and the number of women and men involved. The use of such a sample could eliminate possible areas of bias, such as the higher participation of women in a masculinized context – which also indicates this collective’s greater interest in the subject under study – and the high participation in the Faculty of Education, the centre to which the researchers belong.

It would also be interesting to investigate what students think about the integration of SDG 5 into their learning process, thereby obtaining a more complete, enriched perspective that would ultimately make it possible to plan the integration of gender equality into university teaching more accurately and effectively.