Introduction

Conceptual Framing

Women, distance education, and leadership comprise an interdisciplinary intersection that encompasses the roles, experiences, and contributions of women in the evolving landscape of distance education. To explore this intersection comprehensively, we adopt an integrative framework (Mark et al., 1999) that acknowledges and examines the diverse identities and experiences of Canadian women leaders in university distance education to position the significance of this underexplored area of study.

Distance and Higher Education

Global participation in higher education has steadily increased in recent decades, more than doubling in the past two decades (UNESCO, 2021, p. 218); Canada experienced significant growth during the same period (Statistics Canada, 2020, para. 2). A 2023 report on Canadian postsecondary education states that, “by 2021–22, full-time enrolments were 82% higher than they were in 2000–01” (Usher & Balfour, 2023, p. 7). Worldwide participation in online learning has also increased (Palvia et al., 2018), with evidence suggesting that this is especially the case for women (World Economic Forum, 2022). In Canada, it was reported that 83% of universities offered online courses for credit in 2018, up from 68% in 2010 (CDLRA, 2019, p. 3). As an example of women’s participation in distance education, Coulter (1988) reported that Athabasca University enrolled 60–62% women in the late 1980s, whereas the participation rate of women undergraduates in Canada was 52%, and suggested that distance education was a preferred mode for women learners. This trend continues today, with women comprising approximately 66% of undergraduate students and 77% of graduate students (Athabasca University, 2024).

Universities are among the earliest providers of distance education and online learning; traditional learning and teaching practices are changing, and distance education methods are influencing these changes. The acknowledged resistance to change in universities (Marshall, 2010) has not affected women positively (Smith-Carrier et al., 2021). Research examining the transition to online learning in seven Canadian universities with historical mandates for distance education (Ives & Walsh, 2021) identified access, revenue generation, and technology as drivers of online learning and explored aspects of changing practices in learning and teaching. Resistance to change, the lack of dedicated resources, and the need for effective, visionary leadership emerged as critical factors for success. We proposed that lessons from the experiences of distance educators who were early adopters of online learning could help others to address challenges and opportunities. We still believe this. Working with doctoral students investigating aspects of distance education opportunities in their own professional contexts, we are strongly motivated to share the “experiential wisdom” (Burge, 2008, p. 5) that we have uncovered.

An early adopter of new technologies for adult learners, Canada has an established reputation for leadership in educational approaches that address geographic and demographic challenges in rural and remote areas. For example, the CBC broadcast an interactive and innovative distance education program to rural areas from 1941 to 1965. Called the National Farm Radio Forum (Parks Canada, 2008), this initiative enabled story sharing among neighbours and fostered local leadership initiatives. Exploiting “the power of radio technology to pioneer interactive distance education,” this model was adopted by UNESCO to provide opportunities for adult education in remote populations worldwide. Building upon this history, Canada’s low population density of only 4.24 people per square kilometre led to the widespread introduction of correspondence education or self-study programs by the early 1990s.

Inspired by feminist scholars before us, we continue in this book the tradition of narrative descriptions of women’s experiences in higher and distance education leadership (Piper & Samarasekara, 2021; Schnackenberg & Simard, 2019). Focusing on distance education specifically, Bainbridge & Wark (2022) and Kanwar et al. (2013) offer stories of women pioneers in the advancement and development of distance education globally. As evidence of our commitment to add to this narrative and to background the stories that follow, we include in this introduction a brief chronological list of examples in the literature of this rich foundation of women’s achievements, challenges, needs, and perceptions, beginning with the trailblazers and then moving to more recent accounts. We then connect this research to similar collections of stories about and from women students related to their experiences of distance education. Leadership issues figure prominently in all of these narratives.

Faith (1988) layered the perspectives of women distance educators and thought leaders on the historical context of the practice. She included chapters from Canadian women forerunners and argued that women were not only significant contributors to the field of distance education but also “central figures in developing appropriate theory and practice for a growing female learner population” (p. 331). In a study for the Council of Ontario Universities Committee on the Status of Women, Caplan (1995, p. 217) documented experiences of “general maleness and heterosexism of the [university] environment” that illustrated a lack of incentives, harassment and safety issues, devaluing of women and their work, exclusion and isolation, double standards, and stereotyping. She provided some advice for women academics struggling to survive in universities. Burge (2008) described lessons learned by 44 pioneer distance educators, 15 of whom were women. Interviewees recounted their stories, from which Burge identified personal and professional characteristics of institutional leadership and management effectiveness. She gathered as well their concerns about the future. Patterson (2012, p. 1) critically reviewed “the largely North American literature on feminist pedagogy and distance education within the discipline of women’s studies and … suggest[ed] ways to better integrate these two perspectives.”

Kanwar and her colleagues (2013) collected stories of women leaders in distance education in Commonwealth countries. Recognizing underutilized leadership practices of women, they provided recommendations for institutions regarding organizational barriers and the provision of support systems for women. Fitzgerald (2013) shared her perspectives and those of other women in senior leadership positions in higher education in Australia and New Zealand, pointing out that women are consistently under-represented in leadership positions in higher education, particularly at senior levels. She emphasized the need to conceptualize leadership in democratic, inclusive, and socially just ways as opposed to gender-based, stereotypical frameworks. Similarly, Clover et al. (2016) documented the achievements of women researchers, activists, and students in adult education and leadership in Canada, further extending feminist and activist scholarly traditions.

More recently, Schnackenberg and Simard (2019) collected the stories of women and their challenges in higher education leadership in the United States. Their final chapter (“Women in Leadership: Summary for Success,” pp. 277–297) provides evidence-based strategies for success and asserts that women themselves need to address persistent gender inequities by enhancing awareness of the realities of leadership, including historical salary and responsibility gaps; developing grit and confidence; taking advantage of opportunities; ensuring readiness through study and experience; harmonizing aspirations and goals; explicitly articulating personal and professional vision and mission; preparing an entry plan that includes strategic actions for championing change; creating effective, collaborative teams; and taking care of themselves. They concluded that successful instructional leaders are focused on and visibly support student learning outcomes in all that they do. Parchoma and colleagues (2020) published a range of evidence from multiple authors (many of them women) on blended and online learning within graduate university contexts in Canada. They proposed that collaborative teams of faculty members with instructional designers, educational technologists, and other skilled professionals can lead traditional university programs toward greater openness, flexibility, and access. Graduate offerings that combine technological and pedagogical principles will be more focused on effective, quality learning and support for students. Finally, Bainbridge and Wark (2022) shared career profiles of and interviews with 30 pre-eminent academics (seven Canadians) who contributed before 1980 to the development of open and distance learning around the world. The impact of their encyclopedic collection is meaningful evidence of women’s contributions to distance education theory, design, practice, management, and policy.

Feminist scholars have also published stories of women’s experiences as students in distance education. Faith and Coulter (1988), pointing out that feminist scholarship had not yet studied distance education environments, explored some of the negative impacts of home study–style distance education on homebound women students, including isolation and invisibility. They concluded that “research to date surely indicates that a reconsideration of our approaches to curriculum development, instructional design and evaluation, course delivery and institutional research is in order so that distance education can become gender-inclusive” (p. 197). Coulter’s (1988) chapter not only described the classic characteristics of distance education, which allows for flexible, less threatening learning, but also made the point that home study has the potential to exacerbate the systematic silencing of women. Berge and Lenskyj (1990) described the design and implementation of an Ontario Institute for Studies in Education graduate women’s studies course and offered guidelines for improved woman-centred teaching based on student evaluations of the distance learning environment, advocating for the application of a feminist andragogy in future courses.

May (1994) interviewed nine women learners and analyzed their personal accounts of access and technology in a women’s studies undergraduate course from a feminist perspective, demonstrating the “richness and range” (p. 82) of perspectives. She proposed further research to explore interactions, barriers, services, technology, and tutor training, all in support of women’s learning needs. Von Prümmer (2000) published an institutional evaluation case study of women distance students at Fern Universität in Germany, devoting a chapter to the challenges and opportunities inherent in distance teaching and learning. She concluded with observations about necessary improvements, including an increased focus on learning rather than teaching and the enhanced use of information and communication technologies. Vaskovics & Smith (2015) described four Canadian women graduate students at Athabasca University, “framed within a Postmodernist-Feminist context” (p. 12), focusing on their multiple roles, learning preferences, and general satisfaction with online learning.

We conclude that one of the strengths of this narrative tradition of women’s lived experiences in distance and higher education leadership is that women are writing for women, illustrating the experiences of the overlooked, and sharing stories of success and challenge. The authors’ stewardship demonstrates commitment to a vision of a more equitable future. By offering practical advice for personal and professional approaches to leadership, these authors collectively champion current and prospective colleagues.

In our book, we aspire to uncover the contributions of Canadian women and reveal how they enact their leadership in an effort to enhance awareness and inform future practice. We collect the ideas of current women distance educators who describe their leadership challenges, explain why the issues are pervasive in their contexts, and offer strategies for how to improve their practice based on their experience. We now turn to foundational and theoretical literature that describes dimensions of leadership to illustrate the systemic challenges that women leaders face in higher education.

Leadership Approaches

Feminist scholars assert that leadership theories are foundationally and systematically gender biased. Fletcher (2004), for example, described post-heroic leadership models that de-emphasize individualism found in traditional heroic models. Instead, post-heroic models favour leadership shared and distributed through networks and dynamic interactions among individuals. However, Fletcher emphasized that these models are not inherently gender neutral. She argued that, though post-heroic models represent a shift from individual to collaborative and relational leadership, they “cannot flourish in structures and systems organized around beliefs in individualistic meritocracy” (p. 658) associated with old models.

The focus on interactions between and among individuals and groups portrays leadership as relational, a process that is complex, organic, and networked. Relational forms of leadership are evident in conceptual models such as distributed (Gronn, 2000), complexity (Clarke, 2013), and inclusive leadership (Chrobot-Mason & Roberson, 2022). Insights from complexity theory aid in conceptualizing how crisis leadership is enacted. Drawing from global experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic such as the move to online learning, Uhl-Bien (2021, pp. 1401–1402) explained how complex pressures allowed leaders to “open up adaptive space,” thereby freeing and enabling people and “systems to develop and advance new ways of thinking” and doing. Aspects of complexity, relational, and inclusive leadership approaches—including listening to diverse perspectives, maintaining a culture of trust, and communicating and sharing information in a timely manner—are deemed integral during crisis events. These models recognize that the capacity for leadership and innovation is dispersed within organizations, including universities (Bolden, 2011). Context specific, a relational approach focuses on “communication as the medium in which all social constructions of leadership are continuously created and changed” (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 665). Therefore, leadership (wherever it occurs) is enacted through communication.

The literature confirms that women have been under-represented in academic and administrative leadership roles in higher education, reporting that the female experience is invisible and that others are blind to women’s achievements, needs, and perspectives in distance education (Caplan, 1995; Faith, 1988). Fitzgerald (2013, p. 26) observed that “women are underrepresented in leadership positions in higher education, particularly at senior levels.” She added that breaking through gendered structural and cultural barriers to senior positions is challenging but that retaining women in “middle and senior levels in roles where agency and leadership can be exercised” (p. 114) is also daunting.

Furthermore, the World Economic Forum’s 18th Global Gender Gap annual report (Pal et al., 2024) highlighted gender gaps in labour market outcomes across 146 economies (p. 12). Leading the index for 15 years, Iceland is ranked first, closing over 90% of its gender gap (p. 5), whereas Canada is ranked 37th (p. 12), closing approximately 76% of its gender gap (p. 135). However, the proportion of women in senior (leadership) roles was only 35.5% (p. 24).

Peterson (2014, p. 40) found an increased risk of failure among women leaders, a phenomenon known as the “glass cliff.” She argued that the metaphor highlights that academic management positions in higher education are sometimes viewed as problematic or precarious and a less attractive option compared with research track positions. Fitzgerald (2013, p. 9) noted that women frequently have been located in “institutional housekeeping roles” that take time away from other academic work. Among the challenges that she acknowledged are ensuring the retention of women leaders and understanding the circumstances that support women in leadership positions. Fitzgerald was influenced by the power of women’s stories and how they demonstrate the contextual, adaptive, and personal nature of leadership.

Harvey and Jones (2022) pointed out that women demonstrate exemplary leadership in higher education, especially in teaching and learning domains. They suggested that distributed leadership, in which individuals collaborate and assume responsibility for leading action for change, allows women to claim their expertise. They described the process as flexible, multi-level, iterative, and reflective. Rosa and Clavero (2022) emphasized that, though universities can be powerful in promoting gender equity, inclusion, and diversity in both higher education and society, salary gaps and gender imbalances within the academic hierarchy persist. For example, Smith-Carrier and colleagues (2021) provided a conservative estimate of the gender wage and pension gaps over the course of an academic career and retirement at Canadian universities. Whereas in 2019 male professors earned an average of 10% higher than female professors for the same work, the gender pension gap is an additional 48% to 64% more than the gender pay gap, leading to greater long-term inequities for women. The authors concluded that “previous work has substantially underestimated the long-term effects of the existing gender pay gap within, and outside of, academia” (p. 82). Reflecting on her 2015 PhD research, Cafley (2021) provided a description of the continuing struggle for gender equity in university senior leadership in Canada. She observed that, over a three-year period, four of five Canadian university presidents who “experienced abbreviated terms” (para. 4) were women.

Moving past the systemic challenges and resistance to change in universities, this book highlights women leaders who apply effective leadership strategies, enabling change and transformation from within and forging new pathways in the field of distance education. Chapter authors recognize leadership dimensions and competencies consistent with informal and middle leadership, often serving in roles such as dean, director, instructor, instructional designer, program coordinator, educational developer, and others. Their contributions provide practical examples of the vast level of influence that they wield across their organizations by implementing evidence-based practices in their contexts.

Sections and Chapters

Informed by our conceptual framework, the scholarship of women’s leadership, and the advancement of distance education, this convergence fosters conditions for change and innovation. Pointing to the transformation of teaching and learning methods, Beaudoin (2016) claimed that distance education has affected the evolution of higher education. The 19 stories that we collected for this book were submitted in response to a national call for proposals and underwent a rigorous review and editorial process with the intention to demonstrate the expansive scope of Canadian women leading distance and online education at Canadian universities. Contributing authors’ narrative accounts offer perspectives and insights through descriptions of influences and challenges that they have encountered in their leadership practices.

These accounts illustrate actual examples of inclusive, relational, and complexity leadership models, demonstrating how these approaches have shaped experiences and contributions in distance education. Their reflections offer practical strategies and lessons of resilience, creativity, and hope for the future, in relation not only to distance education but also to innovative and effective leadership in postsecondary education more generally. The stories offer a wide variety of perspectives, narrative styles, and experiences, addressing many aspects of women’s leadership in university distance education in Canada. Some are very personal; others are more academic. Taken together they offer an authentic glimpse of some women’s experiences with leadership, in keeping with the tradition that we have already introduced.

We have combined the narratives in three sections, bookended by the reflections of long-time and well-respected distance educators from across the country: Lori Wallace and Lorraine Carter, Diane Janes, and Katy Campbell. Their decades of experience in the field connect the pioneers with today’s practitioners. These authors corroborate most of the topics discussed by other established and emerging scholars represented in this book.

In the first section, “Planning Learning,” five stories demonstrate the power of strategic program and course design and educational development to influence both innovation in university teaching and resources and transformation of cultures. The authors are instructional designers or faculty members and represent six universities in six provinces. The chapters include common threads related to agency and intentional instructional leadership that focus on students’ needs and quality learning outcomes. They illustrate that values such as trust among colleagues, common vision, and accessibility can lead to inclusive processes that integrate systems and quality design perspectives for social justice and other aims. The narratives demonstrate feminist approaches to teaching and learning, including prioritizing relationship and community building through collaboration and communication within courses and programs. These stories suggest middle-level leadership approaches that counter historical gender-based and colonial practices, helping to disrupt the traditional undervaluing of women’s contributions in academia.

The second section, “Communicating and Collaborating,” extends examples of women-centred, principles-based leadership in course and program design to university-wide organizational development. Some of the five stories document approaches to helping universities manage continuity in times of crisis or organizational change. The authors include experienced administrators and faculty members at universities in four provinces. Some chapters emphasize the contributions of distance and online leaders to university responses to the pandemic and other crises as exemplars of how middle-level leaders collaborated with colleagues to enable the unplanned move to online teaching. Other chapters offer strategies for successful collaborative leadership of initiatives to establish access for Indigenous, rural, and remote students. All speak to the importance of aligning values and consulting on solutions to unexpected or disruptive organizational challenges—an expression of relational leadership. The narratives highlight trust as an essential value, expressed through transparency, collegial relationships, and pragmatic, problem-solving approaches to multiple challenges of stakeholder buy-in and innovation. These stories are reflective accounts, demonstrating the importance of expertise and experience and describing the multiple roles of women leaders in universities.

In the third section, “Reflecting on Experiences,” seven stories portray the lived experiences of leaders at institutions in four provinces and one territory. The authors describe their experiences as students, faculty members, instructional designers, senior and mid-level administrators, and agents of change. These reflections are poignant, candid commentaries on how the authors respond to a range of systemic, personal, and other barriers that they face on their leadership journeys. In some cases, they recount experiences of inappropriate behaviour; gendered, racist, and dismissive attitudes; and occasionally hostile treatment by colleagues and contemporaries. The authors share explicitly feminist, social justice perspectives on their struggles against invisibility, discrimination, and imposter syndrome. They offer practical strategies for finding creative solutions and establishing safe spaces for women and other minorities within the academy through equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives and communities of practice. Although the narratives differ widely in style and content, all of them include common threads of respect, inclusiveness, and collaboration. They advocate dialogue, self-growth, and persistence and recommend intentional instructional leadership, networking, and mentorship for helping others into successful leadership opportunities.

These stories of Canadian women’s leadership—shared by students, professionals, faculty members, and other educators—are shaped by their foundation in distance education values. The chapters reflect the persistence of the authors in the pursuit of their goals and their resilience in the face of formidable systemic and personal barriers. For example, all express commitment to access to higher education. And all advocate women-centred or feminist approaches to learning and teaching. But the lessons learned are not exclusive to distance education. Rather, they can inform women and leadership across higher education worldwide. By continuing the tradition of narrative descriptions of women’s experiences and voices, this collection further illustrates that women have been paving the way for innovative and inclusive approaches to education and demonstrating that diverse perspectives and experiences are essential components of systemic change.

We recognize the need for ongoing dialogue and action focused on promoting values-based, inclusive, and socially just leadership. This feminist leadership should employ relational and decolonizing practices, such as fostering mentorship, creating spaces, providing freedom for everyone to contribute, and maintaining openness to diverse ways of thinking and knowing. Additionally, it is crucial to identify and confront issues such as gender bias, racism, and other forms of discrimination that hinder inclusivity and justice.

References

• Athabasca University. (2024). Athabasca University at a glance. https://www.athabascau.ca/about-au/glance.html
• Bainbridge, S., & Wark, N. (2022). The encyclopedia of female pioneers in online learning. Routledge.
• Beaudoin, M. (2016). A primer for higher education decision makers. New Directions for Higher Education, 173, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20175
• Blackmore, J. (2013). A feminist critical perspective on educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.754057
• Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251–269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x.
• Bond, J., Dirkin, K., Tyler, A. J., & Lassitter, S. (2021). Ladders and escalators: Examining advancement obstacles for women in instructional design. The Journal of Instructional Design, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.51869/102/jb
• Burge, L. (2008). “Crafting the future”: Pioneer lessons and concerns for today. Distance Education, 29(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004811
• Burge, E., & Lenksyj, H. (1990). Women studying in distance education: Issues and principles. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 5(1), 20–37. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/369
• Cafley, J. (2021, October 27). The struggle for gender equity in university leadership. University Affairs. https://universityaffairs.ca/features/the-struggle-for-gender-equity-in-university-leadership/
• Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA). (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2018. https://www.cdlra-acrfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2018_national_technical_en.pdf
• Caplan, P. J. (1995). Lifting a ton of feathers: A woman’s guide to surviving in the academic world. Council of Ontario Universities.
• Chrobot-Mason, D., & Roberson, Q. M. (2022). Inclusive leadership. In P. G. Northouse (Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.), 322–351. Sage.
• Clarke, N. (2013). Model of complexity leadership development. Human Resource Development International, 16(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.756155
• Clover, D. E., Butterwick, S., & Collins, L. (2016). Women, adult education, and leadership in Canada: Inspiration. Passion. Commitment. Thompson.
• Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institutional analysis. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12018
• Coulter, R. (1988). Women and distance education: Towards a feminist perspective. In R. Sweet (Ed.), Post-secondary distance education in Canada: Policies, practices and priorities (pp. 11–22). Canadian Society for Studies in Education and Athabasca University Press.
• DeFrank-Cole, L., & Tan, S. J. (2021). Women and leadership: Journey toward equity. Sage.
• Ekren, G. (2014). Women’s perceptions of leadership in distance education. International Women Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(3), 27–41.
• Faith, K. (Ed.). (1988). Toward new horizons for women in distance education: International perspectives. Routledge.
• Faith, K., & Coulter, R. (1988). Home study: Keeping women in their place? In D. Sewart & J. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education (pp. 195–197). International Council for Open and Distance Education.
• Fitzgerald, T. (2013). Women leaders in higher education: Shattering the myths. Routledge [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. vbk://9781135048662
• Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of post heroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 647–661.
• Gnanadass, E., & Sanders, A. Y. (2018). Gender still matters in distance education. Handbook of Distance Education, 4^th edition, 79–91.
• Gourley, B. (2013). Helping other women to become leaders in open and distance higher education. In A. Kanwar, F. Ferreira, & C. Latchem (Eds.), Women and leadership in open and distance learning and development (pp. 47–58). Commonwealth of Learning.
• Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X000283006
• Harvey, M., & Jones, S. (2022). Challenge accepted: Women claiming leadership in higher education learning and teaching. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.1.05
• Heiser, R. E. (2024). Quality transnational distance education: A mixed-methods study on internationalization of higher education [Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University]. Athabasca University Digital Thesis and Dissertation Collection. https://dt.athabascau.ca/jspui/handle/10791/447
• Ives, C., & Walsh, P. (2021). Perspectives of Canadian distance educators on the move to online learning. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 28–40. https://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/188971
• Jung, I. (2022). Quality assurance in online, open, and distance education. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & I. Jung, (Eds.). Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 1–16). Springer Singapore.
• Kanwar, A., Ferreira, F., & Latchem, C. (2013). Women and leadership in open and distance learning and development. Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/24
• Kramarae, C. (2003). Gender equity online, when there is no door to knock on. Handbook of Distance Education, 18, 261–272.
• Kusum, K., Piaget, K., & Zahidi, S. (2024). Global gender gap report. World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs
• Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (1999). Toward an integrative framework for evaluation practice. The American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(99)00025-9
• Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organisational change? ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1018
• Messacar, D. (2025, February 26). Women’s representation and compensation in full-time faculty positions: A statistical analysis of Canadian universities from 1970 to 2022, University Affairs/Affaires Universitaires. https://universityaffairs.ca/features/womens-representation-and-compensation-in-full-time-faculty-positions/
• May, S. (1994). Women’s experience as distance learners: Access and technology. The Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 81–98. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/208/619
• Olcott, D. (2020). In search of leadership: Practical perspectives on leading distance education organisations. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 48–57. https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/472
• Pal, K., Piaget, K., Zahidi, S., & Baller, S. (2024, June 11). Global gender gap: Insight report. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2024/
• Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241.
• Parchoma, G., Power, M., & Lock, J. (Eds.). (2020). The finest blend: Graduate education in Canada. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771992770.01
• Parks Canada. (2008). National Farm Radio Forum. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=12571
• Patterson, N. (2012). Distance education: A perspective from women’s studies. International Women Online Journal of Distance Education, 1(2), 1–12. https://www.wojde.org/FileUpload/bs295854/File/01_12.pdf
• Peterson, H. (2014). An academic “glass cliff”? Exploring the increase of women in Swedish higher education management. Athens Journal of Education, 1(1), 33–44.
• Piper, M., & Samarasekara, I. (2021). Nerve: Lessons on leadership from two women who went first. ECW Press.
• Rosa, R., & Clavero, S. (2021). Gender equality in higher education and research. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446
• Saks, D. L. (2009). Education at a distance: Best practices and considerations for leadership educators. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(1), 137–147.
• Schnackenberg, H. L., & Simard, D. A. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for women in higher education leadership. Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series. IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/book/202751
• Shava, G. N., & Ndebele, C. (2014). Challenges and opportunities for women in distance education management positions: Experiences from the Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU). Journal of Social Sciences, 40(3), 359–372.
• Smith-Carrier, T., Penner, M., Cecala, A., & Agócs, C. (2021). It’s not just a pay gap: Quantifying the gender wage and pension gap at a post-secondary institution in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 51(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.vi0.189
• Statistics Canada. (2020, February 19). Canadian postsecondary enrolments and graduates, 2017/2018. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200219/dq200219b-eng.htm
• Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.
• Uhl-Bien, M. (2021). Complexity leadership and followership: Changed leadership in a changed world. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1917490
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2021). Higher education figures at a glance. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/f_unesco1015_brochure_web_en.pdf
• Usher, A., & Balfour, J. (2023). The state of postsecondary education in Canada, 2023. Higher Education Strategy Associates. https://higheredstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SPEC-2023_v4.pdf
• Vaskovics, C., & Smith, F. (2015). Canada—Inclusive distance education: Experiences of four Canadian women. International Women Online Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 11–23. https://www.wojde.org/FileUpload/bs295854/File/02_43.pdf
• Von Prümmer, C. (2000). Women and distance education: Challenges and opportunities. Routledge.
• Von Prümmer, C., Kirkup, G., & Spronk, B. (1988). Women in distance education. In D. Sewart & J. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education (pp. 56–62). International Council for Open and Distance Education.
• World Economic Forum. (2022, July 13). The upward trend in online learning. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf