Gender Discrimination, Construction, and Glass Ceiling Effects Among Women Academics in a Higher Education Institution in South Africa: Exploring Alternatives for Women’s Empowerment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The "Introduction" and "Conclusion" parts of the manuscript can be improved . You can add the situation of South Africa women at the Global Gender Gap Index and you can add some comments/suggestions to the "Conclusion" part of the manuscript. The "Conclusion" part is very short and does not provide sufficient information for the readers of the Journal. 

Author Response

Reviewer's report attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is important and definitely relevant, and the manuscript has potential. However, in its current form, it reads as conceptually broad, methodologically under-specified, and linguistically not well edited, with conclusions that are rather more generic than evidence-based. The paper states it “aims to investigate” discrimination and the glass ceiling and to explore empowerment alternatives, but it does not translate this into clear research questions or a precise contribution claim beyond general relevance. The introduction also includes many broad historical/policy statements, which dilute focus.

The manuscript broadly invokes feminism, critiques it, mentions intersectionality, and relies heavily on concepts such as “patriarchy” and gender stereotypes; yet it does not clearly state which feminist view guides the analysis or how it shaped the coding/interpretation. The “Feminist theoretical understanding” section reads more like a general textbook overview than an analytic framework tied to your data.

The manuscript claims a phenomenology design but then applies Thematic analysis in a rather general manner. Further, a reference is missing here. You used a referral approach with only 12 academics across four faculties. That may be fine for qualitative research, but it requires a stronger rationale: why this composition, why mixed-gender participants when the focus is on women academics, and how referral bias was mitigated. Please also add interview details: length, location, dates/timeframe, transcription procedure, and whether a language other than English was used.

You state that member checking “controlled or eliminated” subjectivity. In interpretivist qualitative research, subjectivity is not eliminated; it is managed via reflexivity and transparency. Also, “confirmability ensured by having other researchers check…” is vague: who were they, and what exactly did they do? The analysis discusses various aspects, including race, sexuality, age, and disability, but Table 1 does not include information on race, age, or other relevant identities, and it is not always clear whether the claims represent lived experiences or general perceptions.

Themes such as “patriarchy,” “bias,” “training,” “family-friendly policies,” and “dialogue” are plausible, but they are very broad and do not come as a surprise. The paper requires institution-specific mechanisms, including promotion criteria, committee processes, workload models, teaching and administrative burdens, publication expectations, informal networks, mentorshipor sponsorship access and more.

Your recommendations emphasize the importance of training women in leadership skills. This can unintentionally imply women need to “fix themselves,” while the data also points to structural barriers. A lot of space is spent on apartheid history, funding disparities, and broad claims. Some of that is necessary context, but currently it overwhelms the argument and does not clearly lead into the analytic framework. The manuscript does not clearly articulate limitations. The conclusion is mostly a restatement and remains general.

What is more, in the beginning, you cite proportions that appear confusing (e.g., women 45.2% vs men 75.5% in top management.

Author Response

 Response/comments attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a meaningful and relevant issue, and the revision adds useful methodological detail on sampling, interview procedure, and trustworthiness. However, I still see substantial weaknesses that require major revision before it is ready: (1) conceptual/theoretical framing is not yet integrated into the analysis, (2) methodology has internal inconsistencies (phenomenology vs. thematic analysis; claims of “unbiased” sampling), (3) findings/discussion read partly as general statements with limited analytic depth, and (4) language/editing and reference formatting remain problematic.

The paper claims a phenomenological design but then reports thematic analysis procedures in a generic manner. This is not wrong, but you need to justify the pairing clearly. The manuscript states that including both men and women is important because focusing on women “could be bias-laden” and that including men “seeks to provoke unbiased” experiences. This framing is methodologically problematic: qualitative research does not become “unbiased” by including men; instead, it becomes multi-perspectival. Additionally, if the study focuses on women’s barriers, authors must explain how men’s accounts were used analytically, e.g., whether themes were contrasted or integrated, and whether these differences vary by gender.

You now describe member checking, reflexive journaling, thick description, confirmability checks, peer debriefing, and an audit trail. This is helpful, but some sections read like a checklist and contain wording issues (e.g., “Conformability”). You should link these steps to specific threats (e.g., referral sampling bias, power dynamics in workplace interviews) and clarify what “other researchers checked consistency” concretely means.

From the sections visible, recommendations and conclusions emphasize patriarchy, stereotypes, intersectionality, hostility from women leaders, mentorship, and training. But the narrative often remains at a general level. The paper would be stronger if each central theme included more precise boundaries (i.e., what is within vs. outside the theme), a more apparent interpretive linkage back to the stated theoretical framework, and a clearer sense of prevalence (e.g., “most participants…”, “a minority…”).

The revision includes practical suggestions, such as family-friendly policies and women-to-women mentorship, supported by participant quotes. To make this publishable as management/policy-relevant work, you should specify who implements (HR? faculty leadership? national policy?); how success would be evaluated; and how they address intersectionality beyond listing categories.

The limitations section notes a single university and a small sample size, suggesting that future work should be multi-institutional or quantitative. However, it also overlooks referral/snowball sampling and social desirability bias in workplace interviews, as well as mixed-gender samples, and how these factors shape claims about women’s experiences. Additionally, it fails to consider the implications of English-only interviews for expression/nuance.

Furthermore, the reference list shows inconsistencies and possible incomplete DOI formatting, including line breaks (e.g., DOI split). Also, answer letter is missing – or wrong document was uploaded.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 reference list shows inconsistencies and possible incomplete DOI formatting, including line breaks (e.g., DOI split).

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision.