GENDERED PATHWAYS IN PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT: FAMILY INFLUENCE AND DECISION-MAKING IN TASHKENT

Main Article Content

Abstract:

Gender differences in higher education enrollment have been widely discussed however less attention has been paid to how these differences are negotiated and discussed within families in collectivist contexts such as Tashkent. This paper examines how gender shapes enrollment decision-making for private universities in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, with particular attention to the issue of family involvement and perceived risk. Based on a mixed-methods study of 275 students enrolled in both private universities of Tashkent and high school students on in the last year of high school and on the verge on joining a private institution, the paper combines quantitative survey results with qualitative student accounts to explore how families apply different evaluation criteria for male and female applicants. The findings of this research which stands on a socio cultural aspect of the enrolment decisions show that Uzbek families in Tashkent are to apply stricter checks and assessment criteria related to the safety, social acceptance, and institutional legitimacy of the private universities as well as the educational atmosphere when the applicant is a female student, while discussions concerning male students emphasize mostly on issues such as future employability outcomes and public recognition. Taken together, these differences make one point clear.

Article Details

How to Cite:

Ahmad , . J. J. (2026). GENDERED PATHWAYS IN PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT: FAMILY INFLUENCE AND DECISION-MAKING IN TASHKENT. Science and Technology in the Modern World, 5(1), 112–117. Retrieved from https://in-academy.uz/index.php/zdift/article/view/71502

References:

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution (2nd ed.). Brill.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Chen, Y., Liu, Z., & Wang, H. (2021). Family influence on higher education choice in collectivist societies. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799958

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015). Higher education consumer choice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610683711

Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x

Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110401453

OECD. (2020). Education in Central Asia: Reforms and challenges. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ef74b2c3-en

Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210415523

Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2015). Factors affecting university choice in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034429