This study intends to indicate the extent of gender disparity; compare gender gap in science and engineering with that of social science and health fields; and explore the reasons for gender gap in Addis Ababa University (AAU). It employed a mixed design, using document analysis for collecting quantitative data regarding the extent of disparity and using interview for collecting qualitative data regarding the reasons for disparity. Quantitative data were analyzed using percentages while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Accordingly, the study showed that the gender gap in enrolments, in graduates, and in honours lists in the last five years remains wide in favour of males. Females’ underrepresentation was worse in science and engineering fields. Moreover, females’ educational attainment was lower as compared to males; and their attainment in science and engineering fields was lower than that in social science fields. It appears that females’ underrepresentation in the university in general and in science and engineering fields in particular is attributable to different factors rooted in social and cultural norms and practices.

This paper explores the policy discourses underpinning an international higher education partnership involving a large Ethiopian university. Particular attention is given to a partnership programme established between an Ethiopian (EU) and a Norwegian (NU) university, and the main ideas and practices expressed and negotiated from an Ethiopian perspective. This study employs a theoretical framework based on critical policy analysis and a qualitative case study design using interviews and document analysis. The results illustrate how a loosely defined policy for international partnership in higher education frames the conditions and possibilities for this programme. Partnership in EU is based on policies that emphasise flexibility in various possibilities, but also with ambitions, foremost, to partner with a Northern university. In the EU, this partnership is viewed, mainly, as a means of academic growth and development while also convoluted with concerns about resource dilemmas and dependency. This partnership programme, therefore, appears to be based on contradictions from which a double agenda emerges: striving for mutuality versus avoiding dependency, and local needs versus global achievements.