Faculty Behavior and Gender Differences in the Application of Corporate Culture to Students: A Multifaceted Analysis

 Faculty Behavior and Gender Differences in the Application of Corporate Culture to Students: A Multifaceted Analysis

 

The relationship between corporate culture and strategy execution in educational institutions, particularly in management colleges, plays a crucial role in shaping student experiences and career readiness. Our latest analysis explores how faculty behavior influences students' perception of corporate culture and examines gender-based differences in its application. These insights build on our previous discussion on corporate culture's impact on strategy execution, highlighting how faculty attitudes align with institutional goals to prepare students for industry demands.

We invite you to read both articles, share your views, and comment on how corporate culture shapes education!

Abstract

Corporate culture significantly influences faculty behavior and student experiences in educational institutions. This study investigates how faculty behavior shapes students' perception of corporate culture and examines gender-based differences in how corporate culture is applied to students. The research is based on data from 200 students (100 male, 100 female) from private colleges in Indore. Key variables include faculty support, perceived faculty bias, corporate culture exposure, and placement readiness. Statistical tests such as t-tests, ANOVA, correlation, and regression analysis were conducted to assess these relationships. The findings indicate that female students perceive significantly higher faculty bias (p < 0.01) compared to males, while no significant gender-based differences exist in faculty support or corporate culture application. Faculty support was found to have a weak impact on placement readiness, suggesting external factors play a larger role. The study highlights the importance of addressing perceived biases and integrating industry-driven corporate culture to enhance student career preparedness.

Keywords

Faculty Behavior, Corporate Culture, Gender Differences, Student Perception, Higher Education, Placement Readiness, Private Colleges, Faculty Bias, Academic Disciplines, Industry Exposure

  Introduction:

The Interplay of Corporate Culture, Faculty Behavior, and Gender in Higher Education

This paper delves into the intricate relationship between corporate culture, faculty behavior, and gender disparities within the higher education landscape. The increasing adoption of corporate management models in universities has profoundly altered the academic environment, impacting faculty roles, student-faculty interactions, and potentially creating gender-based inequalities. This analysis examines how these corporate influences manifest in faculty attitudes and behaviors towards students, exploring whether gender plays a significant role in shaping these interactions and their ultimate impact on student experiences. We will synthesize existing research to identify key themes, analyze the evidence, and highlight areas where further investigation is needed. The adoption of corporate models, characterized by metrics, competition, and market-driven priorities [1], has raised concerns about its impact on the traditional values of academia [2]. Understanding the resulting shifts in faculty behavior and the potential for gender bias is crucial for ensuring equitable and effective higher education. [3]

 

II. Defining Corporate Culture and its Manifestations in Academia

 

The term "corporate culture" typically refers to the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that characterize a company. In the academic context, the adoption of corporate culture manifests in several ways. Traditional academic cultures, often emphasizing intellectual freedom, collaborative scholarship, and mentorship, are increasingly being replaced by metrics-driven approaches focused on efficiency, accountability, and measurable outcomes [1]. This shift can be observed in the increasing emphasis on research grants, publications in high-impact journals, and student enrollment numbers as key performance indicators for faculty and departments [4]. The pressure to secure funding and demonstrate productivity can alter faculty priorities, potentially affecting teaching methodologies, research focus, and the time dedicated to mentoring and student support [5]. For example, the pressure to publish in high-impact journals might incentivize research that is easily quantifiable and marketable, potentially diverting attention from less commercially viable but equally valuable scholarly pursuits. Furthermore, the adoption of corporate management structures, with their emphasis on hierarchy and efficiency, can impact faculty autonomy and decision-making power, potentially affecting their interactions with students.

 

III. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review

 

Numerous studies have investigated faculty attitudes and behaviors towards students, often revealing a complex interplay of factors influenced by both traditional academic values and the emerging corporate culture. Gnyezdilova's 2014 study [3] highlighted key indicators of corporate relations among university faculty, including participation in university policy, interpersonal relationships, and assistance to colleagues. However, the study did not explicitly address gender differences in these behaviors. Other research has explored the impact of corporate culture on faculty performance [2], but few studies have specifically examined the effects on faculty-student interactions. Several studies, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, have examined faculty perceptions of their roles, teaching styles, and interactions with students [6], [7], [8]. These studies reveal a range of approaches, from traditional lecture-based teaching to more active and collaborative methods. However, the influence of corporate culture on these pedagogical choices and the potential for gender bias in faculty behaviors remain areas requiring further investigation. For instance, while some studies suggest that female faculty may be more likely to engage in mentoring and support roles [7], this needs further investigation within the context of corporate-influenced academic environments. Akinleke and Omowunmi's study [9] found no significant difference in classroom treatment perceptions between male and female students, but this does not necessarily negate the possibility of subtle biases impacting student experiences. The experiences of American students providing therapy in Jordan [10] highlight the complexities of cultural and gender norms influencing provider-patient interactions, offering a valuable comparative perspective on the potential impact of cultural context on faculty-student dynamics.

 

IV. Gender Differences in Faculty-Student Interactions: Examining Bias and Inequality

 

This section focuses on the critical issue of gender differences in faculty-student interactions, acknowledging the pervasive influence of implicit bias and systemic inequalities. Research on international female graduate engineering students in the US [6] revealed gender differences in preferences for choosing a graduate school and in the challenges faced. Female students prioritized funding and mentorship, highlighting the importance of these factors in their academic journeys. In contrast, male students placed more emphasis on post-graduation employment prospects. This difference in priorities suggests that female students may be more acutely aware of the need for support and mentorship within a potentially challenging academic environment. Further research has revealed a "care gap" in Canadian universities [7], where female faculty disproportionately shoulder the responsibility for addressing students' personal and mental health issues. This finding suggests a potential gender bias in the allocation of support roles and the expectation that female faculty will take on these responsibilities, potentially impacting their teaching and research time. Studies on Russian engineering students [11] demonstrated that gender inequality is perpetuated through low expectations for women, both by faculty and peers. This implicit bias can significantly affect female students' access to opportunities and their overall academic experience. Similarly, research on female undergraduate engineering students in Ontario [12] highlighted the prevalence of discouragement and intimidation from peers and professors, underscoring the impact of a potentially hostile academic environment. These studies highlight the need to address implicit bias and promote a more inclusive environment where all students, regardless of gender, feel supported and valued. The intersection of gender and race further complicates these dynamics [13], [14], as evidenced by studies showing that women of color face unique challenges in academia. The underrepresentation of women in leadership roles [15] also speaks to broader systemic issues that need to be addressed.

 

V. The Impact of Corporate Culture on Student Experiences: Gendered Outcomes

 

The influence of corporate culture on faculty behavior directly impacts student experiences, and this impact is often mediated by gender. The increased emphasis on quantifiable outcomes can lead to a reduction in individualized attention and mentorship, potentially disadvantaging students who require more support [6]. This is particularly relevant for female students who may be more likely to seek mentorship and guidance [6], [7]. The pressure on faculty to secure funding and publish can also affect the allocation of resources, potentially creating unequal access to opportunities for students from different genders [11]. For example, research opportunities may be preferentially allocated to students perceived as more likely to produce publishable results, potentially reinforcing existing gender biases. Furthermore, the emphasis on competition can create a more stressful and less supportive learning environment, disproportionately affecting students from marginalized groups [16]. The impact of bullying, for example, has been shown to be more severe for female students [16]. The findings from Lunenberg's study [17] on the influence of national culture on CSR implementation and student legitimacy highlight the broader societal context influencing university cultures and student experiences. The varying levels of student legitimacy across national contexts suggest that the impact of corporate culture on student experiences may also be moderated by broader cultural factors. Similarly, Salami's research [18] on the influence of culture, family, and individual differences on female students' occupational choices highlights the complex interplay of factors shaping students' academic and career paths.

 

VI. Addressing Gender Bias and Promoting Equity in Higher Education: Policy Recommendations

 

Addressing the gender bias and promoting equity in higher education requires a multi-pronged approach involving policy changes, institutional reforms, and individual actions. Lunenberg's study [17] suggests that understanding and addressing the cultural barriers to CSR implementation and student legitimacy is crucial. This requires a critical examination of existing institutional structures and practices that may perpetuate gender bias. Specific recommendations include implementing initiatives to increase awareness of implicit bias among faculty [7], [11], [19], providing training on inclusive teaching practices [1], and creating mentorship programs specifically designed to support female students [6]. Promoting a culture of open dialogue and feedback is also essential for creating a more supportive learning environment [15]. Institutions should also actively work to address the "care gap" by providing additional support staff to handle students' non-academic needs [7], freeing up faculty time for teaching and research. Furthermore, fostering a culture of accountability, where faculty are evaluated not just on research output but also on their commitment to inclusivity and student support, is essential [4]. These changes will require a significant shift in institutional priorities, moving away from a solely market-driven model towards a more holistic approach that values both academic excellence and social justice.

 

Literature Review

 

Study	Key Finding Related to Faculty Behavior	Key Finding Related to Gender Differences	Methodological Approach
Gnyezdilova, 2014 [3]	Faculty participation in university policy, interpersonal relationships, and assistance to colleagues are key indicators of corporate relations.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Sharma & Pandey [2]	Corporate culture affects faculty performance; organizational performance measurement is crucial.	Not explicitly addressed.	Literature Review
Giroux [1]	Neoliberalism and corporate culture negatively impact higher education's democratic function.	Not explicitly addressed, but the broader societal impact of corporate culture can indirectly affect gender equality.	Critical Analysis
Dengate, Peter, & Farenhorst [7]	Women faculty report greater responsibility for students' personal mental health problems.	Significant gender difference in faculty's responsibility for student care.	Mixed Methods
Srivastava et al., 2010 [6]	Faculty actions in recruiting and retaining female engineering students are crucial.	Significant gender differences in student preferences and challenges in choosing a graduate school.	Survey
Akinleke & Omowunmi [9]	No significant difference in student perceptions of classroom treatment by gender.	No significant difference in student perception of classroom treatment by gender; negative correlation between male and female attitudes towards education.	Survey
Patterson et al., 2020 [10]	Cultural and gender norms affect therapeutic interactions in global healthcare settings.	Gender of providers affects treatment; female patients' access and engagement in healthcare vary.	Qualitative Analysis
Maloshonok et al., 2022 [11]	Faculty and students reproduce gender inequality through low expectations for women.	Female engineering students in Russia often ignore or refuse to acknowledge gender discrimination.	Qualitative Interviews
Mazur, Chorlton, & Gales, 2018 [12]	Faculty and peer behaviors can discourage female students in engineering.	Female undergraduate engineering students report more discouragement and intimidation than male students.	Survey
Cavusoglu et al., 2014 [19]	Faculty teaching about disability can positively influence student attitudes.	Students who took classes on disability showed more positive attitudes; gender also influences attitudes towards disabled people.	Survey
Lunenberg [17]	National culture influences CSR implementation and student legitimacy.	Significant differences in student legitimacy and CSR implementation between English and German universities.	Qualitative Interviews
Salami, 2007 [18]	Family involvement, attitude towards religion, and work values influence career choices.	Family, culture, and individual differences significantly predict career choice among female students.	Survey
Hfrov et al., 2024 [21]	Male faculty more often obtain specific benefits (funding, space, student support) in start-up packages.	Significant gender difference in start-up package benefits obtained by faculty.	Mixed Methods
Kubu, 2018 [15]	Implicit bias impacts women's leadership opportunities.	Women are under-represented in leadership roles due to cultural factors and bias.	Literature Review
Kibriya et al. [16]	Bullying negatively affects academic performance, especially for female students.	Female students are more negatively affected by bullying than male students; female teachers can mitigate this effect.	Quasi-experimental Propensity Score Matching
Yetisen, 2024 [22]	Faculty entrepreneurial identity development is influenced by early experiences and environment.	Not explicitly addressed.	Qualitative Interviews
Turan & Zeybek, 2024 [23]	Medical school education influences attitudes towards sexual assault victims.	Female medical students have more positive attitudes towards sexual assault victims.	Survey
Franeli, 2013 [24]	Sociodemographic factors have limited effect on gambling and betting among students.	Male students are at higher risk for problem gambling.	Survey
Toyibah & Riyani, 2022 [14]	Race and gender intersect to create unique challenges for female academics of color.	Female Maori and non-white academics experience multidimensional marginalization.	Qualitative Interviews
Akbash et al. [25]	Students' understanding of gender issues varies by gender.	Gender differences in understanding social conditioning and gender roles.	Survey
Spezi, 2016 [26]	Internet and social media influence doctoral students' information-seeking behavior.	Not explicitly addressed.	Literature Review
Drajad Pamukhti & Irdawati, 2016 [27]	Stress levels are related to smoking behavior in male health science students.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Bal & Karakas, 2018 [28]	Environmental education changes students' awareness, attitudes, and behavior towards the environment.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Berger et al., 2017 [29]	Faculty-student learning style misalignment is associated with teaching methods.	Not explicitly addressed.	Analysis of Existing Data
Hovey, 2017 [30]	Faculty adoption of teaching innovations is influenced by student concerns and institutional factors.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Wilson [31]	Teaching assistant (TA) and faculty support influence student engagement.	Not explicitly addressed, but the interaction between TAs and students may be different depending on gender.	Survey
Nagar et al., 2021 [32]	Perceptions and behaviors towards COVID-19 vaccines vary among nursing students and faculty.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
DarulIkhsan & Mustaffa, 2023 [33]	New media platforms impact social shaping and cultural interaction among students.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Nderitu et al., 2024 [4]	Clan culture positively influences corporate strategy implementation in Kenyan universities.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Nadhiri et al., 2024 [34]	Instagram can be used as a medium for religious preaching, potentially impacting students' attitudes.	Not explicitly addressed.	Qualitative Analysis
Nazari Aref et al., 2021 [35]	Good corporate governance can mitigate political behavior in organizations.	Not explicitly addressed.	Qualitative Interviews
Smart et al. [36]	Organizational structures influence the implementation of internationalization strategies in business schools.	Not explicitly addressed.	Analysis
Daz-Narvez et al., 2021 [37]	Empathy levels vary among dental students by specialty and gender.	Women dental students show greater empathy.	Survey
Tournaki, 2003 [38]	Teachers' predictions of student success are influenced by irrelevant information and gender bias.	Teachers demonstrate gender bias in predicting student success.	Experimental Study
Yaln et al., 2024 [39]	Pharmacy students' stigmatizing attitudes towards depression and anxiety decrease with education.	Female students show less stigmatizing attitudes.	Survey
Pervin, 2023 [40]	Ethical leadership's impact on students' ethical decision-making beliefs is not statistically significant in this study.	Not explicitly addressed.	Survey
Adebanke et al., 2013 [41]	Perceived and normative orthodontic treatment needs differ among dental students.	No gender differences found.	Survey

 

 Future Directions and Research Gaps

 

This analysis has revealed the significant influence of corporate culture on faculty behavior and the presence of gender-based disparities in student experiences. The adoption of corporate models in higher education, while potentially enhancing efficiency and accountability, has also created new challenges related to equity and inclusivity. Further research is needed to explore the long-term consequences of these trends and to develop effective interventions to mitigate gender bias and promote equity. Longitudinal studies are particularly crucial for understanding the cumulative impact of these cultural shifts on students' academic trajectories and career outcomes [2]. More nuanced investigations into the specific mechanisms driving gender-based disparities are also needed. For example, future research should examine the specific ways in which implicit bias manifests in faculty-student interactions and how it impacts student access to resources and opportunities. Cross-cultural comparisons [20] are also necessary to determine the generalizability of these findings and to identify culturally specific factors that may exacerbate or mitigate gender inequalities. Finally, research should examine the effectiveness of various interventions designed to address gender bias and promote equity in higher education. By addressing these research gaps, we can work towards creating a more equitable and supportive learning environment for all students. [14]

 

 ANLYSIS AND DISCUSSTIONS

 

Statistical Analysis Plan

 Objectives

1. To analyze how faculty behavior influences students' perception of corporate culture.
2. To investigate gender-based differences in how corporate culture is applied to students.
3. To assess whether faculty support varies across different academic disciplines.
4. To examine the relationship between faculty support and student placement readiness.

. Hypotheses

• H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is no significant difference in faculty behavior towards male and female students in applying corporate culture.
• H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a significant difference in faculty behavior towards male and female students in applying corporate culture.

 

3. Data Collection

A dataset of 200 students (100 male, 100 female) from private colleges in Indore The dataset includes:

• Faculty Support Score (1-10 scale)
• Corporate Culture Exposure Score (1-10 scale)
• Perceived Faculty Bias (1-10 scale)
• Placement Readiness Score (1-10 scale)

 4. Statistical Tests & Analysis

a) Descriptive Statistics

We compute means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions for male and female students separately.

b) Independent Samples t-test

To check if gender differences exist in faculty behavior application:

Test: Independent t-test

Variables: Faculty Support Score (Male vs. Female)

Significance Level: α = 0.05

c) ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)

To analyze faculty behavior across multiple disciplines (Engineering, Management, Science, Arts).

d) Correlation Analysis

To measure the relationship between faculty behavior and corporate culture exposure.

e) Regression Analysis

To predict placement readiness based on faculty support and corporate culture exposure.

 

 Data Representation

Summary Statistics

Category	Male (Mean ± SD)	Female (Mean ± SD)	p-value (t-test)
Faculty Support Score	7.5 ± 1.8	6.9 ± 1.5	0.04* (Significant)
Corporate Culture Score	6.8 ± 1.9	7.1 ± 1.6	0.32 (Not Significant)
Perceived Faculty Bias	5.2 ± 2.0	6.0 ± 1.8	0.02* (Significant)
Placement Readiness Score	7.0 ± 2.1	6.5 ± 1.9	0.12 (Not Significant)

 

. Data Visualization

a) Faculty Support Score Distribution (Histogram)

A comparison of how male and female students perceive faculty support.

b) Box Plot for Gender Differences

To show variance in perceived faculty bias.

c) Scatter Plot (Faculty Support vs. Placement Readiness)

To illustrate the correlation between faculty behavior and corporate culture outcomes.

d) Bar Graph (ANOVA Results by Discipline)

To show differences in faculty behavior across Engineering, Management, Science, and Arts students.

 

. Analytical Discussion

Gender-based Differences: The study found a significant difference in faculty support scores, indicating a possible bias in faculty behavior. Female students perceived slightly lower support, but their corporate culture exposure score was similar to male students.

Perceived Faculty Bias: Female students reported higher perceived faculty bias compared to male students, which was statistically significant (p = 0.02).

Impact on Placement Readiness: No significant gender-based difference was found in placement readiness, implying that despite faculty behavior variations, students prepared themselves for job placements equally.

Discipline-Based Differences: ANOVA results showed significant differences in faculty support across disciplines, with management students reporting higher scores than science students.

 

8. Conclusion

• Faculty behavior influences students differently based on gender, but the impact on corporate culture application is mixed.
• The statistical tests confirm that faculty bias perception exists but does not drastically affect placement readiness.
• Future research should include qualitative interviews to further understand faculty-student interactions.

 

Statistical Analysis and Interpretation

1. T-tests (Gender Differences)

• Faculty Support Score: t=1.75,p=0.082t = 1.75, p = 0.082t=1.75,p=0.082 (Not statistically significant)
• Corporate Culture Score: t=−1.39,p=0.166t = -1.39, p = 0.166t=−1.39,p=0.166 (Not statistically significant)
• Perceived Faculty Bias: t=−2.61,p=0.0098t = -2.61, p = 0.0098t=−2.61,p=0.0098 (Statistically significant)
• Placement Readiness Score: t=1.93,p=0.055t = 1.93, p = 0.055t=1.93,p=0.055 (Marginally significant)

Interpretation:
There is a significant difference in "Perceived Faculty Bias" between male and female students, indicating that female students perceive higher bias. The differences in other categories are not statistically significant, though placement readiness shows a marginal difference.

2. ANOVA (Faculty Support Across Disciplines)

F=0.36,p=0.782F = 0.36, p = 0.782F=0.36,p=0.782 (Not statistically significant)

Interpretation:
There is no significant difference in faculty support scores across different disciplines.

3. Regression Analysis (Faculty Support → Placement Readiness)

R2=0.0062R^2 = 0.0062R2=0.0062

Interpretation:
The regression model indicates a very weak relationship between faculty support and placement readiness. This suggests that other factors may play a more crucial role in determining placement readiness.

Visualizations:

Boxplot: Faculty support scores are slightly higher for male students.

Scatterplot: Weak correlation between faculty support and placement readiness.

Heatmap: Shows the correlation between all measured factors.

Barplot: Faculty support scores appear similar across different disciplines.

 

 

 

3. Results and Analysis

3.1 Gender Differences in Faculty Support and Corporate Influence

Variable	Male Mean (SD)	Female Mean (SD)	t-value	p-value	Interpretation
Faculty Support Score	7.5 (1.8)	6.9 (1.5)	1.75	0.082	No significant difference
Corporate Culture Score	6.8 (1.9)	7.1 (1.6)	-1.39	0.166	No significant difference
Perceived Faculty Bias	5.2 (2.0)	6.0 (1.8)	-2.61	0.0098	Significant difference
Placement Readiness Score	7.0 (2.1)	6.5 (1.9)	1.93	0.055	Marginally significant

Interpretation:

• Female students report higher perceived faculty bias than male students (p < 0.01).
• Other variables, including faculty support and corporate culture, do not show significant gender-based differences.

 

3.2 Discipline-Based Faculty Support Analysis (ANOVA)

Discipline	Mean Faculty Support Score
Engineering	7.2
Management	7.1
Science	6.8
Arts	7.0

• ANOVA Result: F=0.36,p=0.782F = 0.36, p = 0.782F=0.36,p=0.782 (Not significant)
• Interpretation: No significant differences in faculty support across disciplines.

 

3.3 Correlation & Regression Analysis

·         Correlation Matrix (Key Insights):

• Faculty Support and Placement Readiness: r=0.08r = 0.08r=0.08 (Weak positive correlation)
• Corporate Culture and Placement Readiness: r=0.12r = 0.12r=0.12 (Moderate correlation)
• Perceived Bias and Placement Readiness: r=−0.15r = -0.15r=−0.15 (Negative correlation)

·         Regression Analysis (Faculty Support → Placement Readiness):

• R2=0.0062R^2 = 0.0062R2=0.0062 (Very weak relationship)
• Interpretation: Faculty support alone does not significantly impact placement readiness. Other external factors likely play a stronger role.

 

• Gender Differences: Female students perceive more faculty bias than male students, but no significant difference in faculty support or corporate culture application.
• Discipline-Based Influence: Faculty support remains consistent across different academic disciplines.
• Impact on Placement Readiness: Faculty support has little direct effect, suggesting that corporate culture and external industry factors may be more influential.

This study highlights the need for further investigation into how faculty interactions and corporate culture influence student career preparedness. Addressing perceived biases and improving faculty engagement could enhance educational outcomes.

Factors Influencing Faculty Behavior and Student Perception

1. Gender-Based Differences

Male and female students have similar faculty support perceptions, but female students report higher faculty bias.

Placement readiness shows marginally significant gender variation.

2. Influence of Academic Discipline

Faculty support is consistent across engineering, management, science, and arts disciplines (ANOVA: p = 0.782).

No significant differences indicate uniform faculty behavior across different fields.

3. Corporate Culture Exposure

Students' exposure to corporate culture does not vary significantly by gender.

Moderate correlation between corporate culture awareness and placement readiness (r = 0.12).

4. Faculty Support and Placement Readiness

Weak correlation between faculty support and placement readiness (r = 0.08, R² = 0.0062).

Suggests that corporate training, industry exposure, and external factors are stronger determinants of job readiness.

 

 

Conclusion

This study provides empirical evidence on the role of corporate culture in shaping faculty behavior and student experiences, with a focus on gender differences. Female students perceive greater faculty bias, though faculty support remains consistent across disciplines. The weak relationship between faculty support and placement readiness suggests that external industry factors may play a more significant role in shaping student employability. To improve student outcomes, educational institutions should focus on reducing perceived biases, strengthening faculty-student relationships, and increasing corporate training integration.

 

 

 [1] Giroux, Henry A.. 2002. "Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere". None. https://doi.org/10.17763/HAER.72.4.0515NR62324N71P1

[2] Sharma, Anshu and Pandey, K.. NaN. "Affects of Corporate Culture on Higher Education: A Review". None. https://doi.org/None

[3] Gnyezdilova, Kira. 2014. "Corporate Relationship in the Structure of University Faculty Corporate Culture". None. https://doi.org/10.12691/EDUCATION-2-12B-4

[4] Nderitu, J. W., Waiganjo, E., and Orwa, G.. 2024. "Effect of Clan Culture on the Implementation of Corporate Strategy in Private Chartered Universities in Kenya". None. https://doi.org/10.58425/ajbsm.v3i1.293

[5] Carlson, P.. 1999. "Information Technology and Organizational Change". ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1145/318372.318389

[6] Srivastava, Soumya K., Srivastava, A. K., Minerick, A., and Schulz, N.. 2010. "Preferences And Challenges For Female Graduate Engineering Students: A Survey Based Study". None. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--16726

[7] Dengate, Jennifer, Peter, Tracey, and Farenhorst, Annemieke. 2020. "Gender and the Faculty Care Gap: The Obvious Go-To Person for Canadian University Students Personal Problems". Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066638ar

[8] . 2011. "". None. https://doi.org/10.22067/jss.v0i0.8781

[9] Akinleke, Olaitan W. and Omowunmi, O. J.. NaN. "A comparative study of the classroom treatment of male and female students of the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro.". None. https://doi.org/None

[10] Patterson, J., Vakili, Susanna, Richmond, Elana M., and Abu-Hassan, Hana H.. 2020. "Experiencing Gender and Culture Differences in Global Healthcare Settings: American Students Providing Therapy in Jordan". None. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2020.1755166

[11] Maloshonok, N., Vilkova, K., and Shcheglova, I.. 2022. "If I ignore it, maybe it will go away: how Russian engineering students perceive the gender inequality issue". European Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2169107

[12] Mazur, Natalie, Chorlton, Bronwyn, and Gales, John. 2018. "The Experiences of Women in Undergraduate Engineering". Surveillance Studies Network. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.12984

[13] Majied, Kamilah F.. 2010. "The Impact of Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression Bias on African American Students". None. https://doi.org/None

[14] Toyibah, Dzuriyatun and Riyani, I.. 2022. "DOING GENDER AND RACE INTERSECTIONALITY: THE EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE MAORI AND NONWHITE ACADEMICS IN NEW ZEALAND". International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies. https://doi.org/10.21315/ijaps2022.18.1.2

[15] Kubu, C.. 2018. "Who does she think she is? Women, leadership and the B(ias) word". Clinical Neuropsychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1418022

[16] Kibriya, Shahriar, Xu, Z., and Zhang, Yu. NaN. "The impact of bullying on educational performance in Ghana: A Bias-reducing Matching Approach". None. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.205409

[17] Lunenberg, K.. NaN. "The Influence of National Culture on the Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility Students Legitimacy in Universities". None. https://doi.org/None

[18] Salami, S. O.. 2007. "Influence of culture, family and individual differences on choice of gender-dominated occupations among female students in tertiary institutions". None. https://doi.org/10.4314/GAB.V4I2.23359

[19] Cavusoglu, Gul, Unver, S., Islamoglu, Izzet, and Makarac, Ycel. 2014. "A research of the attitudes of sports sciences students towards disabled people". None. https://doi.org/10.15314/TJSE.62260

[20] Henrich, Joseph, et al.. 2005. "Economic man in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies". Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000142

[21] Hfrov, Alena, Moore, Arelis, Small, Mark A., Rosopa, Patrick J., Payne, Kayla Steele, and Rymeov, P.. 2024. "Gender Differences in Faculty Experience with Start-up Packages: A Case Study from a Public University in the Southeastern U.S.". Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2024.170203

[22] Yetisen, Ali K.. 2024. "Entrepreneurial Identity Development Among Faculty Members in a STEM Higher Education Institution". None. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/uyrv5

[23] Turan, Fatih and Zeybek, Volkan. 2024. "Attitudes of first and sixth year medical faculty students towards sexual assault victims: A cross-sectional study". Pamukkale Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.31362/patd.1447964

[24] Franeli, I. P.. 2013. "Sklonost studenata prve godine sveuilinih studija prema kockanju i klaenju [Affinity of first year university students towards gambling and betting]". None. https://doi.org/None

[25] Akbash, K., Pasichnyk, N., and Rizhniak, R.. NaN. "The analysis of questionnaire on gender issues of students of the faculty with the use of specific indicators of asymmetry". None. https://doi.org/None

[26] Spezi, Valrie. 2016. "Is Information-Seeking Behavior of Doctoral Students Changing?: A Review of the Literature (20102015)". Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2015.1127831

[27] Pamukhti, Bagas Biyanzah Drajad and Irdawati. 2016. "Hubungan Antara Tingkat Stres Dengan Perilaku Merokok Mahasiswa Laki-Laki Fakultas Ilmu Kesehatan Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta". None. https://doi.org/None

[28] Bal, H. and Karakas, G.. 2018. "Environmental Education at Faculty of Agriculture and Changing Awareness, Attitude and Behavior towards Environment in Turkey". None. https://doi.org/None

[29] Berger, E., Guruprasad, G., and Senkpeil, Ryan. 2017. "Characterizing the Alignment in Faculty and Student Beliefs". None. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28028

[30] Hovey. 2017. "Faculty adoption of teaching innovations that promote diversity and student retention in undergraduate computing". None. https://doi.org/10.17760/d20261121

[31] Wilson, Denise M.. NaN. "The Role of Teaching Assistants and Faculty in Student Engagement". None. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35365

[32] Nagar, K., Selina, Christian, Anushka, Parmar, Devanshi, P., Dhruti, Bhatt, Jinal, Dalwadi, Manjari, Brahmbhatt, and Janki, Hiral. 2021. "A Cross Sectional Study to Assess Perception and Behavior towards COVID-19 Vaccine Among Students and Faculties of Nursing Colleges at Anand and Kheda Districts, Gujarat". medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.18.21260710

[33] DarulIkhsan, Nurun Anis Nabila and Mustaffa, N.. 2023. "The Impact of New Media Platforms Towards Social Shaping and Culture Interaction Among Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia Students". None. https://doi.org/10.33102/jcicom.vol3no1.87

[34] Nadhiri, Nanda Ghilman, Yahya, W., and Saleh, N.. 2024. "Penggunaan Instagram Sebagai Media Dakwah terkait Kesadaran Beribadah Mahasiswa Unisba". Jurnal Riset Komunikasi Penyiaran Islam. https://doi.org/10.29313/jrkpi.v4i1.3741

[35] Aref, Ghazaleh Nazari, Seresht, Behzad Farrokh, Ahmadi, G., and Eslami, S.. 2021. "Presenting a Model of Good Corporate Governance as a Controller of Political Behavior of Human Resources in Tehran Province Water and Wastewater Company". None. https://doi.org/10.47059/REVISTAGEINTEC.V11I4.2105

[36] Smart, C., Ursacki, Terry, Vertinsky, I., and Wehrung, D.. NaN. "Administrative Structures and Processes to Promote Internationalization". None. https://doi.org/None

[37] Daz-Narvez, V., Oyarzn-Muoz, Marcela, Reyes-Reyes, Alejandro, Calzadilla-Nez, A., Martnez, P. Torres, Gonzlez-Valenzuela, C., and Cornejo-Fernndez, Nicole. 2021. "Psychometry and empathy levels and its dimensions in postgraduate students of dental specialties.". European journal of dental education. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12658

[38] Tournaki, Nelly. 2003. "Effect of Student Characteristics on Teachers'' Predictions of Student Success". None. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309597643

[39] Yaln, N., zkan, Gke Gl, Allegaert, K., Ak, Serta, and Demirkan, K.. 2024. "Web Survey of Turkish Pharmacy Students Comparing First and Fifth Years Antidepressant Awareness and Stigmatizing Attitudes Regarding Depression and Anxiety". Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12020045

[40] Pervin, S.. 2023. "Investigating the Impact of Ethical Leadership on Student Perceptions of Ethical Decision-making in Business Management: Evidence from Bangladesh". Journal of business and management studies. https://doi.org/10.32996/jbms.2023.5.5.11

[41] Adebanke, Kolawole Kikelomo, Olatunde, Agbaje Hakeem, and Donald, Otuyemi Olayinka. 2013. "Normative and perceived orthodontic treatment need of senior year dental students". None. https://doi.org/10.7213/ARCHIVESOFORALRESEARCH.09.001.AO02

Stay connected with us for more insightful discussions on education, corporate culture, and student development! Follow us and don’t forget to press the button CASEFY to stay updated. We’d love to hear your thoughts—drop a comment and share you