Developing a Gender Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (GEDI)-responsive curriculum framework for Philippine higher...

Gender Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (GEDI) have become essential components of higher education reform; however, their integration into Philippine higher education curricula remains inconsistent. Thus, this study explored GEDI faculty members' perspectives on integrating GEDI concepts into higher education. It proposes a responsive curriculum framework aligned with national mandates and global sustainable development goals.

A descriptive qualitative case study was conducted involving 19 faculty members from various higher education institutions in the Philippines. Data were gathered through online Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and relevant document reviews. Thematic analysis using Atlas.ti 25 guided the coding and interpretation processes, complemented by member checking, reflexivity through the COREQ checklist, and triangulation to strengthen the analytical rigor.

The findings revealed that faculty members perceived GEDI integration as largely symbolic, with vague mentions in syllabi but insufficient curricular outcomes. Key gaps included (1) uneven implementation across disciplines (stronger in Social Sciences/Education vs. STEM), (2) non-standardized GEDI strategies, (3) faculty resistance and inadequate training, (4) marginalization of underrepresented identities in content, and (5) weak policy enforcement. A four-layer GEDI-Responsive Curriculum Framework (macro, meso, micro, nano) was proposed to embed intersectionality, contextual relevance, and accountability across all educational levels. This research bridges policy-practice gaps by aligning with the local and international higher education curriculum and emphasizing intersectionality, localized reforms, and measurable competencies (e.g., empathy, critical gender consciousness). The findings of the study are context-specific to selected Philippine regions, and broader applicability requires further validation. Underrepresented contexts (e.g., Indigenous Peoples and disability-specific programs) were minimally covered. Future research should broaden geographic coverage and pilot systematic feedback systems to evaluate the applicability and sustainability of the framework across diverse higher education contexts.