Abstract
<p>Gender equality in higher education is commonly monitored through sex-disaggregated ratios, but numerical parity is neither a complete definition of equality nor a self-interpreting verdict on institutional justice. This critical integrative review examines how equality, equity, parity, formal opportunity, substantive opportunity, descriptive representation and substantive influence are conceptualised across higher education scholarship. A transparently bounded, PRISMA-adapted search completed on 23 July 2026 identified 58 records; after duplicate removal, screening and eligibility assessment, 26 studies and reviews were included. The synthesis reveals two recurrent analytical errors: headcount reductionism, which treats a 50:50 distribution as sufficient evidence of justice, and procedural formalism, which treats identical rules as sufficient evidence of fairness. To address both errors, the article develops a Multidimensional Gender Justice Assessment Framework integrating normative equality, access, resources, procedures, participation, outcomes, influence, intersectionality, temporal persistence and remedial justification. Application to a four-member committee demonstrates that the same numerical composition may be fair, unfair or indeterminate depending on how candidates entered the pipeline, how criteria were constructed and applied, and how authority is distributed after selection. Parity is therefore best treated as a sentinel indicator that prompts investigation rather than as a substitute for causal and normative inquiry. The framework offers higher education leaders a practical basis for auditing admissions, appointments, governance, academic careers and student participation while preserving both substantive equality and procedural fairness. It also specifies when targets, thresholds or temporary quotas are defensible: persistent disparity, an evidenced mechanism, proportionality, transparency, safeguards against tokenism and scheduled review are required.</p>