Systemic thinking and gender: an exploratory study of Mexican female university students

Systemic thinking is the ability to understand how elements interact within a larger system and is central to effective decision-making and problem-solving. In higher education, particularly in contexts with pronounced inequalities like Mexico, universities aim to cultivate complex thinking competencies, including systemic thinking, though institutional capacity to do so varies across public and private sectors. This study asks whether perceived systemic thinking development differs by gender and by institution type (public vs. private) among university students, with a focus on women. The research emphasizes perception of achievement rather than objective competence levels, given the importance of self-perception for professional application. The study employs descriptive statistics and t-tests to compare perceptions across gender and institution types to identify potential gender and institutional gaps relevant to lifelong learning and equity in professional development.

The theoretical framework situates systemic thinking as a core sub-competency within Morin’s complex thinking paradigm, alongside scientific, critical, and innovative thinking. Complex thinking addresses interconnected, interdependent phenomena, avoiding reductionism and emphasizing integrated analysis. Systemic thinking differs from systematic thinking: the former focuses on holistic understanding of interrelations and feedback loops; the latter on methodical, sequential procedures. Systemic thinking is valuable for addressing complex problems, organizational leadership, process improvement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and adaptability. Regarding gender, global reports show narrowing educational gaps, with women increasingly achieving higher education levels, yet they continue to face barriers such as glass ceilings and sticky floors shaped by subjective, heteronormative, and institutional factors. Systemic thinking may help women navigate complex networks of constraints across biological, cultural, professional, and environmental domains. The review also discusses educational disparities between public and private universities in Latin America: private institutions often benefit from greater resources, curricular flexibility, industry alignment, and infrastructure, though exceptions exist among well-funded public universities in Mexico. These systemic differences in institutional environments may influence the development and perception of complex competencies. The literature indicates a need to examine institutional and intersectional factors that shape women’s competency development and perceptions in higher education, particularly in Latin America where such studies are scarce.

Design: Exploratory, cross-sectional study using descriptive and inferential statistics to assess perceived systemic thinking. Participants and setting: Convenience sample of 838 students from two technological universities in western Mexico: 411 from a private institution (men n=232, 56%; women n=179, 44%) and 427 from a public institution (men n=262, 61%; women n=165, 39%). Students were from various semesters and disciplines. Data collection: October 2022 via voluntary, self-administered Google Forms. Ethical oversight: Approved by the interdisciplinary research group R4C with support from the Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, and the institutional ethics committee (Approval code: 03000132; Approval date: 09/18/2022). Instrument: E-Complexity questionnaire (25 statements; 5-point Likert scale from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree) measuring perceived complex thinking and sub-competencies, including systemic thinking. Validation included theoretical analysis of prior instruments and expert content validation on clarity (mean 3.31/4; 82.7%), coherence (3.38/4; 84.5%), and relevance (3.54/4; 88.5%). Data analysis: Multivariate descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations), visualization (boxplots, violin plots), and t-tests for differences of means. Analyses conducted in R (R Core Team, 2017) and RStudio (RStudio Team, 2022). Focus of analyses: Overall gender comparison; comparisons by institution; focused analyses on women by institution type; exploratory analyses by women’s age ranges (15–18, 19–22, 23–26, 27+).

• Overall perception by gender: Men and women reported similarly high perceived systemic thinking (Men: mean 4.19, SD 0.57; Women: mean 4.17, SD 0.55). No significant gender difference (t=-0.550, df=750.21, p=0.5822).
• By institution and gender: Private university students perceived higher systemic thinking than public university students. • Private: Men mean 4.34 (SD 0.46); Women mean 4.26 (SD 0.49). • Public: Men mean 4.06 (SD 0.62); Women mean 4.07 (SD 0.59).
• Distributional patterns: Violin/box plots showed private university students of both genders concentrated between 4.0–5.0, while public university students showed more values below 4.0, including more women with scores below 3.0.
• Women: Significant difference between private and public institutions (t=3.207, df=318.51, p=0.00147), with private-university women reporting higher perceived development. In private universities, 50% of women’s scores lay between 4.0–4.7; in public universities, between 3.8–4.3.
• Age analysis among women: Means by age group—15–18: 4.03 (SD 0.61); 19–22: 4.05 (SD 0.53); 23–26: 4.01 (SD 1.00); 27+: 4.22 (SD 0.58). Although a trend suggested higher perceptions among older women, no significant differences across age groups (all pairwise p-values > 0.05).

The study addressed whether perceived systemic thinking differs by gender and by institution type, with a focus on women. Findings indicate no overall gender difference in perceived systemic thinking, suggesting parity between men and women in this competency’s self-assessment within the sample. However, significant institutional differences emerged: students at the private university, including women, reported higher perceived systemic thinking than those at the public university. This aligns with literature on resource and curricular differences between private and public institutions. Within the private university, a gender gap persisted (men > women), not observed in the public university. The distributional evidence shows greater dispersion and more low-end perceptions among public-university women, highlighting heterogeneity within that group. Age-related analyses suggested a non-significant trend of higher perceived competency among older women, potentially linked to work experience, but statistical tests did not confirm age as a determinant. These results underscore the importance of considering intersectionality and institutional context when examining women’s competency development and perceptions, and they signal potential institutional factors affecting public-university women’s perceptions that warrant further investigation.

This exploratory study compared perceived systemic thinking among students from a public and a private university in western Mexico, focusing on gender and institutional differences. It found no statistically significant overall gender difference. However, significant institutional differences were identified: women at the private university perceived higher systemic thinking than women at the public university, with greater dispersion and more low scores among the latter. The study highlights the need for educational institutions to examine equity in competency development processes and for future research to adopt an intersectional lens to understand the diverse factors shaping women’s perceptions, particularly among public-university students. While limited, the findings contribute initial evidence from Latin America on institutional disparities in perceived complex competencies and point toward targeted interventions and further research to promote formative equality that may help reduce gender gaps in professional domains.

• Exploratory, cross-sectional design and convenience sampling from only two universities in western Mexico limit generalizability.
• Reliance on self-reported perceptions rather than objective measures of systemic thinking may introduce bias.
• Limited demographic data due to ethical restrictions constrained analysis of potential explanatory factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, program type, work experience).
• Data privacy restrictions prevent public data sharing; replication with broader samples and richer covariates is needed.