Popular in Sociology

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Culture and Society

Pre-problem families: predictive analytics and the future as the present

University of Southampton Rosalind Edwards

Ethnicity and Racism

Were Muslim Barbarians Really Knocking On the Gates of Ontario?

University of Ottawa Natasha Bakht

Culture and Society

Poor People’s Survival Strategies

The University of Texas at Austin Javier Auyero

Ethnicity and Racism

Sociology of Whiteness

Arizona State University Monica McDermott

Ethnicity and Racism

Narratives of Harm and the case for detention abolition

Queen's University Sharry Aiken

Women Professors across STEMM and Non-STEMM Disciplines

View more insights in Social Sciences - Sociology - Gender and Feminism

View more figures from Glasgow Caledonian University

View the page of Nina Teasdale

Read the Study

Nina Teasdale seeks to understand how women who have reached senior occupational positions in Higher Education Institutions have navigated their organisational and disciplinary settings.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 3, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the progress and ongoing challenges faced by women in academia, particularly in achieving representation in senior academic roles and STEM disciplines. Despite improvements over the past few decades—for instance, the percentage of women vice chancellors in the top 200 UK universities has risen from 13% to 25%—gender segregation persists, especially at higher levels.

The study emphasizes that women, particularly from minority groups, remain underrepresented in professorial roles, with around 70% of full professors being white men. The research highlights the horizontal and vertical gender segregation within academia, with women dominating some STEM fields (like nursing) while being outnumbered in others (like economics and philosophy).

To deepen understanding, the researchers aimed to explore how women professors navigate their careers in various disciplines and the differences in their experiences based on gender dynamics in their fields. Despite recognizing the need for women to adapt to male-dominated environments, the research also critiques the notion that academia is inherently gender-neutral.

The study involved interviews with 31 women professors, revealing common strategies for career advancement: conforming to the role of ideal worker, building networks, and engaging in leadership. These strategies highlighted the competitive nature of academic careers, the pressure for publications, and the necessity of balancing professional and personal responsibilities, including motherhood.

The findings suggest that while the "rules of the game" may be similar across disciplines, subtle differences exist based on gendered spaces within academia. Challenges and experiences vary depending on whether fields are male-dominated, female-dominated, or balanced, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced understanding of gender dynamics.

Future research is encouraged to examine these issues across different institutions, consider intersectionality, and understand generational differences in navigating academic careers.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.075 --> 00:01.245
Women's position,

00:01.345 --> 00:04.205
in academia has markedly improved in recent decades.

00:04.755 --> 00:08.245
However, academia remains segregated by gender

00:08.315 --> 00:10.285
with women still underrepresented,

00:10.685 --> 00:13.445
particularly in many STEM disciplines, as well

00:13.445 --> 00:15.245
as in the highest positions in our higher

00:15.275 --> 00:16.845
education institutions.

00:17.905 --> 00:20.645
Now, this underrepresentation is the case,

00:20.785 --> 00:21.805
not just in the uk,

00:21.985 --> 00:24.525
but other countries too, across the eu,

00:24.825 --> 00:26.205
the US and Australia.

00:26.985 --> 00:30.405
Um, using the UK as an example,

00:30.435 --> 00:34.165
figures show about 25% of vice chancellors

00:34.465 --> 00:38.365
of the top 200 UK universities are currently women.

00:39.105 --> 00:43.925
And this is a marked increase from 13% back in 2013.

00:44.665 --> 00:47.885
But progress nevertheless remains very un uneven,

00:48.205 --> 00:51.085
particularly for women from minoritized groups.

00:51.785 --> 00:55.885
Indeed, the majority, so around 70% of those

00:55.985 --> 01:00.605
who hold the rank of full professor are still white men,

01:00.995 --> 01:03.645
despite women constituting just under half

01:03.985 --> 01:05.725
of the academic workforce.

01:06.585 --> 01:10.325
Now, key for us in terms of our research in this area is

01:10.325 --> 01:13.205
that academia is both horizontally as well

01:13.205 --> 01:14.685
as vertically segregated.

01:15.545 --> 01:18.125
So this is not, this is not simply, a matter

01:18.125 --> 01:22.045
of gender differences between stem and non STEM disciplines.

01:22.545 --> 01:25.605
So in a small number of STEM subjects such as nursing

01:25.745 --> 01:29.445
and pharmacy, for example, women constitute a majority

01:29.465 --> 01:34.005
of academic staff while in some non STEM subjects such

01:34.005 --> 01:36.565
as economics and philosophy is men

01:36.595 --> 01:39.165
that compromise the numerical majority.

01:39.825 --> 01:42.565
And therefore, we wanted to consider the experiences

01:42.705 --> 01:45.205
of women across disciplines.

01:45.785 --> 01:48.405
Now, much research today, quite rightly,

01:48.905 --> 01:52.045
has focused on getting more women to study stem

01:52.665 --> 01:54.765
and understanding women's experiences

01:54.945 --> 01:58.605
of working in male dominated academic STEM fields.

01:59.545 --> 02:01.165
And the implicit assumption is

02:01.165 --> 02:04.605
that women are better served in non STEM disciplines

02:04.855 --> 02:07.485
where they tend to make up more of the workforce.

02:08.545 --> 02:09.555
This we would argue,

02:09.665 --> 02:12.395
however, assumes,

02:12.825 --> 02:15.755
that higher education institutions are in

02:15.755 --> 02:18.595
what we call inherently, gender neutral

02:19.055 --> 02:23.595
and thus masks the ways in which gender influences the

02:23.595 --> 02:25.755
experiences of both women and men.

02:26.255 --> 02:29.235
And this is why we were interested through our study

02:29.495 --> 02:31.275
to ask two key questions.

02:32.225 --> 02:35.035
Firstly, how have women at professorial level

02:35.665 --> 02:37.795
navigated their organizational

02:38.215 --> 02:40.515
and disciplinary second, settings?

02:41.095 --> 02:44.835
And secondly, how do their experiences compare in different

02:44.915 --> 02:45.955
gendered context?

02:47.135 --> 02:50.555
Now, our focus is on women professors, and this is

02:50.555 --> 02:53.755
because while there have been studies on the barriers women

02:54.235 --> 02:55.315
academics experience

02:55.815 --> 02:58.675
and the challenges they face in their career advancement

02:59.315 --> 03:02.285
Less is known about the experiences of women

03:02.665 --> 03:04.845
who have reached professorial level

03:05.185 --> 03:07.245
and have ostensibly made it.

03:07.955 --> 03:10.365
Yeah. So similar to a lot of the research

03:10.385 --> 03:13.845
that's been done on occupational segregation by gender,

03:13.905 --> 03:15.765
or widely say in management

03:15.825 --> 03:20.285
and leadership at explanations for vertical segregation

03:20.305 --> 03:23.125
and academia are offered at the different levels

03:23.425 --> 03:27.605
of the individual, the family education, the workplace,

03:27.665 --> 03:29.405
and wider society, for example.

03:30.105 --> 03:33.285
And over time, what we've seen is this shift in focus.

03:33.465 --> 03:36.605
So what's we call anyway, the fixing the women.

03:37.265 --> 03:40.925
So a focus on pipeline arguments, qualification levers,

03:41.385 --> 03:44.365
and what Cheryl Sandberg has referred to as women having

03:44.385 --> 03:46.605
to lean in to organizations

03:47.185 --> 03:49.845
to a focus on fixing the institutions

03:50.305 --> 03:52.005
to much more structural approaches

03:52.005 --> 03:54.085
to understanding the endurance

03:54.385 --> 03:58.125
and stickiness of gender inequalities in organizations.

03:59.195 --> 04:02.045
Here, the literature focuses on the construction

04:02.045 --> 04:06.725
and expectations of academic careers around what Joan

04:07.065 --> 04:09.205
refers to, as notions

04:09.225 --> 04:11.725
of the ideal disembodied worker

04:12.675 --> 04:14.885
alongside gendered academic culture.

04:16.085 --> 04:18.185
So what do we mean by all this?

04:18.535 --> 04:20.625
Well, academia has been constructed

04:21.125 --> 04:23.985
as an all consuming carefree zone.

04:24.075 --> 04:25.105
Based on the assumption,

04:26.025 --> 04:28.305
academics have no commitment other than to the job.

04:28.925 --> 04:30.665
So acas ideal worker

04:30.665 --> 04:33.705
and notion with women, particularly at the very early stages

04:33.765 --> 04:36.145
of their career feeling they have to adopt

04:36.175 --> 04:39.505
what Pat O'Connor is called careerist femininity.

04:40.805 --> 04:42.465
Now, the promotions,

04:42.535 --> 04:46.345
process in academia usually requires as many of us know,

04:46.345 --> 04:49.705
well, working in this area, a very strong track record

04:50.205 --> 04:54.145
of both research funding and publications and as what

04:55.185 --> 04:58.705
and colleagues are stressing their work citation

04:58.925 --> 05:02.665
and other performance metrics to assess both individual

05:02.685 --> 05:04.225
and institutional performance.

05:04.515 --> 05:07.385
These have become really deeply embedded in our university

05:07.625 --> 05:08.665
structures and cultures.

05:09.365 --> 05:11.585
And while essentially meritocratic

05:11.765 --> 05:15.505
and gender neutral, in what has been referred to

05:15.685 --> 05:19.385
or called the so-called neoliberal University research,

05:19.385 --> 05:21.945
nonetheless is prioritized over teaching

05:21.965 --> 05:23.905
and admin responsibilities, for example,

05:24.655 --> 05:27.985
with women generally doing more of that latter work.

05:29.145 --> 05:31.125
Now, following Joan Acker,

05:31.145 --> 05:33.845
and her seminal work on gendered organizations,

05:34.395 --> 05:36.445
there's been growing recognition

05:36.835 --> 05:39.885
that deeply embedded gendered expectations,

05:40.115 --> 05:42.325
pervade organizational structures

05:42.665 --> 05:46.005
and cultures with gender performances created

05:46.785 --> 05:48.605
and recreated in the workplace.

05:49.105 --> 05:51.125
And originally in her work,

05:51.645 --> 05:53.845
aka identified five processes

05:54.115 --> 05:56.285
that produced gendering organizations.

05:57.505 --> 05:58.765
And quickly, these are the division

05:58.765 --> 06:01.805
of labor cultural symbols, workplace interactions,

06:02.055 --> 06:06.445
individual identities, and organiz organizational logics.

06:06.705 --> 06:09.645
And these relate to rules, procedures, hierarchies,

06:09.745 --> 06:11.325
job descriptions, for example.

06:12.065 --> 06:15.525
And for aca, the real power of gendered organizations,

06:16.225 --> 06:20.045
or in her later work on organizations as inequality regimes,

06:20.465 --> 06:22.845
is that they often maintain a neutral facade,

06:22.845 --> 06:24.885
making them really difficult to challenge.

06:25.945 --> 06:27.125
Now, for some scholars,

06:27.125 --> 06:29.685
women's absence from senior positions has been linked

06:29.685 --> 06:33.525
to academic culture and this rules of the game expression.

06:34.345 --> 06:36.645
Now this draws on board's metaphor.

06:37.385 --> 06:38.565
Um, cal

06:38.745 --> 06:41.685
and colleagues argue that academics are really invested in

06:41.685 --> 06:44.285
the academic game, striving to maintain

06:44.345 --> 06:45.765
or improve their position,

06:46.505 --> 06:48.085
and those with greater awareness

06:48.345 --> 06:51.125
of the rules are better able to succeed.

06:51.305 --> 06:52.685
Now, it sounds very straightforward,

06:52.865 --> 06:54.485
but it isn't in reality.

06:55.505 --> 06:58.925
Um, as part of studies exploring academic culture,

06:59.515 --> 07:02.365
male dominated networks that exist with academia

07:02.985 --> 07:06.245
and senior men in pointing in their own image are being

07:06.605 --> 07:07.845
revealed as really problematic.

07:08.625 --> 07:12.005
So now as much more focused on role modeling, networking,

07:12.005 --> 07:13.445
and mentoring schemes for women

07:13.865 --> 07:15.685
and other underrepresented groups.

07:16.155 --> 07:19.605
However, research also reveals women often have greater

07:19.695 --> 07:22.485
difficulty accessing mentors

07:22.785 --> 07:25.925
or allies with women only networks tending not

07:25.925 --> 07:28.125
to have the same leverage.

07:28.905 --> 07:32.005
Now, studies highlight some of the strategies women use,

07:32.165 --> 07:33.765
particularly women have used

07:33.765 --> 07:36.565
to adopt a male-dominated stem arenas.

07:37.145 --> 07:40.525
And this includes things like cloaking, of femininity,

07:40.665 --> 07:43.645
as what suggests to promote only appropriate visibility.

07:44.585 --> 07:48.005
Um, Faulkner in her work talks about the invisibility stroke

07:48.165 --> 07:52.245
visibility paradox where women are highly visible at

07:52.305 --> 07:54.845
yet invisible in the engineering sector.

07:55.465 --> 07:57.765
And rot highlights how women in stem

07:58.565 --> 08:00.445
distance themselves from other scientists.

08:01.325 --> 08:03.545
One of the problems though, with such tactics while

08:03.545 --> 08:06.025
necessary to get on, is that they tend

08:06.025 --> 08:10.305
to inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes and barriers.

08:11.485 --> 08:14.265
So while important work among this research,

08:14.555 --> 08:16.065
there is little consideration

08:16.065 --> 08:18.785
of the ways in which gender is played out in more female

08:18.895 --> 08:20.145
dominated disciplines,

08:20.615 --> 08:23.425
even though women remain concentrated at the lower levels

08:23.445 --> 08:25.745
of the academic hierarchy in these fields.

08:26.485 --> 08:28.785
And studies are typically focused on the barriers

08:28.925 --> 08:30.985
to career advancement that women face.

08:31.405 --> 08:34.105
And this is why we really wanted to find out

08:34.405 --> 08:36.785
how the minority of women who are in fourth

08:37.455 --> 08:39.705
professor roles have succeeded,

08:40.005 --> 08:41.585
and where experiences may be similar

08:42.085 --> 08:45.305
yet different across different disciplinary settings.

08:45.965 --> 08:49.505
So turning to the theoretical underpinnings of our research,

08:50.035 --> 08:52.905
while more emphasis is now placed on these structural

08:52.905 --> 08:56.085
explanations of the organization as a unit of analysis,

08:56.795 --> 08:58.925
it's important to remember that organizations,

08:58.925 --> 09:01.125
particularly academia, are made up

09:01.125 --> 09:03.005
of very different departments and teams.

09:03.145 --> 09:06.565
And these all have very distinct sort of subcultures,

09:06.565 --> 09:09.965
if you like, including assumptions, expectations,

09:09.965 --> 09:11.525
folk stories about success.

09:12.545 --> 09:16.765
Um, they're also spaces that have a physical element to them

09:17.515 --> 09:20.005
connected and interrelated, not only

09:20.395 --> 09:21.965
with the wider organization,

09:22.145 --> 09:24.285
but the broader political, economic

09:24.625 --> 09:27.765
and social context in which they're historically situated.

09:28.905 --> 09:33.765
So from this borrowing from human geography, we decided

09:34.305 --> 09:35.605
to draw in Spain's work

09:35.625 --> 09:39.405
and conceptualize academic disciplines as gendered spaces

09:40.095 --> 09:44.205
which occupy this physical space,

09:44.265 --> 09:46.685
and develop their own set of rules influenced

09:46.705 --> 09:48.965
by their wider disciplinary norms,

09:49.335 --> 09:53.005
while also been located within Joan AKA's wider

09:53.565 --> 09:56.485
gendered organizational sru substructure.

09:57.715 --> 10:00.215
So following aka theoretically for us,

10:01.035 --> 10:04.775
not only are organizations a complex web of gender, class,

10:05.005 --> 10:07.215
race and sexualized power relations,

10:07.795 --> 10:12.255
but a complex web of interconnected gendered spaces

10:12.965 --> 10:16.415
playing out in similar but slightly different ways.

10:17.805 --> 10:21.665
Um, in turn, we suggest an important part of this,

10:21.715 --> 10:25.345
these gendered spaces is that they operate, as

10:25.495 --> 10:29.945
what Stein and McCadden called strategic act Action fields.

10:30.685 --> 10:33.945
And this is, follows Bo's work again in this area

10:34.275 --> 10:36.825
where the field is the space,

10:36.995 --> 10:39.265
where the academic game is played

10:39.845 --> 10:42.545
and where players seek to secure their positions.

10:43.405 --> 10:46.345
Now clearly not all players accept these rules

10:47.085 --> 10:49.745
and they may seek to challenge or resist them.

10:50.325 --> 10:52.625
And this can explain why fields aren't

10:52.625 --> 10:54.545
static, over time.

10:55.675 --> 10:57.335
Now, some feminist scholars would argue

10:57.365 --> 10:58.935
that every social field

10:59.035 --> 11:03.175
or space is gendered, hence, the academic game is expected

11:03.195 --> 11:04.895
to be played out in different ways,

11:05.085 --> 11:07.655
different ways within spaces that are gendered differently

11:08.165 --> 11:10.135
through norms built up over time

11:10.275 --> 11:12.735
and reflected in both horizontal

11:12.735 --> 11:15.295
and vertical patterns of segregation.

11:15.955 --> 11:19.335
And through our, the theoretical framing, we seek

11:19.355 --> 11:22.735
to capture the complexity of the subtle processes

11:22.955 --> 11:26.495
and experiences at play and how they are created

11:26.635 --> 11:28.655
and recreated across different fields,

11:29.395 --> 11:30.815
or gendered spaces.

11:31.035 --> 11:33.575
And this is why we adopted a case study approach

11:34.035 --> 11:35.695
as it allowed us to compare

11:35.835 --> 11:39.095
and contrast disciplinary areas within the case study site.

11:39.755 --> 11:43.615
It also allowed us to collect through interviews detailed

11:43.635 --> 11:44.855
and discursive data

11:45.555 --> 11:48.775
to really get an understanding into people's experiences

11:48.875 --> 11:52.855
and perceptions of navigating this academic game and

11:53.245 --> 11:54.245
Academic culture.

11:54.465 --> 11:57.605
For our case study, interviews were conducted

11:57.605 --> 11:59.525
with 31 women professors

12:00.325 --> 12:03.205
employed in a large research intensive higher

12:03.205 --> 12:04.405
education institute.

12:04.985 --> 12:08.005
And our analysis revealed that in their navigation

12:08.345 --> 12:12.445
of academic culture, interviewees were sim simultaneously

12:13.115 --> 12:16.245
complicit in the game, yet also critical of it.

12:17.105 --> 12:19.205
Our analysis also revealed

12:19.235 --> 12:21.845
that while interviewees perceptions of the rules

12:21.865 --> 12:24.885
of the game were broadly similar across disciplines,

12:25.055 --> 12:27.685
there were these subtle differences according

12:27.705 --> 12:30.205
to whether these dis disciplines

12:30.505 --> 12:33.605
or gendered spaces were male or female dominated.

12:34.785 --> 12:36.845
So I'm gonna start with the rules of the game.

12:37.305 --> 12:41.125
So nearly all interviewees without being prompted

12:41.955 --> 12:46.125
drew upon the metaphor of the game to describe academia,

12:46.955 --> 12:49.845
they all describe Acade, university culture

12:50.145 --> 12:54.485
and academic careers as all consuming, highly competitive

12:54.985 --> 12:57.685
and centered on the demands of juggling research,

12:58.095 --> 12:59.445
publishing, teaching,

12:59.465 --> 13:02.645
and attending conferences, as well as administrative

13:03.405 --> 13:05.525
outreach and managerial responsibilities

13:06.265 --> 13:10.525
and being internationally mobile for career advancement.

13:11.385 --> 13:13.005
Now, all the interviewees stress

13:13.005 --> 13:16.005
that the promotion process had become much more transparent

13:16.105 --> 13:17.845
and formalized in recent years,

13:18.935 --> 13:20.765
while simultaneously suggesting

13:20.765 --> 13:22.685
that it was far from gender neutral

13:23.025 --> 13:26.565
and they felt tending to favor their male colleagues

13:27.065 --> 13:28.685
and they all had a story to share.

13:29.115 --> 13:32.245
Many saying it took several attempts to be promoted to chair

13:32.985 --> 13:37.165
and highlighting promotion metrics as a, a big obstacle

13:37.345 --> 13:38.525
for anyone unable

13:38.545 --> 13:41.085
to prioritize their research and publications.

13:42.425 --> 13:45.445
Now, while the rules of the game might appear generic,

13:45.945 --> 13:47.765
subtle differences did emerge.

13:48.345 --> 13:51.085
So for example, interviewees from male dominated

13:51.115 --> 13:53.645
disciplines, which they refer to themselves

13:53.745 --> 13:56.645
as things like physics, engineering, life sciences,

13:56.965 --> 13:58.285
medicine, economics and philosophy.

13:58.955 --> 14:02.565
They reflected on being, one of only a small number

14:02.745 --> 14:05.485
of women in their departments,

14:05.485 --> 14:07.405
particularly at the start of their careers.

14:07.865 --> 14:09.925
And they said that gendered practices

14:09.925 --> 14:13.205
and expectations influenced their working environment,

14:13.205 --> 14:14.525
including the different images

14:14.665 --> 14:17.125
and stereotypes associated with their disciplines.

14:17.905 --> 14:20.045
In contrasting more female dominated

14:20.145 --> 14:23.645
and gendered mixed disciplines such as pharmacy, nursing,

14:23.705 --> 14:26.285
and social sciences, gender was deemed

14:26.425 --> 14:28.685
as a less visible day-to-day issue.

14:29.385 --> 14:32.325
Now, a key difference in accounts related

14:32.385 --> 14:34.845
to whether disciplines involve solitary working

14:35.345 --> 14:39.525
or laboratory based cultures were team working

14:40.185 --> 14:41.525
and submitting team funding.

14:41.675 --> 14:45.005
Bits were the norm with lab-based cultures tending

14:45.065 --> 14:46.725
to revolve around long hours

14:47.145 --> 14:50.365
and presenteeism when carrying out experiments,

14:50.785 --> 14:53.925
Um, particularly during early career stages.

14:55.535 --> 14:58.595
Now, in terms of playing the game regardless of discipline,

14:59.145 --> 15:00.915
most spoke about having,

15:01.115 --> 15:03.235
a clear career plan from the beginning.

15:03.945 --> 15:05.835
They said the rules of the game were obvious.

15:06.615 --> 15:10.705
Um, few were critical of the game, sorry,

15:10.945 --> 15:12.425
a few were critical of the game,

15:12.425 --> 15:15.905
particularly the focus on publications at the expense

15:15.965 --> 15:18.465
of teaching and other professional activities,

15:18.915 --> 15:22.385
which they said continued to be undertaken more by women.

15:23.315 --> 15:25.865
While it was suggested that promotion criteria needed

15:25.865 --> 15:28.465
to widen, they nevertheless knew

15:28.575 --> 15:30.305
what they needed to prioritize.

15:30.845 --> 15:33.745
And many said the game was something you just had to get on

15:33.745 --> 15:36.785
with and was an individual career choice.

15:37.125 --> 15:39.425
You either played the game or you didn't.

15:40.805 --> 15:44.465
Now, some interviewees commented on the potential of quality

15:44.645 --> 15:48.145
of a quality initiatives such as the Athena Swan

15:48.885 --> 15:53.065
to help drive progress on gender, inequality,

15:53.105 --> 15:55.145
particularly in STEM environments.

15:55.495 --> 15:57.625
However, many were also very cynical

15:57.885 --> 16:01.625
and stressed that women were still, they felt regarded

16:01.625 --> 16:02.745
as the problem to be fixed.

16:03.085 --> 16:05.345
And examples were shared of small numbers

16:05.805 --> 16:09.905
of female professors who ended up sitting on panels

16:09.905 --> 16:11.785
and committees for just about everything

16:12.015 --> 16:15.785
because it was deemed good to have a woman on board,

16:16.205 --> 16:18.865
but there were very few women professors to choose from.

16:19.365 --> 16:22.505
So they ended up sitting on everything Now as part

16:22.565 --> 16:24.505
of playing the academic game.

16:25.725 --> 16:27.345
Um, three navigation strategies

16:27.405 --> 16:30.345
to advancement were identified,

16:30.765 --> 16:32.385
in the interviewees accounts,

16:33.045 --> 16:37.025
and these are performing as ideal workers building networks

16:37.205 --> 16:38.545
and performing leadership.

16:39.205 --> 16:42.185
So I'm just gonna consider, the three in turn.

16:42.845 --> 16:44.785
So starting with the navigation strategy

16:44.805 --> 16:46.305
of performing as ideal workers.

16:47.125 --> 16:49.025
So interviewees offered,

16:49.025 --> 16:51.545
similar accounts about their career paths

16:51.605 --> 16:54.745
to professorial level regardless of discipline

16:54.975 --> 16:58.345
with long hours and dedication to the job, a constant theme.

16:59.215 --> 17:03.345
Many studies report the challenges women face balancing

17:03.585 --> 17:07.065
academic careers with motherhood and co career response

17:07.125 --> 17:08.585
and caring responsibilities.

17:09.565 --> 17:13.745
And to our surprise, 27, outta 31 of the people

17:13.745 --> 17:15.985
that we spoke, the women we spoke to, had children

17:16.685 --> 17:19.385
and have managed to become professors while maintaining

17:19.485 --> 17:20.985
family responsibilities,

17:22.145 --> 17:25.285
but aware of the implications of timeout for their careers.

17:25.285 --> 17:28.485
Nearly all had taken very short periods of maternity leave,

17:28.675 --> 17:30.485
generally no more than three months,

17:31.105 --> 17:35.045
and most had returned full time interviewees stress,

17:35.105 --> 17:39.845
the prac practical, domestic support of their partners.

17:40.435 --> 17:41.645
Some had role reversed

17:41.745 --> 17:44.605
and their partners were responsible for childcare.

17:45.385 --> 17:48.045
And all emphasized that a combination of access

17:48.105 --> 17:51.285
to good childcare and being able to pay for it

17:51.665 --> 17:54.045
and their input and the input of their partner

17:54.225 --> 17:56.365
or children's grandparents throughout the career

17:57.345 --> 18:00.605
had been really pivotal to enabling them to perform

18:00.865 --> 18:02.365
as idle academics

18:02.365 --> 18:04.245
and putting the long hours that they needed to.

18:05.745 --> 18:08.525
So turning to the navigation strategy of building network.

18:08.825 --> 18:12.005
So almost all of the interviewees highlighted informal

18:12.005 --> 18:13.725
support from senior colleagues

18:13.725 --> 18:17.125
and peers as pivotal to navigating gender spaces.

18:17.955 --> 18:20.805
Many in male dominated disciplines, whether STEM

18:20.825 --> 18:23.285
or non STEM, reflected that at the start

18:23.345 --> 18:26.205
of their careers there were very few women role models

18:26.305 --> 18:29.525
or mentors, particularly women role models with children.

18:30.415 --> 18:33.685
While it was said this was changing and formal mentoring

18:33.685 --> 18:37.005
and networking programs were now in place within their

18:37.005 --> 18:39.005
departments, informal support

18:39.105 --> 18:42.565
or allies had been key to playing the game.

18:43.825 --> 18:46.935
Clear was that interviewees from male dominated disciplines

18:47.005 --> 18:51.255
were much more strategic in actively establishing networks

18:51.355 --> 18:53.535
of relationships both inside

18:53.535 --> 18:55.175
and outside of the organization.

18:56.115 --> 18:59.415
Um, a few STEM interviewees had undertaken MBAs

18:59.635 --> 19:01.255
or external leadership training,

19:01.705 --> 19:04.335
which they said helped increase their

19:04.335 --> 19:05.575
credibility as leaders.

19:06.815 --> 19:09.215
Interestingly, interviewees in female dominated

19:09.315 --> 19:12.775
or more balanced gendered spaces, especially those outside

19:12.775 --> 19:16.295
of stem, were much more cynical about women only leadership

19:16.295 --> 19:19.215
courses and being strategic about networking

19:19.475 --> 19:21.375
or pursuing MBAs.

19:22.845 --> 19:25.655
Next, in terms of navigating senior leadership,

19:26.525 --> 19:28.065
the significance of disciplines

19:28.205 --> 19:31.545
as gendered spaces was very much evident when an

19:31.625 --> 19:34.265
interviewees talked about the gendered hierarchy

19:34.285 --> 19:35.745
of subject specialisms

19:36.085 --> 19:38.345
and moving into senior leadership roles.

19:39.365 --> 19:41.945
Indeed, the benefits of acclimatization

19:42.085 --> 19:45.385
for women working in male dominated spaces was

19:46.515 --> 19:48.425
especially apparent at this stage.

19:49.005 --> 19:51.825
And here it was found that women from female dominated

19:51.885 --> 19:55.745
and more mixed gendered spaces became explicitly aware

19:55.765 --> 19:59.065
for the first time of gendered expectations, rules

19:59.125 --> 20:02.305
and norms, and felt they had to very quickly learn

20:02.325 --> 20:05.865
to perform leadership traditionally couched in male terms

20:06.485 --> 20:08.945
and to navigate new cultural senior spaces

20:09.455 --> 20:12.785
with new expectations on written rules and behaviors.

20:13.325 --> 20:15.305
And this group spoke of been seen

20:15.525 --> 20:17.505
for the first time in their careers

20:17.805 --> 20:21.305
as a woman first rather than as a senior professional.

20:21.965 --> 20:25.985
And thus being as Ner suggests, both visible yet invisible

20:27.075 --> 20:29.675
interviewees negotiated these gender spaces

20:30.055 --> 20:34.355
by keeping one's head down, working twice as hard by,

20:34.535 --> 20:37.235
by fighting their corner, not draw attention

20:37.375 --> 20:38.435
to their femininity,

20:38.815 --> 20:41.875
but also not trying to behave like a man.

20:42.885 --> 20:45.465
Senior spaces opened their eyes to the fact

20:45.495 --> 20:48.725
that old boys clubs had not been eradicated.

20:49.435 --> 20:52.285
Many, acknowledging the difficulties of challenging

20:53.015 --> 20:54.125
tacit gendered images

20:54.225 --> 20:58.445
and stereotypes that are deeply embedded in senior academic

20:58.505 --> 21:00.645
spaces to draw some conclusions.

21:00.645 --> 21:04.765
So our research focused on how women professors,

21:04.825 --> 21:07.565
has successfully navigated the academic

21:07.675 --> 21:10.125
game through the data.

21:10.405 --> 21:14.685
A complex picture emerged where subtle differences relate

21:14.685 --> 21:18.325
to whether the disciplinary space is gender mixed or male

21:18.345 --> 21:22.005
or female dominated rather merely stem or non stem.

21:22.825 --> 21:25.085
The roles of the game were broadly consistent

21:25.625 --> 21:27.445
across differently gendered spaces,

21:28.465 --> 21:32.045
but the strategies enacted varied according to

21:32.065 --> 21:34.045
how academic spaces are gendered

21:34.505 --> 21:36.405
and influenced by whether disciplines

21:36.475 --> 21:37.765
were based on team working.

21:37.985 --> 21:40.965
As is often the case in lab-based disciplines

21:41.225 --> 21:44.565
or more solitary overall, we found,

21:44.655 --> 21:48.045
while many recognized the gender patterns inherent in the

21:48.045 --> 21:51.845
rules of the acade academic game, they also knew that

21:51.845 --> 21:54.085
to progress in their careers, they had

21:54.085 --> 21:57.485
to conform rather than explicitly challenge these rules,

21:57.805 --> 21:59.965
particularly at the highest levels.

22:01.485 --> 22:05.585
So where do we go from here? Our research was qualitative.

22:05.765 --> 22:08.785
It was kind of exploratory, you could say, in nature

22:09.245 --> 22:11.585
and confined to a single organization.

22:12.565 --> 22:14.905
Future work might examine the extent

22:15.285 --> 22:18.185
to which the gender patterns we found we identified

22:18.955 --> 22:21.745
occur in other university contexts.

22:22.735 --> 22:25.305
Relatedly, the number of interviewees,

22:25.365 --> 22:28.025
in our sample was really quite small.

22:28.605 --> 22:30.825
And this has particularly, made it difficult

22:30.845 --> 22:33.105
to draw out issues of intersectionality

22:33.605 --> 22:36.825
and how experiences are shaped, not only but by gender,

22:37.565 --> 22:40.985
but by class ethnicity and sexuality, for example.

22:41.765 --> 22:43.345
And given the poor representation

22:43.605 --> 22:46.705
of women from minority ethnic groups at professorial level

22:46.705 --> 22:49.425
across the sector, we think it's really important

22:49.565 --> 22:51.065
to look much more into this.

22:51.685 --> 22:53.705
Um, and a much larger sample size

22:53.765 --> 22:58.065
or more sampling be required in order to

22:58.825 --> 23:01.225
derive greater insight into the

23:01.815 --> 23:03.785
heterogeneity of experiences.

23:04.845 --> 23:06.425
We also think it would be fruitful

23:06.425 --> 23:08.385
to explore generational differences

23:08.845 --> 23:11.185
as the younger cohorts strive to move

23:11.185 --> 23:12.625
through the promotion ranks,

23:12.995 --> 23:16.785
especially at a time when academic careers arguably becoming

23:17.295 --> 23:20.425
much more competitive and precarious.

23:21.255 --> 23:24.505
Finally, future work needs to pay greater attention

23:24.765 --> 23:27.865
to the experiences of women in senior positions based on

23:27.865 --> 23:31.505
their roots through differently gendered spaces.

00:00 - Women's position, in academia has markedly improved in recent decades. However, academia remains segregated by gender with women still underrepresented, particularly in many STEM disciplines, as well as in the highest positions in our higher

00:15 - education institutions. Now, this underrepresentation is the case, not just in the uk, but other countries too, across the eu, the US and Australia. using the UK as an example, figures show about 25% of vice chancellors of the top 200 UK universities are currently women. And this is a marked increase from 13% back in 2013. But progress nevertheless remains very un uneven,

00:48 - particularly for women from minoritized groups. Indeed, the majority, so around 70% of those who hold the rank of full professor are still white men, despite women constituting just under half of the academic workforce. Now, key for us in terms of our research in this area is that academia is both horizontally as well as vertically segregated. So this is not, this is not simply, a matter of gender differences between stem and non STEM disciplines.

01:22 - So in a small number of STEM subjects such as nursing and pharmacy, for example, women constitute a majority of academic staff while in some non STEM subjects such as economics and philosophy is men that compromise the numerical majority. And therefore, we wanted to consider the experiences of women across disciplines. Now, much research today, quite rightly, has focused on getting more women to study stem and understanding women's experiences

01:54 - of working in male dominated academic STEM fields. And the implicit assumption is that women are better served in non STEM disciplines where they tend to make up more of the workforce. This we would argue, however, assumes, that higher education institutions are in what we call inherently, gender neutral and thus masks the ways in which gender influences the experiences of both women and men.

02:26 - And this is why we were interested through our study to ask two key questions. Firstly, how have women at professorial level navigated their organizational and disciplinary second, settings? And secondly, how do their experiences compare in different gendered context? Now, our focus is on women professors, and this is because while there have been studies on the barriers women academics experience

02:55 - and the challenges they face in their career advancement Less is known about the experiences of women who have reached professorial level and have ostensibly made it. Yeah. So similar to a lot of the research that's been done on occupational segregation by gender, or widely say in management and leadership at explanations for vertical segregation and academia are offered at the different levels of the individual, the family education, the workplace,

03:27 - and wider society, for example. And over time, what we've seen is this shift in focus. So what's we call anyway, the fixing the women. So a focus on pipeline arguments, qualification levers, and what Cheryl Sandberg has referred to as women having to lean in to organizations to a focus on fixing the institutions to much more structural approaches to understanding the endurance and stickiness of gender inequalities in organizations.

03:59 - Here, the literature focuses on the construction and expectations of academic careers around what Joan refers to, as notions of the ideal disembodied worker alongside gendered academic culture. So what do we mean by all this? Well, academia has been constructed as an all consuming carefree zone. Based on the assumption, academics have no commitment other than to the job.

04:28 - So acas ideal worker and notion with women, particularly at the very early stages of their career feeling they have to adopt what Pat O'Connor is called careerist femininity. Now, the promotions, process in academia usually requires as many of us know, well, working in this area, a very strong track record of both research funding and publications and as what and colleagues are stressing their work citation and other performance metrics to assess both individual

05:02 - and institutional performance. These have become really deeply embedded in our university structures and cultures. And while essentially meritocratic and gender neutral, in what has been referred to or called the so-called neoliberal University research, nonetheless is prioritized over teaching and admin responsibilities, for example, with women generally doing more of that latter work. Now, following Joan Acker,

05:31 - and her seminal work on gendered organizations, there's been growing recognition that deeply embedded gendered expectations, pervade organizational structures and cultures with gender performances created and recreated in the workplace. And originally in her work, aka identified five processes that produced gendering organizations. And quickly, these are the division

05:58 - of labor cultural symbols, workplace interactions, individual identities, and organiz organizational logics. And these relate to rules, procedures, hierarchies, job descriptions, for example. And for aca, the real power of gendered organizations, or in her later work on organizations as inequality regimes, is that they often maintain a neutral facade, making them really difficult to challenge. Now, for some scholars, women's absence from senior positions has been linked

06:29 - to academic culture and this rules of the game expression. Now this draws on board's metaphor. cal and colleagues argue that academics are really invested in the academic game, striving to maintain or improve their position, and those with greater awareness of the rules are better able to succeed. Now, it sounds very straightforward, but it isn't in reality.

06:55 - as part of studies exploring academic culture, male dominated networks that exist with academia and senior men in pointing in their own image are being revealed as really problematic. So now as much more focused on role modeling, networking, and mentoring schemes for women and other underrepresented groups. However, research also reveals women often have greater difficulty accessing mentors or allies with women only networks tending not

07:25 - to have the same leverage. Now, studies highlight some of the strategies women use, particularly women have used to adopt a male-dominated stem arenas. And this includes things like cloaking, of femininity, as what suggests to promote only appropriate visibility. Faulkner in her work talks about the invisibility stroke visibility paradox where women are highly visible at yet invisible in the engineering sector. And rot highlights how women in stem

07:58 - distance themselves from other scientists. One of the problems though, with such tactics while necessary to get on, is that they tend to inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes and barriers. So while important work among this research, there is little consideration of the ways in which gender is played out in more female dominated disciplines, even though women remain concentrated at the lower levels of the academic hierarchy in these fields.

08:26 - And studies are typically focused on the barriers to career advancement that women face. And this is why we really wanted to find out how the minority of women who are in fourth professor roles have succeeded, and where experiences may be similar yet different across different disciplinary settings. So turning to the theoretical underpinnings of our research, while more emphasis is now placed on these structural explanations of the organization as a unit of analysis,

08:56 - it's important to remember that organizations, particularly academia, are made up of very different departments and teams. And these all have very distinct sort of subcultures, if you like, including assumptions, expectations, folk stories about success. they're also spaces that have a physical element to them connected and interrelated, not only with the wider organization, but the broader political, economic

09:24 - and social context in which they're historically situated. So from this borrowing from human geography, we decided to draw in Spain's work and conceptualize academic disciplines as gendered spaces which occupy this physical space, and develop their own set of rules influenced by their wider disciplinary norms, while also been located within Joan AKA's wider gendered organizational sru substructure. So following aka theoretically for us,

10:01 - not only are organizations a complex web of gender, class, race and sexualized power relations, but a complex web of interconnected gendered spaces playing out in similar but slightly different ways. in turn, we suggest an important part of this, these gendered spaces is that they operate, as what Stein and McCadden called strategic act Action fields. And this is, follows Bo's work again in this area where the field is the space, where the academic game is played

10:39 - and where players seek to secure their positions. Now clearly not all players accept these rules and they may seek to challenge or resist them. And this can explain why fields aren't static, over time. Now, some feminist scholars would argue that every social field or space is gendered, hence, the academic game is expected to be played out in different ways, different ways within spaces that are gendered differently

11:08 - through norms built up over time and reflected in both horizontal and vertical patterns of segregation. And through our, the theoretical framing, we seek to capture the complexity of the subtle processes and experiences at play and how they are created and recreated across different fields, or gendered spaces. And this is why we adopted a case study approach as it allowed us to compare

11:35 - and contrast disciplinary areas within the case study site. It also allowed us to collect through interviews detailed and discursive data to really get an understanding into people's experiences and perceptions of navigating this academic game and Academic culture. For our case study, interviews were conducted with 31 women professors employed in a large research intensive higher education institute.

12:04 - And our analysis revealed that in their navigation of academic culture, interviewees were sim simultaneously complicit in the game, yet also critical of it. Our analysis also revealed that while interviewees perceptions of the rules of the game were broadly similar across disciplines, there were these subtle differences according to whether these dis disciplines or gendered spaces were male or female dominated. So I'm gonna start with the rules of the game.

12:37 - So nearly all interviewees without being prompted drew upon the metaphor of the game to describe academia, they all describe Acade, university culture and academic careers as all consuming, highly competitive and centered on the demands of juggling research, publishing, teaching, and attending conferences, as well as administrative outreach and managerial responsibilities and being internationally mobile for career advancement. Now, all the interviewees stress

13:13 - that the promotion process had become much more transparent and formalized in recent years, while simultaneously suggesting that it was far from gender neutral and they felt tending to favor their male colleagues and they all had a story to share. Many saying it took several attempts to be promoted to chair and highlighting promotion metrics as a, a big obstacle for anyone unable to prioritize their research and publications.

13:42 - Now, while the rules of the game might appear generic, subtle differences did emerge. So for example, interviewees from male dominated disciplines, which they refer to themselves as things like physics, engineering, life sciences, medicine, economics and philosophy. They reflected on being, one of only a small number of women in their departments, particularly at the start of their careers. And they said that gendered practices

14:09 - and expectations influenced their working environment, including the different images and stereotypes associated with their disciplines. In contrasting more female dominated and gendered mixed disciplines such as pharmacy, nursing, and social sciences, gender was deemed as a less visible day-to-day issue. Now, a key difference in accounts related to whether disciplines involve solitary working or laboratory based cultures were team working

14:40 - and submitting team funding. Bits were the norm with lab-based cultures tending to revolve around long hours and presenteeism when carrying out experiments, particularly during early career stages. Now, in terms of playing the game regardless of discipline, most spoke about having, a clear career plan from the beginning. They said the rules of the game were obvious. few were critical of the game, sorry,

15:10 - a few were critical of the game, particularly the focus on publications at the expense of teaching and other professional activities, which they said continued to be undertaken more by women. While it was suggested that promotion criteria needed to widen, they nevertheless knew what they needed to prioritize. And many said the game was something you just had to get on with and was an individual career choice. You either played the game or you didn't.

15:40 - Now, some interviewees commented on the potential of quality of a quality initiatives such as the Athena Swan to help drive progress on gender, inequality, particularly in STEM environments. However, many were also very cynical and stressed that women were still, they felt regarded as the problem to be fixed. And examples were shared of small numbers of female professors who ended up sitting on panels and committees for just about everything

16:12 - because it was deemed good to have a woman on board, but there were very few women professors to choose from. So they ended up sitting on everything Now as part of playing the academic game. three navigation strategies to advancement were identified, in the interviewees accounts, and these are performing as ideal workers building networks and performing leadership. So I'm just gonna consider, the three in turn.

16:42 - So starting with the navigation strategy of performing as ideal workers. So interviewees offered, similar accounts about their career paths to professorial level regardless of discipline with long hours and dedication to the job, a constant theme. Many studies report the challenges women face balancing academic careers with motherhood and co career response and caring responsibilities. And to our surprise, 27, outta 31 of the people

17:13 - that we spoke, the women we spoke to, had children and have managed to become professors while maintaining family responsibilities, but aware of the implications of timeout for their careers. Nearly all had taken very short periods of maternity leave, generally no more than three months, and most had returned full time interviewees stress, the prac practical, domestic support of their partners. Some had role reversed and their partners were responsible for childcare.

17:45 - And all emphasized that a combination of access to good childcare and being able to pay for it and their input and the input of their partner or children's grandparents throughout the career had been really pivotal to enabling them to perform as idle academics and putting the long hours that they needed to. So turning to the navigation strategy of building network. So almost all of the interviewees highlighted informal support from senior colleagues

18:13 - and peers as pivotal to navigating gender spaces. Many in male dominated disciplines, whether STEM or non STEM, reflected that at the start of their careers there were very few women role models or mentors, particularly women role models with children. While it was said this was changing and formal mentoring and networking programs were now in place within their departments, informal support or allies had been key to playing the game. Clear was that interviewees from male dominated disciplines

18:47 - were much more strategic in actively establishing networks of relationships both inside and outside of the organization. a few STEM interviewees had undertaken MBAs or external leadership training, which they said helped increase their credibility as leaders. Interestingly, interviewees in female dominated or more balanced gendered spaces, especially those outside of stem, were much more cynical about women only leadership

19:16 - courses and being strategic about networking or pursuing MBAs. Next, in terms of navigating senior leadership, the significance of disciplines as gendered spaces was very much evident when an interviewees talked about the gendered hierarchy of subject specialisms and moving into senior leadership roles. Indeed, the benefits of acclimatization for women working in male dominated spaces was

19:46 - especially apparent at this stage. And here it was found that women from female dominated and more mixed gendered spaces became explicitly aware for the first time of gendered expectations, rules and norms, and felt they had to very quickly learn to perform leadership traditionally couched in male terms and to navigate new cultural senior spaces with new expectations on written rules and behaviors. And this group spoke of been seen for the first time in their careers

20:17 - as a woman first rather than as a senior professional. And thus being as Ner suggests, both visible yet invisible interviewees negotiated these gender spaces by keeping one's head down, working twice as hard by, by fighting their corner, not draw attention to their femininity, but also not trying to behave like a man. Senior spaces opened their eyes to the fact that old boys clubs had not been eradicated. Many, acknowledging the difficulties of challenging

20:53 - tacit gendered images and stereotypes that are deeply embedded in senior academic spaces to draw some conclusions. So our research focused on how women professors, has successfully navigated the academic game through the data. A complex picture emerged where subtle differences relate to whether the disciplinary space is gender mixed or male or female dominated rather merely stem or non stem. The roles of the game were broadly consistent

21:25 - across differently gendered spaces, but the strategies enacted varied according to how academic spaces are gendered and influenced by whether disciplines were based on team working. As is often the case in lab-based disciplines or more solitary overall, we found, while many recognized the gender patterns inherent in the rules of the acade academic game, they also knew that to progress in their careers, they had

21:54 - to conform rather than explicitly challenge these rules, particularly at the highest levels. So where do we go from here? Our research was qualitative. It was kind of exploratory, you could say, in nature and confined to a single organization. Future work might examine the extent to which the gender patterns we found we identified occur in other university contexts. Relatedly, the number of interviewees, in our sample was really quite small.

22:28 - And this has particularly, made it difficult to draw out issues of intersectionality and how experiences are shaped, not only but by gender, but by class ethnicity and sexuality, for example. And given the poor representation of women from minority ethnic groups at professorial level across the sector, we think it's really important to look much more into this. and a much larger sample size or more sampling be required in order to

22:58 - derive greater insight into the heterogeneity of experiences. We also think it would be fruitful to explore generational differences as the younger cohorts strive to move through the promotion ranks, especially at a time when academic careers arguably becoming much more competitive and precarious. Finally, future work needs to pay greater attention to the experiences of women in senior positions based on

23:27 - their roots through differently gendered spaces.

Faculti AI can make mistakes