ArticlePDF Available
administrative
sciences
Article
Fixing the Women or Fixing Universities: Women in
HE Leadership
Paula Burkinshaw 1, * and Kate White 2
1Leeds University Business School, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
2Faculty of Education and Arts, Federation University Australia, Mount Helen VIC 3350, Australia;
kate.white@federation.edu.au
*Correspondence: p.burkinshaw@leeds.ac.uk
Received: 3 July 2017; Accepted: 14 August 2017; Published: 21 August 2017
Abstract:
The lack of women in leadership across higher education has been problemitised in the
literature. Often contemporary discourses promote ‘fixing the women’ as a solution. Consequently,
interventions aimed at helping women break through ‘the glass ceiling’ abound. This article
argues that the gendered power relations at play in universities stubbornly maintain entrenched
inequalities whereby, regardless of measures implemented for and by women, the problem
remains. The precariousness for women of leadership careers is explored through two separate
but complementary case studies (from different continents and different generations) each one
illuminating gender power relations at work. The article concludes by arguing that it is universities
themselves that need fixing, not the women, and that women’s growing resistance, particularly of the
younger generation, reflects their dissatisfaction with higher education leadership communities of
practice of masculinities.
Keywords: women in higher education; gender and leadership; gendered power relations
1. Introduction
This paper examines two generations of women leaders using two different case studies—the first,
Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in the UK and the second, younger women at a newer Australian university
who were in middle management positions or are aspiring to management jobs—and how increasing
job insecurity and continuous organizational restructuring affects gender power relations at work. The
case studies each involved different methods; in the first qualitative interviews with VCs and in the
second a quantitative survey, which included provision for additional comments, with mid-career
women who were middle managers or aspiring to management. Thus, the study examines data
from a sample of top women leaders in UK universities, and a case study of the next generation of
women leaders who completed a professional leadership development program for women in an
Australian university. The richness of data from these varied sites and methods helped to uncover the
exclusionary structures and practices and seemingly entrenched gender power relations experienced
by women at all levels of leadership in universities, and how the precariousness of women’s university
careers compounds these relations.
The data generated from both sites and methods was analysed through a communities of practice
of masculinities lens as the theoretical framework underpinning the study. Briefly, this theoretical
framework builds on the work of Paechter (2003) who applied the concept of communities of practice
to the learning of gender (through communities of practice of masculinities) and this study borrows the
extension of her work by Burkinshaw who argues that this also applies to higher education leadership
(Burkinshaw 2015).
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30; doi:10.3390/admsci7030030 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 2 of 14
1.1. Literature Review
Gender pervades structures and processes in organisations. Karatas-Ozkan and Chell elucidate
the notion of gendering by describing gender as: “A powerful ideological device, which is produced
and reproduced in social situations as the interactional scaffolding of social structure and the social
control processes that sustain it” (Karata¸s-Özkan and Chell 2015, p. 12). Organisational culture,
Bagilhole et al. suggest, is a dynamic process that can be conceived as something an organization has,
something an organization is, and something an organization does (Bagilhole et al. 2007). In relation
to management the concept of organizational culture has been used to refer to a complicated fabric
of management myths, values and practices that legitimize women’s position at the lower levels of
the hierarchy and portray managerial jobs as primarily masculine (O’Connor 2011, p. 168). However,
organizational structure is not gender neutral and organizational culture reflects the wishes and needs
of powerful men. Thus, the ideal worker is male: “Images of men’s bodies and masculinity pervade
organizational processes, marginalizing women and contributing to the maintenance of gendered
segregation in organisations” (Acker 1990, p. 139).
A key impact of organizational masculinity is the emotional labour expended by women in order
to succeed. We refer to this emotional labour throughout the paper because it underpins the experience
of many women in leadership, an additional pressure to their workload which continues to reify
masculine cultures.
The transition in organizational culture from collegial to managerial governance has been a
feature of universities in the past few decades (Bolden et al. 2012). Meek (2002, p. 55) explains that
“increasingly pressure has been placed on universities to institute strong managerial modes of operation”.
Deem (1998, p. 47)
argues that ‘new managerialism’ is characterized by public sector organisations
adopting “organisational forms, technologies, management practices and values more commonly found
in the private business sector”, and it is suggested that this managerialism “gnaws away at professional
autonomy and control” so “the power status, and role of academics in university governance and
management have declined” (Deem et al. 2008, pp. 22–27); see also (Bolden et al. 2012).
Managerial universities value research above all other academic activities and especially
value and reward academics who bring external funding to the organization (Acker et al. 2010).
This emphasis impacts disproportionately on women who often have less success in accessing funding
(Faltholm and Abrahamsson 2010)
. So, has new managerialism benefitted or hindered the careers of
academic women? Carvalho and Machado-Taylor assert that it is not possible to identify a single impact
of new managerialism on gender dominant notions or on the impact it may have on gender power
relations (Carvalho and Machado-Taylor 2009). Rather, there are a myriad of non-convergent directions
in the way it influences gender in organisations. However, Parsons and Priola argue that managerial
universities reinforce rather than reduce gender inequalities (Parsons and Priola 2010), while
Lynch et al
.
maintain that senior management positions in managerial universities are gendered as they are assumed to
be care-free; “those appointed are assumed to be available to participate in a long-hours work environment
that precludes having responsibility for primary care work” (Lynch et al. 2012, p. 200).
A great deal of literature focuses on gendered career paths in higher education. The gendering
of particularly academic careerscan often be established for some women during PhD candidature
through lack of support and mentoring and sponsorship particularly in relation to advice about career
paths and in the early career phase (Van den Brink 2009), and can then persist throughout the careers of
women in universities (see, for example, (Etzkowitz and Kemelger 2001)). Early career academics often
juggle career and family. Ward and Wolf-Wendel argue that both motherhood and academic work
are ‘greedy institutions,’ demanding total commitment and dedication (Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012).
Academic mothers must negotiate both institutions without sufficient time, support, and resources
in either.
Academic women are therefore often building their careers later than their male colleagues, and
are less likely to have a traditional trajectory starting as a lecturer and then progressing through the
ranks to senior lecturer, associate professor and full professor (Bagilhole and White 2011). Women
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 3 of 14
in administrative roles are more likely than male colleagues to have interrupted careers and to work
part-time. Consequently, women in universities face increasingly precarious career paths due to
lack of job security, the impact of managerialism and heavy workloads (Bagilhole and White 2013;
White et al. 2011
;O’Connor 2014). And although the representation of women in leadership roles has
increased, it is mostly in administrative areas (Burkinshaw 2015). While Sandberg (2013) argues that
women in leadership roles can improve working conditions for all women in organisations, one of
her critics asserts that “Relying on one woman at the top, or even a handful, to understand what all
women below them need and to act on that is simply naïve” (Covert 2013).
Hence, the focus is often on women’s deficits in HE leadership rather than the “organisational
culture as the problem and take[ing] a systemic approach to re-visioning work cultures”
(De Vries and Webb 2005)
. Such explanations, O’Connor asserts: “implicitly or explicitly define women
as ‘the problem’ and so obviate the need to look at intra-organisational culture and procedures in
explaining these patterns” (O’Connor 2011, p. 179). Whereas, successful leaders in organisations
question work cultures by carefully interpreting uncertainty for colleagues across the institution
and frame the current situation in ways that collaboratively connect with others, so this helps to
reposition organisational work cultures as problematic rather than (women) leaders (Fairhurst 2011).
Fundamentally higher education leadership cultures are manifest through communities of practice as
the prerequisites are well satisfied: domain of knowledge; community of people; and shared practice
(Wenger 1998). Through participation in the leadership community its members establish norms and
build collaborative relationships. Their interactions as members create a shared understanding of what
brings them together, their joint enterprise. As part of its practice, leadership communities produce
communal resources, their shared repertoire. Communities of practice provide a context for people
to learn: learning skills, knowledge, behaviours and attitudes; in other words, learning leadership.
Members of (leadership) communities of practice hold certain status—apprentice, legitimate peripheral
participation, and full member—with some remaining as outsiders (other) who never fully belong.
The other is an outlier, on the margins and sometimes not even tolerated. Othering is barely acceptable
even when mainstream behaviours are absent such that leaders practicing their gender through
femininities are familiar with feelings of othering. This positioning transfers into the workplace
where othering is reinforced and reproduced by (leadership) communities of practice of masculinities
(Paechter 2003). As the literature on communities of practice shapes the theoretical framework for this
study it is explored further in the methodology section below. Furthermore, the framework used to
analyse data from the two case studies was communities of practice of masculinities and femininities
which Burkinshaw found help us to learn about leadership in higher education (Burkinshaw 2015).
Fundamentally leadership is a community performance which historically learned masculinities.
While much has been written about women not measuring up to the demands of the modern
managerial university (Bagilhole and White 2011;O’Connor 2014), women themselves assert that they
have been marginalized in the gendered research economy (Lynch et al. 2012;Morley 2014) which
perpetuates their continued under-representation. Although managerialism in higher education can
provide opportunities for women to develop their careers, in reality it perpetuates and even intensifies
the gendered organizational culture (Acker 1990). Thus, women report being more affected by heavy
workloads (Barrett and Barrett 2011) often due to the precariousness of their contracts, combined with
their wish to ‘do a good job’ (Kandiko Howson et al. 2015).
Thus ‘the problem is women’ appears to shift the responsibility towards programs and measures
aimed at ‘fixing the women’ and away from the organisation reflecting on a culture that is not
generally encouraging to women. This emphasis on fixing the women helps to rationalise why women
are not progressing in their careers (Ely and Meyerson 2000). Such a ‘deficit model’ focuses on
why women do not measure up to HE leadership roles and does not inspire confidence in building
career paths or in their institution, adding yet again to the precariousness of their leadership careers.
Not surprisingly some women can become ambivalent about their role in the academy and disengage
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 4 of 14
(Blackmore and Sachs 2007)
, while others look at and dismiss HE leadership, making a conscious
decision in the current organizational context not to seek leadership roles (Morley 2014).
It can therefore be asserted that the organizational culture of higher education needs fixing
(Fitzgerald and Wilkinson 2010)
, rather than the women. This viewpoint emphasises the social justice case
for women not continuing to be marginalised in HE and raises the question about whether or not “it is in
society’s interest to perpetuate lack of diversity in senior leadership positions” (O’Connor et al. 2015).
1.2. Methodology
The first case study was semi-structured interviews with 18 senior women professors who were
leading UK higher education institutions (normally as vice-chancellor/principal/president) between
2010 and 2013. The second study was an on-line survey in March and April 2014 which was an
evaluation of a professional leadership development program for women (the Women in Leadership
(WiL) program) at a newer Australian university undertaken nine months after its completion.
53 per cent of the 85 participants completed the survey which is the average for reported response
rates in the field (Baruch and Holtom 2008). While most of the survey questions required responses
on a five point Likert scale, they also provided an opportunity for respondents to make comments.
This is a mixed methods study. It merges two different data sets—the first qualitative interviews
and the second a quantitative survey—and uses different methods to address the research problem
(Creswell and Plano-Clark 2008)
. The study does not seek to directly compare these two individual
cases. Thus, this research design enables the findings to be generalized to different groups
(Morse 2003)
.
The study also acknowledges the similarity in the context of higher education in Australia and the UK.
Australian universities were traditionally based on the British model and universities in both countries
operate within national equal opportunities legislative frameworks.
The above literature review introduced the theoretical framework which was used to analyse
the data from the two case studies. This framework is higher education leadership communities of
practice of masculinities (and femininities). Burkinshaw found that exploring women in leadership
through the lens of communities of practice of masculinities helps to illuminate HE leadership cultures
and the learning of leadership (Burkinshaw 2015). Communities of practice engender networks of full
members, apprentices or those practising ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Wenger 1998), whereby
membership at any level requires ‘fitting in’ to some extent. Membership of these networks helps
create “individual and group identity” (Wenger 1998, p. 73) and “learning full participation in a
community of masculinity or femininity practice is about learning one’s own identity and how to
enact it” (Paechter 2003). Thus gender is fluid, not a fixed state, so precarious in itself, meaning that
learning leadership and power relations in higher education are also fluid and determined to some
extent by membership of these communities of practice. So fundamentally leadership is a community
performance which historically inevitably learned masculinities because people learn to be leaders
within higher education through leadership communities of practice and these predominantly perform
masculinities. Moreover, these communities define their membership by initiating emerging leaders
as novices, apprentices (practicing legitimate peripheral participation) and (for some) full members.
By using communities of practice of masculinities to interpret the learning of leadership we allow for
the fluidity of boundaries across and between different masculinities and femininities and for local
and negotiated ways of being. This recognises how resistant these communities are to change and that
leadership (and leaders) can be constrained by membership of communities of practice of masculinities.
Hence communities of practice of masculinities traditionally have shaped leadership practices and
forged the status quo and we are therefore using leadership communities of practice as a framework
to analyse our data. The interviews from the UK case study were transcribed by the interviewer,
so analysis started at that point. Themes emerged both inductively from the interview data as well as
having been framed by the questions which were also informed by the literature. The data analysis
software Atlas Ti helped to code these themes during the analysis process. In the Australian case study,
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 5 of 14
thematic analysis was undertaken in the light of themes emerging from the data in conjunction with
those from the literature.
We argue that this theoretical framework underpinning our data analysis helps us to understand
whether or not women are ‘fitting in’ to those HE networks (communities of practice) which
are crucial for career enhancement. This argument is strengthened by Williams’ (Williams 2012)
repudiation of ‘ideal worker norms’ which are reinforced by lack of flexibility in working practices
despite equality policies (which she describes as ‘shelf paper’). These ideal worker norms (long
hours’ culture, prioritization of work, support from home) are reproduced by communities of
practices of masculinities which deny flexibility and even create ‘flexibility stigma’. Williams
found that 33% of professors did not request parental leave because they feared career penalties.
Similarly, our framework builds on women’s experiences of homosociability in the workplace
(O’Connor 2014)
whereby male (and female) members of leadership networks (communities of practice
of masculinities) are continually “mobilising masculinities” which exclude and disadvantage “the
other”
(Martin 2001, p. 589)
, Burkinshaw proposes that this framework of higher education leadership
communities of practice can contribute to the absence of networking for women (Burkinshaw 2015),
another performative practice crucial to building leadership power relations and careers.
Overall our framework reflects higher education gender power relations that involve exclusionary
structures and practices which are exacerbated by precarious careers. For the women in our studies
this means more pressure on the one hand on their emotional workload of ‘fitting in’ to get on, or
on the other hand resistance to taking on more leadership communities of practice (O’Connor 2001).
Fundamentally we argue that our theoretical framework helps to explain the seemingly intransigent
nature of leadership cultures thus perpetuating the status quo. Nevertheless, more hopefully, we
also show through both our case studies that a combination of agency and dedicated initiatives has a
potential to bring about change. For example, a recent initiative in the UK is ‘Sci Sisters’, a scientific
sisterhood with the aim of building a network that underpins deserved confidence among senior
women and highlights excellence (http://www.chemicalimbalance.ed.ac.uk/scisister/).
2. Results
2.1. Case Study 1
The first case study found that even women who had succeeded to very senior roles in UK higher
education still experienced precarious careers in the process. Although it might be expected that
women who had reached top positions would be treated with respect by senior colleagues, their
experience of leadership could often be quite confronting and be characterized by men behaving in
an aggressive, loud and domineering manner, particularly in meetings with other senior managers.
As one interviewee described it:
Just them [men] being louder, talking more, dominating more, whether it’s round the board
table or any kind of meeting men tend to be more assertive and more confident about
what they are saying and they express what they are saying in a different way as well.
Women use words like, perhaps, potentially, like, might wish, but the sayings, the verbs
and adjectives for men are different ones. The language they use is different.
Another interviewee made a similar observation:
I think a lot of male leaders repeat themselves and use up air time, this is a bit tricky, and
I think that there is a danger for women if they do that because women who take up air
time will be seen to be taking up air time and men are not seen to be taking up air time so
women can’t behave like that because it’s not seen the same way.
It seemed here like a case of women being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. What is
being described are acceptable ways of behaving for men in HE leadership (‘repeat themselves and
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 6 of 14
use up air time’) which are nevertheless not acceptable for women ‘so women can’t behave like that
because it’s not seen the same way’. The double bind is that women can try hard at ‘fitting in’ but they
cannot do so in the way that men do. However, it is not clear what is an acceptable mode of behaviour
for senior women in HE.
Consequently, women were aware that they were operating in a highly competitive environment
(Acker 1990), where it was often hard to be heard, where their performance was evaluated differently
and where they were not being promoted by their peers, as the following interviewee explained:
there’s something about this rather male dominated environment that says they see these
pushy bright men as having more potential. Women who are perhaps not shouting so much
about what they are doing, I don’t know what it is, who are actually good or sometimes
better at work are not being tapped on the shoulder.
Women then were often ignored by talent spotters in favour of ‘pushy bright men’. The issue here
was that women needed to more loudly promote their potential.
For women to be promoted through the gendered organisational hierarchy they needed to work
hard at ‘fitting in’ to masculine models of leadership, often denying their femininity:
It might be a male culture but there are certain things you cannot do at work. Losing
emotional control, you cannot do. It’s a sort of no-no.
Again, what is being described is a narrow masculinist definition of acceptable behaviour in
HE leadership usually associated with transactional leadership (Currie et al. 2002). On the one hand,
senior male managers can be aggressive, loud and overbearing, but on the other women cannot express
themselves in a way that leads to losing emotional control. Women as leaders often prefer a more open,
expressive style described as transformational leadership; that is, to use an interactive style, share
power and information, use personal power, enhance people’s self-worth, and make them feel part of
the organization (Rosener 1990). Lipman-Blumen (1992) similarly talks about connective leadership
styles—collaborative, contributive and mentoring behaviour—in which women excel. But it is evident
that HE leadership continues to reward transactional leadership.
Ultimately part of this ‘fitting in’ was to also understand how leadership operated within higher
education and how masculinist leadership was the only acceptable form of leadership, rather than to
challenge these accepted norms, as the following interviewee explained:
I think leadership is defined by powerful leadership, it’s if you look at the words you use
to describe leaders they tend to be male words and sometimes they put in the odd thing
about nurturing and engaging people, that’s a girly thing. Things like that. They tend to be
male in that sense. Actually, the way that the leadership club works tends to be like that, a
club. Let’s have a beer. Let’s meet for breakfast. That’s all the constructs about meetings.
You go to meetings and you have to stand from the floor and orate. That’s a very male
thing, rather than sitting down and having a discussion.
This description elaborates on the aggressive domineering behaviour described above. As well
as the aggression, there are strict rules of conduct for university leaders—the language they use
(which is male)
and ways of networking which operate like a male club with rituals such as having
a beer or having breakfast together. This ‘clubbiness’ then translates into how HE leaders behave
in more formal settings: in meetings men stand from the floor and orate—suggesting a sense of
performance and needing to impress that reinforces a sense of entitlement men have as university
leaders
(Bagilhole and White 2013)
. In contrast, women might prefer to sit down and discuss an issue.
The picture painted here was of exclusionary structures and practices that reflect traditional
male values, consistent with Acker’s view. There seemed to be no room for experimenting with a
different leadership style. A consultative style—sitting around the table—was not condoned, nor was
taking a less definite position in discussions—and using words like ‘perhaps, potentially, like, might
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 7 of 14
wish’. Rather, HE leaders needed to be confident and assertive and did this by ‘being louder, talking
more, dominating more’. This robust homosociability in HE leadership, also observed by O’Connor
and Lynch et al. (O’Connor 2014;Lynch et al. 2012), demonstrates strong communities of practice of
masculinities and provides the context in which women build their careers.
These women Vice-Chancellors had a choice about whether or not they wished to pursue
leadership ambitions, given that they fully understood the masculinist context in which university
leadership operates. So, in order to be successful, they had to learn to navigate and negotiate the
gendered organisational culture in order to overcome its obstacles for women, as the following
interviewee explains:
I think sometimes women think that they do have to behave in this way too. Probably I
find myself occasionally doing it and recognizing it’s not my natural way of behaving and
I see it occasionally in other women. Whether it’s the women that get into roles like that
have a bit of male feistiness about them and they are prepared to put themselves in that
position or when they are there they change their behaviour. It’s about survival partly.
It was evident here that this woman VC had to behave differently in order to fit in, and had to
suppress her preferred leadership style or even to explore what might be an alternative style with
which she was comfortable (‘it’s not my natural way of behaving’). Such a straightjacket could be
the high price women paid to become successful leaders. The note that ‘It’s about survival partly’
suggests that once women make a decision to pursue leadership roles and ultimately reached top jobs,
there was little room to move; it was merely a matter of working out strategies to survive in order to
maintain their position.
For women who had reached top positions, survival in HE leadership could come in many forms
as demonstrated in the following two examples. One woman discussed decisions that needed to be
made about how she dressed and the impact that had on perceptions of her leadership:
I look at my own personal growth I think personally in trying to establish how I am
comfortable operating. In the early days, it was power suit dressing time and there was a
lot of emulating of what men would have done. I was not immune to that. I think nurture
versus nature. You are influenced by what’s going on and what you are about.
She admitted to being influenced by power dressing for women and trying to emulate men.
In this description, there seems to be little room to move in choosing appropriate clothes for the role
or exploring what clothing might be appropriate. So even a small matter such as what to wear in
the role becomes precarious for women in HE leadership, as an example of a seemingly insignificant
obstacle with serious consequences. Thus, dressing is performative too, subtly reinforcing critical
gender and leadership norms, again reflecting assumptions about ‘the ideal worker’. Similarly, another
woman VC spoke about dress and not ‘frightening the horses’ in the way that women leaders dressed
and behaved:
So, I think there’s a group going through where there is a range of masculinity. It’s not just
what you wear, that you have to wear a suit. It’s not that. It’s, the way I see it, it’s by being
female and entering the room I am different. I can extenuate or reduce the differences.
And that puts them at their ease.
The price women therefore needed to pay to be successful in top jobs in HE was to strictly conform
to accepted male norms of what a leader looked like and how they should behave. This interviewee
saw it as a woman’s responsibility in a senior position ‘to put them at their ease’, yet the mechanism
for doing so was not clear. How is a woman expected to dress and behave to achieve this outcome?
Therefore, in order to ‘fit in’ women were continually walking a tightrope because of the exclusionary
structures and practices embodied through communities of practice of masculinities that made their
leadership much more precarious than was the case for male colleagues.
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 8 of 14
2.2. Case Study 2
The participants in the second case study were both academic and administrative women who
were either in middle management positions or who were aspiring to management roles, and were
mostly in their 30s and 40s. The survey responses indicated that the Women in Leadership program
at this newer Australian university provided skills and knowledge to assist career development.
Most were positive about their participation and the opportunities it presented for building careers.
Several mentioned strategies gained that helped them to deal with the prevailing communities of
practice of masculinities: One participant had “more confidence in [the] ability to express views and
learnt new negotiation skills”, and another reported: “I am not easily intimidated when trying to
communicate with the wider university’s internal stakeholders. I now negotiate successfully with
external parties as well”.
But the program was less effective in providing a better understanding of the organisation, and
some participants were critical of gender discrimination in the increasingly managerial university.
They were clear, as the following quotes indicate, that universities were not a level playing field for
women; males dominated leadership positions and gender disparities were obvious:
Women at this institution are so poorly represented in leadership.
I believe that women face different challenges to men. It is difficult to break into a
traditionally male domain in higher education.
The academic environment of the university-sector is generally masculinised; strong “boys”
networks are in operation; academic promotion still favours male applicants. Issues
confronting women are different, as they generally have many conflicting roles to juggle
because of the glaring gender inequities in the workplace.
These women perceived themselves to be outsiders in the masculinist HE culture. They saw
women as underrepresented as leaders, as unable to permeate the male domain, as excluded from male
networks, and as needing to try that bit harder because they were women. Communities of practice of
masculinities were therefore impacting on their experience of the workplace and excluding them from
full participation. In some senses, their observations of men as HE leaders were not too dissimilar from
the women in the first case study. But the difference between the two case studies is that the women
VCs had been conditioned by the masculinist culture and decided nevertheless to pursue careers in
leadership, while women in the second case study as a younger generation with a raised consciousness
of gender discrimination were mostly standing on the periphery, and not wanting to be a part of this
organizational culture (O’Connor 2014). Therefore, women in the leadership pipeline still perceived
universities as focusing on fixing the women rather than the structure or culture of the organization,
as the following respondent so incisively remarked:
much of the ‘advice’ was focused on us changing rather than us working together to fix the
system that is the problem. Without real “buy in” from the university’s leadership and our
male colleagues nothing will change.
She saw a gender mainstreaming approach—where both women and men are involved in
changing the organizational culture—as the only way to fix the system and create a culture that
would be more welcoming to women. Without the university’s leadership demonstrating commitment
to change there could be no transformation of gender relations.
Two other respondents identified weak and inadequate leadership in the organization as the main
barrier to women’s career advancement:
I felt we were being encouraged to ‘play the game’ to get ahead and then ‘manage’ people
so that they do what we want regardless of the adverse effects this may have on them.
While this may pass as leadership at [the case study university], it really isn’t.
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 9 of 14
. . .
my overall experience is one of frustration because, in isolation, such a program
changes nothing—I do not see any evidence of the leadership of the university doing
anything to improve things for their women employees and I do not want more ‘leaders’
trained in ways that emulate the poor leadership I see throughout our university.
There was a strong sense of frustration, even anger, in these comments. And the message was
consistent: stop trying to fix the women and instead try to improve working conditions and career
opportunities for women. At the same time, they argued that the university needed to also focus on
the impact of poor (mostly male) leadership models on those they managed. Presumably the solution
was to ‘fix the system’ by greatly improving the predominantly masculinist models of leadership
throughout the university, instead of offering programs to ‘fix the women’ that trained leaders in the
same mould as the existing leadership.
Most participants were not encouraged by the program to seek new positions or look for further
opportunities within the organisation, often because of their difficult work situation. A related narrative
was about the stress that the current organizational restructure was causing to some participants and the
impact of heavy workloads on their health and wellbeing—characteristic associated with managerial
universities (Lynch et al. 2012;Bagilhole and White 2011)—as this respondent described:
Work is a very stressful place at times and I am at a very unstable place at present. I used to
be able to cope with workplace stress but in the last two years I am less able to cope. I do
not think as clearly as I used to and it is almost like I have forgotten everything I know.
This is a worrying comment. It was evident that instability in the workplace and stress were
all taking their toll and negatively impacting on the ability of the woman to think straight and to
remember. Another had a similar experience, saying that as a result of the program: “I realised I
was not coping with work life at the university”. A further participant’s response, after finishing the
program, was resistance to the prevailing organizational culture: “Having time to think about my
career and to learn and reflect on the workings of our university has had an impact
. . .
this has acted
to convince me that I am a poor fit with this university”.
The program overall did not have any significant impact on the career aspirations of participants
in the medium term because many felt marginalised and were unhappy and so stressed they had little
time for reflection. Therefore, it had not encouraged career planning.
These women were insightful in their analysis of the problem and argued that aspiring to HE
leadership was not a priority in the current organizational climate with its exclusionary structures and
practices. Unless the managerial culture of the university could be changed and what they considered
poor leadership could be overhauled by introducing gender mainstreaming, they would remain on
the periphery. Thus, the above narratives reinforce a resistance model evident in the experiences of
these younger mid-career women. They took a social justice view that fixing the university leadership
model/culture could help to address the disengagement and disempowerment of women.
3. Discussion
These two case studies of two different generations of women in or aspiring to leadership in
higher education indicated that they experienced gender power relations that impacted on their careers.
It is not our intention to juxtapose the two case studies or to present our findings as in opposition,
an either/or scenario. Instead the rich data which emerged from our international research sites
explores the lived experiences of women in higher education leadership throughout their careers and
the challenges masculine cultures pose for them.
The women in the first case study headed up UK universities and had learnt throughout their
careers to navigate and negotiate the gendered and gendering leadership culture, and these skills were
partly responsible for their success. Only when these senior women leaders had made it to the top did
they feel more secure in leadership to the extent that they could ‘be themselves’ to some extent, while
still acknowledging the straight jacket that hegemonic masculinities created for them.
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 10 of 14
Yet this research with very senior women found that being a minority creates precariousness in
itself. As Charles notes, women aspiring to senior management positions “in order to be accepted
. . .
have to behave in ways which are appropriate to the organization and the job” (Charles 2014, p. 368).
Invariably during their careers women in this study had been the ‘only woman in the room’ and their
experience of continually adapting to this minority status was emotional hard labour. Othering oneself
and being othered is a precarious existence indeed, with these women positioned as outsiders on the
inside (Gherardi 1995) or what can be described in communities of practice of masculinities as not yet
full members.
Referring back to the explanation of our theoretical framework in the introduction, we concur
that invariably the women in both our research sites had merely achieved ‘legitimate peripheral
participation’ in leadership communities of practice of masculinities, whereas their male counterparts
achieved full membership almost by default. These communities of practice function on an
organisational level (as well as individually of course) to constitute gendered understandings.
For example, symbolically organisational masculinity creates reification of leadership codes. Similarly,
the myth of organizational rationality whereby the way universities operate through their structures,
processes, and practices reinforces masculinities (Acker 1990). So much so that leadership communities
of practice of masculinities work to reinforce organizational cultures where masculine power is
promulgated (and sometimes resisted) (Burkinshaw 2015). Yet ironically, the women in the first case
study were top university leaders operating successfully within this masculine organizational context.
However, it was only once a ‘critical mass’ of diversity was achieved that these women felt more
secure in leadership, at whatever level. They argued that this critical mass helped to dilute their
insecurity and inevitable precariousness, although any minority needs to reach beyond 30 per cent
for this to occur (Erkut et al. 2008). This finding reinforces our argument regarding the entrenched
organizational exclusivity of HE leadership communities of practice of masculinities, where lack
of diversity in organisational leadership at all levels is both cause and effect. A major feature of
communities of practice of masculinities is that they are policed from within by existing full members
who generally shun difference thus perpetuating masculine organizational cultures. Nevertheless,
Martin and O’Meara’s study demonstrates how strategies used by women leaders can challenge and
change institutional culture to advance gender inclusion (Martin and O’Meara 2017), although the
experience in Austria, for example, indicates that the use of quotas to get more women into leadership
positions does not necessarily impact on the organizational culture (Wroblewski 2014).
The lived experiences of these women VCs reflect how precarious women’s careers are within
the exclusionary culture of higher education, and this finding echoes the research of O’Connor and
of Morley (O’Connor 2014;Morley 2013). Their inevitably unique stories bear many similarities
across the different organizations they led, fundamentally of the gendered nature of ‘doing’ leadership
and the precariousness of ‘fitting in’ to leadership communities of practice. Their career stories help
illuminate the choices and challenges faced by women on their leadership journey, culminating in a
level of unevenness in their careers, and extra requirements on their job specification, apparently not
experienced by many of their male colleagues. Of course, this is not to deny the agency of these women
leaders (at all stages of their careers but especially in their most senior roles) which enables them to
infiltrate and adapt leadership communities of practice for the better, perhaps reflecting the tension
between more traditional male leadership styles and the requirements of modern universities for
collaborative leadership. By performing leadership differently, they are influencing higher education
leadership culture, however slowly. This is hopeful for the future, despite much evidence to the
contrary. Williams agrees that workplace expectations are changing albeit recalcitrantly
(Williams 2012)
.
Maybe entrenched masculinities practices will be successfully challenged by younger, more agentic
leaders coming through. Strategies such as professional leadership development for women can help
equip this challenge, as we observed in our Australian research.
In this second case study, the impact of managerialism on the organizational culture was clear.
In managerial universities decisions are from the top down, the influence of academics is reduced, and
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 11 of 14
the focus is on accountability, evaluation and economic efficiency (Goransson 2011). Managerialism
positions women as outsiders in competitive, managerial regimes (Lynch et al. 2012). Thus, some
participants felt excluded and were strongly critical of what they perceived as a failure of leadership
during this period of uncertainty in their increasingly managerial university. They spoke of the stress
that poor leadership and continuous change created in their working lives. Their views reflected
Bolden et al.’s observation that managerialism leads to “diminishing opportunities for academics to
self-determine their own sense of direction and in so doing undermining their commitment to the
institution and the profession” (Bolden et al. 2012, p. 37).
The present research therefore found that the precarious work environment did not encourage
women in the leadership pipeline to be pro-active in building their careers as they confronted
communities of practice of masculinities. These women were critical of the program as an initiative
of management to help women to deal with rapid organizational change. Rather, they asserted that
they needed more support to deal with the current restructure and the uncertainty it created, and this
finding resonates with that of Carvalho et al. (2013). And similar to Sluis’ observation of younger
academics (Sluis 2012), they were incisive in their analysis of how the organizational culture needed
to change to enable them to have decent careers. Some of the participants had seriously looked at
moving into more senior roles and, like those in Morley’s study (Morley 2014), were dismissing careers
in higher education leadership.
Once again, our findings illuminate the theoretical framework, because leadership communities
of practice of masculinities are more visible to these enlightened mid-career women. As women
in the leadership pipeline they had been observing older women at the top having to fit in
to get on. But many of these emerging senior leaders were uncomfortable about negotiating
homophilious network apprenticeships in this way and were unwilling to settle for ‘legitimate
peripheral participation’ either. Hence, there was evidence of resistance to traditional career paths
and ambitions
(Bagilhole and White 2013;Blackmore and Sachs 2007)
which highlights tensions in
higher education leadership whereby the environment increasingly demands collaborative approaches
which generally do not flourish within masculine models. Therefore, women’s missing agency is
not sufficient to explain their continuing underrepresentation in senior positions in higher education;
instead “talented and ambitious women may be disadvantaged by a number of structural factors
associated with the recruitment and selection process for senior posts” (Shepherd 2017, p. 5).
4. Conclusions
This comparative study of two generations of women at different levels in two different countries
found marked similarities in their experience of the gendered organizational culture in British and
Australian higher education. Leadership communities of practice made it difficult for them to progress
in their careers. Clearly the women VCs had learnt to accommodate the prevailing organizational
culture in consolidating their careers on the way up to top jobs, but few considered that even as
VCs they could change this culture, possibly owing to their minority status at the top—reinforcing
gender power relations and exclusionary structures and practices. Nevertheless, they had mostly
learnt to ‘fit in’ to get on, arguably choosing to fix themselves and adapt to an entrenched masculine
culture rather than fixing universities. However, the younger women in the leadership pipeline mostly
questioned if the price of accommodating the organizational culture to progress their careers was
worthwhile (Wroblewski 2014). The current leadership in their institution did not inspire them and
they resented the pressure that continuous organizational restructure placed on their working lives.
Their response was ambivalence (Bagilhole and White 2013;Blackmore and Sachs 2007) or resistance
(O’Connor 2001).
It can therefore be concluded that leadership communities of practice produce and reproduce
hegemonic masculinities (Karata¸s-Özkan and Chell 2015) shaping gendered power relations and
harnessing the emotional labour of fitting in to get on. While higher education continues to focus on
fixing the women rather than fixing the university culture, many women currently in top management
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 12 of 14
or newly appointed to management may continue to experience precarious leadership careers and
those aspiring to leadership positions may struggle to find motivation to invest in further career
progression. With younger, aspirational women in the leadership pipeline resisting senior leadership,
exclusionary structures and practices will prevail across and beyond higher education. We recommend
further research to explore this resistance more fully and to see how leadership communities of practice
might be challenged, given this resistance.
Author Contributions:
Each author was responsible for conducting their case study and both authors have
analysed the data and written this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
Acker, Joan. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organisations. Gender and Society 4: 139–58.
[CrossRef]
Acker, Sandra, Michelle Webber, and Elizabeth Smyth. 2010. Discipline and publish? Early career faculty meet
accountability governance, new managerialism and (maybe) gender equity. Paper presented at the Gender,
Work and Organisation Conference, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, June 21–23.
Barbara Bagilhole, and Kate White, eds. 2011. Gender, Power and Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis of Higher
Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barbara Bagilhole, and Kate White, eds. 2013. Generation and Gender in Academia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bagilhole, Barbara, Abigail Powell, Sarah Barnard, and Andrew Dainty. 2007. Researching Cultures in Science,
Engineering and Technology: An Analysis of Current and Past Literature. London: UKRC.
Barrett, Lucinda, and Peter Barrett. 2011. Women and academic workloads: Career slow lane or Cul-de-Sac?
Higher Education 61: 141–55. [CrossRef]
Baruch, Yehuda, and Brooks Holtom. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organisational research.
Human Relations 6: 1139–60. [CrossRef]
Blackmore, Jill, and Judyth Sachs. 2007. Performing and Reforming Leaders: Gender, Educational Restructuring, and
Organisational Change. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bolden, Richard, Jonathon Gosling, Anne O’Brien, Kim Peters, Michelle Ryan, and Alex Haslam. 2012. Academic
leadership: Changing Conceptions, Identities and Experiences in UK Higher Education. London: Leadership
Foundation for Higher.
Burkinshaw, Paula. 2015. Higher Education, Leadership and Women Vice Chancellors; Fitting into Communities of
Practice of Masculinities. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Carvalho, Teresa, and Maria Machado-Taylor. 2009. Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes.
Paper presented at the 6th Gender Equality in HE Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, August 5–9.
Carvalho, Teresa, Ozlem Ozkanli, Heidi Prozesky, and Helen Peterson. 2013. Careers of Early and Mid-career
Academic. In Generation and Gender in Academia. Edited by Barbara Bagilhole and Kate White. Basingstoke:
Palgrave, pp. 127–68.
Charles, Nickie. 2014. Doing Gender, Practising Politics: Workplace cultures in local and devolved government.
Gender, Work and Organisation 21: 368–80. [CrossRef]
Covert, Bryce. 2013. Lean In, Trickle Down: The False Promise of Sheryl Sandberg’s Theory of Change. Forbes.
Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2013/02/25/lean-in-trickle-down-the-false-
promise-of-sheryl-sandbergs-theory-of-change/#44def4634256 (accessed on 10 May 2017).
Creswell, John, and Vicki Plano-Clark. 2008. Mixed Methods Reader, 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Currie, Jan, Bev Thiele, and Patricia Harris. 2002. Gendered Universities in Globalized Economies. Lanham: Lexington Books.
De Vries, Jen, and Claire Webb. 2005. Gender in mentoring: A focus on the mentor; evaluating 10 years of a
mentoring programme for women. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Gender Equality in
Higher Education, Oxford, UK, August 31–September 3.
Deem, Rosemary. 1998. New managerialism and higher education: The management of performance and cultures
in universities in the UK. International Studies in Sociology of Education 8: 47–70. [CrossRef]
Deem, Rosemary, Sam Hilliard, and Michael Reed. 2008. Knowledge, Higher Education and the New Managerialism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 13 of 14
Ely, Robin, and Debra Meyerson. 2000. The Challenge and Importance of Maintaining a Gender Narrative.
Organisation 7: 589–608.
Erkut, Samru, Vicki W. Kramer, and Alison M. Konrad. 2008. Critical Mass: Does the Number of Women on
a Corporate Board Make a Difference? In Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research
and Practice. Edited by Susan Vinnicombe, Val. Sing, Ronald J. Burke, Diana Bilimoria and Morten Huse.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar New Horizons In Management Series, pp. 222–32.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Carol Kemelger. 2001. Gender Equality in Science: A Universal Condition? Minerva 39:
239–57. [CrossRef]
Fairhurst, Gail. 2011. Leadership and the Power of Framing. Leader to Leader 2011: 43–47. [CrossRef]
Faltholm, Ylva, and Lena Abrahamsson. 2010. I prefer not to be called a woman entrepreneur—Gendered global
and local discourses of academic entrepreneurship. Paper presented at the Gender, Work and Organisation
Conference, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, June 21–23.
Fitzgerald, Tanya, and Jane Wilkinson. 2010. Travelling towards a Mirage? Gender, Leadership & Higher Education.
Mt. Gravatt: Post Pressed.
Gherardi, Silvia. 1995. Gender, Symbolism and Organisational Cultures. London: Sage.
Goransson, Anita. 2011. Gender Equality and the Shift from Collegiality to Managerialism. In Gender, Power and
Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis of Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 50–77.
Kandiko Howson, Camille B., Kelly Coate, and Tania De St Croix. 2015. Mid-Career Academic Women:
Strategies, Choices And Motivatio. In Small Development Projects, Engage. London: Kings Learning Institute,
Kings College.
Karata¸s-Özkan, Mine, and Elizabeth Chell. 2015. Gender Inequalities in Academic Innovation and enterprise:
A Bourdieuian Analysis. British Journal of Management 26: 109–25. [CrossRef]
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. 1992. Connective Leadership: female leadership style in the 21st century. Sociological
Perspectives 35: 183–203. [CrossRef]
Lynch, Kathleen, Bernie Grummell, and Dympna Devine. 2012. New Managerialism in Education: Commercialization,
Carelessness and Gender. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Martin, Patricia Y. 2001. Mobilising masculinities: Women’s experiences of men at work. Organisation 8: 587–618.
Martin, Amy, and KerryAnn O’Meara. 2017. Conditions Enabling Women’s Leadership in Community Colleges.
In Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher Education. Edited by Pamela Eddy, Kelly Ward and
Tehmina Khwaja. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 61–86.
Meek, Lynn. 2002. On the road to mediocrity? Governance and management of Australian higher education in
the market place. In Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Edited by
Alberto Amaral, Glen Jones and Berit Karseth. Amsterdam: Kluwer, pp. 253–78.
Morley, Louise. 2013. The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and
Education 25: 116–31. [CrossRef]
Morley, Louise. 2014. Lost leaders: Women in the global academy. Higher Education Research & Development 33: 114–28.
Morse, Janice. 2003. Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In Handbook of Mixed Methods
in Social and Behavioral Research. Edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie. Thousand Oaks: Sage,
pp. 189–208.
O’Connor, Pat. 2001. A bird’s eye view...Resistance in Academia. Irish Journal of Sociology 10: 86–104. [CrossRef]
O’Connor, Pat. 2011. Where do women fit in university senior management? An analytical typology of cross
national organisational cultures. In Gender, Power and Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis of Higher
Education. Edited by Barbara Bagilhole and Kate White. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 168–91.
O’Connor, Pat. 2014. Management and Gender in Higher Education. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
O’Connor, Pat, Teresa Carvalho, Agnete Vebo, and Sonia Cardosa. 2015. Gender in higher education: A critical
review. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. Edited by
Jeroen Huisman, Harry De Boer, David Dill and Manuel Souto-Otero. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 569–83.
Paechter, Carrie. 2003. Masculinities and femininities as communities of practice. Women’s Studies International
Forum 26: 69–77. [CrossRef]
Parsons, Elizabeth, and Vincenza Priola. 2010. The micro-politics of feminism in the managerial university. Paper
presented at the Gender, Work and Organisation Conference, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, June 21–23.
Rosener, Joan. 1990. Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review 68: 119–25. [PubMed]
Sandberg, Sheryl. 2013. Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Adm. Sci. 2017,7, 30 14 of 14
Shepherd, Sue. 2017. Why are there so few female leaders in higher education? A case of structure or agency?
Managament in Education 31: 82–87.
Sluis, Rhonda. 2012. The ambivalent academic. Journal of Nursing Education 51: 63–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Van den Brink, Marieke. 2009. Behind the Scenes of Science: Gender Practices on the Recruitment and Selection of
Professors in the Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ward, Kelly, and Lisa Wolf-Wendel. 2012. Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and Family. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
White, Kate, Teresa Carvalho, and Sarah Riordan. 2011. Gender, Power and Managerialism in Universities. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management 33: 179–86. [CrossRef]
Williams, Joan C. 2012. Reshaping the Work Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wroblewski, Angela. 2014. Female participation in management and cultural change: Precondition or high
expectation. In Proceedings of the GWO Conference, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, June 24–26.
©
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... It is nearly impossible to determine the reason for such discrepancies, both between each of the journals and from participation in the field compared to participation in academic publication. Female authorship at a proportionally lower rate than their participation in other aspects of their respective fields could be due to a higher likelihood to pursue applied careers instead of academic ones that would necessitate a higher push toward publication (Kessler et al., 2014), a career that requires publication may not be as attainable for those that are interested in starting or caring for a family (de Camargo and Hayashi, 2017), intentional or unintended occupational segregation by sex, putting females at a disadvantage toward pursuing publication (Burkinshaw and White, 2017), or female professionals choosing to work outside of researchfocused universities, where publication is less emphasized (i.e., state colleges) (Parker, 2015). Whatever the cause, it is something to be investigated further to find more specific areas to improve. ...
Article
Full-text available
The number of women in higher education has increased over the past few decades but are still not at an equal level to their male counterparts, especially at the tenured level. One area of note within the tenure process is research. This area is highly valued by certain universities and could shed light on discrepancies in the number of female faculty as the faculty position becomes more prestigious. The author downloaded 21 years of publication data for seven prestigious behavior analytic journals and used quantitative methods to determine if the rates of publication differed between a previous study and today. There were 8,778 final articles yielding 27,225 authors in total. Data showed that women are represented more frequently overall, across time and all journals, less frequently in prestigious authorship positions, and more often when the sex of the editor at the time of publication was also female. While women's participation has increased over time, and since the original study, there is still disproportionate representation compared to the entirety of the field, in the order of authorship positions, and for editor-in-chief positions.
... Resistance can also be reflected in framing issues so as to limit the parameters of the causes of and/or solutions to problems (Burkinshaw and White 2017;O'Connor 2014O'Connor , 2020Peterson and Jordansson 2017), e.g., the idea that gender inequality is caused by women's deficits of confidence or leadership skills (the "fix the women" approach) which can become internalised and form part of the organisational culture (Steinspodotti et al. 2018;O'Connor 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Attempts to transform the gendered structures and cultures of higher education institutions have had limited success. This article focuses on one Irish university (pseudonym University A) where gender inequality was a major concern culminating in high-profile litigation. Using a feminist institutional approach, it asks: (1) What changes and interventions were introduced in the context of a favorable national policy environment and local grassroots support? and (2) how were these interventions perceived by staff? The methodology draws, firstly on the authors’ personal knowledge of the local context; secondly, on an analysis of University A’s key gender equality-related actions and documents; and thirdly, on a thematic analysis of qualitative data from 129 respondents in an online survey. Positive changes are identified, as is institutional resistance, reflected in low ambitions and focus on individualistic solutions. In the qualitative data, resistance involving denial; assertions that the problem is solved; the importance of meritocracy, and a focus on “fixing the women” (and the men) were identified. Acceptance of gender equality as an organisational issue was reflected in criticism of the interventions as tokenistic window dressing; not impacting on the culture and “not going far enough”. The implications for effectively addressing gender inequality are discussed.
... Resistance can also be reflected in framing issues so as to limit the parameters of the causes of and/or solutions to problems (Burkinshaw and White 2017;O'Connor 2014O'Connor , 2020Peterson and Jordansson 2017), e.g., the idea that gender inequality is caused by women's deficits of confidence or leadership skills (the "fix the women" approach) which can become internalised and form part of the organisational culture (Steinspodotti et al. 2018;O'Connor 2020). ...
Article
Abstract: Attempts to transform the gendered structures and cultures of higher education institutions have had limited success. This article focuses on one Irish university (pseudonym University A) where gender inequality was a major concern culminating in high-profile litigation. Using a feminist institutional approach, it asks: (1) What changes and interventions were introduced in the context of a favorable national policy environment and local grassroots support? and (2) how were these interventions perceived by staff? The methodology draws, firstly on the authors’ personal knowledge of the local context; secondly, on an analysis of University A’s key gender equality-related actions and documents; and thirdly, on a thematic analysis of qualitative data from 129 respondents in an online survey. Positive changes are identified, as is institutional resistance, reflected in low ambitions and focus on individualistic solutions. In the qualitative data, resistance involving denial; assertions that the problem is solved; the importance of meritocracy, and a focus on “fixing the women” (and the men) were identified. Acceptance of gender equality as an organisational issue was reflected in criticism of the interventions as tokenistic window dressing; not impacting on the culture and “not going far enough”. The implications for effectively addressing gender inequality are discussed. Keywords: gender inequality; higher education; organisational resistance; tokenistic; Irish
... Lunyolo et al., (2014) affirm that the socio-cultural barriers which hinder women from attaining leadership positions are stereotype, home-based, religion and government policies. Burkinshaw & White (2017) revealed that women find it difficult to exert authority over males since society still suffers from the myth that women are too emotional and weak for top leadership positions. Culturally women who get into leadership are seen as troublemakers, especially strong and assertive women (Lunyolo et al., 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
South African and Australian higher education sector is facing challenges of fewer females in leadership positions despite policies in place in both countries. The main purpose of this integrative literature was to analyze and compare journal articles related to career development for female academics in South African and Australian higher education institutions to ascertain the challenges faced by women in both countries. South Africa and Australia were chosen for this study due to the differences in cultural background and legislation. Females are still underrepresented in leadership positions both in Australia and South Africa, hence this study investigated the reasons and provided recommendations to improve female academics representation in higher education institutions. A literature review of 15 research papers and journals articles published from 2010-to 2020 was conducted. The keywords “career development for female academics” were searched in three databases namely, Google Scholar, Ebsco-host and Emerald. The results from the literature showed that female career development in Australia is moving at a faster pace than in South Africa. The results also show that in both countries glass ceiling and limited female representation in leadership positions are rife in both countries. Female-only career development programs are essential to promote female development in higher education. As this study is focusing on two different countries on different continents, both countries have a lot to learn from each other in terms of policy implementations to enhance female career development. This article provides an analysis of the trends of female career development in South Africa and Australia. Therefore, from the existing literature for a period of 10 years, a conceptual career development model was developed.
... For instance, these factors include a lack of structured networking and mentoring programs, family-related compromise; male-centric leadership models and norms; the prejudice which disparages women and presumes they cannot assume high responsibilities; women have different expectations (Bornstein, 2008;Burkinshaw & White, 2017;Doherty & Manfredi, 2006;Dunn et al., 2014;Hoobler et al., 2014). ...
... Studying women in the role of chair deepens existing research on women leaders in higher education (Acker, 2010;Airini et al., 2011;Dunn et al., 2014;Burkinshaw and White, 2017;O'Connor, 2018). Future research should focus on the ways women in the academy experience their work and on how universities and colleges might counter intrenched systemic barriers. ...
Article
Full-text available
The paucity of women in leadership roles in the academy has been the focus of the literature in higher education for several decades. The discussion has lamented how few women attain presidencies, chancellorships, or vice chancellor roles, that women of color experience even greater barriers to leadership attainment, and that women are likely to experience both a “glass ceiling” and a “glass cliff”. As a result, women often find themselves trapped in low-level managerial roles, unsupported when they do attain leadership positions, and underrepresented on powerful committees and in meaningful decision-making bodies. Drawing on data from a large study of the department chair, this qualitative study explores the experiences of twenty women who hold the position. Findings suggest that women department chairs continue to face ongoing gendered challenges to their leadership and that barriers to their success are still very much present in the academy. Coping with these challenges requires a balancing act within oneself, with others, and within the institution. Each challenge is then reflected in tensions that must be negotiated rather than resolved. Recommendations for structural and cultural changes are offered.
... Instead, the programme left me disempowered. Rather than challenge the culture, system, and structures that keep women out of HE leadership, the programme framed this underrepresentation as a 'women's problem' by offering solutions to 'fix the women' rather than 'fix the universities' (Burkinshaw & White, 2017). It sought to provide women with individualistic 'leadership skills', based on the idea that all delegates would form a critical mass to then occupy leadership roles once equipped with the right set of tools. ...
... Of the twenty leaders interviewed, a significant majority were male. This was not intended, it was the consequence of selecting universities to demonstrate a spread of size, wealth, and prestige, and these leaders tended to be male (Burkinshaw and White 2017). However, their age and career progression were telling of their approaches to higher education and leadership. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter explores the Bourdieusian concept of habitus. The chapter examines how habitus is the combination of the elements and aspects of someone’s life that they are born into, raised in, and surrounded by throughout their life that shape them as an individual. It examines how someone’s history, and their family’s history, creates a cultural trajectory that predisposes them to having a certain type of life, having interests similar to those with similar habitus, and how habitus can tell researchers a lot about someone’s life, current situation, and future. The chapter also provides a solid grounding for those unfamiliar with Bourdieu’s concepts, and provides the first step as future chapters explore capital and field, and how these three concepts work together to provide distinct ways to think about the higher education sector.
... Of the twenty leaders interviewed, a significant majority were male. This was not intended, it was the consequence of selecting universities to demonstrate a spread of size, wealth, and prestige, and these leaders tended to be male (Burkinshaw and White 2017). However, their age and career progression were telling of their approaches to higher education and leadership. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter provides a brief history and introduction of Bourdieu as an academic and philosopher. The chapter outlines what motivated Bourdieu’s work, and discusses how his theories have been applied to many evaluations of society and the mechanics of class and cultural trajectory. The chapter also outlines how and why Bourdieu designed and refined these theories in academic settings, and used academia as the setting by which to demonstrate practical applications of his work. The chapter concludes with an overview of Bourdieu’s own views of higher education, while also taking into account the period and setting in which his views were shaped.
Article
Full-text available
A significant gender imbalance remains at executive management level within higher education despite a number of initiatives to increase the number of women in the leadership pipeline and ensure they are better prepared for these roles. This article presents findings from a recent study on the appointment of deputy and pro vice-chancellors in pre-1992 English universities that provide fresh insights into why this might be the case. These findings challenge the notion of women’s missing agency - characterized by a lack of confidence or ambition and a tendency to opt out of applying for the top jobs – as an explanation for their continued underrepresentation. Rather, they highlight the importance of three structural factors associated with the selection process: mobility and external career capital, conservatism, and homosociability. An approach of ‘fixing’ the women is therefore unlikely to be sufficient in redressing the current gender imbalance within university executive management teams.
Chapter
This chapter is concerned with describing and critically evaluating the literature on the existence of and explanations for gender imbalances in higher education (HE) focusing particularly on girls’ increasing access to HE and women’s limited access to senior positions there. These topics reflect a fundamental paradox in HE across Western society, namely that despite increases in women’s participation at undergraduate and post-graduate levels (UNESCO, 2012) their access to senior positions remains limited (EU, 2013). It cannot simply be assumed that the latter will automatically increase, since the growth of girls’ access to HE is not a recent phenomenon. Women, especially in Western Europe and North America, started to catch up with men in terms of enrolments in the 1970s and had surpassed them by the early 1980s, with the rate of women’s enrolments growing almost twice as fast as men’s rate (UNESCO, 2012). This raises fundamental problems for Western societies since educational achievements have been seen as a meritocratic basis for accessing senior positions in HE.
Chapter
The percentage of women presidents in Maryland’s two-year colleges has been increasing since 1989 and been above the national average of women presidents in associate’s institutions since 1998. This comparatively high number was the result of several interrelated factors that mitigated or removed gendered barriers for women academic leaders. In this chapter, we analyze the complex set of structural, human resource, political, cultural, and feminist factors that supported the appointment of such a high percentage of women community college presidents in Maryland between 1989 and 2006.
Book
This book examines the impact of neo-liberal reform on the traditional caring ethos of public services such as education, exploring how these reforms influence the appointment and experiences of senior management across the education sector. © Kathleen Lynch, Bernie Grummell and Dympna Devine 2012. All rights reserved.