Content uploaded by Monica O’Mullane
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Monica O’Mullane on Apr 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Developing a theoretical
framework for exploring
the institutional
responses to the Athena
SWAN Charter in higher
education institutions—
A feminist institutionalist
perspective
Monica O’Mullane
Institute for Social Science in the 21st Century (ISS21),
University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Abstract
Why does the institutional response of higher education institutions to a ‘potentially
institutionally transformative’ gender equality programme such as the Athena SWAN
(AS) Charter matter? If a higher education institution seeks and attains the AS award,
then the institutional response would be to embed the Charter’s action plans thor-
oughly without resistance or variation across higher education institutional contexts?
These are the initial and broader reflective questions underpinning and inspiring this
article. The reality is that the Athena SWAN Charter actions and commitments are not
simply installed into the technical rules and procedures of higher education institutions,
resulting in the organisational and cultural change it seeks. It is argued in this article that
applying a feminist institutionalist lens, which deals with the exchange between formal
and informal rules, norms and practices, and the roles played by actors working with
the rules – the micro-foundations of gendered institutions – will inform our
Corresponding author:
Monica O’Mullane, University College Cork, C/O School of Applied Social Studies, UCC Cork, Ireland.
Email: m.omullane@ucc.ie
Irish Journal of Sociology
0(0) 1–21
!The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0791603521995372
journals.sagepub.com/home/irj
understanding of how a change programme such as Athena SWAN can instil
institutional change- if any change. This article details a theoretical framework, drawing
from the FI perspective, which will be applied to an empirical study exploring the
institutional responses of higher education institutions to the Athena SWAN process
in Ireland.
Keywords
Higher education, Athena SWAN, feminist Institutionalism, gender equality
Introduction
The Athena SWAN Charter is an equality charter for universities and colleges
(higher education institutions – HEIs), coordinated and managed by Advance
HE in the UK (since 2005), and by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) in
Ireland (since 2015). The Charter acknowledges and encourages commitment to
advancing the careers of women in research and science. It has been extended
(since 2015) to include disciplines from the humanities, social sciences, business
and law, in professional and support roles, and for transgender staff and students.
It is now recognised as an institutional pathway for addressing cultural and struc-
tural inequalities, and also more recently for paving the way to tackle the inter-
sectionality of inequalities. It opens up conversations and social spaces for people
to challenge gender inequalities in their workplaces (Caffrey et al., 2016, Tzanakou
and Pearce, 2019).
This article describes a theoretical framework that will structure an empirical
study of the HEI institutional responses to the Athena SWAN Charter in Ireland.
It is argued in this article that applying a feminist institutionalist (FI) lens, which
deals with the exchange between formal and informal rules, norms and practices,
and the roles played by actors working with the rules – the micro-foundations of
gendered institutions (Lowndes, 2020; Mackay and Murtagh, 2019) – will strength-
en our understanding of how a change programme such as Athena SWAN can
instil institutional change (and if so, to what extent) to the rules, processes and
norms of an HEI. Generally when the term ‘institution’ is used in this article, it is
with reference to the entity as an organisation (Scott, 2008), unless stated
otherwise.
HEIs – An indisputable setting of gender inequality
In her work on inequality regimes (an analytical approach developed for exploring
the barriers that create inequality in work organisations), Acker (2006) points out
that much societal inequality originates and is reproduced in political and social
2Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
institutions. Therefore it is unsurprising that while women are represented in the
Irish higher education workforce overall, there is noticeable dearth of women in
senior positions, particularly in academic posts, and in decision-making roles. As
O’Connor highlights, based on HEA data, 51 per cent of lecturers in Irish univer-
sities are women, with 24 per cent occupying full professorial level and have a three
times lesser chance than men in attaining a professorship (HEA, 2018b; O’Connor,
2019a). Clearly a programme that seeks to embed sustainable change, such as
Athena SWAN, is needed to tackle this lack of gender parity. Irish figures corre-
spond broadly with EU data averages, which are that 41 per cent of women occupy
all academic grades, and 24 per cent have attained full professorships (European
Commission, 2019). Barriers to equality are mostly rooted in the structure and
culture of Irish universities (Linehan et al., 2009, O Grada et al., 2015). Such
barriers include career pipeline issues (recruitment, promotion and retention of
staff), work–life balance practices, all types of career leave, bullying and harass-
ment issues and informal arrangements, for example meeting times – having them
at a time of the working day to suit people with caring/family duties, or not. The
experience of women’s underrepresentation in senior positions and decision-
making roles is a universal phenomenon in HEIs beyond the Irish context
(Benschop and van den Brink, 2014; Van Den Brink and Stobbe, 2009; Zippel
and Ferree, 2019). The academic environment within HEIs in Ireland is experi-
enced as ‘highly patriarchal and hetero-normative’ (Courtois and O’Keefe, 2015:
56). There has been an increasing expectation in higher education for academics to
fulfil a ‘24/7 work life’ which creates ‘a culture of carelessness ...that is highly
gendered’, in Ireland (Lynch et al., 2012: 99), as in other country contexts (Askins
and Blazek, 2017). Underrepresentation of women in senior positions continues
despite an increase in women academic staff and despite the fact that women are
generally high academic achievers (O’Connor, 2019b).
In terms of those leading universities in Ireland, there has yet to be a female
president elected (not including individuals instated as interim Presidents). This is
undoubtedly the ‘most damning information’ regarding the gender profile of the
Irish higher education workforce and in particular regarding those in senior man-
agement leading and steering positions (Quinlivan, 2017: 72). Indeed, ‘no woman
has ever been appointed to the top job in an Irish university in 425 years’
(Quinlivan, 2017). This is a dismal situation, even compared to the international
picture, where the majority of heads of HEIs are men. The EU average of women
leading HEIs is 22 per cent; the Irish figure is 17 per cent, although in reality this
figure relates to institutes of technologies (IoTs), not universities (European
Commission, 2019). Gender inequality in the highest echelon of power is worse
in the universities in Ireland, as well as across the EU (O’Connor, 2014).
Leathwood and Read (2009) suggest that this is in keeping with the perception
or belief that universities have a higher societal status, and this perceived status is
linked to a tendency for men to occupy positions of power and prestige.
Universities also (overall) make up the oldest, most prestigious and most
O’Mullane 3
autonomous settings for higher education in Ireland (O’Connor, 2014). The seven
public universities in Ireland ‘make up a bounded, relatively undifferentiated sys-
tem...the small size and relatively low level of differentiation among the total pool
enables them to be analysed to a far greater extent than might be possible in a more
structurally differentiated system’ (O’Connor, 2014: 40).
In 2016, the HEA released a gender equality review of Irish higher education. It
concluded that a major and comprehensive ‘organisational and cultural shift’
needed to happen in order to address gender inequalities in the sector (HEA,
2016: 11). Those who conceived the report seemed not to have expected the
extent of systemic gender inequalities in the sector, since it resulted in them ‘devel-
oping recommendations which they themselves would not have believed necessary
at the beginning of the process’ (HEA, 2016). Recommendations for HEIs includ-
ed the need to ensure leadership on the gender equality agenda, increased trans-
parency and gender parity in governance and management, gender equality in
organisational culture (regarding behaviours, attitudes and norms of HEI staff
at all levels and posts), recruitment and promotion practices, the need for devel-
oping gender action plans and Athena SWAN awards. The Expert Group expected
all HEIs apply for the Bronze institutional AS award as a minimum by 2019 – an
unrealistic goal which was not reached. It is clear that the ‘purpose of the recom-
mendations is to be disruptive of the status quo to force the pace of change’
(Quinlivan, 2017: 72). The HEA report of the Expert Group (commissioned in
the aftermath of the Sheehy Skeffington case V NUIG (Boland, 2014)), called for
radical action, without which it was doubtful that HEIs would ‘ever be free of
gender inequality’ (HEA, 2016: 11). Two further HEA reports have progressed the
pace of change, encouraging HEIs to address systemic gender inequalities (in their
staff profile report (HEA, 2018b) and gender action plan report (HEA, 2018a)).
Athena SWAN has been continually advocated and prioritised by the HEA as an
important driver for institutionally addressing such inequalities in the Irish higher
education sector.
Is there a nugget of truth in what Lovenduski (2014: 16) says when reflecting on
gender inequities within political institutions, asserting broadly that ‘female mar-
ginalisation is hardwired into the traditional institutions’ of our society? When
March and Olsen (1989) stated that history is encoded within institutions, does this
mean that HEIs are tied indefinitely to their historical legacy of inequality or can
progress be made? Could gender inequalities be addressed in a sustainable and
meaningful way by embedding a gender equality programme, such as the Athena
SWAN Charter, in Ireland? The answers to these inquiries and reflections are
addressed in this article. The following section outlines in greater detail the
Athena SWAN Charter which provides an analytical lens for exploring if sustain-
able change can be embedded within an HEI through the implementation of a
gender equality programme. This sets the scene for applying a FI theoretical per-
spective in the empirical study, which seeks to explore the HEI institutional
responses to the Athena SWAN Charter.
4Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
The Athena SWAN Charter
The Athena SWAN Charter evolved from the Athena Project, a diversity pro-
gramme for STEMM disciplines that aimed to promote and advance the careers
of women in these disciplines, where there exists an underrepresentation, and a
significant imbalance at the senior management levels. SWAN stands for ‘Scientific
Women’s Academia Network’, which came from the Athena project group that
proposed the charter initially (Pearce, 2017). The Athena SWAN Charter was
established and launched in 2005 in the UK, with the first awards distributed in
2006. In the UK there are currently 962 awards held, 164 held by HEIs and 798 by
departments (Advance HE, 2020b). The Athena SWAN programme is based on
the fundamental idea that gender diversity leads to better research and science
(Nielsen et al., 2017). Research has shown that the participation of women in
research and innovation will be unsuccessful without the restructuring of institu-
tions and incorporating gender analysis into research (Schiebinger and
Schraudner, 2011). This reflects the goal of Athena SWAN, which is to embed
structural and cultural institutional change in order to improve gender parity
throughout HEI staff appointments and positions, based on gender analysis
data. From 2015 until the present, the programme has been adopted in Ireland,
keeping the name Athena SWAN, and in Australia under the acronym SAGE
(Science in Australia Gender Equity).
The Charter helps institutions to achieve their gender equality goals, and to
meet equality legislative requirements, as well as the requirements of research
councils and other funding bodies. It utilises a targeted self-assessment framework
to support applicants (universities and colleges) identify areas for positive actions
as well as acknowledging good practices already in place; and it supports the
advocacy of inclusive working practices that increase the retention of academics,
professional and support staff, demonstrating an HEI’s commitment to an equi-
table working environment (Advance HE, 2020a). Although the Charter focuses
explicitly on transforming the institutional response and organisational norms for
staff and scholars in HEIs, it is not operating in a vacuum protected from the
gender norms and stereotypes existent throughout the wider society. The Charter
operates within and against such societal tensions, which were also identified as
challenges to the implementation processes in the UK based evaluations of Athena
SWAN (Graves et al., 2019; Munir et al., 2014).
The Charter is based on ten principles which broadly seek to advance gender
equality in academia (Advance HE, 2020). These principles need to be included in
the action plans institutions and departments when they submit their application
for an Athena SWAN award. Awards are given to institutions and departments
within HEIs upon submission of an application. When the national Athena
SWAN evaluation committee is satisfied that the action plan outlined in the sub-
mission is appropriate and realistic to contextually address the landscape of gender
inequalities presented in the application, based on a staff gender profile analysis,
then an Athena SWAN award is presented to the receiving institution. The process
O’Mullane 5
is: HEIs start off by submitting an application (to Advance HE in the UK; to the
HEA in Ireland) for an institutional Bronze award, including actions they will
undertake within four years (under the post-2015 rules) (before reapplying to
retain the award, or seek a Silver award, where or when that is applicable based
on the institutions performance in addressing gender inequality). The award is
therefore retained (or not) based on the continued activity of the institution in
implementing the action plans they themselves developed. An entry-level Bronze
HEI requires an assessment of gender equality, a four-year action plan to address
identified areas of gender inequality, and an organisational structure to implement
the proposed actions (Ovseiko et al., 2017). Awards can be made at departmental/
school levels within an HEI and also (initially) at the institutional level (an insti-
tutional award).
In many respects, Athena SWAN seeks to promote the concept of the gender-
sensitive university, despite of and often in tension with the wider societal gender
norms and stereotypes which live and breathe throughout our social world. The
gender-sensitive university is driven within the Charter by facilitating concerted
action to address gender inequalities; by requiring the design and implementation
use of contextually designed gender equality plans for each HEI, which cover a
range of areas including: ‘leadership, organisational culture, recruitment, promo-
tion and retention policies, gender in research’ and addressing issues around
harassment and assault, as Bencivenga and Drew (2020: 181) outline when describ-
ing the concept. Athena SWAN is certainly a tangible way to work towards the
goal of a gender-sensitive institution, by tackling gender inequalities and opening
up educational and professional opportunities for all genders (Bencivenga and
Drew, 2020). However, whilst the adoption of the Charter is to be welcomed, it
needs to go ‘beyond data collection and monitoring’ towards more direct
approaches of promoting more women as leaders (Power 2020) otherwise progress
will remain slow and incremental at best.
Limitations of the Charter have been identified in the literature, such as the
overriding focus on ‘box ticking’, metrics and the performative ‘doing’ of equality
work without an underpinning of meaningful and sustainable structural and cul-
tural change, overburdening small groups of people (mostly women) with the
workload burden imposed by the programme, and resistance to the work by
some staff members (Caffrey et al., 2016; Kalpazidou Schmidt et al., 2019;
Ovseiko et al., 2017; Pearce, 2017; Tzanakou and Pearce 2019). O’Connor (2020:
207) concluded from their FI inquiry into the challenges facing male-dominated
HEIs in reducing gender inequality, that even a ‘potentially transformative insti-
tutional interventions such as Athena SWAN’ have had limited success in reducing
gender inequality, pointing to the institutional structure and culture as perpetuat-
ing the phenomenon. This strengthens the argument to explore the micro founda-
tions of gendered HEIs as a way to examine the extent of change Athena SWAN is
generating or can generate.
The criticism of Athena SWAN as embodying the performative doing of equal-
ity work, as a box-ticking exercise, speaks to Acker’s inequality regime work that
6Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
examined organising processes that produce inequality, including class hierarchies,
recruitment and hiring, wage setting and supervisory practices and informal inter-
actions while ‘doing the work’. A number of Affirmative Action programmes
(similar to the Athena SWAN Charter) have developed over time to address
such inequalities visible in organisations, however Acker (2006: 456) argues that
over time they have become ‘become mere bureaucratic paper shuffling in most
organisations’. To extent to which this could be the destiny for Athena SWAN in
Irish HEIs will be part of the narrative explored in an empirical study, described
later in the article.
These limitations are also acknowledged as being heavily influenced and deter-
mined by wider socio-political factors that go beyond the scope of the Charter
(Caffrey et al. 2016). Despite such limitations, intentional institutional reform
initiatives, such as the Athena SWAN Charter, play a crucial role in supporting
institutional actors develop ‘an understanding of what constitutes a good society,
without necessarily being able to achieve it, and how alternative institutions may
be imagined to contribute to such a world’ (March and Olsen, 1989: 91), whether
such initiatives meet with resistance or not (Bencivenga and Drew, 2020; Lowndes,
2020).
Athena SWAN Charter evaluations
Two official impact evaluation studies of the Athena SWAN Charter have been
commissioned by Advance HE (formerly ECU) in the UK, one conducted in 2013
(Munir et al., 2014), the second in 2018 (Graves et al., 2019). Methods for the
studies included survey data, HEI case studies, including cases with awards and
without awards. No other countries have commissioned such impact evaluations.
The 2013 study found overall that career satisfaction, opportunities for training
and development, knowledge of promotion processes and fairness in the allocation
of workload were considered better in the Silver award and other Athena SWAN
category groups than in no award departments or institutions. There was also
some evidence that women had benefitted from Athena SWAN to a greater
extent than men. The Charter had a limited impact on postgraduate students
and had not yet reached the undergraduate population. Upon receiving Athena
SWAN awards vital actions were mobilised in the institutions and/or departments,
including increased departmental engagement in the process, the putting in place of
structures and data collection systems, increased engagement of university senior
management in the process, improved processes for promotion and reward/review
panels, the development of mentoring systems targeted at women, the appointment
of designated Athena SWAN officers, changes to the maternity leave cover process
and the development of women’s networking and leadership training events.
Academic staff reported that Athena SWAN had had a greater impact on the
work environment and work practices in Silver and Bronze award departments
than in departments within an institution with a Bronze award, but no
departmental award. There was evidence from the academic/research and
O’Mullane 7
administrative/technical survey responses that some changes in culture and atti-
tude had been achieved, such as institutions and departments had more flexible
working arrangements in place in award units as opposed to departments without
the award. There was a visible representation of more women in senior roles; this
was reported as a positive change driven by Athena SWAN.
The 2018 study mirrored the 2013 study in many ways, particularly in terms of
its positive influences within institutions with institutional and departmental
awards. It was clear by that time point (in 2018) that Athena SWAN was being
used in most HEIs across the UK, as a structured programme to address gender
inequalities and challenges; 70 per cent of HEIs in the UK have engaged with the
Athena SWAN Charter. A holistic approach targeting cultural change through the
reshaping of behaviours and attitudes has revealed that the Charter is commonly
perceived as a key tool to help in the process of delivering real behavioural and
cultural change. When compared to Silver and Bronze departments/institutes,
women in Gold departments/institutes are more satisfied with performance/devel-
opment reviews, more familiar with criteria and processes for promotion, more
likely to have been encouraged to apply for promotion, to believe that there are
more flexible working practices, to be more optimistic about career prospects and
to have a mentoring scheme available to them. There is some evidence connecting
the Charter to higher levels of engagement by women, with departments with an
award having on average 7 per cent more female staff compared to no award
departments. There is strong evidence that the Charter processes and methodolo-
gies have supported cultural and behavioural change – not just around gender
equality, but equality and diversity in all its forms. Overall the Charter is viewed
as a tool that ‘unlocks open communication, honest discussion, real scrutiny of
practices and commitment to a common purpose’ (Graves et al., 2019: 2). The
study revealed considerable challenges which threaten ongoing engagement such as
resource requirements (to carry out the Charter actions) and lack of leadership
support. These impact evaluations indicate the degree of success the Charter has to
institutionalise change within HEIs, and the limits of the programme also.
The following sections deal with the theoretical framework of Feminist
Institutionalism (FI), an approach that will be used to explore how and why a
gender equality programme, such as Athena SWAN, could be a driver for sustain-
able change in Irish HEIs.
Theoretical perspective: Feminist institutionalism (FI)
Feminist scholars with an interest in the power structures, relations and inequal-
ities inherent within institutions are mostly concerned with institutional complexes
(i.e. the complex way ‘things are done around here’ in organisations) (Lowndes,
2014). Acker’s definition of inequalities in organisations is useful, described as the
‘systematic disparities between participants in power and control over goals,
resources, and outcomes; workplace decisions such as how to organise work;
opportunities for promotion and interesting work; security in employment and
8Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
benefits; pay and other monetary rewards; respect; and pleasures in work and work
relations’ (Acker, 2006: 443). Building on this with the gender perspective of the
HEI context, gender inequalities within HEIs involve ‘the differential evaluation of
men and women, and of areas of predominantly female and predominantly male
employment in higher education institutions’ (HEIs O’Connor, 2020: 208).
Social and political institutions peak the interest of feminist scholars because of
the influence they have in shaping, or, more often than not, frustrating ‘the inten-
tions of reforming actors’ in order to implement gender-equity strategies
(Lowndes, 2014: 689). However, more than this, is the potential for institutions
to embed gender-just actions and pledges in a gender-sensitive university where the
academy is reconceived as embodying greater inclusiveness in our understanding of
gender and intersectionality (Bencivenga and Drew, 2020). It is this potential for
reform, change and action that drives the search to uncover how and why insti-
tutional rules, processes and norms impact the way in which institutional change
can be embedded, in order to inform and improve gender equality programmes
and strategies.
Feminist theory awakens us to the masculinity norms which are embedded
inextricably within institutions, and how this masculinity plays a significant role
in producing and reproducing gendered institutional cultures (Connell and
Messerschmidt, 2005; Lovenduski, 2014). A consensus has formed in the field
around social construction feminism (Lorber, 2005), essentially agreeing that
gender plays a central part in organisational practices (Acker, 1990; van den
Brink and Benschop, 2012). Feminist theory also alerts us to the creation and
re-creation of a gendered understructure by looking at ‘organisational practices,
the sites of concrete institutional functioning’ (Acker, 1992a: 567). Such processes
and practices can be identified, and are mirroring elements of social life. Some of
which are ‘obvious and open; others are deeply embedded and invisible’ (Acker,
1992a). Indeed, social and political institutions are embodiments of gender regimes
(Acker, 2006); they reflect and consist of masculinist and feminist roles, identities
and relations (Lovenduski, 2014).
Acker’s work along with notable scholars in the field of institutionalist studies
(in particular, Hall, 1986; March and Olsen, 1989; North, 1990) laid the founda-
tion for feminist and institutionalist scholars to come together to create an ana-
lytical lens (FI) that would adequately enable an exploration of gendered
institutions and their gendering effect (Gains and Lowndes, 2014, 2018; Mackay
et al., 2010). Lovenduski (2014) identifies the FI approach as shining a conceptual
light on the gendered dimensions of structures of power and behaviour. A primary
focus of FI is on the role played by institutional informal structures, processes,
values and norms – referred to also as informal institutions (Chappell and Waylen,
2013; Galea et al., 2020; Waylen, 2013). Drawing largely from the interpretative
perspective of sociological institutionalism (Powell et al., 2018), FI provides an
approach to analyse how informal institutions (Chappell and Waylen, 2013) inter-
act with the formal, codified rules and processes of institutions, and how the
interaction between the formal and informal produces gendered outcomes.
O’Mullane 9
It highlights how institutions are gendered, pointing to the roles played by gen-
dered rules, actors and outcomes (Lowndes, 2020). These can determine, and
undermine, interactions and behaviour often even when formal rules have been
changed (Lowndes, 2020). Feminism strengthens institutionalist approaches con-
ceptually by identifying changing gender relations as a potential cause of institu-
tional change, thus providing FI with the capacity to explore causality between
rules and actors, when uncovering why institutions change, in which ways, and
most notably, why they do not change (Krook and Mackay, 2011a; Thomson,
2018). FI provides a theoretical lens which makes visible (Lovenduski, 2014) gen-
dered power relations and the processes that support or subvert such relations. It is
a useful approach in answering research questions about power relations in public
life (Krook and Mackay, 2011b). Coming from this perspective, understanding
institutions as ‘instruments of social organisation that exercise collective power
over a number of generations’ (Vickers et al., 1993: 133–134) with power concep-
tualised as being stratified and unequally distributed within society according to
gender, race, sex, sexuality, ability and economic status, is useful when adopting an
FI lens. The next section explores the institutional rules, and then how they inter-
act with institutional, that form part of the FI theoretical approach.
Institutional rules
March and Olsen (1983) concluded from their research on the organisation of
political life that institutional informal conventions, norms and practices are as
significant as formal structures (written, codified rules) in determining human
behaviours, interactions and institutional outcomes. This has been found in
Ackers work also, on gendered organisations (1990), gendered institutions
(1992b) and inequality regimes (2006). Formal and informal institutions combine
to create ‘stable, valued, recurring patterns of behaviour’ (Huntington, 1968: 12
cited in Galea et al., 2020) that influence how ‘things are done around here’ on a
daily basis (Galea et al., 2020). The outcome of this phenomenon is that people
living and working within institutions learn and adapt to the ‘dos and don’ts’ of
acceptable behaviours; processes learned on the ground within an organisation,
known also as the rules-in-use (also recognised as a combination of formal and
informal rules) (Ostrom, 1999). Institutional values and principles are protected by
these rules-in-use (Ostrom, 1999). Ostrom (1999: 38) defines institutional rules
broadly as ‘prescriptions that define what actions (or outcomes) are required,
prohibited or permitted, and the sanctions authorised if the rules are not followed’.
Uncovering informal institutions (practices, norms, behaviours and discourses –
the unseen and the unsaid) and examining how these elements interact with the
formal structures provide the analytical framework for FI (Chappell and Waylen,
2013; Mackay, 2011). Informal institutions are not as easily identifiable as formal
written rules, as Chappell and Waylen (2013) so rightly state. They can be under-
stood as being ‘virtually any behaviour that departs from ...the written-down
10 Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
rules’ (Helmke and Levitsky, 2004: 727) and ‘come from socially transmitted
information ...are part of the heritage we call culture’ (North, 1990: 37).
Galea et al. (2020) describe gendered dimensions of informal institutions (prac-
tices, narratives and norms) as explaining recruitment and promotion practices in
the construction industry, as ‘cultural fit’ (male sponsorship) and traditional edu-
cational pipelines shape the pool of people being recruited into the sector. This
research adds to the literature on gendered informal institutions; it furthers sheds
light on the role they play in shaping outcomes and practices. HEIs contain nor-
mative elements (built on and guided by norms, principles and ideas) that structure
their institutional establishment (Lovenduski, 2014). Ahmed’s ethnographic
research findings and reflections on institutionalising diversity in HEIs (2012)
point also to the integral role played by informal practices and how they
become formalised over time and cast within institutional memory. Such research
mirrors similar ideas and observations from research conducted in an Irish edu-
cation context (Devine et al., 2011; Harford, 2018; Lynch, 1994; Maxwell et al.,
2019; O’Connor, 2020).
Waylen’s work on institutional change and gender equality broadly argues that
a narrow and limited analysis of a gender equality policy initiative (such as the
Athena SWAN Charter) could constrain an examination of the effect of gendered
institutions and the role they play in societal interactions (Waylen, 2013), thus
possibly compromising the ability ‘to answer big questions or resolve (the) struc-
ture/agency debate that preoccupies other social scientists’ (Mackay, 2011: 195). It
is therefore important to account for the institutional and societal context within
which a gender equality initiative, programme or strategy – such as the Athena
SWAN Charter – seeks to operate, create and embed institutional change
(N
ı Laoire et al., 2020).
Given that so much within social and political institutions are gendered and
have gendered effects, from an FI perspective it is interesting to explore whether
formal changes lead to an HEI acting in a way envisioned by the formal rule path,
or progress has deviated, or is uncommonly slow. Examples of formal changes are
those sanctioned within institutional Athena SWAN Charter action plans, such as
changes to career pipeline trajectories (recruitment, retention and promotion pol-
icies) and leave policies (maternity, carer and adoption leave, which are gendered
(Huppatz et al., 2019; Maxwell et al., 2019). The nuances of the change process
prompted by the Athena SWAN Charter, which seeks structural and cultural
change through the implementation of contextually developed action plans, is
the crux of the theoretical framework being descried in this article, and will be
explored in the conduct of the empirical study.
Institutional actors
Within FI there is a core assumption that institutional rules (formal and informal;
the rules-in-use) can shape an institution along gendered lines. However,
rules alone are inanimate and meaningless – they come alive when in use.
O’Mullane 11
Therefore the institutional actors (people working with these rules, often utilising
agency) (Gains and Lowndes, 2018) who adapt, interpret, resist and/or reform
these rules (Lowndes, 2020); negotiate with them when in positions of power
and authority (Mackay, 2020); when formed as a cohesive minority occupying
key positions of authority as ‘critical actors’ (Thomson, 2018), can shape the
way rules and formal processes are realised. Individuals need to be supported as
‘gendered actors in gendering institutions’, and programmes are most effective
‘when undertaken as part of an integrated institutional equality agenda’
(O Grada et al. 2015: 358), such as the Athena SWAN Charter situates itself
within an institutional infrastructure of structural and cultural change.
As Lowndes (2020) correctly emphasises, an FI perspective reminds us
that institutional actors are real people (Mackay, 2011). What is important
is not only how people are acting and interacting with formal and informal
rules (and rule changes) but what this action means to them. FI advocates to
bring ‘actors back in to institutionalist theory’ (Lowndes, 2020: 559),
meaning that the FI theoretical approach recognises and promotes the role
played by institutionalist actors, in using rules; in a variety of ways and how
this then can affect how a gender-equality initiative or strategy could be imple-
mented; in which ways; and what does the implementation mean to such actors in a
reflexive way.
Ambivalent actors
Diversity practitioners and those working to effect gender-just change within insti-
tutions (for instance, participating in equality committees or in other diversity
activist groups) often develop an ambivalent relationship with the institutions
where they work, as indicated by the term tempered radical. Such an individual
identifies with and is committed to their organisations and also to a cause, com-
munity or ideology that is different from (and at odds perhaps) with the dominant
culture of their organisation (Meyerson and Scully, 1995). This has been found to
describe the attitude of practitioners and broadly institutional actors working to
address gender inequality (Ahmed, 2012; O’Connor, 2014). This is an influential
notion conceptualised by Meyerson and Scully (1995), describing employees
who want to effect change in their organisation whilst holding on to their careers
(i.e. outsiders within). Swan and Fox (2010) extended the notion of the tempered
radical, conceptualising them as being strictly outsiders who must protect
themselves from becoming insiders. Being on the ‘inside’ in this context refers
to attaining access and positions closer to higher management roles and
positions, closer to decision-making power and resource allocation management.
Swan and Fox (2010) expanded this to include those diversity workers and people
working to effect gender-just change whose professional identities and personal
beliefs would be closely aligned and could be labelled more as insiders working in
diversity.
12 Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
The role of institutional actors
This idea of the role played by the institutional actors (Gains and Lowndes, 2018;
Mackay, 2011) in influencing the implementation of gender-just strategies and
programmes, and how they interact with institutional rules in order to effect
change, speaks to the early work of Meyerson and Scully. It is echoed in the
findings of Ahmed (2012), whose research uncovers the inner conflict of those
working for diversity within HEIs, trying to effect change whilst at the same
time, remaining loyal to the ideals of the institution. Research on the role of critical
actors (a minority of women working to effect change while holding key positions
of authority and power) within an FI perspective (Childs and Krook, 2009;
Thomson, 2018) poses one explanation of how gender-just strategies (such as
Athena SWAN) are being implemented within HEIs, or are being met with
resistance.
As Lowndes (2020: 543) points out, actors reproduce gendered institutions by
enacting rules; however, they can also initiate and maintain change through adapt-
ing, interpreting, resisting or reforming them. Lowndes (2020) emphasises the role
of gendered actors in consolidating and generating gendered change. To which
extent this is the case- has the potential to be the case- will be queried and explored
in the empirical study, outlined in this article.
Institutional change
Broad consensus on implementing change in organisational and institutional prac-
tices in academic entities is that it is challenging to engender such change (van den
Brink and Benschop, 2012). HEIs are described as often being change averse;
‘inert, that is, they resist efforts at change’ (Jepperson, 1991: 145) cited in
Mahoney and Thelen (2010). Bearing this in mind, it is important to include in
a theoretical framework, that seeks to explore institutional change arising from the
implementation of a gender-equality initiative (such as Athena SWAN), explan-
ations for institutional change that encompass incremental, ad hoc and slower
change experiences and patterns. This is the approach best suited when using an
FI lens (Beyeler and Annesley, 2011; Gains and Lowndes, 2018; Krook and
Mackay, 2011a; Lowndes, 2020; Mackay et al., 2010; Madsen, 2019; Thomson,
2018).
Theories on institutional change (Lowndes, 2014; Lowndes and Roberts, 2013;
Mahoney and Thelen, 2010) can be broadly categorised into two groups. The first
being the long-standing path dependency approach (Thelen, 2004), the other the
model of endogenous ‘institutional refinement’, referring to how institutions
(formal and informal) evolve organically, over time, and in that process their
institutional elements are changed and manipulated to reflect the preferences
and goals of higher management/those in positions of power and control
(Lowndes, 2014). Mahoney and Thelen (2010: 15) developed a framework for
identifying and explaining types of institutional change, which have also been
O’Mullane 13
explored as ways to explain informal institutions, institutional change and gender
equality work (Waylen, 2013):
Modes of institutional change
1. Displacement – removal of existing structures, introduction of new ones
2. Layering – introduction of new rules with old ones
3. Drift – changed impact of existing rules due to shifts in the socio-political
environment
4. Conversion – the changed enactment of existing rules due to their strategic
redeployment (occurs when rule remain the same formally but interpreted
and enacted in new ways).
Given the conservative and bureaucratic nature of HEIs and their characteristic
‘slow to change’ quality (Bird, 2011), institutional change could take the form of
layering or conversion (Lowndes 2020; Mahoney and Thelen, 2010), as opposed to
any radical removal of procedures and biases and the introduction of new rules
and cultural norms (displacement or drift). This concept of institutional change
occurring ‘short of all-out’ reform and reflecting the ‘below-the-radar change’
(Lowndes, 2020: 559) is a refreshing and timely concept that includes modes of
institutional change that is more incremental from a gender perspective. This is
the pattern of change in large, complex organisations such as HEIs (Bagilhole
and White, 2011). Exploring these four different modes of institutional change
also highlights how informal rules/norms influence the extent to which
formal rules take root; informal institutions can help or hinder formal change
(Waylen, 2013).
Bringing it all together: exploring institutional responses to the
Athena SWAN Charter as part of an empirical study in Ireland
In Ireland at the time of writing, out of the 27 eligible HEIs, there are currently 56
Bronze award holders (14 institutions, 42 departments) (Advance HE, 2020c).
Engagement with the Charter is a key pillar of the national strategy for gender
equality, linking progress to institutional eligibility for funding from the main
national research funders (HEA, 2018a). An empirical study will be conducted
utilising the theoretical framework outlined in this article. The aim of the research
is to explore the institutional responses of HEIs to the Athena SWAN Charter, by
examining the micro foundations of HEIs as gendered institutions. This will entail
a focus on the exchange between formal and informal rules, norms and practices
which Athena SWAN actions seek to change; explore the roles played by actors
working with the rules (are they enacting the rules or seeking to adapt, interpret,
resist or reform them in some way) – as a way to examine the way Athena SWAN
is instigating change (and which kind of change (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010)) and
14 Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
is surfacing resistance within the HEI (Lowndes, 2020), as has been found in
other studies examining the effectiveness of the Athena SWAN Charter
(Tzanakou and Pearce, 2019). The study will focus specifically on universities in
Ireland, given the greater challenges facing such HEIs, in terms of the gender
profile of those leading and directing the institutions, compared to IoTs
(O’Connor, 2014). This is in keeping with Leathwood and Read’s (2009) hypoth-
esis that this pool of HEIs occupy an elitist status; that there exists an assumption
that men occupy positions of power in such institutions.
This research study is exploratory and novel in its use of the FI theoretical
perspective as a way to explore the nuances of the change process instigated and
initiated by the Athena SWAN Charter in Ireland. No such study has been con-
ducted yet solely on the Irish context, neither has a study been carried out solely
using FI to examine specifically the micro foundations of the institutional
responses to the Athena SWAN Charter. In relation to applying an FI perspective
to the topic of gender inequality in the Irish higher education staff profile, it has
been used in research to explain for the slow rate of change in the gender profile of
higher education’s professoriate (O’Connor, 2019b), and in identifying aspects of
culture and structure in male dominated HEIs that perpetuates gender inequality
(O’Connor, 2020).
FI proposes a way of explaining the ‘gendered paradox’ between the formal
frameworks in place in an institution – inherent within a change programme such
as Athena SWAN – and outcomes for women in practice (Mackay and Murtagh,
2019). Applying this FI perspective allows for the exploration of the institutional
rules (formal and informal) sought to be changed/amended within the Athena
SWAN action plan for the institution. The compelling question when exploring
the role of institutional actors during the process of implementing an Athena
SWAN Charter (realised as a time-limited action plan) in an HEI contextual set-
ting is how they behave with the changes to institutional rules (such as carer leave
or promotion schemes), how they seek to change, not change existing rules, or the
extent of change welcomed, thus exploring the gap between Athena SWAN
actions/commitments and the realities of institutional actors interacting and engag-
ing with these Athena SWAN actions.
The empirical study will involve institutional ethnographic approach (Campbell
and Gregor, 2004; Rankin, 2017; Smith, 2005) with a case study research design
will be used, involving qualitative research (interviews with documentary analysis
of university strategies and Athena SWAN applications) (Ackerly and True, 2010;
Prior 2003). This qualitative methodological approach will complement the
employment of the FI theoretical framework (Krook and Mackay, 2011b;
Mackay, 2020; Mackay and Waylen, 2009). Three Irish universities (three cases),
which have attained at a minimum the institutional Bronze Athena SWAN
award,
1
will be selected. The three case studies will involve ten interviews for
each case (first round of interviews), with five follow-up interviews each (a total
O’Mullane 15
of 45 interviews planned). Interview participants will be purposively sampled using
selection criteria in line with the research aim; they will be members of the insti-
tutional Athena SWAN self-assessment team (SAT). The interviews, facilitated by
the use of an ethnographic approach in the research design, will be open-ended and
context-specific to each case. It will be a space to enable reflection of the partic-
ipants’ experience of the Athena SWAN process in their HEI, drawing from the
development and use of the guided reflection methodological tool in a gender
equality programme (Archibong, 2016). Ethical requirements will be adhered to,
strictly protecting the identity of participants who occupy such a relatively small
pool of people within the Irish higher education context.
Conclusion
The FI theoretical framework, to be employed in the empirical study outlined in
this article, will clarify how HEIs in Ireland have the capacity to make Athena
SWAN Charter gender-equity actions (commitments) ‘stick’ (Htun and Weldon,
2010), whilst being mindful of the role played by traditional gender norms (embed-
ded in historical legacies and informal structures and processes) (Lowndes, 2020),
which can undermine the impact of formal institutional change and efforts of
institutional actors working with new rules and processes. This is the case when
dealing with rules in place as well as proposing new actions and policy changes, all
of which are being proposed within the Athena SWAN Charter programme in
Ireland. Gender norms and stereotyping in wider society can also undermine and
weaken the impact and potential of Athena SWAN actions. However, notwith-
standing this, the Charter has great potential in generating institutional change.
Concerted action is ‘necessary to achieve more gender-sensitive academic environ-
ments’ (Bencivenga and Drew, 2020: 181), and for the time being at least, the
institutionalisation of the Athena SWAN Charter in Irish HEIs is a pathway for
this concerted action. The question will remain in the conduct of the empirical
study, to what extent is institutional change generated when exploring the institu-
tional micro foundations.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to sincerely thank Dr Caitr
ıona N
ı Laoire (ISS21, UCC, Cork,
Ireland) and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and invaluable comments on
the draft.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by funding from the
16 Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No.750408.
ORCID iD
Monica O’Mullane https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5649-1932
Note
1. Other inclusion criteria for selecting the three universities include: variance across Athena
SWAN applications; geographic location in the country; HEIs which have/have had
European Commission funded structural projects on the topic of gender; Old universities
and newer ones (older cultures and resistance to change and newer (O’Connor, 2014));
National University of Ireland (NUI) versus non-NUI; HEI has applied under the
extended Charter (since 2015) or not; Universities with VPs for Equality or none at
VP level.
References
Acker J (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and
Society 4(2): 139–158.
Acker J (1992a) From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology 21(5):
565–569.
Acker J (1992b) Gendering organisational theory. In: Mills AZ and Tancred P (eds)
Gendering Organisationaal Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 248–260.
Acker J (2006) Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender &
Society 20(4): 441–464.
Ackerly B and True J (2010) Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science.
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Advance HE (2020a) Athena SWAN Charter, https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-ch
arters/athena-swan-charter#principles (2020, accessed 24 November 2020).
Advance HE (2020b) Athena Swan Charter participants and award holders, https://www.
advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan-charter/participants-and-award-holders
(2020, accessed 26 November 2020).
Advance HE (2020c) Athena SWAN Ireland, https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-ch
arters/international-charters/athena-swan-ireland#::text=All%20of%20Ireland’s%
20universities%20and,14%20institutions%2C%2042%20departments (accessed 26
November 2020).
Ahmed S (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham and
London: Duke University Press.
Archibong UA, O’Mullane M, Ka
´llayova
´D, et al. (2016) Guided reflection as an organisa-
tional learning [and data collection] tool in a gender equality change management pro-
gramme. International Journal of Organisational Diversity 16(1): 19–34.
Askins K and Blazek M (2017) Feeling our way: Academia, emotions and a politics of care.
Social & Cultural Geography 18(8): 1086–1105.
Bagilhole B and White K (2011) Gender, Power and Management: A Cross Cultural Analysis
of Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Mullane 17
Bencivenga R and Drew E (2020) Towards a gender-sensitive university. In: Drew E and
Canavan S (eds) The Gender-Sensitive University: A Contradiction in Terms? Oxfordshire,
UK, Routledge, pp. 177–182.
Benschop Y and van den Brink M (2014) Power and resistance in gender equality
strategies: Comparing quotas and small wins. In: Kumra S, Simpson R and Burke
RJ (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organisations. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 332–352.
Beyeler M and Annesley C (2011) Gendering the institutional reform of the welfare state:
Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. In: Krook ML and Mackay F (eds)
Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism. Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79–111.
Bird SR (2011) Unsettling universities’ incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A
case-study approach. Gender, Work & Organization 18(2): 202–230.
Boland R (2014) Micheline Sheehy Skeffington: ‘I’m from a family of feminists. I took this
case to honour them’. The Irish Times.
Caffrey L, Wyatt D, Fudge N, et al. (2016) Gender equity programmes in academic med-
icine: A realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes. BMJ Open 6(9).
Campbell M and Gregor F (2004) Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional
Ethnography. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Chappell L and Waylen G (2013) Gender and the hidden life of institutions. Public
Administration 91(3): 599–615.
Childs S and Krook ML (2009) Analysing women’s substantive representation: From crit-
ical mass to critical actors. Government and opposition (London) 44(2): 125–145.
Connell RW and Messerschmidt JW (2005) Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the con-
cept. Gender & Society 19(6): 829–859.
Courtois A and O’Keefe T (2015) Precarity in the ivory cage: neoliberalism and casualisa-
tion of work in the Irish higher education sector. Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies 13(1): 43–66.
Devine D, Grummell B and Lynch K (2011) Crafting the elastic self? Gender and identities
in senior appointments in Irish education. Gender, Work & Organization 18(6): 631–649.
European Commission (2019) SHE Figures. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, 2018.
Gains F and Lowndes V (2014) How is institutional formation gendered, and does it make a
difference? A new conceptual framework and a case study of police and crime commis-
sioners in England and Wales. Politics & Gender 10(4): 524–548.
Gains F and Lowndes V (2018) Gender, actors, and institutions at the local level: Explaining
variation in policies to address violence against women and girls. Governance 31(4):
683–699.
Galea N, Powell A, Loosemore M, et al. (2020) The gendered dimensions of informal
institutions in the Australian construction industry. Gender, Work and Organization
27: 1214–1231.
Graves A, Rowell A and Hunsicker E (2019) An Impact Evaluation of the Athena SWAN
Charter. Newcastle upon Tyne: Ortus Economic Research & Loughborough University.
Hall P (1986) Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and
France Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Harford J (2018) The perspectives of women professors on the professoriate: A missing piece
in the narrative on gender equality in the university. Education Sciences 18(2): 50.
18 Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
HEA (2016) Report of the Expert Group- HEA National Review of Gender Equality in Irish
Higher Education Institutions. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
HEA (2018a) Accelerating Gender Equality in Irish Higher Education Institutions: Gender
Action Plan 2018–2020. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
HEA (2018b) Higher Education Institutional Staff Profiles by Gender. Dublin: Higher
Education Authority.
Helmke G and Levitsky S (2004) Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research
agenda. Perspectives on Politics 2(4): 725–740.
Htun M and Weldon SL (2010) When do governments promote women’s rights? A framework
for the comparative analysis of sex equality policy. Perspectives on Politics 8(1): 207–216.
Huppatz K, Sang K and Napier J (2019) ‘If you put pressure on yourself to produce then that’s
your responsibility’: Mothers’ experiences of maternity leave and flexible work in the neo-
liberal university. Gender, Work & Organization 26(6): 772–788.
Jepperson RL (1991) Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism. In: W. W.
Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–163.
Kalpazidou Schmidt E, Ovseiko PV, Henderson LR, et al. (2019) Understanding the Athena
SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex
system: Analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective.
bioRxiv: 555482.
Krook ML and Mackay F (2011a) Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist
Institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–20.
Krook ML and Mackay F (2011b) Introduction: Gender, Politics and Institutions. In: M. L.
a. M. Krook, F. Hampshire (eds) Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist
Institutionalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Leathwood C and Read B (2009) Gender and the Changing Face of Higher Education: A
Feminised Future? Berkshire: McGraw-Hill, SRHE and Open University Press.
Linehan C, Buckley J and Koslowski N (2009) Backwards and in high heels: Exploring why
women are under-represented at senior academic levels 1987–2010. Journal of Workplace
Rights 14(4): 399–418.
Lorber J (2005) Gender Inequality, Feminist Theories and Politics. Los Angeles: Roxbury
Publishing Company.
Lovenduski J (2014) The institutionalisation of sexism in politics. Political insight (Political
Studies Association of the United Kingdom 5(2): 16–19.
Lowndes V (2014) How are things done around here? Uncovering institutional rules and
their gendered effects. Politics & Gender 10(4): 685–691.
Lowndes V (2020) How are political institutions gendered? Political Studies 68(3): 543–564.
Lowndes V and Roberts D (2013) Why Institutions Matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lynch K (1994) Women Teach and Men Manage: Why Men Dominate Senior Posts in
Education. Women for Leadership in Education. Dublin: Education Commission of the
Conference of Religious in Education.
Lynch K, Grummell B and Devine D (2012) New Managerialism in Education:
Commercialisation, Carelessness and Gender. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mackay F (2011) Conclusion: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism? Gender, Politics and
Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism M. L. a. M. Krook, F. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 181–196.
O’Mullane 19
Mackay F (2020) Dilemmas of an academic feminist as manager in the neoliberal academy:
Negotiating institutional authority, oppositional knowledge and change. Political Studies
Review 19(1): 1–21.
Mackay F, Kenny M and Chappell L (2010) New institutionalism through a gender lens:
Towards a feminist institutionalism? International Political Science Review 31(5):
573–588.
Mackay F and Murtagh C (2019) New institutions, new gender rules? A feminist institu-
tionalist lens on women and power-sharing. Feminists@Law 9(1): 1–54.
Mackay F and Waylen G (2009) Feminist institutionalism. Politics & Gender 5(2): 237.
Madsen DH (2019) Gender, power and institutional change – The role of formal and
informal institutions in promoting women’s political representation in Ghana. Journal
of Asian and African Studies 54(1): 70–87.
Mahoney J and Thelen K (2010) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and
Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
March JG and Olsen JP (1983) The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political
life. The American Political Science Review 78(3): 734–749.
March J and Olsen J (1989) Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics.
New York, Free Press.
Maxwell N, Connolly L and N
ı Laoire C (2019) Informality, emotion and gendered career
paths: The hidden toll of maternity leave on female academics and researchers. Gender,
Work & Organization 26(2): 140–157.
Meyerson DE and Scully MA (1995) Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence
and change. Organization Science 6(5): 585–600.
Munir F, Mason C, McDermott H, et al. (2014) Advancing Women’s Careers in
Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine: Evaluating the
Effectiveness and Impact of the Athena SWAN Charter. London, UK:
Equality Challenge Unit.
Nielsen MW, Alegria S, B€
orjeson L, et al. (2017) Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better
science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(8): 1740–1742.
N
ı Laoire C, Linehan C, Archibong U, et al. (2020) Context matters: Problematising the
policy-practice interface in the enactment of gender equality action plans in universities.
Gender, Work and Organization. Epub ahead of print 4 December 2020.
North D (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor P (2014) Management and Gender in Higher Education. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
O’Connor P (2019a) Gender imbalance in senior positions in higher education: What is the
problem? What can be done? AU – O’Connor, Pat. Policy Reviews in Higher Education
3(1): 28–50.
O’Connor P (2019b) Creating gendered change in Irish higher education: Is managerial
leadership up to the task? Irish Educational Studies 39(2): 139–155.
O’Connor P (2020) Why is it so difficult to reduce gender inequality in male-dominated
higher educational organizations? A feminist institutional perspective. Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews 45(2): 207–228.
O Grada A, N
ı Laoire C, Linehan C, et al. (2015) Naming the parts: A case-study of a
gender equality initiative with academic women. Gender in Management: An International
Journal 30(5): 358–378.
20 Irish Journal of Sociology 0(0)
Ostrom E (1999) Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis
and development framework theories of the policy process. In: Sabatier P (ed) Theories of
the Policy Process. Boulder, Colarado: Westview, pp. 35–72.
Ovseiko PV, Chapple A, Edmunds LD, et al. (2017) Advancing gender equality through the
Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: An exploratory study of women’s and
men’s perceptions. Health Research Policy and Systems 15(1): 1–13.
Pearce R (2017) Certifying Equality? Critical Reflections on Athena SWAN and Equality
Accreditation. Convetry: Centre for the Study of Women and Gender.
Powell S, Ah-King M and Huss
enius A (2018) ‘Are we to become a gender university?’
Facets of resistance to a gender equality project. Gender, Work and Organization 25(2):
127–143.
Power A (2020) Understanding leadership in higher education as a tool for change in rela-
tion to gender. In: Drew E and Canavan S (eds) The Gender-Sensitive University: A
Contradiction in Terms?. London: Routledge, pp. 140–153.
Prior L (2003) Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
Quinlivan S (2017) Disrupting the status quo? Discrimination in academic promotions. Irish
Employment Law Journal 14(3): 68–75.
Rankin J (2017) Conducting analysis in institutional ethnography: Analytical work prior to
commencing data collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1):
1609406917734484.
Schiebinger L and Schraudner M (2011) Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered
innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36(2):
154–167.
Scott WR (2008) Institutions and Organizations – Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Smith D (2005) Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People (Gender Lens). Lanham,
MD: Altamira Press.
Swan E and Fox S (2010) Playing the game: strategies of resistance and co-optation in
diversity work. Gender, Work & Organization 17(5): 567–589.
Thelen K (2004) How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany,
Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomson J (2018) Resisting gendered change: Feminist institutionalism and critical actors.
International Political Science Review 39(2): 178–191.
Tzanakou C and Pearce R (2019) Moderate feminism within or against the neoliberal uni-
versity? The example of Athena SWAN. Gender, Work & Organization 26(8): 1191–1211.
van den Brink M and Benschop Y (2012) Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for
gender change in academia. Gender, Work & Organization 19(1): 71–92.
Van Den Brink M and Stobbe L (2009) Doing gender in academic education: The paradox
of visibility. Gender, Work & Organization 16(4): 451–470.
Vickers J, Ranken P and Appelle C (1993) Politics As If Women Mattered: A Political
Analysis of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Waylen G (2013) Informal institutions, institutional change, and gender equality. Political
Research Quarterly 67(1): 212–223.
Zippel K and Ferree MM (2019) Organizational interventions and the creation of gendered
knowledge: US universities and NSF ADVANCE. Gender, Work & Organization 26(6):
805–821.
O’Mullane 21
