Special Issue "Gender Equity and Academic Progression"

A special issue of Societies (ISSN 2075-4698).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 January 2021) | Viewed by 12689

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Pooja Sawrikar
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University, Gold Coast 4223, Australia
Interests: women in academia; social services; child protection; race and ethnic relations
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Gender inequity in academic progression is a well-established and well-acknowledged problem, with many well-intentioned strategic plans to help address it. However, the rate of progress is painstakingly slow. According to Savigny (2014) [1], it will take 119 years to reach equal numbers in the professoriate at the current rate of promotions and appointments. Excluding Iceland, the best reported proportion so far is one female for every three male full professors (Crimmins, 2019) [2]. These statistics are damaging to women’s professional and self-esteem, leading to a raft of self-policing behaviors that acquiesce to covert messages to ’stay in one’s box’, which they are also then blamed for later. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, hostage to a history that has never known how to equally value the work and worth of women. The ‘maternal wall’ is the primary reason women meet the glass ceiling at mid-level and struggle to go beyond it at rates comparable to men, but women without children struggle too, caught in the invisible insidious web of gender.

Contributions to a Special Issue dedicated to gender equity and academic progression may feel like achieving little more than narrative therapy for the authors in the short term, but in the bigger picture they do two things: they provide a time-lined snapshot of how the goal is tracking, and they keep it on the table. All the talk about gender can make people tire of it, or believe we are closer than we are, revealing their commitment as tokenistic and their understanding as cursory. Moreover, every type of evidence matters; economic modelling of intellectual prowess lost, correlational trends of patterns faring better or worse, and personal accounts that capture nuance which numbers cannot reach all have their role to play. Perhaps above all this, allyship from men seeking their own liberation from toxic masculinity lends power and privilege in positive and egalitarian ways.

Women differ among themselves. Gender intersects with race, age, class, sexuality, faith, and dis/ability to produce even more barriers. Young up-and-coming scholars, filled with a sense of agency about life and its possibilities, will not be able to see representatives and mentors they can seek out to help guide them through the trajectory of academic progression. That panel of “experts” will invariably look the same, and the message she will receive without anyone having said a word is that ‘you will not have knowledge considered expert or worthy publicly; pats on the back are the best it will get, be grateful for your breadcrumbs’.

There are three main types of power one might chase: time, money, prestige. The first two are more quantifiable. If a woman works in a government agency, overtime is paid close attention to and a rostered day off is offered in lieu of it. The power she gets is mental health, from being able to better manage the various aspects of her life especially the unpaid component of keeping house and caring for children. If a woman works in a corporation, overtime is also paid close attention to and a bonus might be offered in reward of it. She gets purchasing power, including the ability to hire a clone and fill ‘the wife drought’ (Crabbe, 2014) [3] by outsourcing parts of the unpaid work she would otherwise do. However, the overtime work that women in academia do is not paid close attention to, and the rewards are handed out sparingly. A woman’s exploitation is wrapped in rhetoric that she is lucky to be able to do intellectually free work with flexible work arrangements. In fact, such an assumption requires deep interrogation. When a reward becomes extremely difficult to attain, because leadership within a field is not easily quantifiable, and unconsciously compared to the white male prototype of intelligentsia by decision-makers with false presumptions of equality in access to opportunity, it begins to taint her desire for the goal and the sweetness of it when she does get there.

When a woman expresses desire for the title of Professor, she is seeking a nebulous form of power in the form of recognition and respect for expert knowledge. However, who such a person can and should look like is rigged from the start; hard work is not enough. If you have something to say about this, and would like to lend your expertise and experience to this issue, I welcome your voice—every one counts. Manuscripts can touch on any aspect of the topic of gender inequity and academic progression, and the possible points of contemplation listed below are not exhaustive:

  • Neoliberalism, research, and teaching—Can you offer long-range reflections on what academic life was like pre- and post-neoliberalism? Can it really be called ‘academia’ anymore when the focus is so heavily on teaching—is it really just ‘higher education’? If research is so valuable for academic promotion (e.g., publications, citations, grants, etc.), why is investment in its opportunity to conduct and support it low compared to the amount of teaching allocation?
  • Intersectionality—What has it been like for you in terms of being recognized for your intellectual labor as a person of color, an older or younger person, being first-in-family at university, a member of the LGBTIQ+ community, of Muslim or any other faith, and/or having a dis/ability? What is your hopefulness for becoming Full Professor?
  • Discipline—How are the STEM disciplines faring in progressing gender equity and academic progression compared to the social sciences? Are there hidden social forces of oppression even in numbers that look more equitable? The desirable outcome may have been attained, but at what cost? Was the process gender-disaggregated and sensitive?
  • Scholarship—How much intellectual freedom do scholars really have? What does the power of senior mentor researchers do to the creativity and track record development of junior researchers? Are journal editors and reviewers gate-keeping knowledge and controlling the freedom of ethical speech? How does a mid-level scholar break out to become an independent critical thinking pioneer in her field?
  • Work–life balance and caring—Should flexible work arrangements such as working from home at any time be a positive legacy of COVID-19 as a means to increase gender equity in academic progression? Should the unpaid hours men contribute to domestic affairs, the unpaid caring for children that women do, and the unpaid emotional labor women contribute to their students be factors considered in academic progression?
  • Budget allocation—Are there small wins in your field you wish to share and celebrate? For example, has your university had a major financial restructuring that more equitably supports research ambitions, diversity in teaching opportunities, and access to professional development and networking, all of which are translating to a fuller application for promotion a woman can prepare because she meets criteria she does not have to fund from her own lower-salaried pocket?

Out of respect to authors, reviewers will be reminded to provide collegial comments rather than criticisms, so long as the work is ethical, readable, properly justifies the fit of their chosen research methodology to their chosen research question, and properly acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses associated with that methodology. That is, final say about what stays in and out of the manuscript’s scope will belong to the author, if it meets these criteria for publication. Applications submitted before article submission are assessed by the Managing Editor based on the quality of the research article and the authors’ ability to pay. Please feel free to inquire further before proceeding to a full manuscript submission (article/review/conceptual paper), as only those directly relevant to the topic of gender inequity and academic progression will be accepted. An initial scoping of the relevancy of your idea can be offered if you are unsure.

I look forward to receiving manuscripts from a wide range of scholars to help make sure the academy celebrates its women’s intellect, creativity, innovation, caring, kindness, and strength, with rates of academic progression that match their male counterparts. Women have always been excluded from positions of leadership, so the world does not really know what it is missing out on and therefore what it needs to protect. Representation at the top—in all aspects of society, of which academia is one microcosm—should be proportionate to representation within the broader population, else there is an abuse of power and privilege remaining largely unexamined. Un/conscious protecting of self-interest and un/conscious intention to exclude women are serious challenges that society is accountable to answering.

References

  1. Savigny, H. Women, know your limits: Cultural sexism in academia. Gender and education 2014, 26, 794–809.
  2. Crimmins, G. Strategies for resisting sexism in the academy: Higher education, gender and intersectionality. Palgrave Macmillan: Australia, 2019.
  3. Crabbe, A. The wife drought. Ebury Australia: Sydney NSW, Australia, 2014.

Dr. Pooja Sawrikar
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as conceptual papers are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Societies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Gender equity
  • Academic progression
  • Higher education
  • Power
  • Patriarchy
  • White privilege
  • Intersectionality
  • Neoliberalism

Published Papers (5 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research

Editorial
Gender Inequity and Academic Progression: How Much of Our Silence Is Chosen?
Societies 2021, 11(1), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11010023 - 16 Mar 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1994
Abstract
In late 2019, I was invited by Societies Journal to establish a Special Issue on a topic of my choosing [...] Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gender Equity and Academic Progression)

Research

Jump to: Editorial

Article
Taking on the Institution: An Autoethnographic Account
Societies 2021, 11(2), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020039 - 25 Apr 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1581
Abstract
The over-representation of men and the under-representation of women in senior positions in academic institutions is a familier and deep-rooted problem. While gender inequality in Higher Education Institutions has multiple causes, recruitment and internal promotion practices are particularly potent contributors to inequality regimes. [...] Read more.
The over-representation of men and the under-representation of women in senior positions in academic institutions is a familier and deep-rooted problem. While gender inequality in Higher Education Institutions has multiple causes, recruitment and internal promotion practices are particularly potent contributors to inequality regimes. This paper contains an autoethnographic account based on my failure to secure promotion and my subsequent legal action. It offers a personalized account of the experience of gender discrimination, in order to illuminate aspects of the culture of the Higher Educational Institution that contribute to this problem, and the challenges inherent in changing it. The theoretical perspective includes notions of organizational culture as gendered, drawing on the works of Louise Morley and Georgina Waylen, Pat O’Connor, Louise Chappel and Teresa Rees, as well as Carol Agócs work on institutionalized resistance to change, and theories of hidden and invisible power. The paper is a personal narrative autoethnography with self-reflection, adopting an analytic/interpretive approach. Based on an analysis of publicly available documents, personal journaling and media material, I identify four themes; (1) Slow Fuse burning, (2) From indifference to resistance, (3) Fixing me/Fixing women, (4) Solidarity. I conclude with reflections on the importance of seeing gender inequality and discrimination when it occurs and the importance of data in creating greater transparency that facilitates ‘seeing’. I also consider the importance of female anger and the importance of female solidarity. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gender Equity and Academic Progression)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Perceptions of Barriers to Career Progression for Academic Women in STEM
Societies 2021, 11(2), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020027 - 24 Mar 2021
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 4889
Abstract
Gender equity in academia is a long-standing struggle. Although common to all disciplines, the impacts of bias and stereotypes are particularly pronounced in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. This paper explores what barriers exist for the career progression of women in [...] Read more.
Gender equity in academia is a long-standing struggle. Although common to all disciplines, the impacts of bias and stereotypes are particularly pronounced in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. This paper explores what barriers exist for the career progression of women in academia in STEM disciplines in order to identify key issues and potential solutions. In particular, we were interested in how women perceive the barriers affecting their careers in comparison to their male colleagues. Fourteen focus groups with female-identifying academics showed that there were core barriers to career progression, which spanned countries, disciplines and career stages. Entrenched biases, stereotypes, double standards, bullying and harassment all negatively impact women’s confidence and sense of belonging. Women also face an additional biological burden, often being pushed to choose between having children or a career. Participants felt that their experiences as STEM academics were noticeably different to those of their male colleagues, where many of the commonly occurring barriers for women were simply non-issues for men. The results of this study indicate that some of these barriers can be overcome through networks, mentoring and allies. Addressing these barriers requires a reshaping of the gendered norms that currently limit progress to equity and inclusion. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gender Equity and Academic Progression)
Article
Women Academics in the World of Neoliberal, Managerial Higher Education
Societies 2021, 11(1), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11010025 - 16 Mar 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1273
Abstract
In my last years in academia, I have experienced the intimidating impact of pettybureaucracy and top-down micromanagement that typify managerialism in higher education today. In this paper I use my own experiences to reflect on why this is happening, attempting to gain understanding [...] Read more.
In my last years in academia, I have experienced the intimidating impact of pettybureaucracy and top-down micromanagement that typify managerialism in higher education today. In this paper I use my own experiences to reflect on why this is happening, attempting to gain understanding that can support others still working in the sector to survive and ultimately thrive. I argue that neoliberalism operates as an ideology, shaping the way we perceive and act in the world. In higher education, it is enacted through managerialism, together creating a social imaginary that defines what is expected of managers and what is expected of workers. Women are particularly vulnerable in this social imaginary given that the challenges they face in the workforce are attributed to their own shortcomings rather than any systemic barriers. Women face choices as to how to operate in this social imaginary, but all choices have consequences that need to be understood and managed. Ultimately, systemic disadvantage will not change without significant action taken by collectives of women who have a clear vision of better alternatives. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gender Equity and Academic Progression)
Article
Cultural Capital, Gender and Intergenerational Educational Mobility in Post-Communist Space
Societies 2021, 11(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11010004 - 01 Jan 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1921
Abstract
Post-communist transition in Eastern Europe has affected social stratification and mobility. There is an argument that transition undermined the role of parental cultural capital and increased the importance of parental economic capital in determining the educational mobility of children. In this paper, we [...] Read more.
Post-communist transition in Eastern Europe has affected social stratification and mobility. There is an argument that transition undermined the role of parental cultural capital and increased the importance of parental economic capital in determining the educational mobility of children. In this paper, we examine whether the parental cultural capital has played a role in educational mobility of cohorts born in 1970–1984 and what has been the contribution of the different states of cultural capital. We also consider the gender heterogeneity in the transmission of educational advantage. The study focuses on one country of Eastern Europe—Lithuania, which underwent the transition to a radical neo-liberal form of capitalism. Using data from the Families and Inequalities Survey of 2019, we apply the descriptive and ordinal regression analysis. The results indicate intergenerational educational upward mobility for women. All states of parental cultural capital (objectified, embodied, institutionalized) are relevant for the educational attainment of the transitional cohort. The effects are more pronounced for women, at least in relation to some states of parental cultural capital. On a more general level, the findings imply that the intergenerational reproduction of educational attainment was not substantially altered by the transition, at least during its initial decades. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gender Equity and Academic Progression)
Back to TopTop