Intertwined Discourses of Merit and Gender: Evidence from Academic Employment in the USA

Abstract

In the USA women currently gain about 44% of doctoral degrees and a similar share of initial academic appointments. However, overall women hold about 33% of faculty positions and are slower to earn tenure and be promoted to full professor. Academic achievements have lower salary payoff for women, and they earn less than men with comparable qualifications and accomplishments. In the micropolitics of academic life, women remain on the margin trying to prove they have the skills to 'play the game at all' while men realistically presume support and focus on strategizing reputation (Gersick et al., 2000). The gendered nature of academic life in the USA is interpreted in terms of Glick and Fiske's 'ambivalent sexism'. In this view, gender stereotypes are ideological and prescriptive rather than simply descriptive; their influence on academic employment processes is unlikely to diminish simply with the passage of time or accumulating evidence on women's capabilities. While insightful, alone this framing leads to the pessimistic view that ambivalent attitudes toward women are intractable. Adding a feminist perspective on discourse allows a somewhat more optimistic view: intertwined discourses of gender and merit are sufficiently complex and heterogeneous to provide openings for resistance, renegotiation, and rewriting.Keywords: gender in academic employment, discourse and academic merit, discourse and gender, ambivalent sexism.

25 Years On: Reflecting on the Past and Looking to the Future in Gender and Management Research

“…the subordination of women within a framework of equality -a subordination based on the concealment of unequal outcomes and which can be difficult to detect. Faith in meritocracy as a 'solution' to gender disadvantage continues (Krefting, 2009) despite evidence that gender strongly defines managerial careers. For example, women's advancement to board positions is slow paced and they remain in the minority on the vast majority of company boards (Ahmansson and Ohlund, 2008;Martin et al, 2008;Vinnicombe et al, 2010) despite having amassed considerable human, and reputational, capital.…”

Developing female middle-managers in Australian universities

“…Increased productivity, expertise and rewards accrue to individuals with more human capital (Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, and Graf 1999). Much of the literature regarding the culture of organizations, including universities, assumes that women already have the requisite human capital in the form of qualifications, experience and specific skills to assume management roles, and that access to development opportunities has not been problematic (Krefting 2003;McDonald 2006;Burke, Burgess and Fallon 2006).…”

“…This paper examines demographics and HRD experiences of academic and administrative, female middle-managers in Australian universities. We focus on middle rather than senior managers because the latter have been well documented in Australia (Blackmore and Sachs 2000;2001;Chesterman, Ross-Smith and Peters 2003) and overseas (Doherty and Manfredi 2006;Ebner 2007;Gopinathan 2007;Krefting 2003;Niven 2007;van den Brink, Brouns, and Waslander 2006). Also, the impending impact of generational change, where the relatively small number of senior women executives will retire (Chesterman et al 2003;2006), raises the question: who is being developed to take their place?…”

Views from Above the Glass Ceiling: Does the Academic Environment Influence Women Professors’ Careers and Experiences?

“…Moreover, the average working week shows virtually no sign of increasing (Portegijs and Keuzenkamp 2008). Various causes have been proposed for the glass ceiling effect: overt sex discrimination (Bagilhole 1993;Steinpreis et al 1999), the traditional division of household tasks and child care responsibilities (Pittman et al 1999;Wilkie et al 1998), incompatibility of family and professional roles (Probert 2005), sex differences in lifestyle preferences (Hakim 2006), self selection (Van Anders 2004), lower self esteem of women (Kling et al 1999), less support from family, supervisor and colleagues (Van Daalen et al 2005), sex stereotyping (Heilman 2001;Hopkins et al 2002;Willemsen and van Vianen 2008), sexism (Krefting 2003), neglecting sex differences (Pinker 2008) and bias in recruitment and selection procedures (Steinpreis et al 1999;Husu 2001; Van den Brink et al 2006). Although many of the barriers mentioned above have probably been met by women professors, the fact that they actually broke through the glass ceiling may mean that they have found ways to handle them or neglect them.…”