Progress, but at the Expense of Male Power? Institutional Resistance to Gender Equality in an Irish University

Abstract

Gender equality is a whole-organization endeavor. Building on Agócs (Journal of Business Ethics, 1997, 16 (9), 917–931) concept of institutionalized resistance this article undertakes a feminist critique of policy and practice around internal promotions to the equivalent of Associate Professor level in one Irish university (called the Case Study University). This university was selected because of its low proportion of women in senior academic positions. The methodology is a single case study design, employing documentary analysis, including secondary data. Since 2013 the proportion of women at Associate Professor in the Case Study University increased significantly (bringing them close to the national average): this being associated with increased transparency, with the cascade model in the background. However, men’s “chances” have varied little over time and at 1:4 are the highest in Irish universities. This article uses Agócs (Journal of Business Ethics, 1997, 16 (9), 917–931) stages of institutional resistance to show that while some changes have been made, ongoing institutionalized resistance is reflected in its failure to accept responsibility for change as reflected in its refusal to challenge the “core mission” and restricting the focus to “fixing the women”; and its failure to implement change by focusing on “busy-ness” which does not challenge power and colluding with foot-dragging and slippage in key areas. It is suggested that such institutional resistance reflects the enactment of hidden or stealth power. The article implicitly raises questions about the intractability and the covertness of men’s power and privilege and the conditions under which women’s “chances” are allowed to improve, thus providing insights into the extent and nature of institutional resistance.

What do the narratives tell us? Exploring the implementation of the Athena SWAN Ireland Charter

“…Overall, this theme illustrates both the vagueness of the work the participants are doing, plus exemplifies the assertion of positive messaging of the ASIC implementation to an “outsider.” The gendered nature of an impenetrable institutional happy talk is a fascinating dimension to this finding. 1 It resonates with the gendered nature of ASIC work across the cases, whereby women participating in the research worked on the daily operationalization of ASIC work, starkly contrasted with mainly men in senior management roles engaging in “institutional happy talk.” This finding also echoes Hodgins and O'Connor's ( 2021 , p. 1) study of gender equality in an Irish university, specifically “the intractability and covertness of men's power and privilege,” and deserves further inquiry in future research. The finding is important as it highlights the messaging being portrayed by those in management/leadership positions may be detached from the actual operationalization of the ASIC work, as well as raising awareness of the tendency of a genderedness of this “institutional happy talk.”…”

Transforming academic research? Resistances to gender mainstreaming implementation in universities

“…The analysis finds resistance to structural and cultural change initiatives, such as positive actions to ensure gender-balance in leadership and work-life balance initiatives, based on norms of meritocracy and care as women's individual problem, in line with other studies (e.g. Alonso and Diz, 2022;Hodgins and O'Connor, 2021). Interestingly, targeted actions to promote women's participation at early or later stages of their research careers, despite not demanding significant institutional change and in line with an integrationist approach, also face explicit resistance from research managers in our cases who view these actions as discriminatory to men.…”

“…These actors also implicitly denied the need for transformative action. While intentions to correct gender inequalities were expressed, they were considered 'historical' (UB.3), or 'inevitable' (UPF.3), discourses that legitimize the unequal status quo (Hodgins and O'Connor, 2021). They defined GE as equality of opportunities and treatment, as providing 'conditions that should be fair and equal to everyone' (UPF.1).…”

Shaped by resistance: Discursive politics in gender equality work

“…Our focus is on covert and subtle forms of resistance that do not directly confront the issue of gender equality, yet undermine it (Smolović Jones et al., 2021 ). Persistent covert forms of resistance show how gender inequality is systemic (Lansu et al., 2019), institutionalized (Hodgins & O’Connor, 2021), and embedded in organizational cultures (Clavero & Galligan, 2021) and practices (Murgia & Poggio, 2013). Covert resistance is contextual in that it draws meaning and legitimacy from specific circumstances, local settings, and societal conditions.…”