PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
What’s wrong with fairness? How discourses in higher education literature support gender inequalities Kacey Beddoesa∗ and Corey Schimpfb a
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Sociology, USA; b The Concord Consortium, Massachusetts, USA The role and influence of department heads on women in academia is understudied and weakly conceptualized. This article expounds on prior work, which identified limitations of department head literature, to put forth three problematic discourses that run through much of the department head research: the discourse of fairness, the discourse of collective good, and the training imperative. The discourse of fairness encourages an unproblematized adoption of fairness as a core criterion, ignoring the ways fairness may be conceptualized to benefit some groups over others. The discourse of collective good encourages department heads to seek out resolutions that maximize the ‘good’ for the department and its constituents but may perpetuate gender biases. The training imperative discourse places a heavy emphasis on training, regardless of whether training is or is not an effective means to address gender inequalities. Implications and directions for future work and practices are discussed in closing. Keywords: department heads; female professors; gender; fairness; collective good; discourse; training
Introduction The underrepresentation of female professors, especially at higher ranks, persists in many fields across the United States as well as other countries (Di Fabio, Brandi, & Frehill, 2008; National Science Foundation, 2013; van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). Underrepresentation is even more pronounced for women of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds (AFT Higher Education, 2011; Cooper & Stevens, 2002; Turner, González, & Wood, 2008). The gendered dimensions of academic careers are now well documented in a large body of literature that has repeatedly identified numerous ∗
Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected]
1
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
challenges for female academics. Leading challenges include a lack of professional development and mentoring, gender discrimination and biases related to behavior and competence, and gendered socialization (Bagilhole & Goode, 2001; Moody, 2004; Philipsen, 2008; Pyke, 2013; Shields, Zawadzki, & Johnson, 2011; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). The inequality that is the most salient to this article is the amplydocumented fact that women face greater challenges than men with balancing work and family responsibilities (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014; Coronel, Moreno, & Carrasco, 2010; Fox, Fonseca, & Bao, 2011; Mayer & Tikka, 2008; Philipsen, 2008; Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013; Wolfinger, Mason, & Goulden, 2008). One approach to understanding why these inequalities persist is to examine the discourses engaged in the field of higher education. Discourses are power relations. They govern ways in which ‘a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned about’ and they influence ‘how ideas are put into practice and used to regulate the conduct of others’ (Hall, 2007, p. 72). This article operates from the premise that ‘discourses constitute symbolic systems and social orders, and the task of discourse analysis is to examine their historical and political construction and functioning’ (Howarth, 2000, p. 5). The persistence of gender biases in academia over the past 30 years demands analyses such as those that uncover subtle ways in which the status quo is maintained. The discourses that surround professors’ careers are increasingly receiving critical attention because of the ways in which they can shed light on how power operates within the academy. For example, recent work on the ‘discourse of choice’ provides new insight into women’s persistent underrepresentation in science and engineering departments (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014). While recognizing societal inequalities in family roles causes more women than men to leave the academy, professors nonetheless engaged a discourse of individual choice to explain women’s underrepresentation (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014). The authors of that study contend that the discourse served to de-problematize the issue and remove any responsibility for change from university administrators. In other words, the discourse effectively controlled what was seen as a problem that warranted attention and what was not, thus making it an important site of gender biases. Despite the fact that department heads and chairs play pivotal roles within the academy (Aziz et al., 2005; Barge & Musambira, 1992; Bensimon, Ward, & Sanders, 2000), scant attention has been paid specifically to their roles in either promoting or mitigating gender inequalities. Researchers estimate that 80% of administrative decisions made within universities are made by department heads or chairs (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004; Wolverton et al., 1999). They have authority over key decisions that influence professors’ lives in significant ways, including tenure and promotion, course load and scheduling, and hiring new faculty members. Given the power they have to influence professors’ career outcomes and experiences, heads’ roles and actions warrant further examination (Carroll & Wolverton, 2004). Building on prior critical discourse analyses, such as that on the ‘discourse of choice’, this article presents a critical exploration of several interrelated discourses that are prevalent in higher education literature for and about department heads and chairs (hereafter referred to collectively as ‘department heads’ or ‘DH’ for simplicity). This analysis originated in an empirical interview-based study that prompted a literature review, the results of which have been reported elsewhere, along with a full list of sources searched (Beddoes, Schimpf, & Pawley, 2015). The present 2
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
article focuses on the dominant discourses that emerged from the literature review: fairness, collective good, and the training imperative. By uncovering problems in such seemingly laudable discourses, this article offers new insights into how discourses contribute to the maintenance of gender inequalities in professorial careers. Problematizing discourses in the department head literature While reviewing the research for and about department heads, we found that it was almost entirely gender-blind. (Notable exceptions included: Bensimon et al. (2000), Deem (2003), Hecht et al. (1999), Moody (2011), Niemann (2012), and Waerdt (1993), as well as Chun & Evans (2015), which was published after we wrote this article.) By ‘gender-blind’ we mean that it was written without mention of gender biases in the academy or mention of differences between the careers of male and female academics that a head should be aware of. The result of such ‘blindness’ is that dominant groups maintain their privileges by denying that those privileges exist. When the literature did address gender, it was in a limited manner, focusing on sexual harassment and legal issues surrounding discrimination (e.g., Aziz et al., 2005; Hurtubise, 1993). In other words, it was concerned with formalistic and individual behaviors rather than larger structural issues. While we do not want to dismiss the importance of those topics, limiting gender discussions to sexual harassment and legal issues ignores the more day-to-day, less overt problems female academics face. The gender-blindness is particularly troubling in light of the dominant discourses that we found in the literature. The remainder of this section discusses each of those in turn. Fairness A discourse of fairness permeated the literature. Numerous publications emphasized that heads have an obligation to act “fairly”, and that they will be most successful if they make “fair” decisions. Table 1 presents examples that are representative of the discourse of fairness. Table 1. The discourse of fairness Example
Year
Source
One of the head’s jobs is to delegate the workload in a manner that is ‘fair’ and ‘appropriate’
1989
Evaluating the Department Chairperson (Jacobs, 1989, p. 220)
‘The safest way for a department chair to avoid a fracas is to establish a sense of fair play …’
1993
Sex in the Department (Hurtubise, 1993, p. 160)
Heads should review evaluation processes to ensure that they are ‘both non-sexist and fair’
1993
Women in Academic Departments: Uneasy Roles, Complex Relationships (Waerdt, 1993, p. 62)
Heads are expected to assign ‘teaching
1995
Evaluating the Performance of Academic
3
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
schedules fairly’
Department Chairpersons (Al-Karni, 1995, p. 47)
The workload should be distributed ‘equitably among all the faculty’
1999
The Department Chair as Academic Leader (Hecht et al., 1999, p. 81)
‘Treat everyone fairly’
2003
Creating Consensus Among Faculty (Leaming, 2003, p. 59)
At first glance, fairness seems like a helpful aspiration for department heads. The problem, however, is that fairness is not a universal, objective concept. The statements comprising this discourse were made without elaboration on this point, as if fairness and equitability were universal and objective concepts shared by everyone and did not warrant further nuance. In fact, concepts of fairness are subjective and often gendered: what is fair for women is often perceived as unfair for men or the department as a whole (Beddoes, Schimpf, & Pawley, 2013; Weststar, 2012). To give but one example of this phenomenon, prior research has documented that parental leave and associated course-release are perceived as unfair by other members of a department (Beddoes et al., 2013). There is a stigma associated with taking parental leave and this is bound up to notions of what is ‘fair’. One study of female professors in science and engineering disciplines found that – … [a female] faculty member intentionally taught more than her required workload of courses before going on leave. When this faculty member discovered she was pregnant she talked with her department’s leadership and proposed not teaching in the fall, emphasizing the fact that she had already ‘compensated’ for it. (Schimpf et al., 2013, p. 111)
In other words, to be seen as ‘fair’ even when taking advantage of a policy she was entitled to, this professor felt she needed to do extra work beforehand. This is not to say that notions of fairness are static or could not be changed. However, while faculty and heads could in theory openly debate the fairness of organizational practice or culture, heads have significantly greater ability and leeway to define what counts as ‘fairness’ in the organization, owing to their more powerful position. Likewise, they have more power to exclude items from the discourse. Similar arguments have been made about other work place settings. For example, Fortin and Fellenz (2008) argue that much of the research in the organizational justice field of organizational studies remains uncritical of the concept of fairness it deploys, and Watson (2003) examined how leaders constructed notions of fairness in the context of organizational changes that impacted employees. In education research, the explicit and implicit invocations of fairness with regard to students’ access and success in education have also been examined (Bøyum, 2014). While those studies have taken a critical lens to fairness, it appears few have explicitly identified a discourse of fairness, and none have explored its implications in regard to female faculty members. As a result of power differences and subsequent framing of notions of fairness, faculty members may be unwilling or unable to change the organizational conceptualization of fairness.
4
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
Collective good A second, related discourse observed in the literature was that of the ‘collective good’. The literature emphasizes that the head has a responsibility to focus on and promote the good of the department as a whole, which we will refer to as ‘collective good’. For example, Hecht et al. (1999) emphasize ‘collective success’ (p. 30). They assert that issues such as course scheduling should begin with ‘collective considerations’ (p. 78), and that heads should develop a ‘shared culture within the department concerning how work will be distributed and how individuals will support the mission and goals of the department’ (p. 82). More specifically, for instance, Hecht et al. (1999) and Buller (2006) in their discussions of course scheduling, prioritize meeting the needs of students and do not mention any issues related to the challenges of work-family balance for women. This focus on the collective good of the department can work to disadvantage women when it is assumed that the collective good is gender-neutral. If, for example, a woman takes parental leave and gets course-release one semester, she may be perceived as not working toward the collective good, or not being a team player, because a class either will not be taught (inconveniencing students) or will need to be taught by someone else (burdening colleagues). Or she may be perceived as selfish because less research or graduate student progress may be made that semester. In this way, the needs of female academics, owing to gendered social expectations for family responsibilities, may be perceived by colleagues to work against the collective good. Others have commented similarly as well. For example, Bensimon et al. (2000) argue that ‘good citizenship’ is subjective and can be used against people who are not liked because they do not conform to expectations (p. 42). Consequently, the ‘collective good’ becomes similar to the discourse of fairness wherein everyone is held to the same, ostensibly gender-neutral standard. Yet, the gender-neutrality of academia has been severely challenged (Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Ecklund, Lincoln, & Tansey, 2012; Määttä & Lyckhage, 2011; Kjeldal, Rindfleish, & Sheridan, 2005). In addition to sharing similar problems with the discourse of fairness, the discourse of collective good also intersects with broader social norms that render it disadvantageous for women. Empirical evidence from social and organizational psychology fields, among others, has demonstrated that women are expected to be nice, communal, and non-self-interested in ways that men are not (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Biernat & Fuegen, 2001; Carli, 2001; Heilman, 2001). Such gender stereotypes operate on several levels: they are descriptive (relating to how men and women actually do behave), prescriptive (influencing how we believe men and women should behave), and injunctive (carrying social sanctions for those who transgress them) (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001). Gender roles prescribing that that women need to be ‘nice’ result in women often being evaluated less favorably, particularly when they do not conform to those prescriptions. Such gender stereotypes clearly present a problem for women when they intersect with the discourse of collective good. Women’s actions are more likely than men’s to be seen as going against the collective good. Moreover, they will be judged more negatively for doing so because it breaches gender stereotypes. However, gender biases of this sort are difficult to detect and prove because they are subtle, indirect, and implicit. People are often unaware of their own biases and 5
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
how those biases shape judgments of other people, especially minorities (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Beach, 2001; Heilman, 2001; Shields et al., 2011). In many ways, the current systems and processes for evaluating faculty, including for tenure and promotion, are set up in ways that promote the operation of often subtle and unconscious gender biases (Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Moody, 2004; Poulsen, 2005; Shields et al., 2011). In this case, engaging a discourse of collective good may allow department heads to see their actions and beliefs as motivated by a positive goal rather than by gender biases. The discourse then becomes one mechanism through which gender inequalities are perpetuated in academia. As with fairness, this does not mean that the collective good is not a laudable goal or that we could not work to reframe the discourse so that it accounts for gender inequalities. The gender-blind fashion in which collective good is currently conceptualized does not preclude the possibility of an alternate view of collective good that takes into account family responsibilities of men and women as well as the ongoing barriers women face in academia. The training imperative Within the literature, one of the most common assertions is that heads receive little or no training to prepare them for their new responsibilities (Aziz et al., 2005; Dyer & Miller, 1999; Gmelch, 2004; Nguyen, 2012; Wolverton & Ackerman, 2006). Less common, but present, are critiques of existing training programs and advice books: they are considered unrealistic or too general (Bensimon et al., 2000; Buller, 2006; Hubbell & Homer, 1997; Wolverton & Ackerman, 2006). While we recognize that lack of training is certainly a problem, there are two problems with this discourse. First, training alone will not address the biases and personal agendas of heads, including gender biases. Training is typically conceived as having an impact on knowledge, skills, behaviors and attitudes (Casio, 1988; Coultas, Grossman, & Salas, 2012). Of these, only attitude may get at underlying values or beliefs behind biases; however, attitudes have been repeatedly found to be unstable (and thus not easily amenable to training) across contexts (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Training often cannot override past or outside socialization (Hassi & Storti, 2011; Hofstede & Peterson, 2000). On top of that, training may be systematically devalued within an organizational culture or subculture (e.g., department heads or faculty) (Bunch, 2007), which would likely render it less effective than would be desired. Calls for training should therefore be more reflective and critical about the problems that training can address, and the ones that it cannot. Second, if the training utilizes the mainstream literature we reviewed, it would not address gender. As noted, the literature is largely gender-blind. In other words, it would likely be implementing the discourses of fairness and collective good into the training. Certainly, there are training programs that highlight gender biases (e.g., Shields et al., 2011), and we advocate more wide-spread use of these, but these are not presented in the majority of the literature about or for heads. Moreover, while training focused specifically on diversity or empathy may come closer to addressing bias and ingrained beliefs, results on such training are mixed, at best (Badheshi et al., 2008; Hemphill & Haines, 1997; King, Gulick, & Avery, 2010; Lam, Kolomitro, & Alamparambil, 2011). They remain unlikely to override deeply held beliefs. 6
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
Conclusions The gender-blindness we observed in the DH literature is a problem because most department heads (in the US) are still white men (Bozeman, Fay, & Gaughan, 2013; Carroll & Wolverton, 2004), and they may be unaware of, or unsympathetic to, how gender privileges function in society and academia. They may be unaware that female academics face many challenges that men do not face. As Armenti (2004) explains, Department chairs, who tend to be men, make discretionary decisions about a woman’s leave time, and women’s requests are not necessarily accommodated. Indeed, due to fear of reprisal, untenured women seem particularly vulnerable in their ability to seek and receive parental leave. (p. 211)
This means that in practice, ‘gender-blind’ tends to equate to androcentric, or malecentered. Also troubling was the lack of change, or advancement in these discourses over the years. The literature we reviewed spanned the late 1980s through the present, with no increasing awareness of the problems identified in this analysis. The gender-blindness deserves particular examination as it intersects with the discourses of fairness, collective good, and training. Notions of fairness and collective good can be biased against women through the expectation that they should keep working through parental leave and the stigma of being seen as not committed or serious enough if having children impacts colleagues or students. Clearly, then, simply instructing heads to act fairly is both simplistic and problematic, because people have different notions of what is fair, and, given that in many fields departments remain male-dominated, those notions are more likely to disadvantage women than men. As noted, prior analyses have revealed that colleagues perceive course-releases associated with parental leave as unfair, and can create expectations that the leave-taker will ‘make up’ her teaching load in subsequent semester, in order to be ‘fair’ to others (Beddoes et al., 2013). Department heads need to be aware of the many ways in which the ‘playing field’ remains uneven for men and women and how discourses of fairness, collective good, and the training imperative will tend to perpetuate those inequalities unless active effort is made to disrupt them. Given the limitations of and problems with the discourses identified in this article, however, what then can be done? Certainly much work could be done to try to improve existing training materials and their implementation with the aim of increasing effectiveness and gender accountability. However, based upon this analysis, we wish to put forth several other modest, and practical, recommendations. The first would be increased attention to our own practices as authors, reviewers, and editors. Publications and training materials about and for department heads should not be allowed to perpetuate androcentric norms under the guise of gender-blindness. Going forward, scholars who write that department heads should act fairly, should then elaborate on what they think that means and what acting fairly looks like, with consideration for women and other minorities. Scholars who advocate acting for the collective good of the department should be asked to consider what that means in light of the vast body of literature documenting inequalities between male and female professors. As editors and reviewers for journals articles and books, we should take a
7
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
more critical stance on simplistic instructions to act fairly, and raise questions about gender-blind articles. Second, this analysis points to horizons for future empirical research. It would be valuable for future research to further explore the ways in which notions of fairness and collective good are gendered and affect the careers of female academics. Similar to research on the ‘discourse of choice’ (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014), exploring how fairness and collective good operate within the academy and shape professors’ careers could shed new light on subtle biases and the previously hidden ways in which inequalities are perpetuated. Interviews and surveys designed specifically to understand the roles and influences these discourses have in various institutions would be an important step in advancing the research landscape on women in academia. Acknowledgment This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant HRD-0811194. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We also thank our participants for their time and stories, and Dina Banerjee and Alice Pawley for data collection that ultimately led to this article. References AFT Higher Education. (2011). Promoting gender diversity in the faculty: What higher education unions can do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Al-Karni, A. S. (1995). Evaluating performance of academic department chairpersons. Higher Education, 29(1), 37-57. Armenti, C. (2004). May babies and post-tenure babies: Maternal decisions of women professors. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 211–231. Aziz, S., Mullins, M. E., Balzer, W. K., Grauer, E., Burnfield, J. L., Lodato, M. A., & Cohen-Powless, M. A. (2005). Understanding the training needs of department chairs. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 571–593. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don't ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Badheshi, R. S., Schmidtke, J. M., Cummings, A., & Moore, S. D. (2008). The effects of diversity training on specific and general attitudes toward diversity. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 2(2), 87–106. Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(2), 161–180. Barge, J. K., & Musambira, G. W. (1992). Turning points in chair‐faculty relationships. Journal of
8
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
Applied Communication Research, 20(1), 54–77. Beddoes, K., Schimpf, C., & Pawley, A.L. (2015). Gender and Department Heads: An EmpiricallyInspired Literature Review. Presented June 2015 at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. Beddoes, K., & Pawley, A. L. (2014). ‘Different people have different priorities’: Work-family balance, gender, and the discourse of choice. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1573–1585. Beddoes, K., Schimpf, C., & Pawley, A. L. (2013). Engaging Foucault to better understand underrepresentation of female STEM faculty. Presented June 2013 at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Benschop, Y., & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 194–212. Bensimon, E. M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2000). Department Chair’s role in developing new faculty into teachers and scholars. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 707–724. Bøyum, S. (2014). Fairness in education – a normative analysis of OECD policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 856–870. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Gaughan, M. (2013). Power to do … What? Department heads’ decision autonomy and strategic priorities. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 303–328. Buller, J. L. (2006). The essential department Chair: A practical guide to college administration. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Bunch, K.J. (2007). Training Failure as a Consequence of Organizational Culture. Human Resource Development Review, 6(2), 142-163. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741. Carroll, J. B., & Wolverton, M. (2004). Who becomes a Chair? New Directions for Higher Education, 126, 3–10. Casio, W. F. (1988). Applied psychology in personnel management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chun, E. & Evans, A. (2015). The Department Chair as Transformative Diversity Leader: Building Inclusive Learning Environments in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Cooper, J. E., & Stevens, D. D. (2002). The journey toward tenure. In J. E. Cooper, & D. D. Stevens (Eds.), Tenure in the Sacred Grove: Issues and strategies for women and minority faculty (pp. 3– 16). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Coronel, J. M., Moreno, E., & Carrasco, M. J. (2010). Work-family conflicts and the organizational work culture as barriers to women educational managers. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(2), 219–239. Coultas, C., W., Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2012). Design, delivery, evaluation and transfer of training systems. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4th ed., (pp. 490–533). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Deem, R. (2003). Gender, organizational cultures and the practices of manager-academics in UK universities. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 239–259. Di Fabio, N. M., Brandi, C., & Frehill, L. M. (2008). Professional women and minorities: A total human resources data compendium. Washington, DC: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST).
9
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Beach, K. (2001). Implicit and explicit attitudes: Examination of the relationship between measures of intergroup bias. In R. Brown, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 175–197). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Dyer, B. G., & Miller, M. (1999). Critical review of literature related to the department Chair position. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED432193.pdf Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693–717. Fortin, M., & Fellenz, M. R. (2008). Hypocrisies of fairness: Towards a more reflexive ethical base in organizational justice research and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 415–433. Fox, M. F., Fonseca, C., & Bao, J. (2011). Work and family conflict in academic science: Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 715– 735. Gmelch, W. H. (2004). The department Chair’s balancing acts. New Directions for Higher Education, 126(Issue?), 69–84. Hall, S. (2007). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader (pp. 72–81). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hassi, A., & Storti, G. (2011). Organizational training across cultures: Variations in practices and attitudes. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(1), 45–70. Hecht, I. W. D., Higgerson, M. L., Gmelch, W. H., & Tucker, A. (1999). The department Chair as academic leader. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. Hemphill, H., & Haines, R. (1997). Discrimination, harassment and the failure of diversity training: What to do now. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Hofstede G., & Peterson, M.F. (2000). Culture: National Values and Organizational Practices. In N.M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson, Eds. Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 401-416). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Hubbell, L., & Homer, F. (1997). The academic department Chair: The logic of appeasement. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30(2), 209–213. Hurtubise, M. (1993). Sex in the department. In J. B. Bennett, & D. J. Figuli (Eds.), Enhancing departmental leadership: The roles of the chairperson (pp. 151–163). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Jacobs, K. W. (1989). Evaluating the department chairperson. Teaching of Psychology, 16(4), 219–221. King, E. B., Gulick, L. M. V., & Avery, D. R. (2010). The divide between diversity training and diversity education: Integrating best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34(6), 891–906. Kjeldal, S.-E., Rindfleish, J., & Sheridan, A. (2005). Deal-making and rule-breaking: Behind the facade of equity in academia. Gender and Education, 17(4), 431–447. Lam, T., C. M., Kolomitro, K., & Alamparambil, F., C. (2011). Empathy training: Methods, evaluation practices and validity. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7(16), 162–200. Leaming, D. R. (2003). Creating consensus among faculty. In D. R. Leaming (Ed), Managing people: A guide for department Chairs and Deans (pp. 43–64). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
10
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
Määttä, S., & Lyckhage, E. D. (2011). The influence of gender in academia: A case study of a university college in Sweden. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(5), 379–393. Mayer, A. L., & Tikka, P. M. (2008). Family-friendly policies and gender bias in academia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 363–374. Moody, J. (2011). Faculty diversity: Removing the barriers. New York: Routledge. Moody, J. (2004). Faculty diversity: Problems and solutions. New York: Routledge Falmer. National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13–304. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Nguyen, T. L. H. (2012). Identifying the training needs of heads of department in a newly established university in Vietnam. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(3), 309–321. Niemann, Y. F. (2012). Lessons from the experiences of women of color working in academia. In G. Gutiérrez y Muhs, Y. F. Niemann, C. G. González, & A. P. Harris (Eds.), Presumed incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia (pp. 446–499). Boulder, CO: The University Press of Colorado. Philipsen, M. I. (2008). Challenges of the faculty career for women: Success and sacrifice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Poulsen, C. (2005). Prestige in academia: A glance at the gender distribution. Stuttgart: Ibidem. Pyke, J. (2013). Women, choice and promotion or why women are still a minority in the professoriate. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 444–454. Rafnsdóttir, G. L. & Heijstra, T. M. (2013). Balancing work-family life in academia: The power of time. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(3), 283–295. Schimpf, C., Mercado Santiago, M., Hoegh, J., Banerjee, D., & Pawley, A. (2013). STEM Faculty and parental leave: Understanding an institution’s policy within a national policy context through structuration theory. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 5(2), 79–101. Shields, S. A., Zawadzki, M. J., & Johnson, R. N. (2011). The impact of the workshop activity for gender equity simulation in the academy (WAGES Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(2), 120–129. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany: State University of New York Press. Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139–168. van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(1), 71–92. Waerdt, L. V. (1993). Women in academic departments: Uneasy roles, complex relationships. In J. B. Bennett, & D. J. Figuli (Eds.), Enhancing departmental leadership: The roles of the chairperson (pp. 61–71). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Watson, G. W. (2003). Ideology and the symbolic construction of fairness in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(2), 154–168. Weststar, J. (2012). Negotiating in silence: Experiences with parental leave in academia. Industrial Relations, 67(3), 352–374. Wolfinger, N. H., Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. Journal of Higher Education, 79(Issue?), 388–405. Wolverton, M., & Ackerman, R. (2006). Cultivating possibilities: Prospective department Chair
11
PREPRINT – In Press at Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1232535
professional development and why it matters. Planning for Higher Education, 34(4), 14–23. Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C. (1999). Stress in academic leadership: U.S. and Australian department Chairs/Heads. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 165–185.
12
