Gender & Society in the Classroom: Gender in the Academy
Organized by: Deeb Kitchen, Florida Gulf Coast University
This review covers research pertaining to gender in the academy while focusing on the relationship between knowledge and power. This collection covers both the ways gender factors into academic knowledge production as well as gender’s influence on academics’ careers. These works focus primarily on university settings and highlight the ways institutions of higher education simultaneously exhibit gender inequality within them and function to reproduce it in the societies they are part of. These inequalities are visible in current academic career paths, institutional labor practices, cultural norms, trends in scholarship, and curriculum.
Because of the authority bestowed upon academic work, particularly in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (the STEM fields) and the recognition that more contributions from women are needed, debates that often occur regarding how to incorporate and retain female participation. As a result, many of these pieces either offer prescriptions for these problems or have implications for policy makers.
This article utilizes academic science as a site for examining gender inequality within society because of the influence it wields in shaping social relations and the stake governments have in it as a result of this influence and the costs it entails. Furthermore, since the qualities of rationality, objectivity and control that are closely associated with scientific inquiry are more typically ascribed to men than to women, it simultaneously reflects and reinforces gender inequality. The author explores the social and organizational context of science in relation to gender and social standing by addressing three questions. First, what is the status of women in scientific careers and what is the role of graduate education in these careers? Second, what are the implications for an analysis of gender? Third, where and how can we intervene? The results show that in spite of increasing numbers of females earning doctorate degrees in the sciences, from top tier schools, they have not advanced to the highest professional ranks at the same pace. This discrepancy occurs across all scientific fields, but it is most pronounced in the physical sciences. Women achieve full professorships in psychology at nearly twice the rate as in the physical sciences. The gender dynamics in academic departments, research groups, and advisor-student relationships all privilege men in ways that minimize women’s contributions and achievements by favoring standards most closely associated with men. All of this limits women’s abilities to demonstrate success in their fields and consequently, in society. The interventions seen as most promising are those that reorganize academic departments, establish new standards for rewarding and sanctioning work, and redistribute resources.
Through interviews with twenty-four scholars studying gender in Havana, Cuba over the last quarter of the twentieth century, Nunez documents the various approaches social scientists use. She focuses on their conceptualizations of gender, their methodological orientations, the specific methods they use, no-Cuban authors who influence their work, and the social context within which their research emerged. She focuses more on how they do their work rather than on the content of it. This analysis is admittedly collaborative. She allowed her participants to influence this research while it was being produced. For example, she modified her interviews when they suggested alternative questions. Nunez finds that the marginalization of women and homosexuals is the primary motivator for these scholars to study of gender. They see their research as part of a struggle for social justice. They also aim to develop a scientific understanding of society, which they see as aiding in their cause. All of the participants adhere to an eclectic approach to research, drawing on an array of literature and experiences. They are all familiar with the Soviet versions of Marxism, but they expressed a preference for drawing upon the classical and contemporary Marxist works. The participants almost universally employ both quantitative and qualitative methods, but they favor qualitative approaches. This is because they see them as superior for understanding subjective experiences. Quantitative data is typically used to contextualize their qualitative research. Nunez concludes with methodological suggestions her participants offer for students of gender: view gender as relational and embedded in power structures, avoid forcing your ideologies on participants in order to privilege their role in the research process, use multiple methods, and be open to changing your mind.
In this article, Leahey investigates the significance of research specialization in explaining gender differences in productivity levels among academic scientists. Her basic premise is that specialization as a variable has not received sufficient attention from scholars examining how gender influences academic careers. Instead, they have focused more on institutional-level factors. What is more, work examining specialization tends to concentrate on areas of specialization rather than on the extent of specialization, regardless of field of study. Using sociology and linguistics as the windows through which she looks, the author studies how frequently researchers engage in inquiry on the same substantive issues. She finds that women’s bodies of work are characterized by more breadth than their male colleagues. Women in academia specialize less than men do which diminishes their productivity. These measures of productivity are limited, and this study neglects other effects of specialization on matters such as institutional mobility, visibility in the field, job offers, salary, or career satisfaction. Leahey recognizes that more research on this topic that examines different outcomes is needed in order to craft a theory of specialization in work or to inform policy or career planning projects.
In this paper Whittington and Smith-Doer examine the sex differences in commercial productivity of scientists in relation to the institutional contexts they work within. They measure productivity through patenting rates. This is research expands previous research that primarily focuses on academic settings and characteristics of individual scientists by focusing on how organizational logic perpetuates inequalities among men and women. In general, data show that women are less likely to patent than their male colleagues, but when examining institutional settings, namely biotechnology firms, that feature “flatter, more flexible, network-based organizational structures” than academia or most industry, these differences disappear. Possible reasons for this are that flatter social relations provide for greater levels of teamwork that enhances the retention and therefore performance of women scientists, flatter social relations reduce discrepancies in the distribution of resources needed to conduct work, and these settings provide more management opportunities for females than academia which allows greater access to collaboration partners and information on the patenting process. This research has implications for all those making efforts to increase women’s participation and professional success in the sciences, but it also has ramifications for society more broadly. If we are to accept that the patented products produced will benefit society then it is important, these authors argue, to understand how to create a population of practitioners and inventors that more closely resembles the population as a whole.
This article investigates gender inequality in academia by comparing male and female faculty members’ time allocation. It focuses on teaching and research, how these are conceptualized and which they prefer. Winslow draws upon survey data collected from a national sample of postsecondary faculty in 1999. The author measures actual time allocation (percentage of time spent teaching and percentage of time spent conducting research) time allocation preferences (percentage of their workweeks faculty members would like to spend on teaching and research) time allocation mismatches (differences between preference and actual time spent on teaching and research) and sex (measured as male or female). The author controls for various aspects of work such as rank, discipline, and type of institution. The results of Winslow’s analysis show: (1) women would prefer to devote more of their time to teaching as opposed to men who favor research; (2) women actually spend more time teaching, and these differences cannot be attributed to educational attainment or types of institutions; (3) there is a greater difference between women’s preferred time allocations than men’s. These finding shed light on issues of gender inequality with regards to job satisfaction, productivity, and faculty recruitment and retention.
Using survey data gathered from 49 directors of undergraduate-level programs in the U.S. for women in science and engineering, these authors examine how such programs articulate and frame existing issues and problems, as well as solutions and strategies for improving access and participation for women. They identify four patterns: definitions of issues women in science and engineering must deal with, solutions put forward, stated goals as well the directors’ view on achieving them, and structural features of the programs in relation to their broader institutional setting of higher education. In general, they find that directors frame the subjects in terms of individual women, not as the products of relationships that are formed and influenced by the organizational or institutional contexts they are parts of. These findings illustrate some of the hurdles programs designed to enhance female participation in the sciences and engineering face. Moreover, it suggests reasons as to why so many of them come up short and fail to realize their goals.
Using interview data, the author explores how the gender practices of female scientists perpetuate and heighten gender barriers to advancement and acceptance within their disciplines. Women working in academic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) often find that cultural norms, expectations, and the image of the ideal scientist as dispassionate, objective and career-oriented promote behaviors that are most readily associated with men, devalue femininity and therefore restrict the range of acceptable behaviors for those working in the field. Through developing professional identities that make use of these norms and expectations, female scientists distinguish themselves from women who do not embody them. This is done by distancing themselves from practices deemed feminine and denying the existence or prevalence of gender inequality. By doing this, women reinforce the marginalization of other women as well as their work. This presents a contradiction. Although these gender behaviors may help to advance these women’s careers, they also entrench and strengthen the barriers to their success as female scientists. Ultimately, this functions to hamper change efforts as well as to maintain and legitimize gender inequality within the STEM fields.
Despite the considerable body of scholarship and practice on interconnected systems of dominance and its effects on women in different social locations, Chicanas remain “outside the frame” of mainstream academic feminist dialogues. This article provides an overview of the contributions of Chicana intersectional thought, research, and activism. We highlight four major scholarly areas of contribution: borders, identities, institutional inequalities, and praxis. Although not a full mapping of the Chicana/Latina presence in intersectionality, it proffers the distinctive features and themes defining the intersectional terrain of Chicana feminism.
Condom use among college men in the United States is notoriously erratic, yet we know little about these men’s approaches to other contraceptives. In this paper, accounts from 44 men attending a university in the western United States reveal men’s reliance on culturally situated ideas about gender, social class, race, and age in assessing the risk of pregnancy and STI acquisition in sexual encounters with women. Men reason that race- and class-privileged college women are STI-free, responsible for contraception, and will pursue abortion services if necessary. Since men expect women will take responsibility, they often stay silent about condoms and other contraceptives in sexual encounters—a process we term “strategic silence.” Men’s strategic silence helps uphold local constructions of hegemonic masculinity that prioritize men’s sexual desires and protects these constructions by subtly shifting contraceptive and sexual health responsibility onto women. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of men’s expectations of women for upholding constructions of hegemonic masculinity, which legitimate gender inequality in intimacy and are related to men’s underestimation of the risks associated with condom-free sex.
In this presidential address, I use the metaphor of “reclaiming my time” as a framework that highlights the ways black women are playing an essential role transforming workplaces, media, and politics in the current moment. I consider how black feminist thought provides a useful starting point for assessing these efforts, and I examine how black women’s leadership offers a blueprint for how other groups also can restructure social institutions in an era of increasing polarization and inequality.
Researchers have highlighted how gendered associations of femininity with emotional labor can complicate professional women’s attempts to exercise managerial authority. However, current understandings of how race and gender intersect in professional women’s emotional labor remain limited. We draw on 132 interviews from eight white women and 13 women of color who are novice principals. White women began the principalship wanting to establish themselves as emotionally supportive leaders who were open to others’ influence. They viewed emotional labor as existing in tension with showing authority as a leader. Over time, however, most white women reported adopting more directive practices. By contrast, women of color reported beginning the principalship with a more directive, take-charge leadership style. They viewed emotional labor and authority as part of a blended project and did not talk about these two aspects of leadership as existing in tension. Over time, their self-reported leadership style changed little. We analyze our findings in light of recent theorizing about gender and intersectionality.
A Black feminist disability framework allows for methodological considerations of the intersectional nature of oppression. Our work in this article is twofold: to acknowledge the need to consider disability in Black Studies and race in Disability Studies, and to forward an intersectional framework that considers race, gender, and disability to address the gaps in both Black Studies and Disability Studies. By employing a Black feminist disability framework, scholars of African American and Black Studies, Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Disability Studies have a flexible and useful methodology through which to consider the historical, social, cultural, political, and economic reverberations of disability.
In the past few decades, awareness around gender-based violence (GBV) has expanded on a global scale with increased attention in global treaties, organizations, and conferences. Previously a taboo topic, it is now viewed as a human rights violation in the broader world culture. Drawing on a quantitative analysis of 568 textbooks from 76 countries from across the world, we examine the extent to which this growing global attention to GBV has filtered down into national educational curricula. We find that textbook discussions of GBV are more prevalent in the post-1993 period and are linked to discussions of women’s rights. In addition, discussions of GBV are more common in countries with more linkages to the global women’s movement. Findings from our study underscore the influence of the women’s rights movement and the radical feminist perspective on the reframing of GBV as a human rights issue.
Drawing on 68 interviews with South Korean students at elite U.S. colleges, this article examines the intersectional power of gender and class in elite transnational parenting—a family strategy for class reproduction. Well-educated, stay-at-home mothers intensively managed their children’s school activities, often relying on gender-segregated networks, mostly during early school years. By contrast, cosmopolitan professional fathers heavily engaged in guiding their children’s education abroad and career preparation in later years, using their class resources (i.e., English proficiency, professional careers, and social networks of other elites). In high-achieving children’s narratives, mothers’ lifelong care for and management of their private life was undervalued and criticized, while fathers’ growing involvement in their higher education and career was highly valued and appreciated. The elite fathers’ occasional yet detailed involvement challenges the dichotomy that has long stereotyped Korean—or East Asian—mothers as overinvolved and fathers as distant in their children’s lives, especially with regard to education. Gender, through intensive parenting, reinforces and reproduces class disparity between elite couples and within their families.
This address examines a growing problem in academia: the public targeted online harassment of faculty. This harassment, organized and carried out by the alt-right and supported by other sectors of the right wing across the spectrum from mainstream to extreme, are intended to silence faculty and censor the curriculum. I examine a range of contextual factors that have facilitated this phenomenon, and discuss the experiences of seven other people, as well as myself, all with connections to higher education, that have experienced this unique form of attack. These conversations provide insight into the patterns evident in the form of the attack, individual and university responses, and informed the creation of lists of recommendations for those experiencing, preparing, and responding to attacks.
Ample sociological evidence demonstrates that binary gender ideologies are an intractable part of formal organizations and that transgender issues tend to be marginalized by a wide range of social institutions. Yet, in the last 15 years, more than 200 colleges and universities have attempted to ameliorate such realities by adopting gender-inclusive facilities in which students of any gender can share residential and restroom spaces. What cultural logics motivate these transformations? How can their emergence be reconciled with the difficulty of altering the gender order? Using an original sample of 2,036 campus newspaper articles, I find that support for inclusive facilities frames such spaces as a resource through which an institution can claim improved standing in the field of higher education. This process of engendering reputation allows traditional gender separation in residential arrangements to be overcome, but it also situates institutional responsiveness to transgender issues as a means of enhancing a college or university’s public prestige. This, in turn, produces novel status systems in the field of higher education—albeit ones that perpetuate familiar forms of institutional and cultural exclusion.
Our study highlights specific ways in which race and gender create inequality in the workplace. Using in-depth interviews with 67 biology PhD students, we show how engagement with research and service varies by both gender and race. By considering the intersection between gender and race, we find not only that women biology graduate students do more service than men, but also that racial and ethnic minority men do more service than white men. White men benefit from a combination of racial and gender privilege, which places them in the most advantaged position with respect to protected research time and opportunities to build collaborations and networks beyond their labs. Racial/ethnic minority women emerge as uniquely disadvantaged in terms of their experiences relative to other groups. These findings illuminate how gendered organizations are also racialized, producing distinct experiences for women and men from different racial groups, and thus contribute to theorizing the intersectional nature of inequality in the workplace.
Almost 40 years ago, scholars identified a “chilly climate” for women in college classrooms. To examine whether contemporary college classrooms remain “chilly,” we conducted quantitative and qualitative observations in nine classrooms across multiple disciplines at one elite institution. Based on these 95 hours of observation, we discuss three gendered classroom participation patterns. First, on average, men students occupy classroom sonic space 1.6 times as often as women. Men also speak out without raising hands, interrupt, and engage in prolonged conversations during class more than women students. Second, style and tone also differ. Men’s language is assertive, whereas women’s is hesitant and apologetic. Third, professors’ interventions and different structures of classrooms can alter existing gender status hierarchies. Extending Ridgeway’s gender system framework to college classrooms, we discuss how these gendered classroom participation patterns perpetuate gender status hierarchies. We thus argue that the chilly climate is an underexplored mechanism for the stalled gender revolution.