Career mobility from associate to full professor in academia: micro-political practices and implicit gender stereotypes

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of literature, based on O’Connor et al. (2017).

Micro-political practices	Meaning	Consequences
(1) Masculine practices	Refers to the ‘monastic’ image of the scientist	The university is considered a ‘care-free zone’ where women do not fit in (Lynch 2010; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012; Fotaki 2013; Harford 2018). Women are still considered caregivers and, thereby, more approachable by students (Angervall 2018; El-Alayli, Hansen-Brown, and Ceynar 2018).
(2) Relational practices	Relationship, rather than objective assessments of the applicant’s merit, is considered crucial	Through nepotism and sponsorship, objective assessment fails (Van den Brink and Benschop 2014)
(3) Local fit practices	New members should be selected from an ‘internal dominant group’	Academic/intellectual inbreeding and selective recruitment (e.g. Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke 1999; Castilla and Benard 2010; Teelken and Deem 2013; Moss-Racusin et al. 2014)

Table 2. List of respondents, their features, scores and responses.

Respondents		Research methods
		IAT		Vignettes		Interviews
Code	Gender	Gender association	Score	Preference male/female features	CV male/ female	Opinion about the % of female full professors	Glass ceiling
R4m	Male	Little to no association	0.01	Male	Female	Low	Yes, but also for men
R13f	Female		0.03	Male	Female	Low
R6m	Male		0.07	Male	Female	Low
R14m	Male	Slight to moderate association	0.26	Male	Female	Low	Different opinions
R7f	Female		0.31	Male	Female	Low
R1f	Female		0.35	Female	Female	Low
R12m	Male		0.37	Male	Male	Fine, many women
R10m	Male	Moderate to strong association	0.61	Female	Female	Low	No, but women have to perform better
R5m	Male		0.62	Male	Female	Low
R8m	Male		0.68	Female	Female	Low
R2m	Male		0.68	Female	Female	Fine
R3f	Female		0.71	Male	Female	Low
R9m	Male	Strong association	0.94	Male	Male	Low	Yes
R11f	Female		0.98	Male	Female	Low

Table 3. Overview of our findings.

Organisational culture	Micro-political masculine practices	Outcomes: reinforced gender stereotypes
Typically masculine Macho culture Old-boys’ networks Competition Output driven (meritocracy) Managerialism Play the game Friendliness is not appreciated Long workdays Sacrifice is required	Practices related to gender-balancing policies No structural commitment to positive gender-enhancement policies Ambiguous and mixed appreciation of previous and existing policies by individual professors	- The women who ‘play the game’ according to the existing system are those who are promoted fast and will, in turn, select women who also know how to ‘play the game’
	Practices related to recruiting and selecting full professors Lack of transparency Preferred candidates are known beforehand → sponsoring and nepotism → inbreeding and local fit Homophily Cherry-picking between output-driven (meritocracy) and managerialism	- The existing informal networks reinforce nepotism because preferred candidates are selected based on the homophily of their sponsors. - Output-driven culture is based on fierce competition and favours managerial and leadership features of the candidate
	Practices related to work–life tensions Women are not willing to work full-time No room/time for family life Women are not fully committed	- Women are simply less interested in further career progress

Table 4. Combined overview of findings.

Micro-political practices	Meaning	Respondents with a strong stereotype scored higher on the IAT, meaning that they think more in stereotypes	Respondents with a weak stereotype scored lower on the IAT, meaning that unconsciously they think less in stereotypes
(1) Masculine practices	Refers to the ‘monastic’ image of the scientist	They still see the university as a strong macho culture; ‘We still behave like a group of sexist macho men from the fifties’ R9m. (R3f, R8m, R11f). Working part-time is not possible (R11f); men are better at focussing themselves on their work (R2m, R3m, R9m).	In contradiction, the respondents who scored lower on the IAT find that women who ‘survived’ and succeed in the masculine culture have adapted themselves (R1f, R7f, R12m, R14m) therefore maintaining the masculine culture.
(2) Relational practices	Relationship rather than any objective assessments of the applicant’s merit being crucial	Committee members are vulnerable and open to personal preferences and often select candidates who are like themselves. There is always something personal, subjective about these procedures (R2m, R3f, R5m, R8m, R10m)	Policy activities that intend to stimulate women’s’ career do not help to solve the problem as a whole, as they do not do justice to the complexity of the situation (R1f, R4m, R14m)
(3) Local fit	New members should be selected from an ‘internal dominant group’	To be eligible for a professorship, women have to perform especially well (R2m, R5m, R8m)	Some of these aspects such as social commitment, compassion, friendliness (R12m), sustaining relationships, and aiming for consensus (R7f) are considered less relevant for a full professorship (R1f), although friendly colleagues are appreciated (R12m, R14m)

O’Connor, P., E. Montez López, C. O’ Hagan, A. Wolffram, M. Aye, V. Chizzola, O. Mich, et al. 2017. “Micro-political Practices in Higher Education: A Challenge to Excellence as a Rationalising Myth?” Critical Studies in Education. doi:10.1080/17508487.2017.1381629.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lynch, K. 2010. “Carelessness: A Hidden Doxa of Higher Education.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 9: 54–67. doi: 10.1177/1474022209350104

 Google Scholar

Ward, K., and L. E. Wolf-Wendel. 2012. Academic Motherhood: Managing Work and Family. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

 Google Scholar

Fotaki, M. 2013. “No Woman is Like a Man (in Academia): The Masculine Symbolic Order and the Unwanted Female Body.” Organization Studies 34 (9): 1251–75. doi: 10.1177/0170840613483658

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Harford, J. 2018. “The Perspectives of Women Professors on the Professoriate: A Missing Piece in the Narrative on Gender Equality in the University.” Education Sciences 8 (2): 50. doi:10.3390/educsci8020050. Special Issue on Gender and Leadership, ed. Pat O' Connor.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Angervall, P. 2018. “The Academic Career: A Study of Subjectivity, Gender and Movement among Women University Lecturers.” Gender and Education 30 (1): 105–118. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2016.1184234

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

El-Alayli, A., A. A. Hansen-Brown, and M. Ceynar. 2018. “Dancing Backwards in High Heels: Female Professors Experience More Work Demands and Special Favor Requests, Particularly from Academically Entitled Students.” Sex Roles 79 (3–4): 136–150. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0872-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van den Brink, M., and Y. Benschop. 2014. “Gender in Academic Networking: The Role of Gatekeepers in Professorial Recruitment.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (3): 460–92. doi: 10.1111/joms.12060

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steinpreis, R. E., K. A. Anders, and D. Ritzke. 1999. “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study.” Sex Roles 41: 509–28. doi: 10.1023/A:1018839203698

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Castilla, E. J., and S. Benard. 2010. “The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 543–76. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Teelken, C., and R. Deem. 2013. “All Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others: Managerialism and Gender Equality in Higher Education in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Education 49 (4): 520–35. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2013.807642

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2012. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar