Women’s Academic Career Trajectory to the Top: Strategies and Ways of Doing Gender

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the political approach to gender balance in academia has shifted from “fixing the women” to “fixing the system”. Based on an action research (AR) project aimed at enabling more women to qualify for senior positions in the academic field and conducted at one of Norway’s largest university colleges, this study explores the expectations of the participants during the initial phase of the project regarding what measures and strategies the project should offer. Using method triangulation, I have garnered insights into the priorities of these women, the polarizations that arose, and the consequences of these polarizations—all regarding the differences between the participants in strategic preferences and ways of doing gender. More specifically, this research unpacks conflicting norms of these women concerning factors such as community, support and care versus self-protection, individual competition, and professional goal-orientedness. This study mainly draws on the discourse analysis resources and theoretical contributions of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault.

KEYWORDS:

• Women’s career strategies
• academic career trajectory: full professor
• doing gender perspectives
• identity

1. Introduction

Gender imbalance at the senior levels of academia is a pervasive phenomenon across the Western world. Norway is no exception, notwithstanding its being widely regarded as a country that has achieved a high degree of gender equality.

Similar to other Nordic countries, Norway has traditionally upheld a broad political commitment to women’s integration into almost all public spheres. Access to publicly funded kindergartens for all children, subsidized after-school care, and paid parental leave for both men and women are all key measures that allow parents to significantly balance work and family life.

Although Norway has many women in the upper echelons of organizational hierarchies, especially in politics and the private sector, the proportion of women in top academic positions has historically been weak. However, there have been significant signs of change in recent years. From 2000 to 2022, the proportion of female full professors rose from 16 to 36%, an average increase of nearly one percent per year (DBH, 2023). However, this means that men still hold 64% of these top positions in academia.

The relatively weak representation of women in full professorships is challenging in several ways. From my perspective, their absence from senior academic positions gives women less power and opportunities to influence professional development, research priorities, resource allocation, and staff recruitment. In addition, having relatively fewer women than men in senior positions will probably limit the breadth of the research questions that are formulated and the knowledge that is produced.¹ Altogether, this impacts women’s individual and collective opportunities for power and influence.

The situation of women in academia and their career path to full professorship seems to differ somewhat from that of men—in significant areas. It takes women 3.5 years longer than men to advance from associate to full professor (Freeman et al., 2020). We also know that male academics, in general, are more protective of their research time, and they are also allocated more time for research than their female counterparts (Misra et al., 2012). Furthermore, male academics prioritize time in service of the profession—which is more prestigious—while women spend more time in service to the university (Misra et al., 2012). In addition, women engage more in so-called “emotional service work” (Hochschild, 1979), such as advising, counselling, and emotionally supporting students (Bellas, 1999)—work that is both demanding and necessary, but typically accorded too little merit with respect to academic advancement. Meanwhile, research production is strongly emphasized when academics apply for full professorship. In light of this, the research conditions for the individual academic are of great importance, which indicates that their leaders play an important role. In a Norwegian study, gender differences in research production were linked to the different ways women and men were met; more men had been encouraged to apply for research time by their leaders, compared to women in similar positions (Tømte et al., 2016, p. 55). Other recent Norwegian studies justify the lack of gender balance with a complex interplay of institutional and family-related conditions, where apparently gender-neutral norms and values embodied in institutional practices play a role (Branser & Sümer, 2016)—and that gender still functions as a structural barrier (Ulvestad, 2017).

Altogether, this indicates that the working conditions and the content and amount of work conducted by academics are unequally distributed in favour of men with respect to progressing to full professorship. Gender, therefore, sets the conditions for such a career in academia, which can be experienced as challenging for female academics who are directly affected—and also for those generally concerned with contributing to a better gender balance.

Nordic universities have over the past years applied a variety of measures, both on individual and structural levels, to address the underrepresentation of women in top academic positions (Husu, 2010; Nielsen, 2017). Currently, there is a lack of studies on the effects, and we still have limited knowledge about what strategies is needed in this field to promote equality in academic careers (Drange et al., 2023).

1.1. Setting the Scene

The vital framework conditions for those who want a career path to full professorship have changed in recent decades. Although specific reforms in higher education have taken varied forms in different countries, they all share a similar market logic, with values based on patterns adopted from the private sector. This entails goals and results management, in addition to individual, institutional, and national competition (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007; Collini, 2017). Neoliberal strategies with a focus on economic innovation and effectiveness have engendered a belief in progressively greater involvement and influence from leaders in general—at different levels (Blackmore, 2019; Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007). Internationally, this development has been labelled “the leaderist turn”, and it has strengthened hierarchies and given increased authority to leaders in academia (Morley, 2013, p. 117). In addition, Norwegian academia has, due to these ideological changes, developed in the direction of increased pressure on individual researchers regarding workload and allocated research time (NIFU, 2021), and by extension, possibilities for advancement to full professorships (Aagaard, 2015; Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007). This situation may represent a substantial obstacle to the careers of female academics, as the fear of unreasonably high work pressure and limited time for family life is one of the key factors that concerns women in connection with pursuing senior positions in academia (Acker & Armenti, 2004; Grandey et al., 2020; Lund, 2018; Mountz, 2016)—even in an advanced welfare state such as Norway (Drake & Svenkerud, 2023; Svenkerud et al., 2019).

Over the last few years, the gender imbalance in senior positions in Norwegian academia has been viewed with concern at various political levels. Both the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research and the Research Council of Norway have intensified their gender equality policy efforts. This policy aims to increase the number of female full professors—among other things—by making funds available for gender equality measures such as the Programme for Gender Balance in Senior Positions and Research Management (BALANSE) (The Research Council of Norway, 2014).

2. A Local Gender Balance Project

This study is based on data from one element of a local gender balance project Female Researchers, Learning, Organisation, and Gender Balance (KLOK), conducted at one of Norway’s largest university colleges from 2015 to 2017. At the time, the institution was involved in comprehensive merger processes geared towards achieving full university accreditation. There was intense attention on the merger and less on other matters, such as the career path to the senior level for female academics. Concurrently, many middle managers (heads of departments) were new in their roles, and only a few had themselves experienced the career path to full professorship.

In recent years, the political approach to gender balance in academia both internationally and in Norway has shifted from an emphasis on “fixing the women” – understood as interventions aimed at helping individual women break through the glass ceiling – to “fixing the system”, translating to a much stronger focus on changing the culture and other structures that impede women’s career progress to senior positions in academia (Burkinshaw & White, 2017; The Research Council of Norway, 2014). The KLOK project aimed to increase the number of women at the senior level in academia based on both structural and individual measures. However, the balance between different types of measures was not categorically determined at the very beginning of this project. KLOK was established as an action research (AR) project for which participation is a critical aspect of the methodological approach. This set the stage for the participants (women) to contribute to adjustments and changes to the formulated measures and strategies in the course of the project.

In this study, I focus on both the choices the women make and the processes in which they participate. The aim is to examine what kind of measures and strategies the women in KLOK consider appropriate for their career paths to full professor—and to unpack the sources for their preferences and how these relates to their different ways of doing gender.

3. Theoretical Approaches

3.1. Concepts of Power and Meaning

To achieve the goals of this study, I primarily draw on the theoretical insights of the social philosopher Michel Foucault and Smith (1972, 1991) and the philosopher Judith Butler (1988, 1990, 1993, 2004). Their common understanding of the normative character of discourse that shapes both speech and actions are central to the analyses in this study and contribute to perspectives on key aspects of our understanding.

Foucault understands power as operating through discourse and practices that produce, position, and destabilize subjects (Foucault, 1991). This concept of power is especially compatible with Butler’s perspective on gender as performative, with gendered subjects as the ontological effects of discursive processes (Butler, 1993). In her ground-breaking book, Gender Trouble, Butler (1990) makes an important contribution to our understanding of gender as a phenomenon and how gender works. Through the concept of gender performativity, Butler describes how social gender is an effect of repeated improvised performances or stagings, a series of imitations of what we associate with women and men in our particular culture. Thus, she emphasizes how social gender is the performative effect of how gender is done within the current culture in keeping with existing social norms—because we abide by these norms (Butler, 1990).

Butler clarifies that gender is the result of extensive cultural and personal work. We ourselves are always implicated, and simultaneously, it is a social and cultural process (Butler, 1990). The subject has no fixed “core” or “essence” but creates itself by persistently relating to itself in a reflexive or interpretive way. Identity is not based on “natural” or “inherent” characteristics but on a need to experience oneself as a unified subject (Butler, 1993).

Based on Butler’s concern with the ontological, the point that gender does not have an independent being and that gender identity is a discursive effect is critical. The individual can step into the established discourse—or choose to step out of it, thereby breaking with the established discourse. Citation constitutes the force of a performative, and repetitions, practices of citation, by words and action are central to Butler’s understanding of how radical changes can be sought (Butler, 2004). She claims that “[…] none of us are totally determined by cultural norms. Gender then becomes a negotiation, a struggle, a way of dealing with historical constraints and making new realities” (Gleeson, 2021).

Butler’s work develops on Foucault’s understanding of discourse. According to Foucault and Smith (1972), discourses are practices and ways of speaking and writing about current social realities that systematically form the objects that they seem to be about or reference. These objects emerge through being directly or indirectly mentioned by individuals partaking in social life in various ways. This knowledge production occurs within given institutional frameworks, which set limits on what can be seen and thematized in the current reality.

Drawing on these insights from Butler and Foucault, the discourse analysis in this study involves an investigation of the language and meanings that emerge as social practices in concrete social situations. Because meanings are based on context, the aspect of a discourse surrounding a language unit will help determine its interpretation. Hence, situating the discourse in its concrete context becomes essential. Therefore, I provide a systematic account of how the study was conducted and the context framing the various statements that are analysed.

4. Methodological Approaches

4.1. Action Research

The study from which my data is derived is an AR project situated at the University College of South-Eastern Norway (UCSN) and aimed at enabling more women to qualify for senior positions in academia, as full professors. AR is based on a democracy-oriented view of science and can be described as “a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1). The AR method places great emphasis on the interaction between the researchers and the participants regarding creating knowledge and change (Greenwood & Levin, 2007).

The research group for this study comprises four KLOK participants, including the project leader. All four of us were associate professors when the project commenced, each with extensive experience in academia. We were responsible for planning and implementing the seminars and analysing all types of data collected for the AR process. A typical AR characteristic is a conscious and active self-involvement of the researcher in the ongoing investigation. In contrast to the objective science approach, in which the researcher is argued to be an impartial observer (Chalmers, 1982), the AR researcher is considered a central actor in the research process (Abalkhail, 2021; Checkland & Holwell, 1998). Objectivity is, therefore, not a goal in such a project, and the researchers accept that they are always involved. However, the point is to be aware of your own subjectivity and to relate to it reflexively (Haraway, 1988). Simultaneously, following the procedures deemed necessary for valid research is critical (Anderson & Herr, 1999).

4.2. Data Sources and Analysis Strategies

Fifty-eight female associate professors aged 38–64 signed up for the KLOK project via invitation from the project leader in collaboration with their department heads. Different disciplines were represented among these women, including health care, educational research, mathematics, human rights studies, economy, marketing, management, history, and biology. The women met for one- and two-day seminars three times a year to network and share knowledge, experiences, and information, in addition to workshops, discussions, and group sessions on relevant topics. The data material used in this aspect of the study was collected during the first two-day seminar, conducted as a search conference, i.e. an AR arena in which participants work to bring about change (Emery & Purser, 1996). All data were intended as resources for initiating actions in the project, adjusting the progress and focus of the project, and as a basis for research. The data were collected and analysed as follows:

1. On the first evening of the seminar, the participants were challenged to discuss classical AR-oriented topics in small groups (group work, Table 1). Each group wrote a report on their discussion, and that same evening, the members of the research group read all the reports to get a first overview of the participants’ concerns. We searched for patterns and themes—and what was not, or hardly, mentioned.

   Table 1. Data sources.

   Step 1	Group work based on one instruction	Describe your current career challenges, offer input on what the KLOK project could do to create a more desirable situation for you, and clarify your expectations regarding the project’s priorities.	35 participants in 7 groups
   Step 2	Plenum dialogue	Observation of the plenum session.	35 participants in plenum
   Step 3	Reflection log with two questions	(a) What do I think is the most important thing that the KLOK project can do for me? (b) What do I need from the KLOK project to realize my plans to gain professorship during the period I have planned?	35 individual written logs

2. The following morning, an analysis of all the reports was presented to all the participants in plenum by the project leader for further feedback to ensure that our interpretation was sufficiently nuanced and to avoid gaps or misunderstandings. The group work reports were then presented by the various group leaders. Thereafter, the participants proceeded to dialogue in plenum aimed at establishing a unified summary of the participants’ collective concerns regarding the AR project. Throughout this plenary, the research group—and a project staff appointed for this purpose—performed participatory observations, noting the observed articulations and happenings (Table 1).

3. Later the second day, the participants were asked to write an individual reflection log based on two questions (Reflection Log a & b, Table 1). Data analysis was conducted as follows: first, the logs were read repeatedly to identify statements related to various types of measures and strategies; second, based on these general considerations, textual data were examined and interpreted to find patterns and themes, which were then used to organize the relevant statements.

The purpose of this data triangulation is to access rich data material and thereby be able to shed light on the issues from different angles. Triangulation between different sources and methods provides several perspectives that can be considered comparatively, thereby strengthening validity and preventing simplification and bias (Anderson & Herr, 1999). However, logs, as a data collection method, set some limitations because the method does not permit follow-up questions. Nonetheless, individual logs may be better than interviews when researching one’s own organization. According to Brannick and Coghlan (2007), there is a risk of being too close to the data when performing insider interviews, that is, assuming too much and therefore not investigating the issues sufficiently. With group reports and individual log writing, the research group did not influence this part of the data generation except for formulating the log and report questions.

Conversely, the plenum dialogue on the second day involved interactions between members of the research group and the participants. However, this interaction was geared towards getting the participants’ responses to the research group’s interpretations of the group reports from the night before—not to change their strategic priorities. In this kind of project, the potential for researcher bias may be lowered by actively involving the research participants in verifying and confirming the results.

To ensure the anonymity of the participants, which has been vital throughout the research process, I have not used their real names or provided any information on their ages or disciplines when citing their statements.

5. Findings and Discussions

5.1. Group Reports—What Is Present, and What Is Hardly Mentioned?

The written reports from the group sessions on the first day were structured by the groups point by point. Much of the content overlapped: The participants wanted the project to provide them with general information and concrete knowledge that would help them build suitable strategies for their personal career paths to full professorship. They also wanted the project to function as a pressure group to create more ideal research conditions by legitimizing the time and effort they devote to research—in addition to other primary responsibilities, e.g. teaching. Furthermore, they wanted the project to contribute to supportive leadership, with their leaders deeply understanding what it takes to become a full professor. The statements were primarily about general challenges, i.e. difficulties that affect everyone aiming for full professorial competence, regardless of gender.

However, there were also some somewhat incomprehensible statements in two of the group reports. One of these two groups wrote the following: “Gender perspective: ‘Women accept to extend themselves beyond the framework’. ‘If you take this on, you take on that one too’” (G2). The second group formulated a short exclamation: “SAY NO” (G1). The research group expected to have these statements elaborated during the plenary session or the reflection log session scheduled for the next day.

5.2. Plenum—the Taboo Bursts Open

During the plenary session on day two, the project leader presented the research group’s summary of the group reports and expressed her surprise that the participants had predominantly mentioned general challengers, and that there was very little in their reports that dealt with gender barriers specifically. Raising this issue during the plenary session appeared to cause some unease among the participants. Such a reaction is of particular interest in discourse analysis. Unease may facilitate identifying conflicts and accessing the challenges of the discourse (Neumann, 2001).

The unease during the plenary session turned out to be about the research group’s interpretation of the reports. One participant, after a period of some silence, hesitation, and consultation with her group, claimed that gender-related challenges certainly had been discussed in their group, but that for various and partly diffuse reasons, these challenges were not sufficiently communicated in their report because they had an uncomfortable understanding that those topics “did not fit”. Participants in her group (Group 2) had been concerned about the tendency for women to take on too much responsibility at work, which in turn ate into their private and family lives. A participant from another group then took the floor and mentioned that her group had spoken about how women often took on too much: “Women accept that they stretch themselves too far. If you take this, then you also take that”. They had also criticized the existing UCSN culture, where becoming a professor demanded “a considerable private effort”, and they had agreed that it was necessary to strengthen individual female researchers’ ability and willingness to “say no” when asked to take on more work than was reasonable. They did not wish to give up important parts of their lives, such as time with family, and highlighted that “if a big private sacrifice must be made [to become a full professor], then it isn’t worth it”. However, another participant expressed scepticism about this argument. She stated that “unfortunately you don’t become a professor without spending time both evenings and weekends”. No one commented on this. In academia, such a statement is not particularly controversial, as it expresses a well-known norm.

After that round of updating nuances and shades of meaning, the plenary session jointly decided to include the issue of work—life balance challenges faced by female researchers in the summary. At this point, we could only conclude that the silence around gender barriers and work—life balance challenges had been broken, catalysed by the project leader’s remark on the near absence of gender barrier perspectives. The complete background of the initial silence remained unknown to the research group – a secret narrative, as it were. This term refers to an AR study where, like in this study, the researchers established a close cooperative relationship between themselves and the practitioners, and through unpredictable events gained access to what would otherwise have remained hidden (Postholm & Skrøvset, 2013).

However, according to Foucault (1978), silence might indicate discretion, a limit to what can be said in a concrete context. It appears there was a sort of discretionary limit in the KLOK discourse by which the participants felt bound—at least, if they had to express themselves concerning their lives and career situations in a large assembly of mostly unfamiliar colleagues. Such limits to thematizing work—life balance challenges are well-known phenomena. Previous studies have shown that significant aspects of women’s personal lives tend to be taboo topics in working life, both in and outside of academia (Acker & Armenti, 2004; Grandey et al., 2020; Lund, 2018; Mountz, 2016). In academia, there are notions that bringing up such topics tends to define the individual as “not being an acceptable academic” (Acker & Armenti, 2004, p. 11; Lund, 2018, p. 9). Essentially, the work—life challenges faced by female researchers become not only a challenge they must deal with but also something that defines them.

Per Butler, we know that the power structures in a society are rooted in historical and culture-based norms. We also know that norms can be changed through active actions. The participants’ agreement to include work—life challenges in the plenum summary was such a collective form of an active action—a struggle—as Butler refers to (Gleeson, 2021). When the women opened up about the taboo, they set aside an underpinning norm. This can be considered a social negotiation between women and the culture of academia. Together, the participants created a new reality, according to Butler (Gleeson, 2021); work—life challenges were no longer—at this time—a considerable threat to being perceived as “an acceptable academic”. However, the fundamental challenge in the women’s experience (i.e. that large workloads threaten their quality of life) did not disappear.

This turning point during the plenary session, when the taboo burst open, did not come about by itself. The participants’ thematization of the norms underpinning the taboo seemed to depend on the legitimacy created by the project leader for bringing up structural barriers for discussion in the plenary setting. From a methodological perspective, it is of interest to reflect on whether the interaction in the plenum, where the participants agreed to include the work—life challenges in the joint summary, was a power situation in itself; whether the project leader exerted her influence in the plenum in a way that impacted the discourse, thus abusing a form of power, which in turn led to the taboo being uncovered. To this end, the method triangulation employed in this study makes it possible to follow traces of the work—life taboo across all three data sources—both through the Group 2 report, the plenary dialogue, and in some of the individual reflection logs (as we will see later on). This facilitates validating that work—life challenges were something that several participants themselves wanted to put on the agenda, not a result of manipulation by the project leader. Since AR is based on participatory, democratic processes (Reason & Bradbury, 2001), this is a crucial point.

5.3. Individual Reflection Logs—Input to Various Strategies

5.3.1. Sharing Knowledge and Insights

In the individual reflection logs, several women expressed the expectation that the project would be a professional, educational, and collegial network in which knowledge and experiences about what it took to become a full professor could be shared. Many primarily emphasized their individual needs, while others wanted KLOK to be a collective knowledge development project conducted in a spirit of cooperation and community.

Siri wrote, [I need] knowledge about what it takes to become a professor (R29). Margareth wrote, “[I need] exchange of knowledge” (R32). Karin claimed that she needs “better insight into what is required of a professorship application […] The community in KLOK provides something extra, and makes the plans appear more realistic” (R8). Lene wants the KLOK project to aim at developing a culture of collective knowledge at UCSN. I don’t just hope for specific people to work with and build networks with, but to develop a consciously inclusive culture of knowledge, i.e. invites to a research community, share own knowledge, establish arenas/websites for idea development. (R31)

However, the participants were not only concerned with sharing knowledge and experience but also wanted assistance from external resource persons. Several participants wanted a mentor who could follow up on them, an assessment of their curricula vitae (CV) to enable them to appraise their progress, financial support for exceptions from teaching assignments, and economic resources to build an international network. Overall, these can be understood as the participants being concerned with strategies ensuing from KLOK that support their need for knowledge and insight through both individual and structural approaches.

5.3.2. Leadership As a Condition for Success

Leadership turned out to be a very central theme in the reflection logs. Many participants claimed that the conditions for success in their careers depended on the increased awareness, support, and professional judgement of their key leaders, such as the Heads of departments.

Karin argued, “I also need acceptance from my leader that it is demanding and takes time to write articles” (R8). Gina wrote, “Management training can contribute to my leaders becoming aware of what needs to be done, and thus facilitate in a better way” . (R2)

These participants were concerned that they lack leaders who understand their situation. They experience themselves as dependent on support from their leaders but do not believe that the leaders have sufficient insight into, or acceptance of, their career challenges. Monica mentions both mentoring and exemption from teaching as critical measures. In addition, she also points to the cross-pressure between teaching and research:

[I need] support and visibility, that this [my research] is not an individual project, but something important for UCSN […]. This is important in relation to pressure and expectations from the department’s own management that teaching tasks must come first. (R7)

Here, Monica points to the challenge that many women experience, which has been demonstrated in several studies: that women in academia face stronger demands than their male colleagues to prioritize teaching. Globally, this is part of a larger pattern, in which statistical breakdowns show that female academics below the age of 40 deliver most of the teaching and teaching preparation hours (European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2008). However, Monica does not make this a question of either gender or age in her log. Instead, she wants her manager’s support because she fears that the department’s own management will decide that her research should be given a lower priority than her teaching tasks. In this way, Monica calls for strategic management that defends her opportunities to do research.

5.3.3. Strategic Leadership

A constant and persistent point in the participants’ logs was a desire for KLOK to work at the management level. Signe wrote, “The most important thing the KLOK project can contribute to, for me, is to make the heads of department and other leaders aware of what is required for facilitation for me to be able to reach my career goal” (R23). Maja was also concerned about strategic leadership: “[It is necessary to] teach department heads strategic leadership that enables them to prepare tasks that provide opportunities to realise this path” (R27). Thus, they are both concerned with the fact that their success depends on strategic leadership and management facilitating their careers.

Erica elaborates on the relationship between the leaders’ support and her targeted individual strategy when she highlights what she considers to be an important topic: competition for meritorious tasks.

To have an aim is very important, a focus on what I, myself, and others (also leaders) should do (and should not) to get to this. There is little time and very many tasks, and priorities must be made when it comes to who gets the various tasks. Many want the tasks that give merit. There should (must) be conscious choices made about who gets the different tasks […] they should not be given to those who scream the loudest. […] (R9)

Erica calls for leaders who make conscious and strategic choices in their distribution of the meritorious tasks that the participants need to achieve their goal of becoming a full professor.

Within a neoliberal academy in which hierarchies have become stronger and managers have gained immense authority (Morley, 2013), women’s dependence on their closest leaders for their career situations can become a critical factor (Branser & Sümer, 2016).In the quotes above, we have seen that the women in KLOK highlight the importance of the leaders’ strategic role. It remains a bit unclear, however, whether they are most concerned with the individual leader’s ability to see just them and their personal needs, or whether they are equally preoccupied about leaders’ general knowledge and willingness to support female academics needs in their careers. However, one does not exclude the other. Most likely these women are addressing both the individual leader and the institutional management culture.

5.3.4. Rejecting a System That Holds Women Back

Erica elaborates on the work—life challenges in the next paragraph in her log:

Some of us [in the group] wanted to emphasise the importance of saying no. It is important, I think; some of us are almost swamped by tasks, taking more time than what is assumed. Some of us have young children at home and no free time […] and some of us have colleagues with chronic illnesses who are unable to do what they are expected to do […]. For some of us, all these tasks and requirements are in line on many fronts. Saying no to some of them is important […]. We simply do not have the opportunity to do everything that everyone wants us to do. (R9)

In this statement, Erica comes across as a female academic with substantial commitments who recognizes the necessity of taking care of herself, notwithstanding the demands she faces. We can recognize these demands as elements of a caring global feminine discourse (Lund, 2018, p. 9), with implied expectations that women should provide care and support and relieve others of their workloads. However, Erica is unwilling to accept such norms. She and others in her group have decided to say no to too many tasks. She refuses to let herself be trapped in a discourse in which the norm requires that she, being a woman, must take on more than is reasonable, including the tasks of sick colleagues. Erica does not want to be an accomplice in her own oppression, and thus support a system that holds women back in their careers. She struggles, resists—and tries to make a new reality, putting it as Butler would (Gleeson, 2021). Her strategy for working towards full professorship in her career is thus to do gender on new terms. Through Erica’s reference to her group in the quotation, it appears that several other participants also want to execute a similar strategy of rejecting systems that hold them back.

5.3.5. Doing Gender in New Ways

In the next part of Erica’s log, we are furnished with further insights into how she and some other female researchers in her group choose career strategies that reject the norms in the feminine discourse, including practical and emotional work with respect to colleagues. Analysing this part of Erica’s log provides deeper access to an existing norm conflict within KLOK.

But how are such initiatives [saying no] received? They are simply interpreted as cold and harsh by others in the group. “It’s important to offer something, to include everyone, to give everyone a boost”. [They say] “I’m probably not like you; I’m committed to values. It’s important to be warm and inclusive”. As if saying no to meritless tasks or doing others jobs stands in opposition to warm and good values; that’s how it was discussed! (The same has happened before, and it is usually other ladies who talk like that.) It is also a way to verbally stage themselves as being kind and good. However […] it’s time to get goal-oriented; we’ve learned that it’s important to say no’. (R9)

In this statement by Erica, two different groups appear: one labelled “ladies”, who are characterized through their verbal staging of themselves through virtue signals, crafting a credible narrative of themselves as kind persons by the fact that they want to “offer something, to include everyone, to give everyone a boost”; and Erica’s group, “the we-group”, who claim to be different from the ladies. They are professional goal-oriented, and they are saying no to meritless tasks and to doing colleague’s jobs; they have “learned that it’s important to say no”.

Again, we see Erica negotiating the conventions. She opposes the ladies’ norms of being supportive, inclusive, and warm, notwithstanding that these norms mark a set of norms and values understood as good in Norwegian culture in several contexts. Jill Merete Loga, inspired by Foucault, termed such power “the power of goodness” (Loga, 2004, p. 321). This is a power term Loga introduced to describe power that is difficult to reject because it is so positively and morally charged. Those who oppose it are likely to be perceived as inconsiderate and heartless. Therefore, it is difficult to find an answer to benevolent power. It is also difficult to overlook because, by virtue of its moral superiority, it gives people a privileged position from which to speak and act. Whether this privileged position is the ladies’ actual goal pursued is difficult to judge. Anyway, when Erica describes them as they “verbally stage themselves”, she seems to see through that the lady’s virtue signals are these women’s way of representing themselves as (socially) kind persons—and through this morally high-ranking position achieve power.

However, in the last statement quoted by Erica, we see that she refuses to be compelled. Through what Butler (1990) describes as personal, social, and cultural work, Erica reflects on her experiences and creates herself and her identity. Erica defines herself and her colleagues in Group 1 not as reckless and unfeeling but as professional goal-oriented academics.

Based on Butler’s theoretical perspective on how the subject creates itself, we assume that, through this process, Erica and the colleagues in her group appear to themselves as unified subjects (Butler, 1993). Through this, they oppose the social norms that the ladies advocate, and consequently place themselves outside the feminine discourse. The we-group do gender in new ways.

5.3.6. Guarding the Borders

Being a career-seeking woman at the senior level in academia means being part of a minority, but minorities, like most other groups, comprise individuals who are individually distinct—not all of them necessarily have the same values in all areas of life. This also applies within KLOK, notwithstanding all the participants being career-seeking women.

Butler claims that there are normative requirements within every group—that is to say, requirements for who one should be (i.e. one’s identity) and how one should act to define oneself as part of the group (Butler, 1990).

In the polarized debate we have seen referenced through Erica’s log about how the overwhelming work pressure in the organization should be handled, the we-group confronts a traditional feminine discourse that implies a demand from the ladies to be inclusive, supportive, and warm. Such normative requirements are often strong, and in the light of Butler, they can be understood as a way of guarding boundaries and thus defining who is inside and who is outside a group. Performing one’s gender wrongly initiates a set of punishments, both obvious and indirect (Butler, 1988, p. 528). In this context, the punishment is aimed at the we-group, through the accusation of being “cold and harsh”.

Through Erica’s statement, we gain insight into a feminine social discourse that can help keep many women within a safe and supportive group, experienced as an important framework for their career path to full professorship. However, this discourse might pose a difficulty for those women who primarily view their career opportunities through the lenses of competition for tasks that give merit, self-protection and purposeful individual goal-oriented strategies, such as Erica and some of her colleagues.

6. Conclusion

Through this study I have explored what kind of individual and structural measures and strategies the women in this AR-project consider appropriate for their career paths to full professorship. In addition, I have unpacked the sources for their preferences and how these relates to their different ways of doing gender. In what follows, I will make some reflections on these findings.

Some of the measures that KLOK participants consider central to being able to complete their career trajectories involve individual strategies. Help from a mentor, CV assessments, exemption from teaching, and resources to build an international network are relatively modest and accessible measures within academia, even if it requires both qualified staff and financial resources to deploy them.

However, many of the participants emphasize that the KLOK project itself involves potential structural changes, which they value and consider crucial for their careers. This is about them having faith in developing common knowledge and belonging to a culture where knowledge and commitment are shared. At the same time, they underline the importance of leaders developing insight and strategic competence with regard to the needs of career-seeking women. By this, they address both the individual leader and the institutional management culture.

As we have seen, the work—life challenges finally emerged through the dialogue that was carried out in the plenary session. This concept, or what Siri Øyslebø Sørensen has denoted as a metaphor, has gained a foothold in organizational research and is among other things closely linked to the individualism, the fluid modernity, and the culture of neoliberal societies (Sørensen, 2017, p. 298). In our context, I interpret this metaphor as an expression of the women’s dilemma of having a life when life gets in the way of the ever-increasing workload demands of the neoliberal higher education system. Work—life challenges thus appear as a complex phenomenon that involves both the individual agency, the functioning of the organization, and the structure of society as a whole—and affects far more than questions about which measures and strategies should be chosen to support women’s academic careers to full professorship.

An important point from Butler (1993) is that gender does not have an independent being, and that gender identity is a discursive effect. It is therefore of particular interest that we have identified two different main discourses in the KLOK project concerning how these women think about strategies for senior career positions. Some of the woman adhere to a typical feminine discourse in which community, care, and support are considered important values, while others highlight the value of self-protection, are oriented towards liberation from established feminine gender norms, and simultaneously emphasize competition and professional goal-orientation. With this starting point, they do gender in different ways.

However, Butler (1988) reminds us that gender identities must be understood as fragile and moveable rather than fixed or given. Based on such an understanding, the women in this project may to some extent change their preferences regarding how they think about individual and structural strategies for promotion to full professorship—depending on their further experiences, the discourses to which they are exposed, and the development within higher education. Bearing in mind how the neoliberal culture within society tightens its grip and pushes forward individual focus, competition, and goal-orientation, it is difficult to predict how this complex interaction will develop in the future.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the female researchers at KLOK who participated in and encouraged this project in various ways. I also want to acknowledge the work of Irmelin Drake, Sigrun Wessel Svenkerud, and Brit Bolken Ballangrud as members of the action research group involved in the study design and data collection utilized in this research.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by the Research Council of Norway under Grant 245261. The research project, methods, and data collection have been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD).

Notes on contributors

Jorun Ulvestad

Jorun Ulvestad is an Associate Professor emerita at the Department of Educational Science of the Faculty of Humanities, Sports and Educational Science, University of South-Eastern Norway. For many years, Ulvestad was Vice Rector for research, development and innovation at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and headed two of the institution’s projects on gender balance in top academic positions, including the action research (AR) project that is the basis of this paper. Her research interests include gender equality, organization and leadership, and child welfare policy.

Notes

1. In Norway, the term “senior academic position” includes two different but equally ranked categories: “full professor” and “docent”. The first category is research-oriented, and the second is a teaching-oriented track. In this study, we do not differentiate between these two categories. Both categories are equivalent to the English version of the ´full professor´ title.